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.

lord_blackfang wrote:Of course they're parasites. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy their products.

You're confusing the terms "parasite" and "symbiote."

A parasite feeds off of its host to the host's detriment. Parasites usually cause illness and even death. An example would be heart worm in a dog.

A symbiote is something that lives with its host and provides a benefit to that host. The symbiote cannot live alone, but the host, in some fashion, benefits from the symbiote's presence, or at the very least, the host derives no negative from the presence of the symbiote. An example would be the bacteria that live in your intestines that aid in digestion.

Third party bits manufacturers are more like a symbiote. In the vast majority of cases, these third party manufacturers create items that require the purchase of a first party manufacturer product. Rather than taking sales away from the first party manufacturer, these third party bits inspire buyers to purchase items from the first party that the buyer might not have otherwise opted to purchase.

biccat wrote:

deggreg@yahoo.com wrote:no, not parasites. They are companies making their living off of providing stuff GW doesn't. That being said, they are making their living via the IP of GW....so I would call them all "Vanilla Ices". Not the original deal, but scratching out a living on the ideas of others.

I was under the impression that Vanilla Ice was back with a brand new invention.

deggreg@yahoo.com wrote:There are alot of people making a living off of GW, would be nice if they all showed some respect...like not selling things until a launch date, or in the case of Bitz guys...maybe paying a royalty...but I digress

I can't imagine why they should, or would. GW doesn't own the IP that these guys are selling. Ford can't control who makes windshield wipers or hubcaps, and I think that's a good thing.

I think Dakka needs a facepalm icon.....hahaha

deggreg@yahoo.com wrote:

biccat wrote:

deggreg@yahoo.com wrote:no, not parasites. They are companies making their living off of providing stuff GW doesn't. That being said, they are making their living via the IP of GW....so I would call them all "Vanilla Ices". Not the original deal, but scratching out a living on the ideas of others.

I was under the impression that Vanilla Ice was back with a brand new invention.

deggreg@yahoo.com wrote:There are alot of people making a living off of GW, would be nice if they all showed some respect...like not selling things until a launch date, or in the case of Bitz guys...maybe paying a royalty...but I digress

I can't imagine why they should, or would. GW doesn't own the IP that these guys are selling. Ford can't control who makes windshield wipers or hubcaps, and I think that's a good thing.

I think Dakka needs a facepalm icon.....hahaha

They do...

derek wrote:I want to dispute a couple of things with this. First, I don't think it has anything to do with market share. I think there simply isn't a niche needing to be filled with Warmachine. When PP releases something, it doesn't come with a missing option you need to make yourself (I won't make a list of all the GW stuff you have to scratchbuild/kitbash, but the number is significant), it comes with ALL the options for that model. They also don't tend to let product lines sit with gaps/without support for years (support meaning attention that isn't a price jump). If something makes it into one of their books, you can almost bet you'll see a model of it within the next 12-18 months, usually more on the 12 side, 'cept Destors those were a long time coming I'm told. The third party market, if it can be considered some sort of problem for GW, is one entirely of their own making.

Destors were delayed due to a problem with being one of the first things cast in plastic along with the new warjacks. There were problems with the casting process overseas with the new plastics and (unlike other companies who shall remain nameless with a crappy new casting process and material) held them until the kinks were worked out. Same held for the MoW Bombardiers, the Firefly, and most of the other light warjacks that were supposed to come out in plastic to replace the metals.

Outside of that most units introduced in a book hit inside of a year of that book.

Privateer also has a very draconian conversion policy that does not really lend itself to extensive conversion and "counts as". They also aren't raking you over the coals to play the game so demand for replacement parts isn't there.

I hate GW, and I like the people who make bits because it saves money and offers something GW generally doesnt.

12thRonin wrote:Privateer also has a very draconian conversion policy that does not really lend itself to extensive conversion and "counts as".

It's not really draconian. Most conversions are OK, unless you change the weapons of the models. Which is virtually the same as GW's WYSIWYG policy.

Alfndrate wrote:

deggreg@yahoo.com wrote:I think Dakka needs a facepalm icon.....hahaha

They do...

Which is, oddly enough :facepalm:

I think that without GW the 3rd party bitz market might not exist at all if everything else in the market was the same. If GW, through the years, hadn't encouraged customability and converting inside of their massive universe then none of this would exist as it stands.

