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.
2017/09/19 22:13:59
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
But the question isn't "how close are these to GW's design" so much as "is a geometric clenched fist design in a circle unique enough for GW to claim ownership?" Colour isn't relevant as the product isn't supplied pre coloured and wouldn't hugely support a claim anyways.
If things went to court, I don't think that would hold up, as most evidence shows he's advertising things in GW color schemes in a clear attempt to draw a certain market.
Which doesn't support GW's claim that they own it any more strongly. If GW cannot claim ownership of "geometric fist in circle" then it goes no further.
Conceivably they could argue the "likely to confuse" angle, but that didn't work in the CHS case and I can't see anything different here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/19 22:14:37
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: But the question isn't "how close are these to GW's design" so much as "is a geometric clenched fist design in a circle unique enough for GW to claim ownership?" Colour isn't relevant as the product isn't supplied pre coloured and wouldn't hugely support a claim anyways.
True. I wonder if there's an (easily accessible) list of things GW have legally claimed ownership of? This is all I could find looking on their main site:
Imitations
Producing copies of Games Workshop’s creations is an infringement of copyright; this includes copying a significant part of our creations. Making models which copy heavily from Games Workshop’s artwork, descriptions or products is therefore an infringement. Is it instantly recognisable as one of Games Workshop’s unique characters, creatures or vehicles? If so, it has likely copied a significant part and is therefore an infringement. Just because we haven’t gotten around to making the model yet doesn’t mean you can.
Using Games Workshop trade marks to name or identify products that were not created by Games Workshop is an infringement of our trade marks. It is very misleading as it suggests something is a Games Workshop product when it is not. Please ensure you do not use Game Workshop’s trademarks in product titles, category headings, adverts etc.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/09/19 22:16:33
2017/09/19 22:15:57
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Edit
I'm not sure how legally sound that imitations thing is, I mean, I could say that anyone wearing the same colour t shirt as me today would get sued for imitation, doesn't mean I'd get anywhere if I tried a prosecution. Equally, something is only "Games Workshop's" if they've successfully proven they legally own a thing, that still would mean that needed to be determined, and some things are simply too generic to be owned by anyone.
Still, those librarians better watch out..
Spoiler:
They'd better fight the power on the down low for fear of attracting the wrath of GW legal too..
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/19 22:21:49
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Were I GW's legal team, I would show whatever information they have on the Fist's logo (Crimson, Imperial, whatever) as I would think it's covered under their "all associated logos, illustrations, images. . . and distinctive likenesses" clause.
Everyhwere else I've seen a geometric clenched fist, whether it's for civil rights movements or other stuff, looks absolutely nothing like the armored fist that GW has drawn for years.
2017/09/20 05:00:38
Subject: Re:Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Which doesn't support GW's claim that they own it any more strongly. If GW cannot claim ownership of "geometric fist in circle" then it goes no further.
Conceivably they could argue the "likely to confuse" angle, but that didn't work in the CHS case and I can't see anything different here.
Is GW claiming ownership of the "Fist in a circle" symbol in this instance?
I thought POp's stuff was being removed without explantion, is there confirmation that GW is behind this?
2017/09/20 06:39:49
Subject: Re:Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Stormonu wrote: Well, then I suppose House Steiner of Mechwarrior is screwed....
Pepsi's circle with a swooshy thing in the middle of it, in red, white and blue is clearly theirs. . . . What you posted looks quite different from GW's particular design. What I'm getting at, is that GW may have copyrighted the specific designs (and, as pointed out earlier ITT, the Pop ones look almost identical to the Forge World heresy era transfers) that are being used by this third party.
2017/09/20 15:06:50
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Is it just the shoulder pads with icons that are being targeted? Or are the stand-alone icons also being removed?
As I see it, the shoulder pads with icons are likely infringing as they are clearly recognizable as Space Marine shoulder pads that GW already makes, even if the shape of the icon is slightly different. Stand-alone icons are likely not infringing even if they're shaped to fit a Space Marine shoulder pad as they are generic enough to be distinct from 40k as an intellectual property.
