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.

 Janthkin wrote:
Nah, box'o'meltaguns has been available for years.

which even in finecast are somehow cheaper than plastic singles on ebay. Prices there have gotten out of hand.

/ot

I'm still reading thru the new postings but that exhibit by Gary Chalk is shocking.

King Merret be dammed, I remember how he talked about GW IP being this unassailable fortress, CHS is tearing it down brick by brick.

I wonder if GW has/will attempt to settle.

I find it quite interesting that paintings are only "licensed" for the first print, after which the rights revert back to the author.

This all could mean an absolute end to GW using freelance work, or they'd have to explicitly buy all rights to a work they commission.

Regardless, they were trying to obtain licenses and rights after already suing over them, claiming to already own the works. That right there should be punishable by the court.

While I am of the opinion that CHS are winning this hands down, I also think that the GW legal documents are sounding/written a lot tighter than they were at the start.

Less of the woolly details and more specific in parts.

Wish I could attend the hearing as a spectator though.

Cheers

Andrew

Paintings or other freelance work (e.g. writing) aren't necessarily only licensed for one use. That's just the usual, default expectation if there's no contract. It's certainly possible for a contract to state that the freelancer's client is buying permanent ownership of the copyright.

It's quite shockingly bad practice on GW's part to not have bothered with contracts. I run a tiny RPG publishing business and still manage to get contractual stuff hammered out correctly with any freelancers I work with.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Paintings or other freelance work (e.g. writing) aren't necessarily only licensed for one use. That's just the usual, default expectation if there's no contract. It's certainly possible for a contract to state that the freelancer's client is buying permanent ownership of the copyright.

It's quite shockingly bad practice on GW's part to not have bothered with contracts. I run a tiny RPG publishing business and still manage to get contractual stuff hammered out correctly with any freelancers I work with.

Yup you are spot on this comment as I have done the same thing in the past as well as in current practices.

It's not my field of expertise, but the UK had a new copyright act come into force in 1988/89. The old 1956 act had different rules about who got the copyright of commissioned paintings/portraits. The UK courts would also assign equitable title to the commissioner of a piece of artwork to let them sue infringers.

It was still sloppy.

When I worked in magazine publishing, our standard terms were to buy the first and second serial rights of any article we commissioned.

Of course as "professional" publishers we had some idea about what we were doing.

It seems as if GW in the 1980s was not being run professionally, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Of course nothing would have stopped them as a multi-million-dollar international corporation, from revisiting old artwork and buying it outright.

If they failed to do so, and now consequently are in danger of losing their legal claims, I would say that is an indictment of GW senior management.

My favorite part of the .pdf was how informal everything is at GW. "When do you meet with your art director?" "When he's in." "Email or phone?" "No"

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
she hasn't been in a courtroom since I started to make enough money for her to shop for shoes all day long

Haha.

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.243.3.pdf

Supplemental declaration - those sworn financial figures we gave you before weren't accurate. Whoops.


http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.243.8.pdf
Declaration by one of the lawyers. I've noticed a bunch of these. Is this common in the US? The rule here is to avoid turning yourself into a witness in a trial you are conducting.

czakk wrote:Supplemental declaration - those sworn financial figures we gave you before weren't accurate. Whoops.

As I'm sure someone has mentioned previously, this case is best read to background music of Yakety Sax. I'm surprised the judge has even entertained GW's case for so long when they keep boffing it like this...

czakk wrote:
It's not my field of expertise, but the UK had a new copyright act come into force in 1988/89. The old 1956 act had different rules about who got the copyright of commissioned paintings/portraits. The UK courts would also assign equitable title to the commissioner of a piece of artwork to let them sue infringers.

It was still sloppy.

Wouldnt that be irrelevant, since GW is suing in US court, under US laws?

Something about it needing to qualify for copyright in it's own country before it's elible for international protection

carmachu wrote:

czakk wrote:
It's not my field of expertise, but the UK had a new copyright act come into force in 1988/89. The old 1956 act had different rules about who got the copyright of commissioned paintings/portraits. The UK courts would also assign equitable title to the commissioner of a piece of artwork to let them sue infringers.

It was still sloppy.

Wouldnt that be irrelevant, since GW is suing in US court, under US laws?

Yeah, I was just trying to think of a reason why back in 88 they might not have bothered with assignments or proper documentation.

carmachu wrote:

czakk wrote:
It's not my field of expertise, but the UK had a new copyright act come into force in 1988/89. The old 1956 act had different rules about who got the copyright of commissioned paintings/portraits. The UK courts would also assign equitable title to the commissioner of a piece of artwork to let them sue infringers.

It was still sloppy.

Wouldnt that be irrelevant, since GW is suing in US court, under US laws?

As other's have said - it is in regards to the actual assignment of the rights themselves.

The way the laws are set up is that if the country of origin grants a copyright - the international treaties allow that copyright to be used in the various signatory countries under their law. If for example, the British laws allowed for shared rights between the author (or artist) and the publisher (or commissioner of a work) then when they go to sue in the US - the damages each party could seek are only equal to half of what they could potentially get.

