Holdenstein wrote:
Let me ask a question about the Gary Chalk business. For now lets put aside whether the Badab War artwork might be a derivative work itself (and probably is of the original artwork in Rogue Trader) and whether there might be input from others in the process.

If the copyright on this artwork was assigned to GW for the first printing in WD and then never got reprinted (which is what I believe actually happened), and then got copied (and lets assume it was), who gets to sue? The artwork is never reprinted, so is the infringement against GWs assigned copyright for that publication or Chalk's continuing copyright? Also what happens if the artwork is printed twice, under different copyright ownership?

Please don't guess- I can do that myself.

 Holdenstein wrote:
Thanks S O'B. I think that I'm a bit more clear now.

I have learnt many things during this thread. The main ones would be; always keep every contract you sign, always have sensitive work discussions over the phone rather than E-mail or IM (I do already do this!) and that the law, especially in regards to copyright, is significantly more complicated than it would first appear.

I already knew (from a solicitor friend of mine) to never get involved in litigation that has any chance of going before a Judge unless it is absolutely necessary. This has been confirmed.

weeble1000 wrote:
Off topic post voluntarily removed - Apple v Samsung has nothing to do with wargaming or the GW v CHS case.

Frankly, if it weren't weighted towards CHS, I rather doubt that CHS's pro bono law firm would still be enthusiastic, and I suspect GW's law firm would have kept someone other than a stepped-up intern on the case. First they had a partner, then a high-level member, and now a new hire that they probably just told, "This case is lost. But lose with dignity."

That's one sure way to track how a law firm sees a case: Who they put on it from their roster. A partner wouldn't want a loss on his record unless it's absolutely vital to the firm's reputation and client retention, and I somehow think that GW might be dropped from their client list after this little case....

czakk wrote:
He may be a lateral hire but he's hit the point in his career where he should be looking to be make partner by impressing people.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Nice observation by iamfanboy over at Warseer:

and I somehow think that GW might be dropped from their client list after this little case....

SeanDrake wrote:
In regards to why GW raised this in the US and are desperate to claim that they produce Art and not toy soldiers or games pieces.

Someone just raised a point on the warseer thread regarding the case, in regards to the Lucasarts case against the original designer of the storm trooper armour who was still producing replicas.

"The case in the US centered around trademarks and copyrights. The case in the UK however centered around the claim that the props were not sculptures but rather designs. Since the UK court determined that they were designs and not copyrights...Ainsworth didn't commit a crime in the UK and the courts stopped LucasFilm's attempt to collect.

The split between the UK courts and US courts present an interesting problem though, as the US ruling prevents Ainsworth from selling his props in the US even though the creation and selling of them isn't illegal in the UK.

Whether or not the case would follow backwards into the US would need to be tried more fully...though as the original creation would fall under UK law even though LucasFilm holds the copyright in the US.

The appelate judge addressed toy storm troopers as well as part of the case, and he determined that they also were designs and not sculptures (the UK Supreme Court didn't address that particular issue as it was sort of an aside to the main case). As a result, in the UK and EU - Stormtroopers from the original movies are in a free for all status...as are props and effects which are from movies which are older than 10 years old (for unregistered designs) or at most 25 years for registered designs (as long as the 5 year extension is filed for every 5 years following the first 15 years). Further a license right must be granted after 5 years for unregistered designs or 10 years for registered designs."

So GW may be worried that if the case was raised in the UK and that there products were ruled as toy soldiers, as originally described by the head honcho in his annual address to the board and not works of art.
Then if they had not filed the correct request in regards to their model designs anything over 10 years old is fair game.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

In particular you can see how the instructions may well evolve on page 14 where you can see a proposed instruction by GW which is opposed by CHS. Ultimately, the judge will make a decision which instruction is included (either one of the two proposed or one of his own crafting).

