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 also am in the infringement camp. Both of the images posted are pretty damning, in my lay opinion. I have a hard time with the "historical influences" argument, especially for the bonecruncha. Regretfully, but righteously, we must turn the wheel, let the hammer slam into the hull, and....

RELEASE THE IPQUISITION!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Congrats GW White Knights!

I'm no white knight, and if that Grinder picture above is real, then GW need to step in. This is EA just taking GW's stuff wholesale and claiming it as their own.

And after the awfully-managed and misguided Chapterhouse quagmire, do you honestly think Games Workshop has any capability of challenging Electronic Arts?

GW's failure to properly allocate their resources in defending their IP has left the doors wide open for thieves.

It's a pity this is happening.
It's wrong that this is happening.
But it's somewhat karmically satisfying nonetheless after the Raging-Heroes strongarming. It's almost beautiful on how karmically deserving this is.

Looks like GW needs more money.

There's a thought: could THQ/Relic sue, on the grounds that it is their (exclusive?) licence to make 40k computer games that is being infringed upon?

This is like BNP vs. UKIP. Whoever loses, we win.

From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

EA have directly copied the look of the old baneblade, but I can't see GW doing anything because there is no loss to them. It's not damageing there reputation (infact going to court could make them look more litigious, no matter how "evil" EA are) or costing them anything so I can see them leaving it be.

Agamemnon2 wrote:This is like BNP vs. UKIP. Whoever loses, we win.

Hardly. I realy don't get this "GW are evil" stuff. Yes they have made some poor choices (in the vew of some) and had some mistakes (Finecast), like any company, but "evil"? Hardly. Expensive is not the same as evil. I would say they are quite the opposite.

Anyway, this is way off topic...

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

EA have directly copied the look of the old baneblade, but I can't see GW doing anything because there is no loss to them. It's not damageing there reputation (infact going to court could make them look more litigious, no matter how "evil" EA are) or costing them anything so I can see them leaving it be.

I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

And why did they go after Raging Heroes?

It's hard to mistake this:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0034/6452/files/lamassu-head-sculpt.jpg?1291119972

For this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/BilboBaggins/Warhammer/LordonLammasu1.jpg

...especially considering the GW one had been discontinued for several years.

It's GW strong-arming smaller companies because GW is simply bigger.
They won't do anything because EA is the one that can freely pick on GW's IP with no fear of retaliation.

GW could just ignore it. If they publicly acknowledge the infringement and do nothing, that could put their IP at risk because they have openly chosen not to defend the IP.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

I'm not IP expert (My area is more finance and contract law, as an accountant rather than a lawyer) but from my understanding that would only realy apply to someone in direct competiton. So, if they are aware of this they could lose the right to exclusive use of the banblade shape in computer games, but not as a model. If someone made copies of the banblade as a model then they could lose the IP protection if they did not do anything.

E.G. If a company make a racing game with a car that looks like a Zonda but called it a "Superwedge GT" people would not sudenly be able to make a copy of the Zonda.

Electro wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

I'm not IP expert (My area is more finance and contract law, as an accountant rather than a lawyer) but from my understanding that would only realy apply to someone in direct competiton. So, if they are aware of this they could lose the right to exclusive use of the banblade shape in computer games, but not as a model. If someone made copies of the banblade as a model then they could lose the IP protection if they did not do anything.

E.G. If a company make a racing game with a car that looks like a Zonda but called it a "Superwedge GT" people would not sudenly be able to make a copy of the Zonda.

So then shouldn't THQ or Relic sue them, because they might lose exclusive permission to use the Baneblade in a computer game?

Absolutionis wrote:

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

And why did they go after Raging Heroes?

It's hard to mistake this:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0034/6452/files/lamassu-head-sculpt.jpg?1291119972

For this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/BilboBaggins/Warhammer/LordonLammasu1.jpg

...especially considering the GW one had been discontinued for several years.

