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.

Guildsman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: I do not understand why other people are slamming CH for making shoulder pads, when they don't slam Scibor for making shoulder pads.

I think we've hit the heart of it. There really is no difference between CH and Scibor, product-wise. It's all presentation, and therefore, semantics. If GW hadn't took CH to court, then this wouldn't be a big deal and we wouldn't be discussing it. I think that many people (aside from those that hate CHS blindly) feel that Chapterhouse and crew are not handling the situation in the way that they (the public) would like them to.

I'm assuming that CH are handling the situation in the way their legal advisors would like them to.

If not, there will be tears before bedtime.

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

Spacemanvic wrote:

Balance wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but this one looks a bit iffier, legally. But what do I know?

If that was the case, then GW would've been dragged down the street years ago. Anyone want to bring out the similarity between Tyranids and Geiger's Alien? What about the "inspiration" of SM being Lucas' Storm troopers? Did David Morrell (the author of Rambo) have issue with GW's Sly Marbo lifting the idea of John Rambo?

Legally, CH didnt copy GW's sculpt, nor used parts from a GW model to create their product.

Morally, GW doesnt own the concept of the elf race, so CH didnt steal anything that GW owns. GW cant own runes either.

Ethically, I dont see CH calling their sculpt an Eldar and trying to sell it as such.

As much as GW's fanbois dont want to hear it, CH didnt do anything wrong/wronger (sp) than what GW has done.

Fair enough. The main issue seems to be the degree to which it's imitating something.

Giger's Alien->Tryanids: There's some definite design similarities, but only in broad terms. Tyranids are six-limbed, have angular extended heads instead of rounded extended heads (sometimes ribbed, sometimes smooth). No sign of the 'double jaws' on Tyranid models, and the ranged bio-weapons are something the Aliens aliens don't seem to have.

This is why I generally stay out of these discussions. There's a ton of grey areas with these kind of discussions. It's only really 'clear' when someone is recasting, and even then some jurisdictions have different laws.

As for your other examples:

Other than being armored, I don't see Star Wars Storm Troopers and GW Space Marines being very similar. One's a faceless army, the other's warrior-monks.

The Rambo example is generally an 'homage' but, yes, I guess the various rights holders could make a case.

In general, I hope CH wins the pending litigation but I really don't have a dog in the fight here.

Kanluwen wrote:I'd probably have different feelings on CHS if they were to produce:
A) Higher quality product.
B) Their *winkwink*Doomseer*winkwink* improved upon ideas that already exist within 40k and created something that is visibly pleasing and different, but still recognizably '40k'.
or
C) They created their own game system and world.

I'd like to point out that this list is entirely based on subjective opinion. Would you agree that an individual using the same reasoning as you but with opposite opinions about points A, B, and C is wrong to think that CHS is morally justified? If the answer is no, you're simply descending into marginalizing the equally valid opinions of others.

What CHS is doing doesn't come close to violating the mores of Western society, which is really all we (which is to say those of us that live in Western society) can in all likelihood expect to agree on in terms of morality, and we probably wouldn't end up in agreement even then. So is there a purpose to this thread? I don't really think so if the point is to talk about whether or not you feel what Chapterhouse is doing is "wrong" in some sense of the word outside of a strictly legal interpretation.

We can make a big list of everybody that responds and the OP can tally it up and see which side wins for all that will accomplish. Put me down for a "No" as in, no, I don't think what Chapterhouse is doing is wrong.

If you want to talk about what harm Chapterhouse is causing, I think that's a fine discussion. If you want to talk about what effect Chapterhouse is having and/or will have on the wargaming community, the industry, or the whole world, that's something to talk about. A debate about those issues may or may not accomplish something, but sounding off about the "morality" of what CHS is doing is not productive.

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies (Warhammer Fantasy Battle debuted in 1983). I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

weeble1000 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'd probably have different feelings on CHS if they were to produce:
A) Higher quality product.
B) Their *winkwink*Doomseer*winkwink* improved upon ideas that already exist within 40k and created something that is visibly pleasing and different, but still recognizably '40k'.
or
C) They created their own game system and world.

