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.

 Alpharius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I would bet that there's some form of licensing fee being paid from CHS.

I don't think there's any way to know that, but I wouldn't be surprised. "We'll let the 25k slide if you pay us X$/yr and drop the appeals."

I hadn't thought of this at all - interesting...

I don't think that idea carries any water to be honest. From my understanding of this case, it seems that CHS is allowed to make certain things anyway without incurring the wrath of GW.

It would be like coca cola saying to Brand X, pay us a licence fee every time you make cola, when Brand X is allowed to make its own cola anyway (they just can't call it coca cola.)

By ending this now, CHS can (hopefully) be up and running for the holiday season. A partial victory now might be better then a total win in 6 months in terms of sales.

/speculation

 Alpharius wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I would bet that there's some form of licensing fee being paid from CHS.

I don't think there's any way to know that, but I wouldn't be surprised. "We'll let the 25k slide if you pay us X$/yr and drop the appeals."

I hadn't thought of this at all - interesting...

I'm not sure how likely that is. I can't imagine GW compromising even 1%, from every statement we have read from Merrett et al. throughout the trial they believe they are 100% in the right of it, and that CHS are gross violators of GW's IP. I think they are utterly convinced that this is the case.

And if Merrett won't pick up a CHS resin miniature on the grounds that it's poisonous, I think it unlikely that they would meet in the same room and share a pen to sign an agreement.

Charax wrote:

Anyway, we will certainly know a lot more when CHS reopens. I expect we'll see the removal of a LOT of lines, perhaps even the whole shoulderpad range, or perhaps just the things with direct GW analogues. I'd expect some wording to change, but just the fact the site's coming back is good news.

I would not expect to see the removal of any products that have not already been removed. Chapterhouse Studios has already been complying with the Court's injunction resulting from the judgement. There is no reasonable basis to believe that GW would get something more than it has already gotten at trial, at least insofar as enjoined products are concerned.

weeble1000 wrote:

Charax wrote:

Anyway, we will certainly know a lot more when CHS reopens. I expect we'll see the removal of a LOT of lines, perhaps even the whole shoulderpad range, or perhaps just the things with direct GW analogues. I'd expect some wording to change, but just the fact the site's coming back is good news.

I would not expect to see the removal of any products that have not already been removed. Chapterhouse Studios has already been complying with the Court's injunction resulting from the judgement. There is no reasonable basis to believe that GW would get something more than it has already gotten at trial, at least insofar as enjoined products are concerned.

Absolutely. There's no way that I can imagine that GW would manage to get a settlement that would result in CHS losing things they gained during the original trial.

Ah, glad to hear that probably isn't happening then!

If chapterhouse produced models for use with 40k, that GW had not yet made models for, I can see GW settling for the production rights to that model or models. Gws cause has been from the begining to clobber Chapterhouse and retain as much of their IP as possible.
The thought that another company, had production rights to any character in 40k, would not go well with them. They wanted chapterhouse dead. Then the court case happened, they were less than pleased how that went. Then chapterhouse appealed, and GW went into damage limitation mode.

I'm just hoping that when Chapterhouse re-opens that the True Scale Marines return as well.

Like I've said many a time, I'm no expert on this aspect of law, but wouldn't be sensible thing for CHS to rename their space marine range Star Knights or something like that? Everybody would then look at star knight shoulder pads/weapons etc and know exactly what they were for, and CHS (and other bit companies) could get on with peacefully trading.

For example, I go into the supermarket and see food products that are near identical to big brand products, but because these products are called McDowell's burgers instead of you know what, nothing happens.

* I will give an exalt to anybody who identifies which film the McDowell's burgers reference comes from

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I've said many a time, I'm no expert on this aspect of law, but wouldn't be sensible thing for CHS to rename their space marine range Star Knights or something like that? Everybody would then look at star knight shoulder pads/weapons etc and know exactly what they were for, and CHS (and other bit companies) could get on with peacefully trading.

For example, I go into the supermarket and see food products that are near identical to big brand products, but because these products are called McDowell's burgers instead of you know what, nothing happens.