If GW offered bits for sale, or at least included every codex available option in their kits, and if GW wasn't producing 'the finest finecast minis in the world' then there would be little need for third party bits producers. Hell, GW even abandoned tournament support in the US, which was one of the few reasons to not game with bits or models from other companies. It just seems at times that GW is taking every possible step to distance themselves from their customer base, and as such, have encouraged the growth of many third party bits companies.

Hulksmash wrote:@Charax

Split hairs how you like but it is taking money out of the pocket of the company they are relying on to stay afloat. This isn't a thread about legality, it's about opinion. Can you tell me they would have produced those models without the Necron Codex?

3rd party add-ons are fine. Full kits of gw units are not. Again, it's not a legality thing, it's a personal opinion.

I have a bit of an issue with this opinion. Are you saying that because GW wrote the game and the fluff, that no one else should make models to use with the game? I don't think that is defensible. Once I buy the game, I can play it with whatever models I choose.

As long as the 3Pty maker doesn't use GW trademarks or IP or advertise it as an approved 40k model, than anyone can make any figure for any reason. It's irrelvaent whether GW makes a figure to represent a particular unit or not. GW has no inherent right to any money spent on non-GW figures that people with use with their games.

It's not money out of GW's pocket, rather it's the customers money, and their right to spend their money where they want. GW has no claim on my $ until they make a product that I want, at a price I am willing to pay, and even then, it's not their cash until I hand it over the counter to make a purchase.

Hulksmash wrote: Can you tell me they would have produced those models without the Necron Codex?

Would GW have the necron asthetic without Terminator, the Tyranids without Geiger and Aliens, Tau without various Anime, etc, etc...?

It's all derivative and as long as you don't tread on protected IP or copyright, it's all good.
Further, competition is good. It keeps GW from getting lax and keeps them constantly having to improve their products.

Eilif wrote:
As long as the 3Pty maker doesn't use GW trademarks or IP or advertise it as an approved 40k model, than anyone can make any figure for any reason.

That's the tricky part, isn't it. Someone has to design models. I remember going to a seminar with Jes Goodwin a few years back. One of the show-and-tell items he brought was a sketchbook of eldar designs, some that became models, some that didn't. Producing that sketchbook was work. The result of that work is design that isn't a salable product for customers to buy. That design is IP. For someone else to come along and blatantly copy the design in their own sculpt is theft of that design work and IP.

Would GW have the necron asthetic without Terminator, the Tyranids without Geiger and Aliens, Tau without various Anime, etc, etc...?

It's all derivative and as long as you don't tread on protected IP or copyright, it's all good.

But Tyranids, while derivative of both Aliens and other things (starship troopers?) are distinctly their own thing. Aliens and Bugs never had symbiotic weapon constructs, as an example. Necrons owe as much to the Egyptians as they do to Terminator (with the possible exception that no one has found hieroglyphs that read "I'll Be Back"). Again, they're not a copy, they're influenced by, and that is (as you state) okay.

It's the companies that aren't doing their own design work that I take offense to. It's okay to derive your models from existing sources, but it's not okay to simply take someone else's designs.

12thRonin wrote:
Destors were delayed due to a problem with being one of the first things cast in plastic along with the new warjacks. There were problems with the casting process overseas with the new plastics and (unlike other companies who shall remain nameless with a crappy new casting process and material) held them until the kinks were worked out. Same held for the MoW Bombardiers, the Firefly, and most of the other light warjacks that were supposed to come out in plastic to replace the metals.

Outside of that most units introduced in a book hit inside of a year of that book.

Privateer also has a very draconian conversion policy that does not really lend itself to extensive conversion and "counts as". They also aren't raking you over the coals to play the game so demand for replacement parts isn't there.

While I don't think you necessarily took it as such, I just want to say that I was in no way using Destors as a negative against Privateer, simply as the one example I can think of where there was definitely more than a 12 month gap from book to model on the shelf. I only wish GW was that efficient (Like putting the Drop Pod in the 4th edition codex but not making a model til 5th).

biccat wrote:

12thRonin wrote:Privateer also has a very draconian conversion policy that does not really lend itself to extensive conversion and "counts as".

It's not really draconian. Most conversions are OK, unless you change the weapons of the models. Which is virtually the same as GW's WYSIWYG policy.

Except it's not.

Privateer Press Conversion Policy wrote:A converted model must contain a majority of parts from the WARMACHINE or HORDES model for which the rules were written. For example, a Testament of Menoth conversion must be composed mostly of parts from the Testament of Menoth model.