I'd like to point out that this list is entirely based on subjective opinion. Would you agree that an individual using the same reasoning as you but with opposite opinions about points A, B, and C is wrong to think that CHS is morally justified? If the answer is no, you're simply descending into marginalizing the equally valid opinions of others.

What CHS is doing doesn't come close to violating the mores of Western society, which is really all we (which is to say those of us that live in Western society) can in all likelihood expect to agree on in terms of morality, and we probably wouldn't end up in agreement even then. So is there a purpose to this thread? I don't really think so if the point is to talk about whether or not you feel what Chapterhouse is doing is "wrong" in some sense of the word outside of a strictly legal interpretation.

We can make a big list of everybody that responds and the OP can tally it up and see which side wins for all that will accomplish. Put me down for a "No" as in, no, I don't think what Chapterhouse is doing is wrong.

If you want to talk about what harm Chapterhouse is causing, I think that's a fine discussion. If you want to talk about what effect Chapterhouse is having and/or will have on the wargaming community, the industry, or the whole world, that's something to talk about. A debate about those issues may or may not accomplish something, but sounding off about the "morality" of what CHS is doing is not productive.

And I'd like to point out this entire thread is your opinion.

Kanluwen wrote:When you just flat copy it or even--god forbid--make a worse version of the already existing idea, you're going to get tut-tutted at.

A "worse" version wouldn't be a copy, now would it? But first we need to define what we mean by copy so we have a common frame of reference. Wait, hasn't the government already attempted to do that? Yea, that's right, they're called laws. Oops, now we're back to a legal discussion. I'm sorry about that, why don't we go back to talking past each other.

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Kilkrazy wrote:There are several companies producing after market parts for 40K, such as CH, Bitspudlo and MaxMini.

The only difference is that CH have boldly labelled the parts according to GW's names and the others haven't.

CH say they took legal advice about this approach before they started.

GW's legal department thinks CH's lawyers got it wrong and have sued CH.

The case begins very soon.

That is not a moral matter, it is a legal matter.

If it is immoral to produce after market bits for 40K, why are Bitspudlo and MaxMini not immoral?

That sums it up. Quick and too the point

The single Eldar sculpt... that was pushing it IMO. Calling it a farseer or w/e. That was the line. That is the difference between CH and other companies

weeble1000 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:When you just flat copy it or even--god forbid--make a worse version of the already existing idea, you're going to get tut-tutted at.

A "worse" version wouldn't be a copy, now would it? But first we need to define what we mean by copy so we have a common frame of reference. Wait, hasn't the government already attempted to do that? Yea, that's right, they're called laws. Oops, now we're back to a legal discussion. I'm sorry about that, why don't we go back to talking past each other.

A "worse version" would be a poor copy.

Funny that. If you want to debate the actual legalistics, there's a thread for that. This is opinion time.

Kanluwen wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

It isn't a straw man.

If GW copied their ideas from Source X, then CH can legitimately copy the same ideas from the same source.

If copying is wrong, both are equally guilty.

If GW got a licence, for Gandalf, say, they copied with legal permission. Some might say it was still unoriginal and thus immoral.

as a consumer I realize if CH wins prices may go down or it'll be easier to find non citadel / gw models that are moore cost effective (to put it mildly the price we pay for our plastic army men is fairly high vs materials cost. and we pay for the development cost with brb and codexes imo. so as a consumer i feel no responsibility to buy from gw (I do however feel an obligation to buy gw products from my local game shop as I like the owner and the facility so i buy to support them though this loyalty imo goes to about 1-2 products quarterly plus drinks every time I go in there) . so while I’ll still be buying gw products I’d have no problem augmenting armies and collecting whole new armies resulting in buying more codexes for said armies netting GW more money in the long run and me more armies to play with.

