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.

Is anybody?

There are very few original ideas. Everything draws on something else for inspiration.

The key, particularly when it comes to copyright and IP law, lies in altering that original inspiration enough to make it your own... GW have been a little hit and miss with that at times, but by and large are really very clever at taking a piece of history, or science fiction, or whatever, and altering it to fit into their own worlds, changing it enough to fit in while still being recognisable.

For me, that actually a large part of the attraction of the 40K background... the way all of these disparate and almost-familiar elements fit together to create one huge and rather insane tapestry.

Using Geiger as an example, you cannot copyright a "style". If so record companies would have done it with music years ago.

As I understand from my legal counsel(actually a lawyer) if said claims of infringement were presented to a judge, GW(in this case) would have to prove that their copywritten IP is being directly copied.

This becomes increasingly difficult with derivative works, especially where the supposed infringement(in this thread a helm) was not actually used in the production or design of the chapterhouse product.

I'm not saying they would win, I'm not saying they would lose. But in these cases it is up to the plaintiff to prove the infringement, and then convince a judge of it.

If they were recasting bits from a sprue then sure, GW could pull up the CAD specs of the original, show proof that the copier had access to the bits and it would be a relatively easy win.

GW can't copyright a bullet shaped helm. If so then I can copyright the square and rectangle, and every box on the planet will have to pay me for licensing.

In closing, hide your boxes or pay the piper.

aerethan wrote:GW can't copyright a bullet shaped helm.

If so then I can copyright the square and rectangle, and every box on the planet will have to pay me for licensing.

If were are no examples of a bullet-shaped helm, GW could.

I think you'd have problems with prior art invalidating your claim.

insaniak wrote:Is anybody?

There are very few original ideas. Everything draws on something else for inspiration.

Agreed, and has been proven time and time again throughout history.

I remember reading a Jervis column a couplpe of years back on the whole concept of GW's artistic design process. He claimed the "secret to GW's success" and their forcus for the way forward was in identifying "archetypes" in popular culture and designing models and concepts around them. So, for instance "vampire", "werewolf" etc. Which is fine and dandy, but indicates to me two things:

1. That they lack the confidence to come up with something truly original despite having greater resources available than any other gaming company on the planet, and

2. They aren't too fussy about the definition of "archetype". The Jungian original definition was about stuff lurking in the collective subconcious - the Greene Man typifying our feer of nature or somesuch. GW seem to have just retouched the definition to mean "concepts that are common in war/sc-fi/fantasy culture". There's nothing about collective unconscious there, everything about ideas that someone else created and have now become familiar. So Geiger-esque aliens, WWI tanks etc get added in to the mix.

With these two points in mind, it seems to me that all CH is doing is taking the logical extension of this. GW's own imagery has become so iconic/pervasive within certain branches of tabletop gaming that it is a definition of an archetype (under GW's definition) itself.

So GW's "Space Marine" concept of an 8' tall guy in powered armour, with massive shoulder pads and flared trouser legs is now itself an archetypal image, and therefore something free for artistic plunderisation (is that a word? If not it should be!).

Good luck CH. I wish you well for the future.

One more opportunity for GW to be hoist by their own petard!

Its not as if GW copies anyone

Mannahnin wrote:Deleted pointless posts of fighting or commentary thereon from three posters.

Let's keep it civil, folks.

Yet you have a mod in this thread egging people on and throwing fuel on the fire. Classy.


If the discussion has already happened numerous times then shut this one down.

Grot 6 wrote:Chapterhouse needs to start branching out into other markets. The writing on the wall is there, WE all can read it.

Personally, after the past month on Dakka, I am really beginning to reconsider my 15 or so year commitments to playing thier game and am debating lightening my life of GW.
Obviously they do not want players anymore. They would rather get thier money by downsizing and hasseling fans, smaller companies, and generally anyone they think they can get a easy doller out of. Is it just me, or do others feel like they are being played for marks over something that is supposed to be a hobby?

Chapterhouse should start doing what others are doing and looking to expand the Superhero miniatures, Wild Weird West/ World War Genere, or other countless other alternatives.

The fact that we are STILL having this conversation would put me into looking to other areas, irregardless of lawyers, and outside distractions.

Models, alternative victorian horror, Sci Fi, Where is the miniatures game for Sanctuary, Dr Who, Primal, Torchwood, or some time traveling games out there?