So since I hate the Black 13th models with a passion, I can't substitute IK models that look far better that have been either converted or GS'ed to look like them or to represent their undercover operations.

Redbeard wrote:

Eilif wrote:
As long as the 3Pty maker doesn't use GW trademarks or IP or advertise it as an approved 40k model, than anyone can make any figure for any reason.

That's the tricky part, isn't it. Someone has to design models. I remember going to a seminar with Jes Goodwin a few years back. One of the show-and-tell items he brought was a sketchbook of eldar designs, some that became models, some that didn't. Producing that sketchbook was work. The result of that work is design that isn't a salable product for customers to buy. That design is IP. For someone else to come along and blatantly copy the design in their own sculpt is theft of that design work and IP.

Would GW have the necron asthetic without Terminator, the Tyranids without Geiger and Aliens, Tau without various Anime, etc, etc...?

It's all derivative and as long as you don't tread on protected IP or copyright, it's all good.

But Tyranids, while derivative of both Aliens and other things (starship troopers?) are distinctly their own thing. Aliens and Bugs never had symbiotic weapon constructs, as an example. Necrons owe as much to the Egyptians as they do to Terminator (with the possible exception that no one has found hieroglyphs that read "I'll Be Back"). Again, they're not a copy, they're influenced by, and that is (as you state) okay.

It's the companies that aren't doing their own design work that I take offense to. It's okay to derive your models from existing sources, but it's not okay to simply take someone else's designs.

"That design is IP?" Copyright protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. You make it, it is protected. But only that specific work is protected, it is only protected to the extent that it is original, and your rights as a copyright owner essentially only extend to reporduction of that which is protectable in your expression.

If someone were to steal Jes Goodwin's notebook, photocopy the pages, and sell the copies on the internet, that would be copyright infringement.

With one breath you say that Jes Goodwin can claim ownership of another's artistic expression in the form of a sculptural work of art based on his expression of a concept sketch in a notebook to which no one can really be said to have had access to. With another breath you say that the Tyranids are derived from HR Geiger's unique artistic expressions (among others) and yet argue that they are nevertheless "distinctly their own thing."

What is the discernible difference between deriving an expression from an existing source and taking someone else's "designs?" I assume that by "taking someone else's designs" you do not mean direct copying as our only point of reference to that statement is your example of Jes Goodwin's concept art notebook full of inaccessible expressions all related to a similar idea that itself owes a vast amount of deference to 50+ years of science-fiction and fantasy cultural expression and evolution.

On the one had you say it is not right for someone to take the idea of an Eldar and create a unique artistic expression, but it is right for Games Workshop to take ideas from HR Geiger and create unique Tyranid expressions.

Flip the argument around, if you would, and see how it goes down. Imagine that Jes Goodwin is HR Geiger and the Carnifex model was created by a 3rd party company. Oh how you would be spouting about how the Carnifex model is clearly a copy of Mr. Goodwin's designs. Just look at the exoskeleton. It is clearly copied from Mr. Goodwin's aliens. Heck, the thing even is an alien, and where is the back story. The thing is just called a "Carnifex" which means butcher, and of course Geiger aliens are butchers.

The plain fact is that you have a bias towards Games Workshop that you are either incapable or unwilling to account for to the point of clumsily trying to thread a needle through contradictory arguments. I encourage you to broaden your perspective a bit and really consider the implications of your arguments for all authors and artists, including those employed by Games Workshop.

When you scrape away the clutter, all you are really talking about are ideas. Ideas for space elves in pointy helmets, ideas for chitinous exoskeletons with bony ridges, ideas about unstoppable aliens devouring the universe, ideas, ideas, ideas. And ideas are not protected by copyright. Black and white, plain and simple, unambiguously, never, ever, ever are ideas protected by copyright. And why? Because an idea is bigger than an expression. An idea encompasses a wide diversity of possible artistic expression, including, inexorably, that which has already been done before and copyright only ever protects that which is original. Were copyright to extend to ideas, rather than expressions, we would all be infringing someone's copyright and there would be no free artistic expression, which is what copyright laws are designed to promote.

Redbeard wrote:

Eilif wrote:
As long as the 3Pty maker doesn't use GW trademarks or IP or advertise it as an approved 40k model, than anyone can make any figure for any reason.

That's the tricky part, isn't it. Someone has to design models... That design is IP. For someone else to come along and blatantly copy the design in their own sculpt is theft of that design work and IP...

