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.

So, rather than claim rights to roman numerals and arrows/ chevrons as others have stated, GW are actually claiming the use of a tactical symbol with roman numerals is theirs. Is that a more realistic claim. The use of everyday items in certain combinations does make a unique item that can be copyrighted or trademarked?


The following quote did raise my eyebrow::
"The Imperial Jet Bike is a direct copy from a picture in The Horus Heresy Collected Visions (which the designer acknowledged he had in hand when creating the design thus saving Chapterhous the trouble of sending copies as offered)"

That kind of makes it hard to complain that you are creating original works. I am not a Chapterhouse basher. I use third party companies (Victoria Lamb, Col Gravis) but there has to be a line somewhere. Remember Chapterhouse closed down another designer who released a jet pack similar to the one he had designed for Chapterhouse.

edited to include a jetpack that was gain inspired by the OOP Rogue Trader original.

The original GW image being referenced:


And Kromlech's version:


None of these look similar, let alone a "direct copy".

I'm quite sure CHS's lawyers have those first three pics ready and waiting for that part of GW's claim to be brought up.

Inspired by the GW design? Sure. Infringing on it? Not at all. The designs share pretty much 3 things: the intake looking like a train skirt(note that the architecture of CHS ones are indeed quite different though), the position of the rider(which GW can't claim unless they invented motorcycles) and having thrusters in the back(pretty sure GW didn't invent that either). Is GW going to start suing tank companies for using tracks?

I don't know why CHS shut down that designer, but they might have been within their rights to do so under a contractual agreement that the designer is not permitted to do other work simultaneously, as it would frame a conflict of interest.... without clear detailed information about that case, it's not entirely clear that it relates here, so beyond that, i will treat it as irrelevant.

As for the picture-to-model.... well. That's inspiration. Both are works of art, the difference is one is a painting, of which the jet bike is an element, while the sculpture is something inspired by one element in the painting. Me not knowing exactly, I guarantee I could poke through it and point out differences establishing that it is not in fact a direct copy. Take for instance, muses. You can get some pretty pricey paintings based around muses, and while they capture the object, it is not in fact the object. It is an artistic expression of the object. Then there's that whole other bit where one is a painting, and the other a toy, and that's why we have the whole Luscasfilm thing being used as caselaw.

GW would also have to prove that the parts of the bike not visible in the painting were copied by CHS. This, of course, cannot be proved, and gives CHS run of the mill.

Granted though, it is 01:42 AM and I'm probably off of my rocker

EDIT:

Thank you Aerathan for posting that.

The only resemblance in those bikes is the vaguest suggestion of shape. Vague suggestions are not evidence. You make mention of "jet bike" and the design that springs to the average persons' mind is something similar to what you see above. Maybe it's more like something from stawars' storm trooper bikes or Darth mauls' bike:

But on average, people get the image of 1.) a jet, and 2.) a bike.... so.... a jet engine with a seat and some form of steering mechanism. I see 3 completely different models projected from the same idea. Replace "Jet" with "Hover" and your form will start to differ completely. In this case, it would be much harder to argue against similarities between two hover-bike models, because the creative options are more robust here.

None of these look similar, let alone a "direct copy".

I'm quite sure CHS's lawyers have those first three pics ready and waiting for that part of GW's claim to be brought up.

Inspired by the GW design? Sure. Infringing on it? Not at all. The designs share pretty much 3 things: the intake looking like a train skirt(note that the architecture of CHS ones are indeed quite different though), the position of the rider(which GW can't claim unless they invented motorcycles) and having thrusters in the back(pretty sure GW didn't invent that either). Is GW going to start suing tank companies for using tracks?


Which is why I await the professional legal judgement. I may not agree with it but that will be opinion not law based. I just feel that these individuals could have come up with something more unique if Collected Visions had not been involved at all. Without that inspiration, they could have come up with something far better.

alphaecho wrote:
Which is why I await the professional legal judgement. I may not agree with it but that will be opinion not law based. I just feel that these individuals could have come up with something more unique if Collected Visions had not been involved at all. Without that inspiration, they could have come up with something far better.