From a moral standpoint I’m torn. Putting aside the help to my own (usually empty… marriage does this, a warning to you single people out there) wallet . I think there is no grounds for GW to sue when they themselves are not producing the model in question… the only way to get some models is the aftermarket, and until gw addresses this then I am full on the chapterhouse side, or any other aftermarket manufacturer making a model that gw doesn’t for that matter) on the opposite side of the moral coin if GW makes the model I think a person making a knockoff but calling it something else is ok providing they come up with a reason for it. Maybe just say scifi decorative miniatures, however when you blatantly use the name of the model sold by gw and make it an obvious copy then you opened a can of legal worms… enter all these threads

Kanluwen wrote:And I'd like to point out this entire thread is your opinion.

Great, now we're starting to find some common ground. Why don't we try to provide some objective framework to our discussion. It's only my opinion, as you've pointed out, but I think that objective framework could be the harm, if any, caused by Chapterhouse's actions; speculation about the potential effects of Chapterhouse's business on something; or even just a straight yes or no vote on the "morality" of Chapterhouse's business so we can determine which side wins by virtue of a simple majority. What do you think? Or maybe we should discount everything everyone says as based purely on opinion and talk about how nothing is ultimately knowable because every person lives in a unique universe of its own perceptions.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

It isn't a strawman.

The heck it isn't. Saying that GW's setting, which may be influenced by properties is the same as a flat copy is a complete and utter strawman.

If GW copied their ideas from Source X, then CH can legitimately copy the same ideas from the same source.
If copying is wrong, both are equally guilty.

Then show me proof of a direct copy, within the current range of GW models and background, and I'll be glad to call GW guilty.

If GW got a licence, for Gandalf, say, they copied with legal permission. Some might say it was still unoriginal and thus immoral.

Except now you're splitting hairs.

Working under license isn't "copying with legal permission", it's paying for the rights to produce a product based off a property.

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Just like GW is largely taken from existing ideas: Space Marines had existed for almost 50 years in 1983; Chaos was something written largely about by Moorcock for 10+ years in 1983; Tyranids, genestealers in particular, are inspired by the Alien series of movies; Necrons originally were inspired by the Terminator movies; Tau models are inspired by anime, especially things like Gundam; all the fantasy races have analogues in prior works. Frankly, everything that GW has ever done is derivative of things that already existed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with GW's work being largely derivative; I just find it amusing that they get angry when someone else does work derivative of GW's work.

Nice thread Manchu, and I think this is deffinately the way to go with this issue. I think this should help clear the air and help members to understand the direction some posters are coming from when it comes to dealing with the CHS issue.

I think for me the problem stems from the early display of goods for sale, and the initial reaction that was made from that. I believe strongly that if CHS had taken heed of the advice that was offered (ok we're not lawyers, but we've seen this sooo many times), that this devisive mess could have been avoided. A lot of detractors have been further motivated by the 'holier than thou' attitude that seems to prevail, and by that alone simple arguments have exploded due to a lack of movement and understanding in either side.

Stay with me. The moral dilemma is this. 'Do I feel it's ethicly right to produce this produce?', and this is an individual thing. Nobody can know how each individual answer is arrived at, but to me I can't understand the need to produce stuff that is pretty much just lifted from someone elses hard work. That much is undeniable, however legal or not it turns out. My real worry is not for GW (Ha! I expect that is not going to be understood by some of my detractors) but for much smaller companies that might have a single profitable line that supports all the funky goodness that enriches our miniature hobby. I'm looking hard in the direction of Heresy minis as an easy example, as they produce great stuff but always seem on the verge of implosion.

I worry that exactly that lack of moral value becoming standard in the industry might lead to someone producing similar stuff to their best selling line (hypotheticly) and closing them down. That is not good for the hobby, and what good for the goose is good for the gander and I view the fact that if it is possible to do it to GW which has the ability to defend itself, as opposed to a small company that can't as effectively.