But Tyranids, while derivative of both Aliens and other things (starship troopers?) are distinctly their own thing. Aliens and Bugs never had symbiotic weapon constructs, as an example. Necrons owe as much to the Egyptians as they do to Terminator (with the possible exception that no one has found hieroglyphs that read "I'll Be Back"). Again, they're not a copy, they're influenced by, and that is (as you state) okay.

It's the companies that aren't doing their own design work that I take offense to. It's okay to derive your models from existing sources, but it's not okay to simply take someone else's designs.

Well said,
It all comes down to whether the derivitive aritst is legaly "taking someone elses designs" or not. And that's where folks will probably disagree most.

The trouble with calling a GW design "original IP" is that it's so derivative to begin with. Take a commissar for example, a figure for which there seem to be a number of non-GW versions available). How much of the GW design can they really call IP? Russo/Nazi uniform, long cape, peaked cap? It's all so drawn for other sources that the only original IP involved ends up being the imperial Logos and certain notably unique GW weapon designs.

GW will send out alot of C&D's, but they're sent with the weight of $ and lawyers, not the law. By selling a product that does such a great job (I happen to really like GW asthetic) of pulling so many notable Sci-Fi tropes into one game, they've left the field wide open for folks to make GW-ish products, largely with impunity. All folks have to do is lose some logos and change some design features and they're in the clear.

Also, I think that the Necrons (Especially the early versions) and Tryranids owe far more to the source material I named than you do but that's a whole other issue. For a more blatant example see "Sly Marbo" for another example of GW originality at it's best.

12thRonin wrote:

biccat wrote:

12thRonin wrote:Privateer also has a very draconian conversion policy that does not really lend itself to extensive conversion and "counts as".

It's not really draconian. Most conversions are OK, unless you change the weapons of the models. Which is virtually the same as GW's WYSIWYG policy.

Except it's not.

Privateer Press Conversion Policy wrote:A converted model must contain a majority of parts from the WARMACHINE or HORDES model for which the rules were written. For example, a Testament of Menoth conversion must be composed mostly of parts from the Testament of Menoth model.

So since I hate the Black 13th models with a passion, I can't substitute IK models that look far better that have been either converted or GS'ed to look like them or to represent their undercover operations.

That's not true. You can play with whatever proxies/stand-ins/conversions you and your gaming group want. You just can't do it at tournaments sanctioned by PP. GW used to do the same thing. And as their influence on the tournament scene got smaller and smaller, until today where they have no US presence, people now are free to play with what figures they choose.

weeble1000 wrote:The plain fact is that you have a bias towards Games Workshop that you are either incapable or unwilling to account for...

Hardly. I'm fairly critical of a lot of GWs practices. Why do you feel the need to make this personal?

"That design is IP?" Copyright protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

IP is not limited to copyrights.

With one breath you say that Jes Goodwin can claim ownership of another's artistic expression in the form of a sculptural work of art based on his expression of a concept sketch in a notebook to which no one can really be said to have had access to. With another breath you say that the Tyranids are derived from HR Geiger's unique artistic expressions (among others) and yet argue that they are nevertheless "distinctly their own thing."

I'm sure that you're so bent on your absolutist approach that you can't see the differences, so I'll point them out.

Giger's Aliens are bipedal. They're pretty well defined with two legs and two arms and a tail. I'm not an expert on the Alien's extended universe, but this was the case in all the movies I saw and at least the first few pages of GIS. Tyranids have six limbs. Giger's Aliens seem to have no ranged capabilities. Tyranids routinely make use of weapon symbiote creatures. I'm fairly sure that presented with a model of each, even a casual observer would be able to tell them apart. Yes, clearly GW was influenced by Giger's work, and also other work. However, they took those influences, put their own spin on it, and made it something sufficiently distinct that someone unfamiliar with either source could be told about these fundamental differences and correctly sort each.

On the other hand, we have Chapterhouse's Farseer. There's not one element on this model that distinguishes it from GWs design. It wears the same rune armour, same robes, a very similar helmet, even the hilt of the sword matches GW's designs.

To me, that's just not right. That's being a parasite. And, that's said as someone who has purchased other things, the Stormraven extension kit, from Chapterhouse. Because I don't think that mod kits are wrong in the least.

Flip the argument around, if you would, and see how it goes down. Imagine that Jes Goodwin is HR Geiger and the Carnifex model was created by a 3rd party company. Oh how you would be spouting about how the Carnifex model is clearly a copy of Mr. Goodwin's designs. Just look at the exoskeleton. It is clearly copied from Mr. Goodwin's aliens. Heck, the thing even is an alien, and where is the back story. The thing is just called a "Carnifex" which means butcher, and of course Geiger aliens are butchers.

