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.

MagickalMemories wrote:
First... You've got to be kidding me?
That skull doesn't even LOOK the same. It's readily apparent around the eyes.
Not even GW would have the nerve to claim that they own the skull design, in general, so that point holds no water.

Just to add to the "skull debate" there is also no way to compare scale. We have to images inserted into photoshop and compared without any in image proof of scale; one skull could very well be double the size of the other. It really makes this skull comparison pointless.

MagickalMemories wrote:
As for some parts being, "kit bashes using GW pieces, then cast and sold as original pieces" goes, you're completely wrong there, as well.

**IF MEMORY SERVES** some of CH's INITIAL pieces were sclupts put right onto GW stuff, then casted and sold. I believe the legality of that became questionable, and then they stopped dong it entirely. They created their own blanks, sized to fit GW pieces, and began sculpting right onto them.
I could be misremembering the "initial pieces" bit, but they *do* work from their own blanks, now.

That was only there very first products that were removed and redone on the digitally made and printed blanks. That was done on advice of their lawyer. While you can argue the proportionality of that part relative to the whole model, opening it up to a reasonable use, its shakier ground to stand on.

Polonius wrote:Does anybody think that CHS sells products because of how they lable them? I mean, do we think that if they refrained from using the trademarks, they'd sell appreciably less? I'm interested in hearing opinions here. I think it's a good question to ask about the ethics of the situation. In other words: outside of simply not being right, did CHS actually hurt GW in any way?

Using certain words like tervigon to sell their conversion kit undoubtedly helped chapterhouse. If helped to guide a single person using a search engine with the word Tervigon to find that kit, it helped them. Did this lead to sales or did it just clarify what the kit was intended for? It undoubtedly helped CH, how much or how little is WAY up for debate. Did it hurt GW sales? I don't know, personally I doubt it, but since I work for neither I could be wrong. Would it hurt future sales for an upcoming tervigon release? Maybe? But again,I don't know.

Proving they lost sales might be kinda tricky, unless there was some loss of sales on shoulderpad bits for GW over time and a corresponding rise in sales for CH in the same time period it'll be murky at best. Even then...

MagickalMemories wrote:
...CH because of CH's use of trademarked terms, essentially...

If the court determines that CH has done enough to differentiate itself and its relationship with GW, this is more than legal, its common practice. Its no different than saying "compatible with Windows." Is it a rational or morally based decision to choose not to use a program made by Microsoft that says "compatible with Windows?" Someone can argue quality issues or cost issues or material issues, but a negative connotation that you're speaking of is a pure fiction that is drummed up by companies that want unfettered control of their consumer's choices.

@aka...
I get it. I was simply illustrating points for those that didn't.
I'm firmly in the "pro-CH" camp on this one. While I think some of their product names *might have* skirted or crossed the line, I believe that the vast majority of GW's complaints are little more than scare tactics and fluff to make their complaint seem more legitimate.

Also, I wasn't stating that LLM thought it was illegal. Just that he was opposed to it. Regardless of MY opinions on things, he's obviously welcome to dislike ANYTHING legal for whatever his reasons are.

Eric

aka_mythos wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
...CH because of CH's use of trademarked terms, essentially...

If the court determines that CH has done enough to differentiate itself and its relationship with GW, this is more than legal, its common practice. Its no different than saying "compatible with Windows." Is it a rational or morally based decision to choose not to use a program made by Microsoft that says "compatible with Windows?" Someone can argue quality issues or cost issues or material issues, but a negative connotation that you're speaking of is a pure fiction that is drummed up by companies that want unfettered control of their consumer's choices.

there is a difference between "compatable with windows" and "windows software"

just like there is a difference between "bits for warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" and "bits compatable with Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" and even then GW will want clarification that CH is not an official site.

That clarification has been on there every time I can recall looking at the Chapterhouse Studios website, Gibbsey.

Putting on my armchair lawyer cap. How would chapter house's shoulder pads fall under being a derivative work?

They are making product based on another product's existence. That is a clear cut case of copyright infringement.

poontangler wrote:They are making product based on another product's existence. That is a clear cut case of copyright infringement.

As has been pointed out a number of times in this thread, that isn't true. As counter-examples, see any software designed to run on Windows, after-market pieces/kits for cars (not tyres!), etc.

Whether copyright infringement has taken place is a matter for a court/judge to decide.

I guess my thought was yes its derivative but they have changed enough of the original to be be non infringing. hey its a shoulder pad GW makes shoulder pads we added our our icons to it.

poontangler wrote:That is a clear cut case of copyright infringement.

