Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I hope it does get dismissed. Im not up in the know of law, or do i know much about chapter house if im honest but to me i cant see the difference in what chapter house do to what commissoned convertes/painters do. Yes CH have a range of stuff they can make FOR GW products and with exeption of full kits you still need to buy the 40k product to use it so GW aint losing anything. If GW had (first thing i saw on CH web site) a heresy armoured drop pod door then fine its a rip off and a +1 toGW but they dont so in all honesty i dont think GW are right to take them to cour without taking every other converter/parts maker to court.

One rule for one and another for another isnt how the world works these days.

gloomygrim wrote:
I hope it does get dismissed. Im not up in the know of law, or do i know much about chapter house if im honest but to me i cant see the difference in what chapter house do to what commissoned convertes/painters do. Yes CH have a range of stuff they can make FOR GW products and with exeption of full kits you still need to buy the 40k product to use it so GW aint losing anything. If GW had (first thing i saw on CH web site) a heresy armoured drop pod door then fine its a rip off and a +1 toGW but they dont so in all honesty i dont think GW are right to take them to cour without taking every other converter/parts maker to court.

One rule for one and another for another isnt how the world works these days.

And that is all fine and well, but CH have just decided to release a whole miniature (and IMO not a very good one) which requires no GW purchase and obviously uses GW trademarks etc etc. Its not debatable, or using things that are common, like chevrons and skulls. Its a straight-up usage. Seems they intend to do more as well.

But surely to convert the mini, you have to buy it from GW first?

So what is the problem? As has been said before on this thread, it might well be all about the IP.

But GW must have stolen some IP from other's before now?

They should not have a monopoly on the whole sci-fi/fantasy universe.

Or do they?

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:But surely to convert the mini, you have to buy it from GW first?

So what is the problem? As has been said before on this thread, it might well be all about the IP.

But GW must have stolen some IP from other's before now?

They should not have a monopoly on the whole sci-fi/fantasy universe.

Or do they?

The new Model doesn't require anything.


I don't understand how the Farseer model is different from the Super Heavy Walker.

They are both modeled after the IP. The Farseer is a bit more blatant though. But of course, it is quite possible their lawyers gave the Signal. We can't know this for sure, but I think the last thing CH would do in the middle of a Lawsuit, would release something that could compromise their case.

To quote myself from elsewhere...

The simple fact is though, when it comes to say, a shoulder pad with a burning chalice on, GW has a lot of difficulty saying other people shouldn't be allowed to make stuff like that. They don't own the shape of the shoulder pad (it would be bizare to claim they own a shape- It would be like me trying to claim a circle is my intellectual property), the chalice is an ancient symbol, and therefore clearly in the public domain, and a chalice on fire is just simply crossing two public domain concepts.

The result being CH makes a shoulderpad entirely compatible with a GW space marine, that happens to be the symbol of an obscure chapter in the fluff.

Things like this make it very difficult for GW to find a leg to stand on. This principle can be applied to to other things CH make, for example, a Salamander rhino door.

The shape is public domain. A dragon head is public domain. So what part of it is owned by GW?

They can attempt to say that he says its compatible with a GW rhino in the description, but there's a sort of precedent for that already, as I mentioned above. As long as the product name is 'Dragon Door 27#' and its all made up of entirely generic concepts, GW don't really have a leg to stand on.

Female Cadians? What? No, they're female space troopers! Boneswords? That's not GW specific IP, its public domain! Space wolf land raider doors? Rubbish, its a Cyber-Werewolf scenery set!


The new 'Doomseer' kind of is tripping dangerous territory though, simply because its so very similar to the GW aesthetic, in style and name, GW may not only be able to say that it could be mistaken for one of their products, but the general design has clearly been copied as well.

Sasori wrote: We can't know this for sure, but I think the last thing CH would do in the middle of a Lawsuit, would release something that could compromise their case.

But they might if they realised that GW did'nt have a leg to stand on. In which case, why not? *shrugs*

Sasori wrote:

biccat wrote:Unfortunately, it's a problem with US copyright law that it's not always a good idea to consult with an attorney before engaging in potentially infringing activities.