Do you have some personal grudge against me? Have I slighted you in some way? Because, really, I can't see any other reason for this hostility, let alone you trying to strawman me. In fact, if you scroll back in this thread, I explicitly called out several companies, including Avatars of War, that have taken reasonable steps to make their own models distinct, even if they're compatible with GW's stuff, rather than just copying someone else's design. So, no, I wouldn't claim that Giger copied from GW, because there are clear and obvious differences between the two. And that's a position I've been consistent with through this whole thread.

Black and white, plain and simple, unambiguously, never, ever, ever are ideas protected by copyright.

Well, at least you're right about this. Ideas aren't covered by copyrights. But, I'll point out two things. One, this thread isn't about legal standing, it's about opinions. In my opinion, Chapterhouse's farseer crosses a line that I find offensive. That's my opinion. It's also my opinion that there are plenty of manufacturers out there who have created their own designs and that are doing it the right way, even if their work is compatible with GW models, and I support those companies.

Secondly, there are other forms of IP protection that do cover ideas. "One-click checkout" is an idea that can be implemented in many different ways, but Amazon's got that idea patented and so no one else can do it. It's not all about copyrights.

Obviously the Poll shows how we feel.

Redbeard wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:With one breath you say that Jes Goodwin can claim ownership of another's artistic expression in the form of a sculptural work of art based on his expression of a concept sketch in a notebook to which no one can really be said to have had access to. With another breath you say that the Tyranids are derived from HR Geiger's unique artistic expressions (among others) and yet argue that they are nevertheless "distinctly their own thing."

I'm sure that you're so bent on your absolutist approach that you can't see the differences, so I'll point them out.

Giger's Aliens are bipedal. They're pretty well defined with two legs and two arms and a tail.

Someone has forgotten the Alien that hatched from the dog in the 3rd movie, that was definitely a quadruped, and seemed significantly smaller than the 'humanoid' Aliens in the first two movies. So it's quite likely that Aliens hatched from other species pick up aspects of that species in their development.

I'm not an expert on the Alien's extended universe, but this was the case in all the movies I saw and at least the first few pages of GIS. Tyranids have six limbs. Giger's Aliens seem to have no ranged capabilities. Tyranids routinely make use of weapon symbiote creatures. I'm fairly sure that presented with a model of each, even a casual observer would be able to tell them apart. Yes, clearly GW was influenced by Giger's work, and also other work. However, they took those influences, put their own spin on it, and made it something sufficiently distinct that someone unfamiliar with either source could be told about these fundamental differences and correctly sort each.

Of course, had GW made the Tyranids much more like Gegier's critters, they WOULD have been sued.

On the other hand, we have Chapterhouse's Farseer. There's not one element on this model that distinguishes it from GWs design. It wears the same rune armour, same robes, a very similar helmet, even the hilt of the sword matches GW's designs.

To me, that's just not right. That's being a parasite.

I'll give you that one.

I'll ask a follow-up question. What about Mantic? Do their miniatures cross that line in your opinon, and why (or why not)?

Douglaspocock wrote:Obviously the Poll shows how we feel.

Sure does.

And so far 5 people really love their HHHobby!

Here's the thing; third party minis manufacturers would not survive if there wasn't a demand for what they make. They make options, alternates, bits, all sorts of stuff that people are looking for. If people didn't want them, then they wouldn't be able to sell their wares. But they can, and they do. So there's clearly a portion of the marketplace that GW is not satisfying.

If GW produced everything that people wanted, then there would be no room for third parties. But, say, Skibor Minis makes a fantastic Egyptian-themed Armored Space Warrior piece, and there is nothing comparable in the GW range. Should I limit my vision of my the Pharaoh's Guard Chapter because GW doesn't make a suitable model?

Vulcan wrote:I'll ask a follow-up question. What about Mantic? Do their miniatures cross that line in your opinon, and why (or why not)?

From what I've seen of Mantic, they seem to be just fine. They wrote their own game, so they've clearly got their own ideas going on. Their fantasy stuff, like most of GWs fantasy stuff, is based in the very generic elf/dwarf/undead concepts, and their sci-fi line just seems to extend the same into space. There's some common ancestor stuff going on, but the actual model designs seem distinct.