Do you know how extremely difficult it is to create something with no inspiration?

I defy anyone here to create something that is truly original that took no inspiration from something already in existence.

Light bulbs? Inspired by candles. Candles? Inspired by oil lamps. Oil lamps? inspired by ANY fire. Who invented fire?

EVERY advance in human history is because of inspiration. If we were not inspired to create, we'd be living in caves with no fire.

You think GW has a single model that wasn't inspired by something GW didn't create?

They can't win with that jetbike thing, it only resembles the artwork. If they were to win on that, it's effectively saying that no one can make anything that looks even a bit like something GW has ever made or drawn, even just single pictures in their more specialised publications.

I know. Astorath vs Gary Oldman's Dracula armour...and they both crave blood! And if Coppola went after GW, I'd feel he had a point even if legally he did not.

For all I know, the jet bike designer may have thrown away Collected Visions and finally been inspired by a cloud or interesting rock formation.

Which again, is why I'm interested in where the legal eagles decide where the line in the sand is even if I end up not agreeing with it.

I'm so glad of the history lesson on why we have light bulbs though.

The light bulb analogy is different than this of course, as there was a NEED for lighting that didn't set everything on fire. There isn't ever a NEED for luxury hobby items, though there are certainly demands for them.

I wish 100% that I could be in the court room during the trial(if it gets there) if for no other reason than to see how the case is presented by each side to the jury, who are most likely unaware of what tabletop games are, let alone 40k.

Presentation to the jury is the important thing.

Collected Vision art plus Space Marine bike model (especially focussing on fuel tank) against Chapterhouse model could lead to a jury member going "Rip off!"...or not! Resemblance or similarity could lead to a stronger impression than any amount of legalese.

Some hilarious posts here -- thanks for sifting through the trial accounts and finding all those "I work at GW and I like to shoot the company in the foot" quotes, Kroothawk!

alphaecho wrote:The following quote did raise my eyebrow::
"The Imperial Jet Bike is a direct copy from a picture in The Horus Heresy Collected Visions (which the designer acknowledged he had in hand when creating the design thus saving Chapterhous the trouble of sending copies as offered)"

That kind of makes it hard to complain that you are creating original works. I am not a Chapterhouse basher. I use third party companies (Victoria Lamb, Col Gravis) but there has to be a line somewhere.

As was discussed much earlier in this thread, it is EXTREMELY hard to demonstrate copyright infringement when changing mediums - e.g., a copyright on a painting offers essentially no protection against a sculpture.

Remember Chapterhouse closed down another designer who released a jet pack similar to the one he had designed for Chapterhouse.

Different scenario. There, the original designer created a "work for hire" with CH, then took that same work, added some more detail, and tried selling it to a different designer.

I love how everyone is a legal scholar to best defend either CH, or GW.

If most of us were in a court room involving this case, we'd be bored to absolute tears over the minutia of details that is usually found in court room proceedings, and probably have no idea how what's going on.

Well, a couple of posters here are actually legal scholars...

alphaecho wrote:Presentation to the jury is the important thing.

I really doubt that this case will ever make it to a jury. Judge will be looking at all of the stuff recently presented and will be taking a long look at the CH MSJ. I suspect he will be trimming the list of copyright claims considerably.

The GW case is crumbling. GW just dropped the copyright claims on 32 items and can't show ownership of 12 more, Most or all of the shoulder pad claims were destroyed as common shapes or combinations of common shapes which are not copyrightable, no copyright protection going from 2D image to 3D sculpture, "C. GW’s Miniature Figures Are Unprotectable Under Governing Law. GW alleges infringement of many miniature toy soldiers, model vehicles, and assorted toy accessories. (SUF 40.) But UK copyright does not extend protection to such “mass produced. . . toys", and more...