2017/09/20 15:18:24
Subject: Re:Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Which doesn't support GW's claim that they own it any more strongly. If GW cannot claim ownership of "geometric fist in circle" then it goes no further.
Conceivably they could argue the "likely to confuse" angle, but that didn't work in the CHS case and I can't see anything different here.
Is GW claiming ownership of the "Fist in a circle" symbol in this instance?
I thought POp's stuff was being removed without explantion, is there confirmation that GW is behind this?
Why ask me? I'd suggest taking that up with the OP, but I'd suggest it's fairly obvious that the whole discussion is taking place on the assumption that it is GW.
But I'm pretty sure you're only in a position to petition for removal of infringing items anywhere if you own the design in question, or in GW's case claim you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Is it just the shoulder pads with icons that are being targeted? Or are the stand-alone icons also being removed?
As I see it, the shoulder pads with icons are likely infringing as they are clearly recognizable as Space Marine shoulder pads that GW already makes, even if the shape of the icon is slightly different. Stand-alone icons are likely not infringing even if they're shaped to fit a Space Marine shoulder pad as they are generic enough to be distinct from 40k as an intellectual property.
IIRCGW tried this during CHS, and it was deemed too simple a shape to be protectable, and making compatible parts for an existing kit wasn't an infringement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/20 15:31:49
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Why ask me? I'd suggest taking that up with the OP, but I'd suggest it's fairly obvious that the whole discussion is taking place on the assumption that it is GW.
The OP does not claim GW is behind the removal, but your post that I quoted does.
I was asking for clarification, as it has not been obvious to me up until now that GW is behind this, or that the discussion was taking place with that assumption in mind.
Up until now I think the anecdote provided by MeanGreenStompa is a better fit to the situation than another Chapterhouse case, but there is not enough information on the dilemma for me to be sure.
2017/09/20 18:25:32
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
It still remains that it seems highly unlikely that someone can petition for something to be taken down on behalf of another party, if it was indeed a third party that originated the complaint, it seems logical that complaint should be made to GW, who would then be the ones to act on it.
If anyone can get something taken down, irrespective of their ownership of the IP, that strikes me as a reallly shaky foundation for the system.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: It still remains that it seems highly unlikely that someone can petition for something to be taken down on behalf of another party, if it was indeed a third party that originated the complaint, it seems logical that complaint should be made to GW, who would then be the ones to act on it.
If anyone can get something taken down, irrespective of their ownership of the IP, that strikes me as a reallly shaky foundation for the system.
well if its good enough for the Youtubes...
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
2017/09/20 18:49:43
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Maybe, although their copyright infringement is at least partly automated, the reasons given for a user reporting a video don't include "copyright infringement." They do provide an "infringes my rights" option, but I believe that's intended for civil or human, rather than copy, and still contains the operative word "my."
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The OP does not claim GW is behind the removal, but your post that I quoted does.
I was asking for clarification, as it has not been obvious to me up until now that GW is behind this, or that the discussion was taking place with that assumption in mind.
I sent a message to Pop Goes The Monkey on Facebook and he confirmed that it is GW behind the takedown effort and not another party.
2017/09/21 15:46:04
Subject: Re:Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
I honestly think producing shoulders for the likes of the BA, DA, SW, AL etc is pretty openly pissing on GW's chips and a fair target, if it was GW.
The other stuff, providing niche, like the Owl pattern shoulders for Mentor Legion (which I'm intending to pick up in large numbers myself), is providing a great service to the hobby community and I am hopeful that sort of thing won't be taken down, the fact it's not been a full takedown or a carpet bombing cease and desist means perhaps that if it is GW, they're only concerning themselves with taking away his obvious direct competition stuff, rather than his complimentary stuff and leaving him to continue to do business rather than nuke him from orbit as they used to.
2017/09/21 23:31:36
Subject: Re:Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I honestly think producing shoulders for the likes of the BA, DA, SW, AL etc is pretty openly pissing on GW's chips and a fair target, if it was GW.