Hulksmash wrote:

However, I'm against creating full on units like PuppetofWar does in the tomb blades, wraiths, spyders. This, to me, is leeching off another's work. It isn't a kit that needs a GW kit to use. It's a full independent kit of a GW branded item. These are sales out of GW's pocket entirely. To me that part is wrong.

However, this is a common thing in the automotive industry. If I get in a crash and need a new bumper for my car I can buy a new one from the original manufacturer (OEM-Original Equipment Manufacturer) , or one from any number of aftermarket companies that make exact copies of the original part, not something fairly close (like Puppetswar does) but EXACTLY the same, right down to the corporate logos. Now, you dont see the OEMs crying about it.

Now IM not advocating other companies making exact copies of GW (or any other) models, but I see no problem with them making things that are very close, since as a customer I benefit from the variety of choice. How can GW (or others) protect thier sales in a competitive environment such as this?...simple...make the nicest models at the best price. GW doesnt like competition as it forces them to offer a better product at a better (for the customer) price. They want to be able to put out whatever they feel like at whatever they choose to charge and make people buy it since its the only choice.

Redbeard wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:The plain fact is that you have a bias towards Games Workshop that you are either incapable or unwilling to account for...

Hardly. I'm fairly critical of a lot of GWs practices. Why do you feel the need to make this personal?

I'm not trying to make a personal attack. You have made arguments that are objectively contradictory. You have applied a double standard in favor of Games Workshop. To me, that is indicative of a bias that you have not accounted for.

Redbeard wrote:IP is not limited to copyrights.

You are correct, but in your arguments you were really only referring to copyright. IP laws do not "mix." Whether or not you intended to make an argument that there is something wrong with some sort of mixture between copyright and trademark use, no such theory is tenable when it comes to the law. And, I do not think that your arguments indicated in any way that you intended such an argument. One cannot really trademark an aesthetic, and certainly not in the way you might have meant. Were it possible, for example, the Tyranid aesthetic would clearly infringe a trademark owned by Geiger.

That's just not the way things work, and there are extremely good reasons for it.

Redbeard wrote:I'm sure that you're so bent on your absolutist approach that you can't see the differences, so I'll point them out.

Giger's Aliens are bipedal. They're pretty well defined with two legs and two arms and a tail. I'm not an expert on the Alien's extended universe, but this was the case in all the movies I saw and at least the first few pages of GIS. Tyranids have six limbs. Giger's Aliens seem to have no ranged capabilities. Tyranids routinely make use of weapon symbiote creatures. I'm fairly sure that presented with a model of each, even a casual observer would be able to tell them apart. Yes, clearly GW was influenced by Giger's work, and also other work. However, they took those influences, put their own spin on it, and made it something sufficiently distinct that someone unfamiliar with either source could be told about these fundamental differences and correctly sort each.

On the other hand, we have Chapterhouse's Farseer. There's not one element on this model that distinguishes it from GWs design. It wears the same rune armour, same robes, a very similar helmet, even the hilt of the sword matches GW's designs.

To me, that's just not right. That's being a parasite. And, that's said as someone who has purchased other things, the Stormraven extension kit, from Chapterhouse. Because I don't think that mod kits are wrong in the least.

As I said in my previous post, flip that argument around. Have you really looked at the Doomsee model? It is inspired by an aesthetic used by Games Workshop, which is itself bereft of much originality. This is not a criticism of Mr. Goodwin's work, which I think is interesting, creative, and unique. But when you say that the "Doomseer" wears the "same" rune armor, robes, etc. you are not actually referring to those elements being a copy of a particular expression. Thus, what you are pointing out is indeed an aesthetic. An aesthetic of a humanoid figure clad in robes, plated armor with a runic symbol, and a tall helmet.

If one applies a similar argument to the Tyranid works with reference to HR Geiger's works, one would arrive at the same conclusion. All you have pointed out is that the Tyranids have 6 limbs, ranged weapons, etc. First, pointing out differences is not actually legally appropriate when determining if one work is a copy of another, but we can shelve that for now. Geiger's "design" as you would call it, is as referenced in the Tyranid works as the Eldar "design" is referenced in the Doomseer. And one can make a pretty solid argument that the similarities between Tyranids and Geiger's works concern unique protectable elements to a much greater degree than those between the Doomseer model and Eldar works.

The human form is indispensable from the idea, the form of the robes and plated armor is largely dictated by how those articles relate to the human form. Those elements are grossly rooted in the freely accessible library of the public domain. Do you see where this is going?

