Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**carmachu**

Mr Hyena wrote:
But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway.

GW winning means resentment by some aspects of the community; and the community losing another website. But GW can defend their I.P. without blatant copies that damage the brand (gogo poorly-made conversion kits. Probably not Chapterhouse stuido's ones; but it opens the way for questionable sites even more.)

GW has to own the IP in the first place. In more then a few cases, they dont.

There really can be no 'winner' and 'loser' for us; we'll lose out either way. GW winning would be for the best for those who love Warhammer.

Actually we can win quite nicely if CH wins. It opens it up to thrid party producers, which opens the door to more creativity and expression. And might give GW a kick in the rear to stop sending out C&D letters on reflex.

**czakk**

On the subject of litigating without the underlying rights - this reminds me a bit of the Righthaven fiasco.

**SickSix**

Is this the proper place to ask for speculation on what it means if CHS does indeed come out on top? Will things just go on as they have been? Or will other bits makers start using GW products to show off their own bits?

**czakk**

carmachu wrote:
Mr Hyena wrote:
But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway.

GW winning means resentment by some aspects of the community; and the community losing another website. But GW can defend their I.P. without blatant copies that damage the brand (gogo poorly-made conversion kits. Probably not Chapterhouse stuido's ones; but it opens the way for questionable sites even more.)

GW has to own the IP in the first place. In more then a few cases, they dont.

There really can be no 'winner' and 'loser' for us; we'll lose out either way. GW winning would be for the best for those who love Warhammer.

Actually we can win quite nicely if CH wins. It opens it up to thrid party producers, which opens the door to more creativity and expression. And might give GW a kick in the rear to stop sending out C&D letters on reflex.

You mean open competition in the market place? I don't know... that sounds a bit crazy...

**carmachu**

Mr Hyena wrote:

But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.

Patently false. GW does NOT lose money when folks buy bits from other copanies. Considering a) GW is out of the bits business for the most part, and b) every bit you buy from 3rd party producers needs you to BUY a GW kit to use. GW gains money, nots loses any.

GW will squat your army regardless.

**czakk**

SickSix wrote:
Is this the proper place to ask for speculation on what it means if CHS does indeed come out on top? Will things just go on as they have been? Or will other bits makers start using GW products to show off their own bits?

If they win, it will depend on what grounds they prevail on. If you look at the motions for summary judgments you'll see that there are a lot of nested defences. GW's suit fails because of A and B. If not, then C, if not then D, if not then E. In your pleadings you have to cover any possible way you might win.

If the judge bites on the UK design rights argument and rules that GW's suit fails because the minis aren't copyrightable in the UK, it will be a gong show. Odds of an american judge making sweeping statements about another country's copyright scheme based on only two expert witness reports? Not great. I've seen it happen in tax cases (importing weird civil law concepts like austrian privatstiftung) though.

Back to the letters to the artists.

One of the things you see repeated again and again in the various sworn depositions is a statement to the effect of "GW has always done work for hire, and always works super closely with our artists to ensure it is our ip from start to finish".

If it goes to trial, I imagine there will be some stuff from gary chalk and others from that era on tap to impeach various witnesses who said that. If GW folks thought that the depositions for discovery were stressful...

**Sean_OBrien**

SickSix wrote:
Is this the proper place to ask for speculation on what it means if CHS does indeed come out on top? Will things just go on as they have been? Or will other bits makers start using GW products to show off their own bits?

Generally the same thing that always happens when markets open up to competition.

Increased consumer choice.

Increased competition for the consumer's dollar.

Increased creativity from the manufacturers.

Generally increased across the board.

Specific bits companies will be able to more freely utilize GW "trademarks" and figures to display their compatible products - so no more guessing games.

There is no reason that GW would suffer at all as a result of a loss here either. They have numerous advantages which it would be nearly impossible for a startup to match and they will carry a certain level of brand loyalty as well. They will likely have to address their pricing schemes though, as it wouldn't be hard for a startup to undercut their plastic prices at this point. Based on studies done of GW financials by numerous people - that would not necessarily cause a change in their bottom line.

