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.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Cameos aren't covered by fair use.

This isn't a cameo. It's just a lazy artist's rip of GW's Tau stuff.

And generally, when you're dealing with a cameo, it's something like, a shot of a big number of ships, and there's a few immediately recognizable ones included in the background. Or a robot junkyard, with a few recognixable examples scattered amongst the wrecks. Or a random blue police call box sitting innocously at the back of the set. That's an homage, and it generally doesn't bother people because it's a bit of harmless fun paying tribute to what's come before. If instead, a ship that looked a lot like the Enterpise was the center of the shot, and then it zoomed in to show the characters on a bridge that looked remarkably like the Enterpise Paramount is going to get cranky.

Those aren't really cameos. They're Easter eggs.

We can argue all day about camero parts, homages and easter eggs but it doesn't matter since none of them are covered by fair dealing anyway.

with regards to the comics :


http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/08/10/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-63/3/

and the unofficial official crossover :

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/10/01/comic-book-legends-revealed-280/


Thing to bear in mind is that whilst the companies were/are rivals, the artists & writers often move between them or even work at them at the same time.

GW have to say something to be seen as defending their IP etc etc , but I doubt they are especially worried.

Copyright also applies to specific media. Hasbro can't make a transformer toy called Bluestreak at the moment but he can still be called that in the IDW comics. I'm not sure how specific it is though and whether or not GW would have had to copyright that design for use specifically in a comic book or it could apply to all print media and they do have a case here.

 Bookwrack wrote:

As soon as I saw the vehicles, I had the thought, 'Is Greg Land fething up comics with tracing again?'

Is that not what happened here?

Henshini wrote:
Copyright also applies to specific media. Hasbro can't make a transformer toy called Bluestreak at the moment but he can still be called that in the IDW comics. I'm not sure how specific it is though and whether or not GW would have had to copyright that design for use specifically in a comic book or it could apply to all print media and they do have a case here.

You might be thinking of trademarks.

Copyright protects content, I can for example have a guy in a story named Clark Kent, so long as it's clear he is not the Clark Kent of DC comics.

But I cannot sell any products called 'Superman' because DC already uses that name for books, video games, clothes, toys, etc, etc.

Hasbro has had to rename a lot of older Transformer and GI Joe characters because either someone had the name first or because they didn't use the name for years and someone else is using it now. But they can still write or licence books with characters named Bluestreak or Flash or Scarlet or whatever.

Super man probably is a trademark. You can't copyright words.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Again playing devils advocate, cause this ain't never going to get to a court room...

Collage is an accepted art form and in comics people have been using photos and other collage techniques for ages.

I've seen many comics that used a clearly traced picture of New York (no doubt copyrighted) as an establishing shot, maybe with a hand-drawn Spiderman swinging in front.

Are these alien tanks taken from somewhere else, yeah sure. BUT Venom was added, the shot was composed, a new drawing was created from these elements.

Heck there are whole websites dedicated to showing how Greg Land traces and photoshops celebreties, movies etc to make comic books.



Now has he ever been sued or fined? Nope.

In fact he still gets work.

It's unethical, it's plagiarism but it ain't illegal. Or at least it ain't illegal enough to be worth suing over.

Wait. Was it done by Greg Land?

That would explain a lot.

Nah it's another artist but Landian laziness has infected the entire industry. He's like the Liefeld of the 2000s.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Nah it's another artist but Landian laziness has infected the entire industry. He's like the Liefeld of the 2000s.

We need more pouches, STAT!

 Xca|iber wrote:

I don't think the issue with the doors, engines, and drones was intentional. I suspect when the (lazy) artist loaded up the 3d model in their program of choice, something about the import borked up the data and loaded those components at the wrong size. (Someone earlier in the thread posted the actual 3d model link, and in that one the doors/drones/engines are the correct size).

I think that model is from Dawn of War. In it the drones, engines, turrets and doors were all attachment assets with their own geometry, moving parts. It might be he had to scale them up to render with the robot thing in the same frame and either didn't notice the pieces didn't scale up too or found it caused some other issue with the turret and the missiles?