Without asking your lawyer:
D "Your honor, we honestly never thought that what we did was infringing"

With asking your lawyer:
D "Your honor, we honestly never thought that what we did was infringing"
J "If you didn't think it was infringing, why did you go to your lawyer"
D "Um...."

Isn't stuff like that covered by Attorney-client privilege?

I don't understand how a Judge could find out.

Someone with more law experience can explain it better, but you cant go to a lawyer and ask them how best to break the law, or some such like that.

Excerpted:

Other limits to the privilege may apply depending on the situation being adjudicated; for instance, the crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court writes that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[7] The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered.[8] US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[9]

carmachu wrote:I don't understand how a Judge could find out.

Someone with more law experience can explain it better, but you cant go to a lawyer and ask them how best to break the law, or some such like that.

Excerpted:

Other limits to the privilege may apply depending on the situation being adjudicated; for instance, the crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court writes that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[7] The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered.[8] US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[9]

What I'm saying though, I don't think the lawyers would have disclose anything if the conversation went something like this:

CH:"If I release this model for sale, with this description, would it hurt my case, and be against the IP law?"

I don't see how it would be illegal(Or would have to be disclosed from CHs Lawyers) for CH to ask those kind of questions. They wouldn't be doing anything to violate the law until it went on sale, right?

I would love for someone like Biccat, or one of our other lawyers to help enlighten us on this new development in the ongoing legal situation.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

And that is all fine and well, but CH have just decided to release a whole miniature (and IMO not a very good one) which requires no GW purchase and obviously uses GW trademarks etc etc. Its not debatable, or using things that are common, like chevrons and skulls. Its a straight-up usage. Seems they intend to do more as well.

Certainly interesting. I want CH to succeed and stay in business, I assume their lawyers are aware of their latest models because it could hurt their argument for fair use if it looked like they were taking the piss.

However from my viewpoint, two things have to be considered here.

Firstly discovery has been completed/laid out. As far as I am aware, and I admit thats not far, only what has been established in that discovery can be used in the court case. CHS can dance naked down the street claiming to be a Daemonhost and GW can't include it in the court case. So what they have released is relatively safe. Unless GW raises a seperate action over it.

Secondly, I don't believe the GW has ever released a model of a female farseer, or even a drawing of one. So IIRC there is a freedom of expression allowed, CHS has sculpted a three dimensional representation of a literary figure. IE if someone sculpted a DaVinci 'David' using nothing but a written description of it then they are safe from prosecution. So I think they're on safe ground there.

However someone else on this thread raised a thought that I asked about earlier. If GW is claiming that they and only they have the right to profit from their IP, does that not mean that any painter contracted to paint an army, for simplicitys sake lets say UltraMarines, does that not mean they have broken the law and infringing on GWs IP?

Cheers

Andrew

Havent read all 18 pages but suprised fox hasent sent a C&D over the xenomorph heads. Those are alot more line blurring compared to a shoulder pad.

AndrewC wrote:However from my viewpoint, two things have to be considered here.

Firstly discovery has been completed/laid out. As far as I am aware, and I admit thats not far, only what has been established in that discovery can be used in the court case. CHS can dance naked down the street claiming to be a Daemonhost and GW can't include it in the court case. So what they have released is relatively safe. Unless GW raises a seperate action over it.

Secondly, I don't believe the GW has ever released a model of a female farseer, or even a drawing of one. So IIRC there is a freedom of expression allowed, CHS has sculpted a three dimensional representation of a literary figure. IE if someone sculpted a DaVinci 'David' using nothing but a written description of it then they are safe from prosecution. So I think they're on safe ground there.

However someone else on this thread raised a thought that I asked about earlier. If GW is claiming that they and only they have the right to profit from their IP, does that not mean that any painter contracted to paint an army, for simplicitys sake lets say UltraMarines, does that not mean they have broken the law and infringing on GWs IP?

Cheers

Andrew

They also claim that no-one is allowed to convert stuff or combine genres/universes.

Guess I'm damned then...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooops! I am being a very naughty boy going off topic.