**Anvildude**

Also, other companies will be able to make things similar to GW stuff with less fear, (at least if I read this right). That means more alternatives if you want to play the game at non-GW stores.

**pitboy2710**

This has probably been brought up before, but i really can't see what GW are complaining about. Most of the Chapter house products are used in conjunction with GW kits. i would of thought that it would increase sales not hurt them.

**darkPrince010**

pitboy2710 wrote:
This has probably been brought up before, but i really can't see what GW are complaining about. Most of the Chapter house products are used in conjunction with GW kits. i would of thought that it would increase sales not hurt them.

Pretty sure it's just kneejerk reflex. GW has been hunting 3rd party manufacturers for so long that I doubt they even realize or care if they're providing parts that supplement or compete with their own products.

However, said reflex has now bit them in the butt, hard, and I think at the very least they might try to get their ducks in a row before leveling another C&D/lawsuit against any other small companies out there.

**Shepherd23**

It really shocks me that GW's case can be this screwed up and the judge is still allowing it. I have never claimed that I have a strong understanding of law, but this blows me away that a case can have this many holes and obvious subterfuges and still be allowed to continue.

**Kroothawk**

Copied Sean's post from the Warseer thread:

Had a busy weekend, so I wasn't able to pour over the various new documents - however, there were some good ones in this last batch:

The first up for consideration is the Chalk Declaration:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.0.pdf

Remember how CHS asked GW to prove that they had rights to everything that they claimed they had rights to? Then GW said - of course we do...why would you even question that. Then the judge said prove it? Well - they didn't actually have contracts for many of the free lance artists who worked for GW doing illustrations back in the days that 40K was being created. After the fact, they sent out letters trying to get the various artists to sign away those rights after the fact...and one of them was Gary Chalk. He said no. For those who are not familiar with Chalk, he did several of the Rogue Trader era illustrations relating to the various Space Marine chapters - the most notable one can be found in this document:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.2.pdf

Many others were done by him as well.

Next on the list of interesting things is the CHS response to the GW response to the CHS response to the material facts of the case. Lots of back and forth referencing this and that.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.245.0.pdf

Some of it is sort of silly (GW contesting that a 28 mm standard exists...it is irrelevant whether or not the industry moved with GW or if it existed prior to GW - it is an excepted standard within the industry) on page 42.

Following GW's response to CHS's request for summary judgement, CHS again reiterates its points and provides supporting evidence in this document:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.244.0.pdf

GW offers up about the same in their document here:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.243.0.pdf

The problem of course is that at varying points throughout the case, GW did claim items which were created by Chalk as mentioned above and only now provided evidence from other freelance artists in support of their claim to ownership (after close of discovery - and after they filed the case to begin with). They also insist that the principle market for GW products is collectors and not gamers (in order to avoid classification as a design). Likely you will see more of that speak through White Dwarf and quite possibly a shift back to the Citadel Miniatures branding versus the Games Workshop branding in order to try to enforce that position.

This document is an index of the GW exhibits so far in support of their case:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.243.2.pdf

It includes the new assignments of copyrights from some of the freelance artists which they didn't present earlier in the case.

So GAMES Workshop doesn't produce toy soldiers and rules for gamers, but for teen collectors?
I want to see the faces of the jury when they try to explain that

Still amazed that lying under oath is legal in US courts.

**d-usa**

Games Workshop produces rules and games, Citadel produces collectible miniatures?

**Sean_OBrien**

Yah...that was me. Didn't feel like keeping up with too many threads this weekend, as I was watching a bunch of 40 year olds pretend like they were in high school again (well...38, but I tend to round it unless my wife is watching).

That is more or less a summary of what we covered here and gives a quick coverage of what the new documents entail.

Sort of listed things in relative importance of new and interesting information for those who are playing catch-up over here as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Games Workshop produces rules and games, Citadel produces collectible miniatures?