If, however, in the case of the Chalk artwork - the publisher only has the right of the first publication, the actual copyright in relation to derivative works would actually be to Chalk...not GW as Chalk is the one who has the copyright relating to duplication after the first publication. The Publisher would have a certain level of protection relating to actual copies of the book and pages within the book, but since we are talking about works which may or may not be deemed to be derivatives of the artwork presented there then the publisher's rights are not being violated specifically.

The issues relating to Chalk and the various shoulder icons are a complicated matter as well. Technically speaking, other Chapter Emblems which have evolved from the work which he originally did may well be deemed to be derivatives of the work which he did first. It comes down to who set the idea down on paper first. If GW gave him a bunch of names on paper and told him to draw up something neat to go with them - then the resulting artistic fixture would be his property. Subsequent adjustments to that fixture in minor form would be deemed as derivatives of that original work and would also in fact be his property. In the case of many of the Chapters, they have had significant changes since the Rogue Trader era illustration - however others have not been so significant that they could not be deemed derivative works:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lux70xV8x81r1g40zo1_1280.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lux6zz6teb1r1g40zo1_1280.jpg

Chalk actually did a fair amount of work for GW during the time that he worked for GW. You can find his images in White Dwarf and throughout various books from that period. Just a little aside, here is an interview with him which he does mention his time at GW as well:

http://doggysdoings.blogspot.com/2011/10/gary-chalk-interview.html

Edited by AgeOfEgos

 darkPrince010 wrote:

czakk wrote:Supplemental declaration - those sworn financial figures we gave you before weren't accurate. Whoops.

As I'm sure someone has mentioned previously, this case is best read to background music of Yakety Sax. I'm surprised the judge has even entertained GW's case for so long when they keep boffing it like this...

The judge is letting it continue so that he has a good story to tell the other judges on the golf course.

"So then they tried to copyright the things after already starting the suit!"
"Surely no one is that dumb"
"you'd think"

Orktavius wrote:
Edited by AgeOfEgos

If that were actually true - I am sure GW would have evidence of it happening once...

I can't speak to the quality of the CHS product, nor do I care on any significant level. For me it is a question of the right to produce a kit (crappy or otherwise) versus the heavy handed tactics of large IP conglomerates. Within this little corner of my world - GW is the large IP conglomerate...and what do you know, they have heavy handed tactics. The chilling effect goes against the very intent of the copyrights as a bunch of old dead guys set out to protect to ensure artists would be able to make a living off their trade.

One of the reasons that the UK (and broader EU) did the adjustments that they did in regards to manufactured goods regarding design rights (which to be perfectly honest renders this whole case moot for anyone on that side of the pond who wants to make Bits) is to return towards the original spirit of the law and encourage IP creators to actually be creative. No more milking the same cow for 50 years, you have to make something new every now and again.

As Sean stated above--this thread is for the discussion of the ongoing case between Chapterhouse Studios and Games Workshop--not to discuss our personal dealings with Chapterhouse or a critique of the quality of their casts. Thanks.

As I saw Excel mentioned in that those PDFs recently posted in regards to the sales spreadsheets, I have a query if I may for the legal eagles in the thread.

As 50K+ lines is by no means a big spreadsheet in terms of file size, even in old xls format if it is straight data, are they saying they don't want to submit it because they would have to submit a print out of all the lines?

And if they do need to show the lines, couldn't they just do a pivot table (condensed breakdown for those uninitiated with Excel) for a breakdown, then attach the printout of all the raw data behind it just in case for ease of use?

It just seems bizarre to me that given how serious this case seems to be that it wouldn't be included if it actually makes their case for them. Unless they can't produce the paper records for the transactions if quired on them later.

I would love to get my hands on those sheets they did provide so I can see how competent their staff are with simple data analysis. Especially since it was stated they had macros on the sheets provided to CHS.

If they just let some department head compile data for this case it speaks volumes of their mentality and competence. And if it was a proper analyst then I highly doubt they would have made the oversight of including Canadian sales data in there unintentionally. Especially if they were able to work it out later based on nothing more than the actual data they used or had available in the first place.

 Atma01 wrote:
are they saying they don't want to submit it because they would have to submit a print out of all the lines?

No, they are deeming sales data to be super secret. That is fairly common for most cases, the actual breakdown of individual sales figures is very useful for figuring out specifics of a business and how it operates. The judge granted them the ability to file that information under seal in order to keep it out of the public eye.

Because of the way which damages are calculated regarding these cases, certain aspects of it may well come out at a later date though. However that would require GW to win on a point and then the value of the mark or copyright would come into play to determine the penalty. The value would be based largely on the sales figures for that specific mark.

Had a thought. Looking at GWs recent pleadings they've started to complain about the amount of discovery,saying it was overbroad, vague etc... I think that's a reaction to some of CHS's pleadings about non-responsiveness. But it is pretty funny when you look at their initial complaint, refusal to specify anything and then see how the discovery forced them to drop a whole whack of stuff and start specifying things. Which is what discovery is meant to do, clarify the issues It's hard to complain about broad discovery when you refuse to name what you are suing someone over.

It should be very easy to get the relevant sales data they need, hell I still have some leftover from my time at GW.