AndrewC wrote:

Secondly, I don't believe the GW has ever released a model of a female farseer, or even a drawing of one. So IIRC there is a freedom of expression allowed, CHS has sculpted a three dimensional representation of a literary figure. IE if someone sculpted a DaVinci 'David' using nothing but a written description of it then they are safe from prosecution. So I think they're on safe ground there.


Andrew

That's like saying just because there wasn't a Wookie Jedi portrayed that writing a book about one wouldn't be treading on Lucasarts's IP rights.

Vaktathi wrote:That's like saying just because there wasn't a Wookie Jedi portrayed that writing a book about one wouldn't be treading on Lucasarts's IP rights.

However, Lucasarts have better IP lawyers that GW and protected against just that thing. Even then, it's not perfect. Could I write a book about a sword weilding gorilla who fights for the poor and needy? Too right I can. Parody is a wonderful thing. Bored of the Rings, Barry Trotter and the Shameless Parody.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:That's like saying just because there wasn't a Wookie Jedi portrayed that writing a book about one wouldn't be treading on Lucasarts's IP rights.

However, Lucasarts have better IP lawyers that GW and protected against just that thing. Even then, it's not perfect. Could I write a book about a sword weilding gorilla who fights for the poor and needy? Too right I can. Parody is a wonderful thing. Bored of the Rings, Barry Trotter and the Shameless Parody.

Cheers

Andrew

CH is not performing parody, or even attempting to as they are using official GW terms as well as names and places that are unique to GWs IP.

There is a worlds difference between a " a gorilla psychic energy sword master of plaptoine the desert planet" and "Jedi Wookie light saber master of tatooine." the model may look similar and customers can connect the dots, but connecting the dots and pretending to be official Star wars universe will get you nuked, as it should.

Other companies can get by with WWII orcs and robowolf mounts, then CH could have gotten by with "near seeing space elf" and avoiding the official fluff.

I fail to see how the 'worlds difference between a " a gorilla psychic energy sword master of plaptoine the desert planet" and "Jedi Wookie light saber master of tatooine' does not apply to a 'Eldar farseer' and an 'Elvish Doomseer'.

Ketara wrote:I fail to see how the 'worlds difference between a " a gorilla psychic energy sword master of plaptoine the desert planet" and "Jedi Wookie light saber master of tatooine' does not apply to a 'Eldar farseer' and an 'Elvish Doomseer'.

Because they are using faraday and other GW terms to sell the doomseer

"Doomseer Iyanar-Duanna is cursed with the ability to forsee the slow death of her race. She shares the ability of all seers, to see the path of her race, but is only able to see the deaths of her people and nothing else. She was psychically scarred when she witnessed the death of an entire world-ship, she is now doomed to spend every moment of her life tracking down the creature responsible."


That's from the CH website. It doesn't appear to infringe on anything, to me at least.

Sasori wrote:"Doomseer Iyanar-Duanna is cursed with the ability to forsee the slow death of her race. She shares the ability of all seers, to see the path of her race, but is only able to see the deaths of her people and nothing else. She was psychically scarred when she witnessed the death of an entire world-ship, she is now doomed to spend every moment of her life tracking down the creature responsible."


That's from the CH website. It doesn't appear to infringe on anything, to me at least.

It WAS the following and they have since changed it...

"doomseer Iyanar-Duanna is cursed with the ability to forsee the slow death of her race. She shares the ability of all farseers to see the paths of her race, but is only able to see the deaths of her people and nothing else. She was psychically scarred when she witnessed the death of the people of Malantai, she is now doomed to spend every moment of her life tracking down the creature responsible."

It was setting up an official GW Farseer IP character to fight the Official GW Doom of Malantai Ip Character model CH is making. I bet CH's firm loves having a responsible client who likes to poke the bear while in the middle of a legal battle. Should have stuck with space elf fights brainbug...

Anyone who was attempting to be reasonable would have left out the direct references to GW IP the first time... And no one would have blinked. I am unsure why this is hard to grasp.

Chapterhouse studios models aren't that good TBH. I don't like the high GW prices and i see little wrong with what Chapterhouse Studios is doing, there just not very good.

stonned_astartes wrote:Chapterhouse studios models aren't that good TBH. I don't like the high GW prices and i see little wrong with what Chapterhouse Studios is doing, there just not very good.