In contrast, Geiger's "style" is arguably quite distinct to Geiger. But even so, that "style" or "design" or "aesthetic" or whatever you want to call it simply is not protectable intellectual property; not as a copyright, not as a trademark, and not as a patent. And that is a good thing. That means artists, like those employed by Games Workshop, can participate in an ongoing cultural dialogue of artistic expression. The works of others can serve as inspiration for future works of artistic expression, and everyone can still maintain control over the work that they actually create.

What you apparently do not like is that the Doomseer model is an expression largely based on an idea conceived of by Games Workshop. That is an undeniable fact. Now, is that idea very original? Is the Doomseer a creative twist on that idea? Neither of those questions really matter at all when you start talking about pretectable intellectual property.

I am not trying to strawman you. You brought up intellectual property rights, and that is what I am responding to. The point I am trying to make is that there are good reasons for why intellectual property laws have been designed in the way that they have. Copyright laws are intended to protect and encourage artistic expression.

Your opinions about this "intangible line" are fine, but I think everyone should give serious thought to what such opinions mean when you broaden your scope from the miniatures market to include all artists the world over. As soon as you start referencing intellectual property rights, your opinions begin to have a such a far reaching impact because such laws are applied to all artists, inventors, and indeed to the entire market. This is serious stuff.

If you want to say that you don't like the Doomseer model, and that you think 3rd party companies should be creating their own games, story lines, etc., that's perfectly fine. If you want to say that you wouldn't purchase the Doomseer model because it is a blatant ripoff of GW's Eldar and you don't think that is right, that's perfectly fine. But as soon as you start to argue that someone's intellectual property rights have been violated, you should expect to have a serious discussion, because you aren't talking about something confined to a discrete relationship between two individuals. You are talking about my rights, and your rights, and everyone else's rights. You are talking about an issue that has a serious, tangible impact on peoples lives and livelihoods. And you are talking about something that has potentially broad implications for the evolution of culture.

From another thread:

weeble1000 wrote:
. I am not an attorney, nor do I hold degrees in any field related to the study of law. The views that I have expressed are not legal opinions, nor should they be taken as legal counsel or advice of any kind. The views that I have expressed are merely the way I prefer to interpret the law to the extent that I am aware of it. I think I have a pretty good handle on a few things, but that is just what I personally think and these views carry no authority of any kind.

My views have been consistent throughout this thread, and I've not brought up, nor do I particularly care about the legal distinctions here. I don't care if there's no legal difference between the amount of difference between Giger and a Tyranid and those between the Chapterhouse doomseer and the GW farseers. To me, the doomseer is offensive, it's not different enough. Whereas the Mantic models are, and the Avatars of War models are, and the Ultraforge models are, and the tyranids are.

So, you go ahead and keep pretending to be an IP lawyer. I'll continue to shop with my conscience.

So, a select few think they are parasites, eh?

Are they upset by these 'Parasites' actions? It appears overwhelming not.

It seems irrational to myself that anoyone would be so strongly against 3rd party actions as to prevent them from buying one to fill a needed space in their army.

Redbeard wrote: To me, the doomseer is offensive, it's not different enough. Whereas the Mantic models are, and the Avatars of War models are, and the Ultraforge models are, and the tyranids are.

So, you go ahead and keep pretending to be an IP lawyer. I'll continue to shop with my conscience.

Your discernment of "enough" difference is a purely subjective thing and then you want to place yourself in a morally superior position based on that subjective assessment implying that the rest of us lack a conscience. I think the Ultraforge greater daemons are practically clones of the GW ones. As I recall, one of them was withdrawn from the market and reworked because it had the actual nurgle symbol on it.

So let's say we're playing a game and I put a Doomseer model on the table. What do you do? Do you say anything? Do you refuse the game? It is after all a matter of conscience....

Arschbombe wrote:Your discernment of "enough" difference is a purely subjective thing

Yes, yes it is.

and then you want to place yourself in a morally superior position based on that subjective assessment implying that the rest of us lack a conscience.

I have not implied anything, nor claimed to be morally superior. I have shared my position. If you feel guilt because of yours, that's on you.

So let's say we're playing a game and I put a Doomseer model on the table. What do you do? Do you say anything? Do you refuse the game? It is after all a matter of conscience....

It may be a surprise to some, but not all of us feel the need to push our own values on other people. I don't play with unpainted models, but I do play against people who don't share that value. It's not my job to police my opponent's choice of models.

Here we go again, CHS vs GW thread all over again.