* I will give an exalt to anybody who identifies which film the McDowell's burgers reference comes from

Coming to America

Saldiven wrote:

Absolutely. There's no way that I can imagine that GW would manage to get a settlement that would result in CHS losing things they gained during the original trial.

Remember that GW agreed to the settlement as well.

The two sides have been in an uncompromising position since day one. For a compromise to happen, both sides would have to give up something that they weren't willing to earlier.

CHS from day one wanted to keep doing what they always have, and GW from day one wanted CHS to go away and die. A settlement happened, which means that at least one, and probably both sides gave up something they wanted.


Now, some attitudes have changed over the course of the trial. CHS wants to stay in business and pay his bills, and GW wants to keep from setting court precedents that production rights to some of their characters belongs to another company. Both sides definitely had more to lose, and may have been able to call a truce without giving up anything else.

 adamsouza wrote:
I'm just hoping that when Chapterhouse re-opens that the True Scale Marines return as well.

I'd bet that they won't - but I'd be happy to be wrong!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I've said many a time, I'm no expert on this aspect of law, but wouldn't be sensible thing for CHS to rename their space marine range Star Knights or something like that? Everybody would then look at star knight shoulder pads/weapons etc and know exactly what they were for, and CHS (and other bit companies) could get on with peacefully trading.

For example, I go into the supermarket and see food products that are near identical to big brand products, but because these products are called McDowell's burgers instead of you know what, nothing happens.

* I will give an exalt to anybody who identifies which film the McDowell's burgers reference comes from

Legally they don't have to.

It is well established that after market companies can make compatible parts and market them using the original trade names for reference. "Compatible with Warhammer 40K Space Marines" for example.

Some of the case hinged around the point that GW did not understand this aspect of the law.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I've said many a time, I'm no expert on this aspect of law, but wouldn't be sensible thing for CHS to rename their space marine range Star Knights or something like that? Everybody would then look at star knight shoulder pads/weapons etc and know exactly what they were for, and CHS (and other bit companies) could get on with peacefully trading.

For example, I go into the supermarket and see food products that are near identical to big brand products, but because these products are called McDowell's burgers instead of you know what, nothing happens.

* I will give an exalt to anybody who identifies which film the McDowell's burgers reference comes from

Coming to America

Have an exalt.

Anyway, to keep this OT, if CHS are still trading and up and running, then that's a victory, isn't it?

 Alpharius wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
I'm just hoping that when Chapterhouse re-opens that the True Scale Marines return as well.

I'd bet that they won't - but I'd be happy to be wrong!

"Space Marines" were not something GW was able to win on
"True Scale Space Marines" are not even something GW makes.

Aside from the nipple armor torso, they didn't even match any GW designs, and GW totally stole the nipple armor look from Mordred in Ecallibur

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Like I've said many a time, I'm no expert on this aspect of law, but wouldn't be sensible thing for CHS to rename their space marine range Star Knights or something like that? Everybody would then look at star knight shoulder pads/weapons etc and know exactly what they were for, and CHS (and other bit companies) could get on with peacefully trading.

For example, I go into the supermarket and see food products that are near identical to big brand products, but because these products are called McDowell's burgers instead of you know what, nothing happens.

* I will give an exalt to anybody who identifies which film the McDowell's burgers reference comes from

Legally they don't have to.

It is well established that after market companies can make compatible parts and market them using the original trade names for reference. "Compatible with Warhammer 40K Space Marines" for example.

Some of the case hinged around the point that GW did not understand this aspect of the law.

Thanks for shining a light on this. I'll be honest, I've read through nearly every page on this thread, and I still don't know what is what!

Maybe slightly OT, but in the most simplest terms and using basic examples, is my understanding of the following terms correct?

Trademark: Coca Cola etc is a trademark and nobody else can make cola and call it coca cola, but anybody can make cola.

Copyright: If an artist or writer creates something, they own the copyright until 100 years after their death, even if they work for another company. So Jes Goodwin's designs/drawing still belong to him, and not GW.