The other stuff, providing niche, like the Owl pattern shoulders for Mentor Legion (which I'm intending to pick up in large numbers myself), is providing a great service to the hobby community and I am hopeful that sort of thing won't be taken down, the fact it's not been a full takedown or a carpet bombing cease and desist means perhaps that if it is GW, they're only concerning themselves with taking away his obvious direct competition stuff, rather than his complimentary stuff and leaving him to continue to do business rather than nuke him from orbit as they used to.
I think the stuff that's much, much more generic (Like the raptor heads that he calls "Mentors") is safer than things like the clearly-Alpha-Legion stuff. Of course, the Carcharodon icon is an interesting one, as no-one owns sharks or the rights to make them rampant.
Spoiler:
Of course, naming them "Carcharodon", while technically correct, he might have been better served calling them "Shark Rampant" and showing them as a white design on, say, red. While I know colour doesn't technically matter, if it were to go to a jury trial, then making them appear even slightly more different on his webstore couldn't hurt.
Which is utterly irrelevant if the design is deemed unprotectable.
You cannot infringe a copyright that isn't held.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Which is utterly irrelevant if the design is deemed unprotectable.
You cannot infringe a copyright that isn't held.
I guess, I'm not versed in UK IP law (or any at all). It's still going to raise an eyebrow if you do the exact same thing and market it as the same thing, though.
2017/09/22 00:07:29
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Some things are so generic that they will never be copyrightable, something like the Fists clenched fist may have some technical details that mark it as it's own thing, but the concept that it derives from is in use in a multitude of different ways.
GW is reaping what they've sown somewhat, you're familiar, I assume, with Moorcock's Chaos star?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I doubt that Pop Goes the Monkey will find Pro Bono representation in the same way that Chapterhouse did, but if it happened I could see much the same thing happening where some items were found in GW's favour (Khorne Runes for example) while they'd be smacked down on others like the Fist, Shark, etc while bleeding a ton more money from GW on yet another bunch of uncopyrightable, unenforcable generic concepts.
I can't remember the exact fallout from the Chapterhouse case. Was there ever a definitive list presented of things that GW claimed to own and lost? I know people keep bringing up arrows, roman numerals and halberds and so forth as examples, but a list would be very interesting to see. PGTM's 8-pointed star is still available, for example.
I looked, but there was nothing I could find without investing hours of my time. It's there somewhere I'm sure, but buried within a variety of pre and post trial documents dozens of pages long.
Remember a huge number of the items were dismissed as unenforceable before they ever reached trial, those that made it that far were the ones more contested, and CHS still won most of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's an initial list of what appears to be everything GW claimed at least..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 02:49:19
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to rush out and find it, but it feels like there would be at least a couple of regulars here on Dakka who would have taken note.
Still, that's quite the interesting list that you did find...
The OP does not claim GW is behind the removal, but your post that I quoted does.
I was asking for clarification, as it has not been obvious to me up until now that GW is behind this, or that the discussion was taking place with that assumption in mind.
I sent a message to Pop Goes The Monkey on Facebook and he confirmed that it is GW behind the takedown effort and not another party.
Ah okay, I hope they don't start getting carried away again.
A Fist icon by itself should not be copyrightable IMO, but copyright law is also quite ridiculous at times.
If POP had used a different colour scheme with his Fist icon I would not have even thought of the Space Marine Chapter, but with the yellow and white colouring I could only think of them.
2017/09/22 10:19:32
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
Azazelx wrote: Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to rush out and find it, but it feels like there would be at least a couple of regulars here on Dakka who would have taken note.
Still, that's quite the interesting list that you did find...
Ha! No, I'd already poked around prior to your post, I didn't mean I'd gone to look for it especially. Although that list of initial claims I did find because your post promoted me to have another look.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/22 16:43:46
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I'm surprised nobody made an actual list of claims that Chapterhouse won, GW won, and those that were withdrawn. I'm talking a list of claims, not simply a list of item numbers.
2017/09/22 18:19:05
Subject: Shapeways cracks down on 'POP Goes the MONKEY'