...
...

Right here...

http://www.drwhominiatures.co.uk/

The reason why Chapterhouse are doing the things they are doing is because GW have created a large market for bits to customise their SM models, which either they do not supply or only at a high price.

As long as Chapterhouse keep their designs sufficiently generic or differentiated from GW designs, there is nothing GW can do to stop them.

insaniak wrote:For what it's worth, the fact that GW haven't doesn't mean that they won't.

This is that atmosphere of fear I was talking about. Both with in the industry GW is and in many others it is common practice for third parties to create products that supplement the products of other companies. There are a lot of companies that produce add on parts for other model kits, from Star Trek and Star Wars to real life tanks and planes. Chapterhouse is doing the same. Chapterhouse is making the equivalnet to an add-on spoiler kit for a ford mustang, for GW's models.

Artists have a right to produce art and benefit from that enterprise. You can copyright specific objects, texts, unique functional geometries and names. You can't copyright style (look at cell phones). Chapterhouse produces unique models with stylistic characteristics similar to GW's. The legal issue is only if Chapterhouse is encroaching through the use of those things GW has a unique right to.

insaniak wrote:
The eBay seller 'mac-ace' who was busted a couple of years ago for selling counterfeit minis was going for well over a year before GW actually took (visible) legal action.

I believe Enigma (the original one, not the current Enigma Miniatures, who are completely different) and Daemonblade were also both trading for well over a year before getting stomped on.

Counterfeiters are breaking the law and thats a different issue. Chapterhouse is not counterfeiting. They are not even in direct competition with GW as their product only supplement. I don't know what happened with enigma or daemonblade, if they were also counterfeiting or what? As much as GW not suing is not any indication of their intent to; nor is a company following the demands of a cease and desist an indication of guilt.

GW's tyranny of fear has convinced alot of people that GW has much more right and legal latitude than they actually do. This atmosphere is only made worse by the fact that most companies are small and can't afford to stand up to GW. GW is using all the same tactics and methods that Microsoft used through the 90's that landed them in alot of trouble; GW just isn't big enough to draw the attention of the Feds. If it takes GW a year to commit to actions against Chapterhouse its only because their lawyers haven't really had to work and have had it easy with people bowing to their muscle flexing.

I applaud Chapterhouse for your work and your balls.

It's difficult to sue on ip from an image, you would need to prove infringement which is trickyat best, however text and names is much easier. If you refer to a piece as for example `Ravenguard` you titling the piece which matches their image and helps their case no end.

I do think your approaching things sensibly checking trade marks, but I would also take some consideration to how much your titles for pieces help or hinder any future GW legal case, you don't want to make things any easier for them then you must!

In either case, keep up the good work and I'd love to work along side your design guys if I was stateside!

From what I understand from the conversations with my attorney. It can be very tricky. If one uses a trademark to describe your products, saying "for Ravenguard" of "conversion kit for Eldar Jetbike" you are in the clear. You are not claiming it IS a Ravenguard or Eldar Jetbike, but can be used as or for one...

Its very convoluted and I see why Lawyers make their money...

From past experience (not my own) Gw like to wait until they cxan do the most damage before they send a letter with the BIG NO.

Chapterhouse like Phoenix Club before them operates in the USA and has engaged lawyers. More importantly they are very small fish. All this adds up to one thing, they are not easy to bully with a threat letter and will be more trouble than they are worth to pull down.

A trick for microcompanies is to make it plainly available how little a bigger company will be getting if they take them on. That combined with a lack of individual liability and a huge loss of goodwill in the community as a whole by draconian action makes taking down Chapterhouse a problem.

Given GW legals attitude I am sure they would like to close this one down, but the case can be dragged out at great cost to GW and at little cost to the defendant if legal insurance is paid. as IP law is 99% bullying and 1% justice this will be the case of the crocodile closing its jaws and being unable to open them.

Chapterhouse can punish GW by forcing them to bleed lawsuit, which for a formal and large company can get very expensive very fast.

I'm not sure they could get you on copyright infringement... although some companies have had success suing over "look and feel". I'm quite confident, however, that they could successfully build a case on trademark dilution.

In any event, it doesn't especially matter whether or not GWS is legally in the right. The single important factor here is they can exhaust you with litigation, and everyone knows it. Who is legally correct is largely irrelevant. Such is our legal system. In such a system, they'd probably want to wait until there is possibly some actual revenue to recover to offset their fees.