Patent: the right to make a unique invention/part etc for a limited time frame, then it becomes public. For example, I invent TV, but years later, anybody can make a TV.

Yeah, I could use google, but I prefer things In layman's terms.

Correct. There's also no problem using other companies trademarks as long as you aren't trying to pass stuff off as them. For instance selling exhaust (muffler) systems for a car, you're perfectly entitled to say "Muffler for 2014 Ford Taurus".
Just as you can say "Shoulder pad for GW Space Marine" or "Wheel kit compatible with GW Chimera". This case confirmed CHS were above board in that regard.

Copyright has a term of 70 years after death for an individual creator, such as Arthur Conan Doyle, and 90 years from creation date for a corporate entity like Disney.

Corporations' contract with their employees normally make it clear that the artwork, designs and inventions of the employees become the property of the company. Freelancers normally retain the copyright of their work.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Copyright has a term of 70 years after death for an individual creator, such as Arthur Conan Doyle, and 90 years from creation date for a corporate entity like Disney.

Corporations' contract with their employees normally make it clear that the artwork, designs and inventions of the employees become the property of the company. Freelancers normally retain the copyright of their work.

This is what confuses me, because a few pages ago, somebody (it might have been you) was talking about Goodwin/Blanche concept sketches from the 1980s and how a lot of GW's ideas were up in the air. I'm still scratching my head on this one

Unless they were freelancers or something.

Back in the 80's a lot of those artists contributing to White Dwarf were Free Lancers, and permisison to use their art once was standard. Freelancers essentially created the look of 40K and GW just asssumed they owned it, becasue the artists were drawing things for the 40K universe.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Copyright has a term of 70 years after death for an individual creator, such as Arthur Conan Doyle, and 90 years from creation date for a corporate entity like Disney.

Corporations' contract with their employees normally make it clear that the artwork, designs and inventions of the employees become the property of the company. Freelancers normally retain the copyright of their work.

This is what confuses me, because a few pages ago, somebody (it might have been you) was talking about Goodwin/Blanche concept sketches from the 1980s and how a lot of GW's ideas were up in the air. I'm still scratching my head on this one

Unless they were freelancers or something.

Judge Kennelly allowed Alan Merrett's dubious testimony to hand wave that all artists were employees of GW when they produced the artwork, even though at least one of those artists swore an affidavit to the contrary, and even though we all know that GW had virtually no actual employees in the early days, but rather contracted verbally with freelancers. GW produced no employment records despite discovery requests to do so, and produced no copyright assignments, freelance agreements, or other documentation supporting its claims of ownership.

Judge Kennelly literally accepted the word of Alan Merrett as sufficient evidence to prove ownership without letting the jury make a finding as to this critical fact with respect to the asserted artwork.

Now, when you think about the reliability of Merrett's trial testimony, how does that make you feel?

If you don't own a copyright, you cannot sue. Case closed. Apparently the testimony of someone who was neither in a position to have direct knowledge nor who could provide contemporaneous documentation is sufficient for a summary judgement of ownership.

This case needed to be appealed...

Edit: Judge Kennelly's decision allowed GW to literally steal the ownership rights of artists from whom GW did not obtain those rights. Moreover, GW attempted to conceal this fact from the court by contacting artists and requesting retroactive assignment of rights, and yet failing to provide the defense with the contact information for those artists. And that wasn't the worst that went down.

Yes. And then GW found when they came to court they did not have any record of owning the copyright on some of the illustrations. They had to start writing to the freelancers asking them to "confirm" that the artists had signed over their rights to GW. Which some of the guys told GW to eff off.

Another example of the shambolic level of organisation of GW's intellectual property department.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes. And then GW found when they came to court they did not have any record of owning the copyright on some of the illustrations. They had to start writing to the freelancers asking them to "confirm" that the artists had signed over their rights to GW. Which some of the guys told GW to eff off.

Another example of the shambolic level of organisation of GW's intellectual property department.