If I were a member of the GW legal/management team and had to figure out a way to manage this fiasco...that is the way I would likely attempt to spin it.

The Game Workshop makes it harder to justify that what they make are not pieces for use in a game (see the LucasFilm case for why that is important). Citadel Miniatures though removes the "game" from the name and makes it easier to attempt to make the case that miniatures are sold as collectibles first and game pieces second (a long ball of a case...but still, a case).

**Platuan4th**

d-usa wrote:
Games Workshop produces rules and games, Citadel produces collectible miniatures?

Pretty much. If you read the Codexes, it actually says the rules are for use with Citadel Miniatures.

From page 3 of the IG Codex(because it was the closest, emphasis mine): "The Warhammer 40,000 rulebook contains the rules you need to fight battles with your Citadel Miniatures..."

The Boxes also still have the Citadel logo in addition to the GW logo.

So, I guess they're trying to use this distinction to say that they're collectible miniatures for collectors that happen to have rules for gamers. Incidentally, that's something I've been using to describe the company for years, especially in comparison to other companies.

**Kroothawk**

Citadel Miniatures is just a brand by GW ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_Miniatures ). Difficult for GW laywers to pretend that they are not working for GW. Difficult for GW to claim copyright for sketches in non-Citadel books then. Difficult to explain the demo game tables and gaming events in GW stores.

**Aerethan**

Platuan4th wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Games Workshop produces rules and games, Citadel produces collectible miniatures?

Pretty much. If you read the Codexes, it actually says the rules are for use with Citadel Miniatures.

From page 3 of the IG Codex(because it was the closest, emphasis mine): "The Warhammer 40,000 rulebook contains the rules you need to fight battles with your Citadel Miniatures..."

The Boxes also still have the Citadel logo in addition to the GW logo.

So, I guess they're trying to use this distinction to say that they're collectible miniatures for collectors that happen to have rules for gamers. Incidentally, that's something I've been using to describe the company for years, especially in comparison to other companies.

How can one argue that they make models first and games second when they release rules for units without a model, and then months or years down the road they release a model for the rule?

Also, 100% of their marketing shows the studio models as game pieces. They also rely on game rules to increase sales of a model. How many of GW's models are bought only because they look cool? How many are bought because they are mandatory/compulsory in the games? How many models are released without rules?

GW even singles out specific models as "collectors", meaning the other ones are not collectors pieces. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440009a&rootCatGameStyle=wh

**czakk**

Isn't there also a pricing scheme that relies on point cost / unit type more than cost to design and produce the mini?

**Aerethan**

czakk wrote:
Isn't there also a pricing scheme that relies on point cost / unit type more than cost to design and produce the mini?

I'm not sure GW has ever admitted to it, but yes.

Empire Greatswords dont use $41 worth of plastic for 10 models when 24 skinks run $35. But you won't buy as many GS's as you will skinks, so the profit margin has to make up for the reduced volume of sales.

One should also note that those Greatswords cost as much in plastic as they did in metal.

**czakk**

You could have some fun law and order moments with a GW witness claiming its a collector's hobby and a box of AOBR or the new starter set..

**Lordhat**

czakk wrote:
Isn't there also a pricing scheme that relies on point cost / unit type more than cost to design and produce the mini?

This is merely a rumor made up by the customers as a way to rationalize GW's incomprehensible pricing practices. Another is that GW prices certain units higher to try to 'balance' the game through monetary attrition. I.E. It costs more (money) so you'll see it less on the tabletop. Sometime in 2005/6 they actually tried to standardize pricing for blisters according to range codes. There were letters on ever blister (A, B,C,D,E,F) and every blister with a given code was the same price ( I think 'c' was $15.00). This lasted not quite a year ( I presume it lasted as long as it took somebody to figure out that customers would pay more for models that were more useful or points efficient in game). Take a GOOD look at unit points vs. monetary cost, you'll not find a pricing scheme correlating the two, except tangentially. GW's only real pricing scheme is the scheme to price our money into their wallets.