A point for those who are unsure of how I see things. Fantasy is pretty much an open book, Tolkien compiled a load of different stories which are from a variety of cultures and settings. This means beyond creating a means of being original in that setting (GW fairly are) that WH fantasy is fairly open season. 40k is a different matter though. Yes they have taken influence from a wide range of other settings, but they have put their own mark on it and this means that the 40k universe stands alone pretty well, this also means that 40k is GW's to control. If you want sci-fi then come up with your own concept as there is plenty of space...

I apologise for the length, but I have a lot to get off my chest. Other companies that have products available for use in the 40k universe put in the groundwork to produce kits that are what people want, but are still new and exciting. CHS doesn't do this, all I see is a company that takes some artwork and says I will produce that and damn the consequences. I don't see anything in the catalog that is any different, and that is disapointing.

Finally the quality of the sculpting is woefull, and the defence of this is pretty poorly made too. I make that comment and reference people to what Maxmini, Kromlek and several other companies sell. Considering the current state of sculpting tech and knowledge there is no excuse for bent or soft detail in a product that is to be sold. For a personal work it matters not, but charging money makes it an entirely different proposition.

I know there are a number of people who don't like my opinions and I know that I do get a bit too hot, but I believe what I believe and my moral compass points me in the direction it does. I can't understand why there is so much fuss about a 3rd division manufacturer. The Scorpion is the first fairly descent sculpt, but they are already in production elsewhere. Sums it up for me really, for me.

I've belabored the point already and have therefore redacted this post.

weeble1000 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And I'd like to point out this entire thread is your opinion.

Great, now we're starting to find some common ground. Why don't we try to provide some objective framework to our discussion. It's only my opinion, as you've pointed out, but I think that objective framework could be the harm, if any, caused by Chapterhouse's actions; speculation about the potential effects of Chapterhouse's business on something; or even just a straight yes or no vote on the "morality" of Chapterhouse's business so we can determine which side wins by virtue of a simple majority. What do you think? Or maybe we should discount everything everyone says as based purely on opinion and talk about how nothing is ultimately knowable because every person lives in a unique universe of its own perceptions.

No, I'm saying that this entire thread is for discussing opinions based upon perceived legality(not actual legality, but the perception of law and how it should apply) and morality.

I, as I have said, do not like Chapterhouse because they're producing what I feel to be low quality models based off a damned fine setting which deserves far better treatment and I've been seeing more and more of their products on the tabletop whenever I go to the FLGS for paints or glue.

And it's not like when I've asked the people they got it because they like it. It's because there's a perceived notion of 'cheapness' with that stuff rather than the bits packs GW has available.

You can make the argument that licensed copying is moral, because the creator allowed the copying. The idea shifts from "only the creator should use that idea" to "only the creator can control the idea."

At that point though you're introducing complications to a simple rule (dont' copy other people's work). It's not a big one, (only copy other people's work with permission), but that's not the real problem with seperating the morality from the legal aspect.

The real problem is that creators copy all the time. Non-stop. The phrase "there is nothing new under the sun" was coined 2500 years ago. There are movies today with plots blantanly cribbed from ancient greek plays.

The Lion King, arguably one of the best movies of it's time, is incredibly derivitive of an anime. Nobody seems to care very much there.

So, this is about making a judgment call as to when something is "too far." I'd be interested to see a moral argument, from the ground up, as to why this, and only this, is immoral.

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Just like GW is largely taken from existing ideas: Space Marines had existed for almost 50 years in 1983; Chaos was something written largely about by Moorcock for 10+ years in 1983; Tyranids, genestealers in particular, are inspired by the Alien series of movies; Necrons originally were inspired by the Terminator movies; Tau models are inspired by anime, especially things like Gundam; all the fantasy races have analogues in prior works. Frankly, everything that GW has ever done is derivative of things that already existed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with GW's work being largely derivative; I just find it amusing that they get angry when someone else does work derivative of GW's work.

But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

Kanluwen wrote:But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

Not by any definition of the word used in any sort of precise manner.