Exactly, some, most notably Gary Chalk, refused to confirm those assignments. The defense should have been allowed to question each and every artist. But GW claimed to have none of their contact info (even though both Merrett and Gill Stevenson were contacting them by email and snail mail). Moreover, a retroactive assignment like that is insufficient to cure a failure to have standing at the time the claims were filed. If you couldn't prove it when you filed the claim, you can't fix it later. That's basic due process.

Russ Nicholson posted about the incident on his blog: http://russnicholson.blogspot.de/2012/09/the-horror-of-it-all.html
Gary Chalk's response is here: http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.0.pdf

 odinsgrandson wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Absolutely. There's no way that I can imagine that GW would manage to get a settlement that would result in CHS losing things they gained during the original trial.

Remember that GW agreed to the settlement as well.

The two sides have been in an uncompromising position since day one. For a compromise to happen, both sides would have to give up something that they weren't willing to earlier.

CHS would not have needed to give up something they already had. They could just as well give up something that they believe they could have gotten through appeal.

Warhams-77 wrote:
Russ Nicholson posted about the incident on his blog: http://russnicholson.blogspot.de/2012/09/the-horror-of-it-all.html
Gary Chalk's response is here: http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.0.pdf

Those are fantastic links, particularly the first - thanks!!

You're welcome. Mr. Chalk also commented on his time at GW http://doggysdoings.blogspot.de/2011/10/gary-chalk-interview.html and here http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.de/2013/10/the-lone-wolf-interview-with-gary-chalk.html

Those are not related directly to the CHS case (they are from the same year like the above though) but the following quote from the RoC80s interview shows how GW actually dont give a f*** about their ex-artists except when sueing others

RoC80s: You provided quite a bit of artwork to GW (and beyond) during the 1980s and many fans want to know what happened to the original pieces of art. Do you still have them in your possession or have they been sold on to collectors?

GC: I have some of the artwork, but a lot of it has gone missing at Games Workshop. They actually produced a boxed set of Lone Wolf figures at one time and I gave them the artwork for the first Lone Wolf book for the box lid. This is sadly one of the missing pieces. I have it on good autority that some of my artwork, along with that of other artists, was actually seen in a refuse skip outside the studio. Since the witness is an ex-Workshop sculptor, I can only assume this to be true. I am really pissed off about this as you can imagine.

So in reference to the issue of GW sending letters to freelancers and the ownership of the work does that only apply to illustrations or might that also apply to sculpts?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Copyright has a term of 70 years after death for an individual creator, such as Arthur Conan Doyle, and 90 years from creation date for a corporate entity like Disney.

Corporations' contract with their employees normally make it clear that the artwork, designs and inventions of the employees become the property of the company. Freelancers normally retain the copyright of their work.

This is what confuses me, because a few pages ago, somebody (it might have been you) was talking about Goodwin/Blanche concept sketches from the 1980s and how a lot of GW's ideas were up in the air. I'm still scratching my head on this one

Unless they were freelancers or something.

That was I think in reference to UK law specifically(not relevant to this case), and hinges on whether the models GW produces are art/collectables in which case copyright law applies, or toys/game pieces in which case they would likely fall under Design Rights laws which have MUCH shorter and more narrowly defined protections, IIRC you only "own" something under Design Rights for 9 years or so and must license the rights to anyone who makes you a reasonable offer in the latter half of that term, and that 9 year term would be expired on virtually all the models GW produces as they're almost all based on designs and concepts that have been around for decades. The point I believe the poster was making was that if someone seriously applied for aforementioned licensing rights, GW would obviously refuse, at which point the applicant could take them to court and argue that since GW models are mass-produced and evidently designed to be used in-concert with the wargame rules, they're toys/game pieces and Design Rights should apply not artistic copyright. If that argument was successful GW would lose control over most of their IP overnight.

If I remember it correctly, the GW models have already been deemed in British courts to be toys rather than sculptures, and therefore fall under Design Rights.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the risk of going somewhat off topic, the near death of original artwork commissioned by GW is obvious from the amount of photography and Photoshop assembly used in the modern books.