Please, don't make such concrete, blanket statements as if they're facts, unless you have the legal knowledge, ability, experience and authority to do so.
The quoted statement, with just a little rewording, would make a valid opinion. As a statement of fact, however, it's glaringly wrong and can only serve to run the thread off course.

Eric

Don't sweat it too much MM, you will bust a gasket if you try and stop people from making absolutist factual comments based on their opinions in this particular forum room... It's like trying to use your fingers to plug up a leaky damn in cartoons lol.

I remember when they posted the greens for those doors, and trust me all of the skulls were sculpted greens.

Looks sculpted to me...

I'm not sure why this mini-debate is necessary but something being in greenstuff doesn't necessarily mean that it was sculpted from scratch in greenstuff.

Also, why do people keep telling other people that they need to declare that everything they write here is their opinion? Your posting on a forum on the web, I think that's implied. No-ones going to hold up this exciting little exchange as a legal document.

It is a pity.

Also, that skull comparison is utterly hilareous.

Skull comparison is pushing it...

this is relevant to what you can and cannot do (Lawyer's view on IP):
http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2010/01/08/32643

Sorry if my post is a bit weird, but when I was on your website I noticed this door and this skull jumped out at me as "oh thats from the berserker sprue" anyone can agree or disagree but I went into my bits box and grabbed the skull took a quick pic of it and I feel that when you look at them they are identical (again agree or not your choice) the reason the shapes look slightly out of wack is because the angle of the skull in my poic is slighly different then in the door.

Geezus H Christ on a fking pogo stick!
Take of your tin foil hat for crying out.

@CHS guys
To be honest I think this could go on for months and whilst it may be nice to follow what people are saying it must only be winding you guys up something rotten when you're almost certainly already stressed and annoyed. It's not exactly like the court of public opinion here are actually important when there are much bigger issues to be concerned with.

I seriously doubt anything of note will happen in this thread (or on warseer), so imo you should just take a break from reading/posting. At least for a week or two. Mostly it's the same arguments going over and over anyway so you won't be missing much.

There are plenty of other threads here to have fun looking at.

Pyriel- wrote:
Geezus H Christ on a fking pogo stick!
Take of your tin foil hat for crying out.

Sorry but I like my hat.

and thank you Afrikan Blonde.

my final picture trying to show some scale, because I am not sure you guys know but I happen to own a couple of rhinos that have doors, so I just stuck on the skull with some ticky tack and photoed it. whatever people think but I am obviously think that there is something to be seen:



Cheers

plastictrees wrote:Also, why do people keep telling other people that they need to declare that everything they write here is their opinion?

It is a polite reaction whenever someone with no clue about the topic presents utter as fact, even when it has been proven wrong several times in the thread.

BTW: The expressions "parasite" and "IP infringer" in this thread have the same meaning as "communist" (mostly used in USA) or "nazi" (mostly used in Europe) in "Tau are TH3 3VULZZ" threads: They are just an expression of personal utter hate and have nothing to do with the original meaning of the word.

@Hashshashin: Instead of proving with your photos that the CH skull is indeed greenstuffed, you should ask yourself, why 2mm greenstuff skulls done with the usual sculpting tools might look similar.

The eyes and nose still look a bit different to me. For what it's worth the top of the right eyesocket is more rounded across the eyebrow whereas the GW one has a straight eyebrow. But the details are so small, and a skull is a skull.

I mean what's the suggestion here, that they've put a plastic GW skull in and painted it green?

Gibbsey wrote:Skull comparison is pushing it...

this is relevant to what you can and cannot do (Lawyer's view on IP):
http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2010/01/08/32643

Very interesting,

Now, to answer the question: “Derivative” is part of a legal term of art used in copyright law. See 17 U.S.C sec. 101 (“A “derivative work” is a work based on one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, consensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.) However, The creator of a derivative work owns the copyright to the derivative work. owner of a copyright in the original work from which the derivative was created still owns that copyright, and has the right to stop infringement of that right, including the creation of derivative works. Examples of gaming-related derivative works include: a fan-created space marine chapter, a Darth Vader character card for Heroscape, or a terrain piece made using bits from Games Workshop model kits.

cyrax777 wrote:Putting on my armchair lawyer cap. How would chapter house's shoulder pads fall under being a derivative work?

Almost all of what GW is suing under is Trademark law and not Copyright. Derivative works is more an issue of the latter. Though GW could always change its mind later, the derivative nature of works is not really a part of this legal action.