It's GW strong-arming smaller companies because GW is simply bigger.
They won't do anything because EA is the one that can freely pick on GW's IP with no fear of retaliation.

I'm no White Knight either, but FWIW GW did rerelease their Lammasu at around the time of Storm of Magic's release.

It was still no justification to go after the Raging Heroes one though.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So then shouldn't THQ or Relic sue them, because they might lose exclusive permission to use the Baneblade in a computer game?

Probably.

O.o


Not that GW needs help with thier army of goose steppers.



And EA? really?




Gobsmashed is the polite way to put it.

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

Except there's a difference between what CH was doing and what EA is doing. CH made GW-compatible parts and used the GW marks to identify that they were useful with GW products.

The copyright case...well, that's a different story. But they didn't directly copy any of GW's works the way EA (apparently) has.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

Trademarks, yes generally. Not so with copyrights (absent some argument from equity).

Grimtuff wrote:I'm no White Knight either, but FWIW GW did rerelease their Lammasu at around the time of Storm of Magic's release.

It was still no justification to go after the Raging Heroes one though.

It's a justification, just not a good one. GW's Lammasu sucks.

infinite_array wrote:Anyway, it's as Silver said. GW would never go up against a company as large as EA with their own legion of lawyers. Hell, they can barely make a case against a much smaller company.

Just to respond to this point (that others have made as well), legal proceedings aren't rugby (as much as I sometimes wish it was...). You don't automatically win by having a better team or tougher lawyers. GW's case against EA would be much stronger than their case against Chapterhouse.

Admittedly, that's assuming competence, which may or may not* exist.

* more likely the latter than the former

biccat wrote:stuff

Well, since you're here - In your opinion, do you think they would, all things being equal; prevail? That GWS has a legitimate case? Or is it too fungible to weigh in?

Why does anyone in the general public care one way or another if a company like EA makes something that is or is not a direct copy of something GW makes.

In what manner does it impact any of our lives?

If EA's actions annoy you, then take your computer game dollar to another manufacturer.

Saldiven wrote:Why does anyone in the general public care one way or another if a company like EA makes something that is or is not a direct copy of something GW makes.

In what manner does it impact any of our lives?

If EA's actions annoy you, then take your computer game dollar to another manufacturer.

because if you don't defend your ip like a rabid dog then you can't prove you have control over it and lose it

see: xerox, heroin, aspirin,dry ice, llinoleum, petrol, yo-yo, zipper, band-aid, biro, chap-stick, crock-crockpot, dumpster, hoover, jacuzzi and many more

*note i'm not an IP lawyer so I may of gotten mixed up

Ouze wrote:I also am in the infringement camp. Both of the images posted are pretty damning, in my lay opinion. I have a hard time with the "historical influences" argument, especially for the bonecruncha. Regretfully, but righteously, we must turn the wheel, let the hammer slam into the hull, and....

RELEASE THE IPQUISITION!

Did you not see the date? 1995 makes it historical!

The more I think about this, the more I think that these will not be in the final release. The whole point of these previews is to make GW sue EA. That is what EA wants. EA has caught both flack and praise recently for "creative marketing," ranging from the faux protests over Dante's Inferno, to forging polls to make it seem like the reasons for ME3 tanking had to do with homophobia rather than a bad ending. This is more of the same.

How many of us had heard of this game until the 40K forgeries were posted. None of us. Now a large portion of the internet table top community (who coincidentally, tend to like MMOs) knows about the game. GW will be forced to sue to protect their IP. Once it makes the news that there is a new EA scandal, it will make it's way onto all of the major video gaming news sites and blogs, and the video gamers will know that there is a CnC MMO on the way. EA will pull the designs from the game, and settle out of court with GW for a small amount. In the mean time, they will have generated an inordinate amount of publicity for the cost of a settlement with GW. This rage and hoopla is what EA wants, because within a month or two of the settlement, everyone will have forgotten the rip-offs and the lawsuit, but everyone will remember that there is a CnC MMO.