I really have no idea what american law dictates as manufacturing infringement, and I honestly think that unless you have a law degree you shouldnt be posting on this thread.

Grimtuff wrote:

Grimstonefire wrote:
Look at any of the Avatars of War models and tell me theirs aren't closer to GW IP than this is.

Strawman.

Even though AOW models look like their GW counterparts GW cannot really lay claim to the concepts of Dwarfs, Orcs, Elves, Goblins etc. whereas they quite clearly can with Space Marines for example.

Um, did you seriously just assert that GW can claim the concept of Space Marines? If, by that you mean a line of profoundly poorly proportioned armored troopers, you might have something.

One of the reasons GW so aggressively protects its "IP" is precisely because their protection is so very thin.

Now, if one wants to ask the question, what will happen if CHS wins, and GW loses? In my own opinion, only good things for the consumers.

First, let's be realistic here, even if GW loses on all points, the impact on their bottom line will be negligible (their stock, on the other hand, will likely be impacted). GW is a leader not necessarily because they are able to keep people from competing in their (incredibly generic) area, but because they manufacture the largest range of plastic miniature kits for table top gaming and have the largest "installed fan base" as one might say.

Now, if CHS wins, we might very well see ventures in the Sci-Fi field akin to Mantic's actions in Fantasy. So, how can GW protect themselves from these putative Sci-Fi Mantics? The same way they protect themselves from Mantic in Fantasy;

Quality

In the next few years GW is looking at getting a metric buttload of cash from the LotR and Hobbit license. Just as the original trilogy fueled GW's shift to plastics, so this can help them find their way in a world where they face more competitors in terms of models. Make no mistake, no matter what, those competitors are coming, new technology makes it inevitable.

But if GW plays to their actual strengths and is able to put out a quality product that people want to buy, it really won't matter if there are garage outfits like CHS out there. Putting Quality and the Consumer first is a winning strategy for GW; they have the infrastructure for plastic kits and a world wide distribution network, and the ability to undercut any of their competitors.

Kanluwen wrote:No, I'm saying that this entire thread is for discussing opinions based upon perceived legality(not actual legality, but the perception of law and how it should apply) and morality.

I, as I have said, do not like Chapterhouse because they're producing what I feel to be low quality models based off a damned fine setting which deserves far better treatment and I've been seeing more and more of their products on the tabletop whenever I go to the FLGS for paints or glue.

And it's not like when I've asked the people they got it because they like it. It's because there's a perceived notion of 'cheapness' with that stuff rather than the bits packs GW has available.

Is that what this thread is about or is that what you want to make it be about? Okay, I'm game. I disagree with you. I don't think the model is a copy. I think Chapterhouse's business is perfectly moral. Where do we go from here? That's the point you have consistently managed to miss. Because people are going to have wildly different views about this with no meaningful way to discuss it, the thread might as well be a poll. And if you take a poll, you might as well make it interesting and determine a winner, either arbitrarily or by some objective criteria, such as a simple majority. But then you wouldn't be able to post over and over and over again saying the same thing. It's a copy. It's a copy. No, It's a copy. You're wrong, I'm right and it's a copy. What is the use of that other than jacking up your post count?

Polonius is being more calm about this, so I'm just going to check out at this point.

Alleging that it's a copy simply short circuits debate. Everybody agrees that copying (in the technical sense) is wrong.

Everybody also agrees that borrowing ideas and using them in your own work is ok.

When the debate is about something in the middle, shouting "it's a copy" shows a lack of nuance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This debate isn't about the morality of CHS's action. Or, it isn't about whether this sculpt somehow violates some sacred boundary.

It's about people's feelings for CHS shifting more and more negative, based on a complex combination of factors. Respect for Jes Goodwin, notions of fair play, a personal dislike for CHS's persona, the percieved arrogances, what have you.

In the law, there are so called "brightline rules," and there are "balancing tests." A brightline rule a yardstick: if X has Y, than Z. A balancing test looks at many factors, and balances them out.