I believe that is one of the reasons why GW have a stick up their collective about it all. Its one thing if someone steals your IP and turns out amazing top-quality brilliance, or things you should have released yourself but somehow failed to do, that are high quality...but when someone pinches your IP and churns out rubbish, it gets associated with your IP, which is bad for business, and devalues what you are doing. And GW have enough trouble with their in-house uglies without getting associated with someone elses.

.

nkelsch wrote:CH is not performing parody, or even attempting to as they are using official GW terms as well as names and places that are unique to GWs IP.

There is a worlds difference between a " a gorilla psychic energy sword master of plaptoine the desert planet" and "Jedi Wookie light saber master of tatooine." the model may look similar and customers can connect the dots, but connecting the dots and pretending to be official Star wars universe will get you nuked, as it should.

Other companies can get by with WWII orcs and robowolf mounts, then CH could have gotten by with "near seeing space elf" and avoiding the official fluff.

But therein lies a problem, GW doesn't own the use of terms, in the same way that car makers don't own their car model names, in the sense that stops others from using them in adverts or for descriptive purposes*, or why "Ipod" can't stop people selling Ipod covers or the prevalence of second party Wii controllers. Something that is compatable is not illegal.

Using Lucasarts is comparing apples to oranges. When the films came out, there was a spate of third party books using the SW world, 'Splinter in Minds Eye' springs to mind for some reason. Guess what, when Lucas saw the stuff selling he went to court, just like GW is, but unlike Lucas, GW is generic SciFi and a knock off of half a dozen different sources. Rogue Trader was a parody, the amount of in-jokes was exceptional.

To put it another way, this isn't a question of whats right or wrong, but of whats legal or illegal.

As to why other companies use WWII orcs etc, watch this space if the court case goes CHS' way. Other companies didn't use them because they were scared of being sued. CHS decided they weren't going to be scared. nor beat about the issue, and so used terms that were clear, concise and delineated exactly what they should be used for.

Cheers

Andrew

*calling your own car by the same name is a different matter, ie Ferrari & Ford

AndrewC wrote:
But therein lies a problem, GW doesn't own the use of terms, in the same way that car makers don't own their car model names, in the sense that stops others from using them in adverts or for descriptive purposes*, or why "Ipod" can't stop people selling Ipod covers or the prevalence of second party Wii controllers. Something that is compatable is not illegal.

But this time they were not doing this.

You can sell a case for IPOD but cannot sell an IPOD.

They were not selling conversion part for A Farseer, they were selling a "Farseer directly existing in the warhammer 40k universe" until they changed it.

Also they were selling GW's IP. The 'fluff' used to promote the figure was GW's IP and using GW's IP to increase sales of their figure by placing it directly in GW's universe to make it seem more official. This was the same as when people were trying to make official Blood Bowl Characters instead of generic fantasy football figures. I also disagree that GW's universe is as diluted IP as you claim it is. It is pretty established and unique in its modern form. Almost all fantasy has directly from Tolkien, doesn't mean that fantasy IPs are indefensible and impossible to infringe upon. I do not see the 'DOOMSEER' as an unrealted generic space universe coming to similar results from similar source materials. That model is based off GW IP. The extensive eldar IP is unique and owned by GW and is just as defensible as Star Wars.

If they felt they *WERE* legal with the whole referencing GW for add on parts, then making official GW characters in the GW universe using GW IP to promote and sell it seems like a step in the wrong direction. Obviously *SOMEONE* thought they were wrong if they quickly changed it. This just goes to pattern of behavior and shows that if GW isn't vigilant that CH will continue to infringe more and more until they are selling officially named GW 40k models.

There is a reason everyone else is not being sued. CH has brought everything they have done upon themselves because they choose to continue to find the line and try to push it for personal profit. CH could have avoid this by staying away from GW IP and just making their same models as generic minis.

As to why other companies use WWII orcs etc, watch this space if the court case goes CHS' way. Other companies didn't use them because they were scared of being sued. CHS decided they weren't going to be scared. nor beat about the issue, and so used terms that were clear, concise and delineated exactly what they should be used for.