**Aerethan**

Lordhat wrote:
czakk wrote:
Isn't there also a pricing scheme that relies on point cost / unit type more than cost to design and produce the mini?
This is merely a rumor made up by the customers as a way to rationalize GW's incomprehensible pricing practices. Another is that GW prices certain units higher to try to 'balance' the game through monetary attrition. I.E. It costs more (money) so you'll see it less on the tabletop. Sometime in 2005/6 they actually tried to standardize pricing for blisters according to range codes. There were letters on ever blister (A, B,C,D,E,F) and every blister with a given code was the same price ( I think 'c' was $15.00). This lasted not quite a year ( I presume it lasted as long as it took somebody to figure out that customers would pay more for models that were more useful or points efficient in game). Take a GOOD look at unit points vs. monetary cost, you'll not find a pricing scheme correlating the two, except tangentially. GW's only real pricing scheme is the scheme to price our money into their wallets.

It isn't points per dollar per se, it's more of models per army. People will take 60 hablerdiers in any random Empire army, but you will never see an Empire player who buys 2 units of Greatswords.

So it's models per dollar, not points, in the scheme of an army as a whole.

And yes, it would be impossible to say that models are NOT gaming pieces first and sculptures second when certain models can ONLY be bought with the game they are intended for.

**AndrewC**

Had to laugh earlier, I was looking at exhibit C of 246.4 (Chalk declaration in which he was told they (GW) were simply clearing up their filing) when an attachment caught my eye,

Note from Alan to Gary.docx
004 v 1 Intellectual Property Assignment Note (Ex Employee or Independent) Chapterhouse GARY CHALK.doc

Really subtle GW.

Re Painting. GW has to start somewhere to get the ball rolling, a test case if you like, so why not here. See if the courts will accept chapter colours as a form of copyright. Perhaps as a prelim before rolling out prepainted miniatures? (Sorry speculation and OT) Perhaps I'll take this elsewhere.

Cheers

Andrew

**clively**

Having read enough of these documents I've come to a few conclusions.

First, GW expected CHS to simply give up a LONG time ago.

Second, GW's legal team is way out of their league and should have punted to a decent US firm to handle this from day one. Of course, that wasn't quite possible due to #1 above. The legal team's screw ups alone are going to cost them big. If this was handled right, a good US firm would have laid the groundwork long before filing in court once they knew CHS wasn't going to just roll over.

Third, CHS will ultimately be punished for a few things; but nowhere near as badly as GW wants them to be. I saw perhaps two items out of the 100+ that I think CHS is weak on.

Fourth, out of the two companies: GW is going to come out worse than CHS. The amount they win on a few minor details is going to be more than balanced out by what they lose on. Namely the vast majority of their "trademarks".

Fifth: Within 6 months there will be a LOT more choice with regards to miniatures in the 40k world; and most of it coming from 3rd parties whose quality will range from great to moronic. This is a good thing, but is certainly something to bear in mind.

Sixth: GW will have to re-institute prize support at local gaming shops in order to encourage them to allow GW miniatures only. Or come up with some other mechanism. My fear here is that instead of branching out, they'll just cut off those 3rd party shops who don't comply with a GW miniature only demand and try to focus everyone into their own stores. This would be a very bad move, but completely within GW's historically bad moves.

**AndrewC**

clively, I don't think thats quite fair on GW legal representation. They are, to accounts, respected and known as IP laywers. Weeble, for example, spoke well of them. However consensus is that this case is being run by a UK firm with little knowledge and an inablity to accept they're wrong.

Honestly, it wouldn't be the first time a client has lied to his lawyer.

Cheers

Andrew

**Lordhat**

Aerethan wrote:
People will take 60 hablerdiers in any random Empire army, but you will never see an Empire player who buys 2 units of Greatswords.