The problem that GW has is that just because marines have shoulder pads and CH makes shoulder pads for marines, doesn't make it derivative. Just because something has a similar aesthetic or commonality of geometry, doesn't make it derivative. The description of its compatibility and intended use with something trademark, does not make it derivative. First is the fact that something basic like the concept of a shoulder pad isn't protected. So GW would generally be forced to look at the entirety of their design and not an individual part. The shoulder pad is at best a small proportion of something else. Next GW might try looking at the exact design of the icons, but given the scaled models general restrictiveness and the generic nature of some of GW iconographical designs and CH designs, it would be hard for a court to say GW has exclusive use. From CH's perspective CH has designed new shoulder pads compatible with marines. Can a person determine the rest of a marine from a single shoulder pad? Not really. They were designed with fitting GW's miniatures but that does not necessarily make them derived. If CH ever makes a full marine model, without significant alterations to the look, then there might be a real issue.

@ Hashshashin:
Made in us Now you're just trying to force it to fit, it's a skull, lots of skulls look the same

Kroothawk wrote:

plastictrees wrote:Also, why do people keep telling other people that they need to declare that everything they write here is their opinion?

It is a polite reaction whenever someone with no clue about the topic presents utter as fact, even when it has been proven wrong several times in the thread.

+ a fekking billion

If people say, 'I personally don't like CH, I think what they are doing is illegal or should be' for example, instead of 'CH are acting illegally, and they are parasites by any measure, and anyone who thinks otherwise is absurd', then this thread would be about 20 pages shorter. One does not generally immediately cause a giant argument, because the poster is just giving their take on it and doesn't come off as either arrogant or trying to force their view on others and belittle people who feel differently. The second is telling everyone that this is the only way to see it, if you don't you're an idiot.

You honestly can't see how one would spawn 15 responses of aggressive rebuttal and one might simply pass without too much comment?

This isn't even taking to account whether a #2 (no pun intended) style post was even anywhere near anything even resembling a backed up or proved fact or not. I for one am getting really sick and tired of a core group of posters derailing nearly every single thread by not only posting #2, but then chasing after anyone like a hyperactive terrier who posts otherwise throughout the entire rest of a thread, whether they respond directly or even not acknowledge the aggressor.

I am very guilty of not being able to resist arguing with absolutists. I don't know why, but I always hope that it will end with both parties reaching a consensus of some kind, not on the opinion, but at least how not to be offensive. It rarely happens... Should probably just keep my trap shut lol.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The eyes and nose still look a bit different to me. For what it's worth the top of the right eyesocket is more rounded across the eyebrow whereas the GW one has a straight eyebrow. But the details are so small, and a skull is a skull.

I mean what's the suggestion here, that they've put a plastic GW skull in and painted it green?

Well, no, they would just have re-cast the plastic skull in greenstuff, which is easy to do. What strikes me the most, beyond dubious comparison shots, is that the skulls sculpted here are dramatically crisper and generally better sculpted than the bulk of CH's product. They've had several pieces done out of house as far as I'm aware though so that could be the reason for that.

Again though, I'm not really sure what this particular tangent is in aid of.

Its a 3mm wide skull.., based on a human skull. If they didnt look almost identical, the sculptors would be idiots.

Hashshashin wrote:

here's a little photoshop action, I layered them ontop of one another and and increased the opacity, I think its pretty telling.

at 20-30% they really are identical, especially when you can slide the slider back and forth smoothly, but warboss is free to disagree.

So out of twelve skulls...one seems to bear a resemblence to another skull? Which is no more than an 8% overall similarity.

Now compare that to other skulls on other pieces from other companies (at least a dozen different pieces) and determine the % of similarity...

If most of them are less than 8% - than you have a case.

yes I agree that many skulls do appear to be similar, but anyone who plays 40k should know that saying all 28mm skulls are the same as saying that all 28mm heads in power armour are the same, or that a scout head looks like a marine head, but obviously you wouldn't buy replacement pieces from third party companies if they were indeed all the same. it is really easy to make a press molds out of GS and everytime I have done this for personal use the resultant output is always a tiny bit deformed due to how GS acts when removed from a 1-piece mold. Those pics I made literally took only a couple of minutes and maybe show nothing, but the fact the for the most part the two peices share so many qualities I find to be nearly identical including the actual size (which if anyone owns a Berserker squad can attest to the fact that this particular bit is a bit big and weird, hence why it jumped out at me, I quit using this skull bit because it's too big and fugly)

again I was just trying to show what I think is pretty clear, and obviously people can disagree. Ultimately I like companies like CH but I think(based solely on my opinion) that some of their peices have components that (to me) appear to be from GW kits and to me that is out of line to sell those types of kits.

Just my feelings and I am clearly am interested in the outcome of this case and thread.

Cheers