In response to OP, that statement was laced with the ignorance of someone who lives in a cubicle. Out hobby is a big one, and if 3rd party manufacturers of parts or alternatives are parasites, then so too are each and every person who converts the original model in question, on account of the fact that they are not giving money to the company for the official model, and shortcuts are being made to make a passable copy. example? Creating say, a space marine captain, tech marine or hero or whatever can easily be done from a regular line marine and parts in your bitz box. Effectively, you will spend about $7 on a model which, from GW, could cost up to $20+ (CDN $$$). I mean, sure, you are a parasite because you are leaching GW by not buying the official model and converting it instead.

Out hobby is a centered on fun, either in play or in painting or in the building. Then there's the fact that with popularity of certain armies, I want something that looks visibly different, and I'm going to need to buy parts from third parties if I can't sculpt or lack imagination. Similariy, if I happen to think GW's guardsmen are ugly hideous disgusting things, and my FLGS has no problems with me fielding non-GW models, then I will go over to Defiance Games and buy their marines because I feel they look better. If GW feels ripped that I won't buy their models, they can blame third parties all they like; the fact is I hate their models because they look ugly, are overpriced, or don't match my aesthetic concept. Technically speaking FW is a third party manufacturer, approved by GW. It is NOT however GW, and each time someone buys a DKOK army, GW is technically losing out because its not the one closing the deal, so FW would technically be a parasite. Add all of that brass etch stuff and all the other custom parts....

EDIT:
The same thing goes for anyone who buys a 1/35 scale model or other scale, and uses parts there from or the entire model and brings it into 40k, replacing the weapons and adding icons to 40k-ify it. I can buy REALLY good quality tanks at $20, finish them with some plasticard, and slap on some autocannon and heavy bolter and stubbers from my bitz box, and voila, I have a rhino/chimera APC. Is Tamiya or Dragon Models now a parasite? Am I now a parasite? No, the comment in OP is simply an ignorant remark of someone who as yet does not know the concept of budgeting or the hobby at large.

Redbeard wrote:I have not implied anything, nor claimed to be morally superior.

Yes, you have. In this thread you have consistently come at the subject from a moralistic, not legal perspective. You've taken all the concrete legal discussion and tossed it aside saying, in effect, that you know wrong when you see it and that your conscience is a better barometer of what is right than the applicable law.

If you feel guilt because of yours, that's on you.

While I do have a Doomseer, I feel no guilt. I have 3 GW farseers.

It may be a surprise to some, but not all of us feel the need to push our own values on other people. I don't play with unpainted models, but I do play against people who don't share that value. It's not my job to police my opponent's choice of models.

Ok. But do unpainted models offend you? You've said repeatedly that the Doomseer offends you.

They have to still make a product that looks good. Also if GW wants to sit on their hands/ spend millions to sew these companies, rather than MAKE FETHING MODLES, more companies should make addons. It dosnet hurt GW sales any they dont fething make the fething thing in the first place, and you still have to buy the fething base modle to put the "parasite addon" onto in the first place.

Redbeard wrote:
My views have been consistent throughout this thread, and I've not brought up, nor do I particularly care about the legal distinctions here. I don't care if there's no legal difference between the amount of difference between Giger and a Tyranid and those between the Chapterhouse doomseer and the GW farseers. To me, the doomseer is offensive, it's not different enough. Whereas the Mantic models are, and the Avatars of War models are, and the Ultraforge models are, and the tyranids are.

So, you go ahead and keep pretending to be an IP lawyer. I'll continue to shop with my conscience.

I think you should shop with your conscience, which is essentially what I said in my previous response. Your opinions are all fine and well, but you brought up intellectual property rights. If you bring up the law, you should be prepared to discuss the law. And the takeaway from my response was that you can feel however you feel, and shop with your conscience however you like, but once you start to talk about intellectual property rights you step into a world quite beyond your own choices as a consumer.

Maybe you should care about the legal distinctions, because they affect you. I would also hope that by making an attempt to properly understand the legal distinctions, you would develop an appreciation for the purposes of such laws. You might find that your opinions about what is right or wrong in the world of artistic expression begin to change.

And I have never pretended to be an IP attorney. If you think my interpretation or understanding of the law is flawed, we can have a discussion about that. I think discussing these issues is a good thing. There's nothing wrong with trying to understand something better, especially when it is something that has a tangible impact on your life. I respect that you have essentially washed your hands of the topic, and I'll leave it alone going forward. But I heartily encourage you to take an interest in these issues.