Tim

d-usa wrote:Well, a couple of posters here are actually legal scholars...

If by couple you mean two, yeah, maybe. But this thread is 80+ pages...

Just saying...

MisterMoon wrote:

d-usa wrote:Well, a couple of posters here are actually legal scholars...

If by couple you mean two, yeah, maybe. But this thread is 80+ pages...

.

When it comes to posts this is like the Pokemon of threads.

"You gotta read them all."

alphaecho wrote:Presentation to the jury is the important thing.

Collected Vision art plus Space Marine bike model (especially focussing on fuel tank) against Chapterhouse model could lead to a jury member going "Rip off!"...or not! Resemblance or similarity could lead to a stronger impression than any amount of legalese.

It is very unlikely that this case will ever make it to a jury trial. The pre-trial procedure in civil cases is intentionally designed to keep cases out of the courtroom. Trials are expensive and can be very long and logistically challenging. Over 90% of civil actions never see court. Most are settled either privately by the parties, dismissed for lack of sufficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (which is what this is), thrown out by summary judgment post-discovery, or dealt with in court ordered mediation.

(2nd year law student)

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

alphaecho wrote:Presentation to the jury is the important thing.

Collected Vision art plus Space Marine bike model (especially focussing on fuel tank) against Chapterhouse model could lead to a jury member going "Rip off!"...or not! Resemblance or similarity could lead to a stronger impression than any amount of legalese.

It is very unlikely that this case will ever make it to a jury trial. The pre-trial procedure in civil cases is intentionally designed to keep cases out of the courtroom. Trials are expensive and can be very long and logistically challenging. Over 90% of civil actions never see court. Most are settled either privately by the parties, dismissed for lack of sufficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (which is what this is), thrown out by summary judgment post-discovery, or dealt with in court ordered mediation.

(2nd year law student)

Corporations sue on patent or CW infringement, because they think they have a case, and chose not to, when they don't. More times than not, pre-trial procedures either convince the other party that they do have a case, and they settle, or convince the plaintiff that they don't have a case, and it's no longer sought.

This is a simplistic version of things, and there are usually multiple aspects of any civil litigation (which to the most of us would be boring and highly detailed). There are some areas where one side has a case, the other has a case, and eventually they discover they are better off with some kind of deal.

MisterMoon wrote:

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

alphaecho wrote:Presentation to the jury is the important thing.

Collected Vision art plus Space Marine bike model (especially focussing on fuel tank) against Chapterhouse model could lead to a jury member going "Rip off!"...or not! Resemblance or similarity could lead to a stronger impression than any amount of legalese.

It is very unlikely that this case will ever make it to a jury trial. The pre-trial procedure in civil cases is intentionally designed to keep cases out of the courtroom. Trials are expensive and can be very long and logistically challenging. Over 90% of civil actions never see court. Most are settled either privately by the parties, dismissed for lack of sufficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) (which is what this is), thrown out by summary judgment post-discovery, or dealt with in court ordered mediation.

(2nd year law student)

Corporations sue on patent or CW infringement, because they think they have a case, and chose not to, when they don't. More times than not, pre-trial procedures either convince the other party that they do have a case, and they settle, or convince the plaintiff that they don't have a case, and it's no longer sought.

This is a simplistic version of things, and there are usually multiple aspects of any civil litigation (which to the most of us would be boring and highly detailed). There are some areas where one side has a case, the other has a case, and eventually they discover they are better off with some kind of deal.

Are you a lawyer, law student, court bailiff or some such as well?

Just curious!

I think this shows GW has never taken this as seriously as the court system generally expects. I think this will go to trial because I think GW is stubborn enough to believe its paper thin delusion. To put this in perspective much of whats played out in these documents are things that normally expected to occur internally at GW prior to a company even filing a suit with the court.