This is the critical issue. If the ruling goes to CHS, then the floodgates are essentially thrown open, making it much, much harder for GW to enforce clamp downs on third parties making use of their IP.

R.

Ketara wrote:

carmachu wrote:I don't understand how a Judge could find out.

Someone with more law experience can explain it better, but you cant go to a lawyer and ask them how best to break the law, or some such like that.

Excerpted:

Other limits to the privilege may apply depending on the situation being adjudicated; for instance, the crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court writes that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[7] The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered.[8] US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[9]

But that still doesn't answer the question....how would you ever find out?

And I would imagine its not illegal to discuss how to circumvent the law, otherwise all those tax dodging corporations would never be able to talk to their lawyers and accountants about how to best funnel all their money through offshore accounts.

As in most instances, it is not the attorney divulging this information; usually it is the client, who at some point made a comment or a reference to someone else about what was said, etc. The other side then finds out about this somehow. As soon as the client discusses privileged information with a person who does not have those protections (or others, like say a spouse), then the privilege is generally lost. I do not think that is what happened here.

CHS has for months been saying that he obtained legal counsel prior to and during production, etc. Quite often parties involved in these actions will also raise this as a defense in the preliminary stages before there is any serious legal action involved. It could have been as simple as Party A calling Party B on the phone and saying you are infringing on our product; then Party B responds, "I consulted with my attorney and that is not what he/she said..." (Although to be fair, what the attorney actually said, and what the client superimposed the attorney as saying, may be two completely different things all together).

Simply making that statement wouldn't necessarily eviscerate any privilege; however, if the client goes further beyond that and starts discussing specifics, then they set up a slippery slope that ultimately could lead to problems. Particularly if they want to continue to use that attorney in a legal proceeding.

In the current matter, I imagine that it is common knowledge to the judge and GW that CHS has had some sort of discussions with attorneys ahead of time. How much of those discussions are known or have been divulged, we don't know. That is a potential discovery issue (barring any privilege that CHS might want to assert). And too, CHS might actually want what was discussed to be divulged, as long as CHS's actions were in complete conformity to what the previous attorney advised.

Interesting that they have changed the copy.

Still, it has been changed and if it infringed before, it no longer does.

Like AndrewC, I don't have a strong commitment to these concepts of fndamental right and wrong ideas which a lot of people are concerned with. That's partly because working in a creative industry I am au fait with the great amount of derivation that goes on.

I am not convinced that "original" is necessarily good. A fair bit of original crap is produced. I am more interested in good re-implementations of existing ideas.

Kilkrazy wrote:They also claim that no-one is allowed to convert stuff or combine genres/universes.

Guess I'm damned then...
Ops! I am being a very naughty boy going off topic.

From what I understood from the speil as a layman is that they would prefer that you don't, but they won't chase anyone that is doing so for personal puposes.

What's changed? I have obviously missed the piece that is being discussed currently, and can't find it in this massive thread. Is the case looking like it will drag on or is it going to be closed out relatively quickly (for legal cases)? Again I would like to say thanks to the legal types who have been offering insights that the rest of us would have missed.

If you look at their legal page, GW forbids people to mix universes. It's true they don't go after private individuals for doing it. I don't know whether GW actually have the legal right to stop people from cutting stuff up and bunging it together in new and interesting ways for personal use.

The Doomsayer description used to say she was a farseer who suffered anguish from the Doom of Malantai. It has been changed to call her a seer who suffered anguish from the death of a world-ship.

In other words it no longer mentions any GW specific names except Eldar.

Ahh, I get it. A headline grab and then scuttle under a rock job squeaking 'I didn't know mr lion, but I've made it ok now...!'

Meh, it strikes me that CHS are being deliberately like an extremely beligerant mouse, with no chance of them playing the straight game at all. These stupid games get my goat, and wastes everyones time. Did they really have to do it? Was it really wirth the effort? Is the Judge not going to look at this in a negative light, considering the timing? Prudence would be to stay quiet in my eyes, but what the heck eh?