For those who, like me, might be interested but unable to access the documents at work:

Spoiler:

12. COPYRIGHT—ALLEGATION DEFINED [DISPUTED]
Games Workshop’s Proposed Jury Instruction
Plaintiff claims that Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s copyright in a series books,
magazines, computer games, sculptural figures that form part of the fictional world of
Warhammer 40,000. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has copied characters, elements of
characters, weapons and accessories depicted in its books and shown by its figurines and that it
markets these products only to fans of Warhammer 40,000, such that all of the products it sells
are designed to be immediately recognizable to fans of Warhammer 40,000. Moreover, Plaintiff
contends that Defendant has collected all of these products together on its website and that the
website therefore is an infringement.

1diam-7 Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil 12.1.1

Chapterhouse objects to Games Workshop’s proposed jury instruction as follows:
Games Workshop’s proposed instruction improperly conflates its separate copyright
claims, will be confusing to a jury, and is prejudicial to Chapterhouse. The jury will be unable to
properly analyze Games Workshop’s claims unless Games Workshop separately identifies its
copyrights at issue. Games Workshop’s proposed reference to its claim concerning the
Chapterhouse website is confusing, redundant, and misleadingly implies that this claim is a
special type of copyright claim. Games Workshop’s theory of so-called “infringement in the
aggregate” has no basis in statute or case law, and appears to be based on a misreading of Castle
Rock Entm’t. v. Carol Publg. Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998). Games Workshop’s
proposed instruction is also argumentative and introduces factors that are irrelevant to its
copyright claims. Chapterhouse believes that the best way to identify Games Workshop’s
copyright claims is to use a jury form that identifies the allegedly infringed works that survive
summary judgment, as proposed below.

Chapterhouse’s Proposed Jury Instruction
Plaintiff claims that Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s copyrights in: [insert number of
remaining works from Plaintiff’s Second Rev. Copyright Claim Chart that survive summary
judgment] works that are individually set forth on the jury verdict form that I will provide to you,
by copying unique, original elements from those works.

Federal Civil Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit, §12.1.1 (2009 rev.); SAC ¶¶ 43, 49.
Games Workshop objects to Chapterhouse’s proposed jury instruction as follows:
Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 249 Filed: 10/19/12 Page 14 of 65 PageID #:14055
Error! No property name supplied.

One of Games Workshop’s principal contentions in this case is that many of
Chapterhouse’s works constitute infringement in the aggregate. This includes the collection of
infringing products and descriptions thereof on its website and also includes ranges of products,
such as its extensive series of shoulder pad designs appropriating the entire Roman numeral
system, logo designs and character names of Games Workshop’s Tactical Space Marines,
Assault Space Marines and Devastator Space Marines. See, e.g., Castle Rock Entm’t. v. Carol
Publg. Group, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 2d 260 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).
Chapterhouse’s proposed instruction does not permit assessment of this aspect of its overall
infringement.
Moreover, Chapterhouse’s concern that the jury separately address the individual works
can easily be accommodated with Games Workshop’s concern that the jury assess patterns of
aggregated infringement by use of a special verdict form.

Eric

 Janthkin wrote:
That's certainly a...unique...reading of Castle Rock. I look forward to seeing what the court does with it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IANAL.

It seems fair to regard the whole of Seinfeld as a property in the Castle Rock case as the book was created of whole chunks of original material written by the Seinfeld writers.

In contrast, much of what GW claim as copyright -- arrows, the Omega symbol, and -- can better be characterised as the individual words that the Seinfeld writers used to create their scripts.

Games Workshop first objects that Chapterhouse lacks standing to challenge Games Workshop’s ownership of copyright.

 Morpheus wrote:
I love reading this part.

Games Workshop first objects that Chapterhouse lacks standing to challenge Games Workshop’s ownership of copyright.

bottom of page 18, Doc 249

So GW is suing and they are complaining that Chapterhouse does not have the right to challenge GW's ownership of the copyright???? Gotta love that.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Seems an issue with some larger companies that they believe they are not only better than the little man, but that the little man has no right to query their claims even when it's threatening to put them out of business.