Do tournaments give customers trouble that use your upgrades though?

This has been my real question too. I love the stuff and use it but am wondering if I will get thrown out of the GT event if I bring it. Individual events have not been a problem at all but if it is the GW event will they prevent me from using the army?

JohnHwangDD wrote:For those of you looking for another analogy, consider how Mozilla Firefox (3rd party software which pays ZERO royalty to Microsoft) runs on Windows. Firefox uses known Windows interfaces (which are not copyrightable), but incorporates ZERO MS IP.

Piggybacking on other IP can be done, but it needs to be done carefully.

I don't know if that's entirely relevant, as an OS is essentially a 'thing to run programs in' so every develoepr doesn't need to create an incompatible system for reading/writing from devices, etc.

I wish Chapterhouse well, but I do think they're working in a slight grey area. From my limited understanding of the legal issues, GW would need to prove an intent to infringe to make a case stick.

I think they're pretty safe when items are marketed as 'Dragon-themed shoulder armor' or 'Norse Viking Dog Bits' as long as the designs are not blatant copies. Looking at the Chapterhouse Studios web site, I don't see many items that are directly based on GW designs. A few are close (The Salamander head used on a few pads, for example) but I don't think they're clsoe enough.

I'd probably recommend avoiding specific names.

As for the add-on Rhino parts and such I don't think this is technically an issue unless GW steps up and starts using some sort of patented joining mechanism.

That still doesn't prevent GW potentially trying to kill Chapterhouse by starting a legal fight a small company can't win (even if such a lawsuit would be based on shaky ground), but that's a different issue.

Note that the 'car analogy' may be flawed for this discussion. I think there may be some specific legislation (in the US, at least) that makes it required for car companies to open up their designs to aftermarket parts and mechanics. I wish I could remember the details.

Fishboy wrote:

Do tournaments give customers trouble that use your upgrades though?

This has been my real question too. I love the stuff and use it but am wondering if I will get thrown out of the GT event if I bring it. Individual events have not been a problem at all but if it is the GW event will they prevent me from using the army?

What GT? GW has pretty much absolved themselves of any tourney decision anywhere. Check with the event organizer and you should be good to go.

@Balance: The point is that the OS is MS IP, and that software is interface-based.

Polonius wrote:So, we're going to have a legal discussion amongst a group of people with ( a few exceptions aside) no legal expertise and no access to the relevant facts.

If anybody is curious, I'm going to start a roundtable discussion on Thoracic Surgery in a little bit, as soon as I finish my debate on Byzantine Art...

Just to reiterate Polonius' comments. Worth repeating.

I'll post what I always post in a thread where folks are trying to crucify Chapterhouse.

Whatever it is that Chapterhouse is doing, if they challenge the fascist idea that GW can dictate how I use their products, then they receive my sound support.

There is a pall of fear covering this hobby that anyone who challenges GW will be crushed by the weight of their legal department. Games Workshop is a bully, a bully that is terrified that people will realize they're phonies. They are terrified that people will realize that other people can make fantasy and science fiction games and miniatures and make them with far better quality and for far more reasonable prices. They are terrified that people will realize that they can play with whatever miniatures they want in whatever game they want and that GW has no right to dictate how their miniatures are used.

They jealously guard their stolen ideas to prevent others from pulling the same hoodwink. GW has made money producing games and miniatures that recreate those scenes in all our favorite sci-fi/fantasy movies and novels, from Aliens, to Terminator, to the tales of Camelot, to The Lord of the Rings. They're posers and they are terrified that their ivory tower rests on an increasingly uncertain foundation.

Hellfury wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, we're going to have a legal discussion amongst a group of people with ( a few exceptions aside) no legal expertise and no access to the relevant facts.

If anybody is curious, I'm going to start a roundtable discussion on Thoracic Surgery in a little bit, as soon as I finish my debate on Byzantine Art...

Just to reiterate Polonius' comments. Worth repeating.

I have no love for GWS and I think CHS makes nice kit. That being said:

I don't have to be a doctor to know rubbing a wound in filth might lead to an infection. Similarly, I don't think you need to be a lawyer to, when presented with, say, a non-Disney site that lists Disney movies by name, including using art from the movie, clicking the links of which lead to non-licensed add-ons, realize you might have a copyright problem.