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:stuff

Well, since you're here - In your opinion, do you think they would, all things being equal; prevail? That GWS has a legitimate case? Or is it too fungible to weigh in?

If I were advising GW, I would suggest that they should begin investigating whether it makes sense, from a business perspective, to pursue legal action against EA.

It is very possible this is just a lazy graphic artist slipping in some non-originalw orks to a project and no one at EA who matters even realizes it.

Hence why C&D letters exist, as a nice way of letting EA know 'something' is possibly wrong and give them a chance to do something about it. It would be pretty easy for EA to fire someone, remove the models and replace them with a different tank with no need for a big fight.

Now if EA responds with, "yeah? so what? what you gonna do about it?" then it is up to GW to decide if it is worth thier time and money to actually do something about it, but i assume EA doesn't want to knowingly infringe because that then makes EA's properties harder to defend down the road.

http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-been-caught-stealing-designs-from-a-tabletop-game

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Why does anyone in the general public care one way or another if a company like EA makes something that is or is not a direct copy of something GW makes.

In what manner does it impact any of our lives?

If EA's actions annoy you, then take your computer game dollar to another manufacturer.

because if you don't defend your ip like a rabid dog then you can't prove you have control over it and lose it

Is it your IP? No, it's GW's IP.

So, again, why do YOU care whether or not some other company may or may not be infringing up GW's IP? It has absolutely no effect on your life, whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nectarprime wrote:http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-been-caught-stealing-designs-from-a-tabletop-game

So what?

If you don't like EA, don't buy their games.

Speak with your wallet.

A little Elephant in the room has surfaced on Warseer.

From Straightsilver:

OK, this is all a little bit complicated but I don't think EA are actually in the wrong here.

The reason being that in 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 above.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

Obviously there is the issue as to whether SSI produced 40K LIberation under license, or whether they owned the rights fully, but technically speaking EA has already used these models in a previous game, so it could be a bit of a grey area.

I forgot about this game, now this muddies the waters a bit does it not?

Saldiven wrote:
So, again, why do YOU care whether or not some other company may or may not be infringing up GW's IP? It has absolutely no effect on your life, whatsoever.

yes it does, if GW don't defend their IP then theyt could lose it, resutling in no more 40k/fantasy.

Oh man, I loved Final Liberation. Right up until it froze up. Every time. Usually with some ork weapon.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
So, again, why do YOU care whether or not some other company may or may not be infringing up GW's IP? It has absolutely no effect on your life, whatsoever.

yes it does, if GW don't defend their IP then theyt could lose it, resutling in no more 40k/fantasy.

And you learned that while getting your law degree from which school?

i am suprised the Scrooper isn't on there too, it looks like the current Baneblade with a front-end loader bucket on it.

Grimtuff wrote:A little Elephant in the room has surfaced on Warseer.

From Straightsilver:

OK, this is all a little bit complicated but I don't think EA are actually in the wrong here.

The reason being that in 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 above.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

Obviously there is the issue as to whether SSI produced 40K LIberation under license, or whether they owned the rights fully, but technically speaking EA has already used these models in a previous game, so it could be a bit of a grey area.

I forgot about this game, now this muddies the waters a bit does it not?

Yes. Yes it does.

I was swaying towards GW after seeing the orc vehicle. I would let the baneblade slide because I stil, think while the two look very similar, tanks is tanks. But the orc vehicle is damning.

But as Saldiven said, what the feth does it matter to anyone if EA are horking GW's IP?

The argument that "We may not have 40K or WHFB if GW do not vigorously defend their IP" is frankly, stupid.

Its the same thing as saying "If GW do not continue to steal everyones ideas and claim them as their own orginal ideas and sue anyone who disagrees, then we will lose 40K and WHFB" and if that is the case, then good riddance to bad rubbish.