This situation is a classic example of a balance test being sold as a brightline rule. People are talking that "this went too far," when what they mean is closer to "this is the point in which I stopped respecting them." And many posters have been more clear, and I have read too many of them as the former.

I think that the point is, for a lot of grey area moral stuff (and this most certainly is one, despite what many people want to argue), personal feelings kick in. When a person you hate does something shady, it's despicable. When you're buddy does it, you're sure he had a good reason.

If nothing else, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that if the Doomseer were amazingly cool, very few people would be outraged.

Captain Jack wrote: Wrote lots of good stuff but then came...

Finally the quality of the sculpting is woefull, and the defence of this is pretty poorly made too. I make that comment and reference people to what Maxmini, Kromlek and several other companies sell. Considering the current state of sculpting tech and knowledge there is no excuse for bent or soft detail in a product that is to be sold. For a personal work it matters not, but charging money makes it an entirely different proposition.

I know there are a number of people who don't like my opinions and I know that I do get a bit too hot, but I believe what I believe and my moral compass points me in the direction it does. I can't understand why there is so much fuss about a 3rd division manufacturer. The Scorpion is the first fairly descent sculpt, but they are already in production elsewhere. Sums it up for me really, for me.

Your last two paragraphs no longer takes product A and compares it to product B, but turns it into an attack on product A ignoring all the other producers C, D and E. You can't understand why there is so much fuss, I agree, so why perpetuate it?

If someone is prepared to pay the cash, thats their lookout not yours, I can understand you feel for them, but it's their decision, let them deal with it.

Cheers

Andrew

I suppose you are right for the most part in your last statement Pol, however I get that 'nagging doubt' every time that I see something that is produced by CHS. How can there be such a lack of the original? Pointing at other small 'hangers on' you can see that they have put their own stamp on their version of 40k, whereas from my perspecive CHS have been involved in plagerism. If you can't produce a truely unique piece then what hope is there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:Your last two paragraphs no longer takes product A and compares it to product B, but turns it into an attack on product A ignoring all the other producers C, D and E. You can't understand why there is so much fuss, I agree, so why perpetuate it?

If someone is prepared to pay the cash, thats their lookout not yours, I can understand you feel for them, but it's their decision, let them deal with it.

Cheers

Andrew

Because this is the topic the thread is talking about. Bit hard not to talk about the topic. I agree it an individuals decision where to spend their money, this is indeed a discussion about that very thing. The question that I am asking for an answer to is 'why is there so much fuss' becasue one manufacturer is able to be original and another is very much less so. No attack there, just a statement of my views.

First, Tolkien created few if any visual representations of his work -- certainly none that GW "borrowed" as most were landscapes anyhow. Those that were created for the movies are under license to Citadel. As has been pointed out time and again, fantasy concepts are much more widely shared than the scifi ones. GW took the fantasy tropes and put unique twists on them. To the extent that GW found inspiration in other sources (Lucas, Heinlein) it was never a wholesale copy.

CHS has created a Farseer model.

They were not inspired by the idea of Farseers or their visual representations.

They just made their own model of a Farseer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:If nothing else, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that if the Doomseer were amazingly cool, very few people would be outraged.

And I'd bet that if you problematized what might make the Doomseer cool as a third-party model as much as you've problematized why some people are not okay with the Doomseer, you'd understand that "outrage" much more clearly.

Manchu wrote:They were not inspired by the idea of Farseers or their visual representations.

They just made their own model of a Farseer.

I think where we disagree is the value of the bolded words. It might be a farseer, but it's still their own farseer.

How do you feel about Starcraft space marines, which are clearly highly derived from GW ones?

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies (Warhammer Fantasy Battle debuted in 1983). I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

This!
GW didnt aquire licenses for "eldar" or woodelfs or highelves or chaos stars etc in the beginning when they were selling these things.

Kanluwen wrote:
But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy

Now that is just your personal opinion.