And to everyone barking 'bigger fish' you need to understand this is the very best case scenario for GW. Their intellectual property has been directly misappropriated in a way that can be directly attributed to negligence on the part of the editorial staff. The manner of the misappropriation is blatant and the source is not obscure. Disney doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only way this could be more slanted in GW's favour would be if Disney tried to fight it instead of settling.

But, disney doesn't need a leg to stand on. They would bankrupt GW before the case was ever finished and GW knows this. That is why GW will do nothing. Small companies (yes GW is one) don't win vs. disney and their government lobbyist.

Not really, especially when blatant. Deadmau5 got disney to back off several times.

Noir wrote:
But, disney doesn't need a leg to stand on. They would bankrupt GW before the case was ever finished and GW knows this. That is why GW will do nothing. Small companies (yes GW is one) don't win vs. disney and their government lobbyist.

That's actually not how these things work, despite what you may have seen on TV.

For all the talk of Marvel using GW's designs, as an ex-Redshirt, I (and other staff I'm still friendly with) would be happy to throw our 5c into any potential proceedings and talk about the weekend the Phantom Menace was released.

Particularly how we got a briefing telling us TPM was being released and how we were to "exploit" it as much as possible. How we had to have a new demo for 40K set up with a squad of "storm" marines painted in white armour with a black undersuit and led by the black robed "Sergeant Maul" with his twin bladed power sword and red helmet (with specified tribal tattoo designs).

Just sayin' . . . . . .

None of that is even slightly similar to having actual Skyray depictions inside a published comic.

Sega/Relic actually has some ground in this too, it was a licence from GW yes, but that is the 3D model from Dawn of War, and because of the fact they now hold the licence for that game and it's content they can go after them for using thier work created under that license.

Skorne wrote:
Particularly how we got a briefing telling us TPM was being released and how we were to "exploit" it as much as possible. How we had to have a new demo for 40K set up with a squad of "storm" marines painted in white armour with a black undersuit and led by the black robed "Sergeant Maul" with his twin bladed power sword and red helmet (with specified tribal tattoo designs).

Just sayin' . . . . . .

Did GW also release a limited edition box set of these marines that had Star Destroyers on the box?

Of course they didn't, what you're describing is the same kind of parody that lets Caiaphas Cain fight Psycher-Hitler.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Nah it's another artist but Landian laziness has infected the entire industry. He's like the Liefeld of the 2000s.

We need more pouches, STAT!

The hilarious part of that panel is the person on the stairs. The shoes aren't resting on the stair, they're sort of levitating above it. The legs aren't pressed to the bottom of the shorts, but the shorts are touching the stairs. It's almost like they're levitating. Or used waaaay too much starch in their shorts and the shorts are holding their whole bodyweight.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Super man probably is a trademark. You can't copyright words.

That is more or less correct. But that is why I have an IP attorney at a rate of $695.00 per hour handling certain affairs.

I have my IP's that I closely guard and will of course go through all of the procedures in protecting them.

That saying I strongly believe GW ain't going to do nothing. This is one of my spheres of influence. This type of crap happens all of the time.

And to be honest Games Workshop as a whole has no balls, and no finances to even try to compete with the big boys in the entertainment industry. They don't want to be tied up for years with their legal department that is.... sub standard going against a global titan whose legal department = the size and cost of Games Workshop itself.

They should just smile and be happy that they got some sort of free advertising out of this.

And to be honest Games Workshop as a whole has no balls, and no finances to even try to compete with the big boys in the entertainment industry. They don't want to be tied up for years with their legal department that is.... sub standard going against a global titan whose legal department = the size and cost of Games Workshop itself.

They should just smile and be happy that they got some sort of free advertising out of this.

Personally I predict GW putting out some kind of statement demanding something tiny and symbolic that Marvel won't care about paying, to make a decent sized stink so as to try and gain attention, which won't do gak for them in terms of good press, and will only make people annoyed at them