Then we get the circular argument, of not seeing as many greatswords as halberdiers because of the monetary cost.

Aerethan wrote: And yes, it would be impossible to say that models are NOT gaming pieces first and sculptures second when certain models can ONLY be bought with the game they are intended for.

GW would be in a much better spot if they had started like Wyrd: Creating miniatures for people to collect (and perhaps use in games ala D&D) and THEN deciding to make a game (which happens to use all the models in their range). However, they wrote Rogue Trader and then afterward (maybe simultaneously) released models based on said game.

**Breotan**

Kroothawk wrote:
Still amazed that lying under oath is legal in US courts.

Really? This is the country where former President Bill Clinton was allowed to dodge a perjury charge by parcing the meaning of the word "is". Nothing done in the US legal system should suprise you.

**timd**

The Gary Chalk stuff is already included in gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.245.0.pdf on pages 57 and 58.

**Sean_OBrien**

timd wrote:
The Gary Chalk stuff is already included in gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.245.0.pdf on pages 57 and 58.

Chalk yes - however, another forum member linked to this:

http://russnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-horror-of-it-all.html

Russ Nicholson was also a free lancer from the same era - and was similarly contacted by GW in an attempt to have him assign the copyright to his works to them as well.

Paper work does get lost. Especially old paperwork - however when you have more than one person in disagreement to the plaintiff's testimony that freelance work was done on a work for hire basis...well, that is a pattern which can be used to influence the court or the jury.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:
Aerethan wrote:
People will take 60 hablerdiers in any random Empire army, but you will never see an Empire player who buys 2 units of Greatswords.

Then we get the circular argument, of not seeing as many greatswords as halberdiers because of the monetary cost.

In either case though, the general end result is that there is correlation between game value and item cost. It may not be direct - and it may not even be a causation argument...however, when it comes to the 12 people in the jury box, you don't have to prove it on that level. You simply need to influence their beliefs enough that they might find in favor of what you are doing.

If GW would simply switch to a production cost based pricing scheme, then it would be easier to back their assertion that they sell for collectors. The current scheme is obviously not based on production costs though, so the human mind attempts to reason other causes for the pricing. The simplest is that of game value.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:
Citadel Miniatures is just a brand by GW ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_Miniatures ). Difficult for GW laywers to pretend that they are not working for GW. Difficult for GW to claim copyright for sketches in non-Citadel books then. Difficult to explain the demo game tables and gaming events in GW stores.

Not saying it would be a good argument for them to make - just that is the only bullet left for that particular argument. They really need to attempt to do something, as if they didn't - the case would be dead in the water with the exception of their Trademark claims...and trademark nominative use is not a violation, so that would make their case dead in the water in general.

Also, keep in mind that it isn't uncommon to see different brands under the same large corporation produce collectibles versus regular items. NECA owns the Wizkids brand which produces the Clix toys. They also make a variety of large scale figures from movies and pop culture under their NECA branding.

**timd**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
timd wrote:
The Gary Chalk stuff is already included in gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.245.0.pdf on pages 57 and 58.

Chalk yes - however, another forum member linked to this:

http://russnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-horror-of-it-all.html

Russ Nicholson was also a free lancer from the same era - and was similarly contacted by GW in an attempt to have him assign the copyright to his works to them as well.

Paper work does get lost. Especially old paperwork - however when you have more than one person in disagreement to the plaintiff's testimony that freelance work was done on a work for hire basis...well, that is a pattern which can be used to influence the court or the jury.

Yup, saw that and agree with your analysis, although CHS seems to have left out the most damning part of the story. Perhaps saving it for later?

Was primarily bring the Chalk stuff to the attention of people who were asking how this kind of thing might influence a judge (or jury as you suggest).

I'm beginning to see the pattern of nested defense strategies: in battlefield terminology, a defense in depth with multiple defensive lines that have to be breached before GW's goal (destruction of CHS) can be reached, along with an aggressive offense to forestall many of GW's probes and lines of attack.

Tim