Howard A Treesong wrote:They can't win with that jetbike thing, it only resembles the artwork. If they were to win on that, it's effectively saying that no one can make anything that looks even a bit like something GW has ever made or drawn, even just single pictures in their more specialised publications.

If that happens then I would hope that someone could convince James Cameron to sue them for copying the Colonial Marines from Aliens for the Cadian Imperial Guard and also for copying Terminator for the Necrons.

Why does that GW picture make me think of JUDGE DREAD

no, it's the original Arbites sculpts that remind you of Dredd!

Is stealing from thieves still stealing?

On a more serious note, I did enjoy reading through some of the court documents the other day, I learned a little more about how the lawyers are operating.

... Why doesn't chapterhouses lawyers just point out the Mattel cannot stop other manufacturers making "giant robots which change into vehicles". Or perhaps lucasarts should wade in claining the sentinel is a direct copy of the scout walker ><

More I read the more and more ridiculous this is sounding. I really hope chapter house wins, in fact wins so hard GW could be described as being curb stomped, opening up similar models suddenly hitting the market and a price that reminds GW of what they SHOULD be charging these days.

I ranted when I promised myself I wouldn't, I feel ashamed :(

LavuranGuard wrote:On a more serious note, I did enjoy reading through some of the court documents the other day, I learned a little more about how the lawyers are operating.

What I found surprising is how unprofessional some people seemed, the lawyers and those giving evidence.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

LavuranGuard wrote:On a more serious note, I did enjoy reading through some of the court documents the other day, I learned a little more about how the lawyers are operating.

What I found surprising is how unprofessional some people seemed, the lawyers and those giving evidence.

After reading the CH lawyers' document requests, deposition topics list and some of the depositions, here is my theory on the tactics used:
1. Snow the plaintiffs with lots and lots of document requests and deposition topics.
2. ...so that the GW lawyers deny the document requests and produce no documents for the document requests and pretty much ignore the many, many deposition topics.
3. Hidden within all of the document requests and deposition topics were a few documents and topics that might actually help GW's case; sales figures for specific infringed pieces for example.
4. When GW does not provide the documents and ignores the deposition topics CH lawyers slam the door with the amazing amount of information that GW does not know about their own business. The MSJ is basically a list of failures on GWs (and their lawyers) parts for not providing necessary information to support their complaint. I could make a list, but it would be a long one... Reading the CH MSJ would be easier.

Tim

LavuranGuard wrote:
Is stealing from thieves still stealing?

In the case of copyrights - not always. One of the ways you can defend yourself is to say, yes - we did copy some stuff from GW...but it wasn't their's to begin with. Depending on how they decided to go forward, it might be in the form of an Equitable Defense proving that GW had unclean hands. There are a few other paths which are in broad terms the same end result as well.

LavuranGuard wrote:

Is stealing from thieves still stealing?

If you are OJ Simpson, yes.

If it's copyright? Not likely.

You can't report theft of something you don't own. Because then people start asking you to prove ownership, whether it be police, insurance adjusters, or lawyers.

Anyone here could start selling chaos star products without fear of retribution from GW(You might need to ask Michael Moorcock though). At best, GW has a license to it's use. They don't own it.

and therein lies the problem with GW in this case. They can't prove ANY ownership of 12 items still in the case. That very well may jeopardize the whole case. One has to wonder at the line of thought that the GW board has on this debacle. If I was in charge of GW and this happened, I'd try to make it go away as quietly as possible. It's already been bad PR, and if they lose it will be a PR nightmare.

The amount of money GW stands to lose here as a result of losing the case is far more than they were losing over CHS sales(which again almost always required GW models to use). That is a gamble I wouldn't have taken.

GW should have just licensed. In so many cases GW should do that, but they don't. They want 100% control over this universe they claim to own, even over things that are not part of that universe's IP.

The chaos star is not owned by Michael Moorcock.