This page uses 7 pieces GWS artwork (at least one of which might be owned by Relic)). As a layman, I know this might be a problem.

I know the argument is that when you use a generic name (like "Salamanders" or "Blood Ravens") that excludes infringement, somehow, allegedly. Here's two other common words - Windows, Vista. Go ahead and release some for profit software called Windows Vista. I think that might be a problem.

I believe those pieces of art are created by fans for USE in relics game. Am I wrong in thinking they are fan created and not owned by GW, anyone get me proof please? (If so they will be modified).

CT GAMER wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Deleted pointless posts of fighting or commentary thereon from three posters.

Let's keep it civil, folks.

Yet you have a mod in this thread egging people on and throwing fuel on the fire. Classy.

I don't see it. The posts deleted involved members flaming or antagonizing one another. The present discussion appears to be a civil one.

Please feel free to hit the Alert Moderator button for any post which you see as being inappropriate. Or Quote it and send it directly to Yakface, the site owner and admin.

I'm not sure what I can really add here, other than a Chris Crocker "leave Chapterhouse Studios alone!" It's old, folks.

Windows™ is trademarked as a computer operating system.

I can make a boardgame called Windows™, featuring a device which allows the user to open portals in space and time -- nicknamed Windows™ -- and MS can't touch me.

I can also sell a utility add-on for Windows™ (copyright of Microsoft Corporation acknowledged, etc.) and I can advertise it as such.

This is why Chapterhouse are able to sell add-ons for GW's Salamanders.

GW resorted to threatening fans with cancelling Blood Bowl™ v6 if 3rd party companies did not stop advertising star player figures because they do not have a legal basis for stopping those adverts.

I think polo got it pretty fething right from the start here.
How many of us have the legal knowledge to actually comment about this?
Its all well and good people screaming IP, but if thats the only part they do know, then maybe they should keep quiet rather than kick up gak and hope for the best.

GW has recently sent out a fair few C&D's more than they usually do when on a binge, yet CHS has avoided them.

And to be honest, im glad, since they actually make what people want as upgrade kits, rather than a large company saying "you will want this" or "you will need this"
CHS simply asks what you want, then gets to work on it.

loki old fart wrote:Its not as if GW copies anyone

If you mean they took design elements from previous ideas, then yes they sure have. Then again you could complain that the Etruscans and Romans took a ton of Greek style elements and other what not (Parthenon vs Pantheon anyone?) and then the Neoclassists emulated Roman aesthetics etc...

The point is that people use elements of what has gone before, and that's not a bad thing. There's no law saying that you MUST have everything original, although it really helps if you do right. Now if GW had exact T-800 models marching around in their Necron codex then there would be a problem. There is always that dance between how similar is too similar and I think that's what were talking about here.

Just my thoughts-

Legal or not, everybody knows an Eldar or an Ork when they see it. The old "tolkien did it" doesn't work, unless you're blind. I wasn't impressed when I first saw the cover of Warcraft, I wasn't impressed with the not-quite-ninja-turtles toys at dollar stores when I was a kid, and I'm not impressed with these. A good homage is just good fun, but I'm not really crazy about complete stylistic knockoffs.

That said, it's useful to have well-made proxies for gaps in GW's line, because god knows, a lot of people aren't up to the task of making conversions that don't look like poop. So from an "end results" perspective, these certainly don't hurt how my tabletop looks, which is the most important bit for me as a player.

From the perspective of a designer, however, I think it's poor form, and a waste of capable sculptors who could be bringing something truly new into the world.

Is there a way for you not to list your products as: "salamander pad" or "flesh tearers pad" and still be able to produce your product? Maybe be simple name change is good enough.

Cheers

MODS:
Please "sticky" this thread, it'll save the hassle of rehashing the same old arguments everytime Chaperhouse posts something new.

Thanks.

kinghammer wrote:Is there a way for you not to list your products as: "salamander pad" or "flesh tearers pad" and still be able to produce your product? Maybe be simple name change is good enough.

Cheers

GW has not copyright on those terms. They are available for anyone to use. If someone came along and said you're neighbor uses the the sceen name "kinghammer" on some other forum, you should change yours, you'd probably laugh. Since GW has no ownership to the names "Flesh tearers" and "Salamanders" it is ridiculous for anyone to change it due to the niche market notoriaty GW has slapped on to some words.