Attached is the sales data for metal and for finished goods for 2006, the numbers would include Direct Sales, Canada and Australian orders since they were all shipped out of Memphis.

The cost column is what it costs GW for each component/product as a finished item.

Anyone at GW Memphis has access to this information, it's not exactly secret at all, at least for GW staff it's not.

That might be confidential info... Not a great idea to post it.

rigeld2 wrote:
That might be confidential info... Not a great idea to post it.

Confidential information is one of those funny things...generally speaking, there is no law that exists about releasing it. The worst case scenario would be a violation of an employment (via a non-disclosure agreement) or post employment contract (via a non-compete agreement), though with the exception of people like software developers and other engineers - those largely do not exist. Sales figures are not generally covered under the legal interpretation of things like Trade Secrets laws and they have not had a specific area carved out for them like credit or health care information. Once you no longer work for GW, there is little leverage that they hold over you to keep you from sharing information you know.

Regarding the information, I've managed to get a hold of a few similar documents over the years. The larger issue is the larger picture. A single year or months worth of information is a snap shot. In order to get a better picture of the popularity of different things within their line, you need several years worth of data...ideally an entire editions worth that way you can normalize for swings based on the "shiny object syndrome" which exists amongst GW customers.

Fair enough. I work in IT where sharing internal things like that is enough of a no-no that legal has a talk with us every couple of years... That I barely pay attention to. >.>

rigeld2 wrote:
Fair enough. I work in IT where sharing internal things like that is enough of a no-no that legal has a talk with us every couple of years... That I barely pay attention to. >.>

Ahhh...that is a different issue entirely. Internal speech and policy doesn't always reflect what the law actually is. In many ways it is like the various claims over the years which companies have attempted to make, from Disney attempting to gain a trademark for Seal Team 6, TSR attempting to trademark "Dungeon" and "Dragon", GW attempting to claim trademark protection for "Plasma" and "Halberd". Just because they say it is so (or try to) doesn't mean it is.

Largely, there is little that stops a company from making a false claim, with regards to IP or internal policy discussions. I wouldn't be surprised though if the various internal discussions you had were very carefully worded in order to press up against the law without actually crossing the line. There are certain laws regarding workplace intimidation and various statutes which are generally written to protect either journalism or whistleblowers that protect the ability to release certain information.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW - I am not sure if it has been mentioned before, but for anyone who has found a new interest in IP law...you might consider picking up a copy of "Copyfraud". It is a good introduction to the issues surrounding this and other cases and provide a primer to IP law in general.

Ha, so document 245 contains a gem that will make all independent painters quake in their collective boots should GW win; (I don’t know why I didn’t spot it on the GW submission but I did on the CHS response)

(Excerpts take from P45 of that document) Second, to the extent Chapterhouse has copied three-dimensional miniatures produced by Games Workshop, it has promoted those products painted in Games Workshop’s colors,….. Games Workshop’s has produced all the relevant and responsive painted depictions of its miniature figures to Chapterhouse in the form in which Chapterhouse would have had access to them, and in which customers see them and know them,

So good old GW is claiming the paint schemes as part of their IP, so no painting GW Marine Chapters for you then.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Ha, so document 245 contains a gem that will make all independent painters quake in their collective boots should GW win; (I don’t know why I didn’t spot it on the GW submission but I did on the CHS response)

(Excerpts take from P45 of that document) Second, to the extent Chapterhouse has copied three-dimensional miniatures produced by Games Workshop, it has promoted those products painted in Games Workshop’s colors,….. Games Workshop’s has produced all the relevant and responsive painted depictions of its miniature figures to Chapterhouse in the form in which Chapterhouse would have had access to them, and in which customers see them and know them,

So good old GW is claiming the paint schemes as part of their IP, so no painting GW Marine Chapters for you then.

Cheers

Andrew

Still recovering from the weekend - so I haven't yet had a chance to fully read and cross reference the claims and counter claims yet...but more poignant is the statement on the following page regarding the painting:

GW’s statement that it has produced exemplars “in the form . . . in which customers see
them and know them” is irrelevant to any issue in this case, because GW does not allege that any
customers have copied any of its works.

Funny thing is, there was no confidentiality agreement with GW when I was hired nor when I left the company. At no time during my time at GW was there anything like that at all either implied or on paper for me to sign.

I just went through my GW employee handbook and there isn't even anything in there about confidentiality either.

IIRC there is also a "time frame" for confidentiality agreements as well, the items I posted were from 6 years ago, well out of any clause they should have had, but didn't.

BTW, those prices in the spreadsheets, those take into account manufacturing and tooling costs. That's basically what it costs GW to make each individual part/finished good.

Gotta love GW and their markup!

Basically here's how it works. When you the customer place an order with Direct Sales, they send the order to Manufacturing for it to be filled. DS is in the same site as manufacturing for North America, Memphis.

So after the order is filled, manufacturing charges Direct Sales (or whatever dept sent their order to Manufacturing) the cost you see in the sheet.

So if you ordered as a single bit, 9947010132205 Maximus armor, manufacturing would then send a bill to sales for $0.72.

At least that's how it was done for years up till the time I left. They might have changed it slightly since then.