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.

 AduroT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

What blindfold? The two heads represent the Treaty of Mars/Treaty of Olympus, representing Terra and Mars.

 Enigwolf wrote:

What blindfold? The two heads represent the Treaty of Mars/Treaty of Olympus, representing Terra and Mars.

That's changed several times. Most recent one, IIRC, was that it represented the Imperium forgetting the past and looking toward the future, IIRC. OR possibly the other way around.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

What blindfold? The two heads represent the Treaty of Mars/Treaty of Olympus, representing Terra and Mars.

That's changed several times. Most recent one, IIRC, was that it represented the Imperium forgetting the past and looking toward the future, IIRC. OR possibly the other way around.

Or, the Emperor in his infinite wisdom, decides that it means all of the above.

czakk wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:


I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

Anything generic or boilerplate wouldn't be worth anything and might actually harm you. If you get a C&D, you need real legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Spend the money and get legal advice before starting a business. You might not get a C&D, they might just sue you like they did CHS.

*scratching head*. For some reason I thought there was something about them actually having received a couple of C&Ds but they were put in the round file. I've been wrong before though.

xraytango wrote:

czakk wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:


I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

Anything generic or boilerplate wouldn't be worth anything and might actually harm you. If you get a C&D, you need real legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Spend the money and get legal advice before starting a business. You might not get a C&D, they might just sue you like they did CHS.

*scratching head*. For some reason I thought there was something about them actually having received a couple of C&Ds but they were put in the round file. I've been wrong before though.

GW actually said in an early complaint that there was no contact between GW and CHS prior to service of the suit.

Thanks Weeble.

So GW basically went, "Ready, Fire, Aim!"

Seems like bad practice to me. If Moskin is their N.A. In-house (not necessarily in-house per se but held by retainer) could that have been his advice?

Granted a C&D is more of a courtesy than anything, but it is usually the first thing to try.

With all the sanction on Moskin, is it possible that GW will file a complaint with the BAR? And what penalties do theses sanction actually entail, or are they simply marks on a record that have no real pain behind them?

It will be interesting to see how the jury reacts to him as he seems to be quite abrasive, well more than most attys.

No offense to our associated barristers.

 AduroT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

Well I don't know if it's a blindfold, maybe I am thinking of the blindfold on Justice. It could be a blind eye or something. It's blind, anyway.

The point is that the blindness is the only significant difference between the GW eagle and a thousand other double-headed eagles found in heraldry and decorative arts.

I believe GW have also trademarked it, but they don't display it in any of their business signage. You would expect a trademark to be on product boxes, for example. The only places you actually find it are on the wall of the Nottingham building, and on various model bits of equipment belonging to IG and what-not in which it forms part of the decoration of the model.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.

Well I don't know if it's a blindfold, maybe I am thinking of the blindfold on Justice. It could be a blind eye or something. It's blind, anyway.

The point is that the blindness is the only significant difference between the GW eagle and a thousand other double-headed eagles found in heraldry and decorative arts.

I believe GW have also trademarked it, but they don't display it in any of their business signage. You would expect a trademark to be on product boxes, for example. The only places you actually find it are on the wall of the Nottingham building, and on various model bits of equipment belonging to IG and what-not in which it forms part of the decoration of the model.

And, as was demonstrated in Leonard Wibberley's The Mouse That Roared the Duchy of Grand Fenwick can also be a mite touchy, sparking the short but victorious war of Grand Fenwick vs. The United States of America - on the basis of the wholly derivative Pinot Grand Enwick label.


Such a little thing to begin a war over... but then they were planning on being defeated by Saturday....



The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I believe GW have also trademarked it, but they don't display it in any of their business signage. You would expect a trademark to be on product boxes, for example. The only places you actually find it are on the wall of the Nottingham building, and on various model bits of equipment belonging to IG and what-not in which it forms part of the decoration of the model.

It is on model boxes though.

Is it? I hadn't noticed.

Perhaps they have started to put it on there since I stopped buying new GW models a couple of years ago, or maybe it isn't very eye-catching.

It's not on blisters, but I think it's been on their boxes for years. Anyway, it's quite stylised and they are consistent in its appearance so I don't see that they shouldn't have protection on their specific version. The sharp angles and specific dimensions make it look different to most classically 'imperial eagles' on the internet.

Of course on a miniature an eagle is so small that you can't see any of that detail, but as a logo to use in print I think they can reasonably argue for it.

I watched this tread from its initiation with great interest, I refrained from commenting even though I am quite touchy on many claims by GW especially the twin headed eagle that is an ancient symbol used in my country for more than a millennium (close to two).

But I really want to ask this, can GW's background that is ever changing and in many cases conflicting with itself hurt them in this case showing the do not even have a continuity and integrity of their own background, a recent example is how many different explanations the imperial eagle has.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I watched this tread from its initiation with great interest, I refrained from commenting even though I am quite touchy on many claims by GW especially the twin headed eagle that is an ancient symbol used in my country for centuries.

But I really want to ask this, can GW's background that is ever changing and in many cases conflicting with itself hurt them in this case showing the do not even have a continuity and integrity of their own background, a recent example is how many different explanations the imperial eagle has.

This is hence the reason why GW tries to trademark and copyright everything it can - Rhino variations themselves are trademarked IIRC. Unless it can be shown that the constant change affects the trademark, I don't think it'll hurt them.

Some kind soul has paid for and uploaded all the recent filings to recap (http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html). There are some transcripts in there where we get to hear the judge talking. It's good reading:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.369.2.pdf

18 THE COURT: Because that's what people do on the
19 Internet, they just sort of foam at the mouth?

Must be talking about a frothers posting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heh

THE COURT:
Why would I want to enter a terminating sanction?

The case is going to be so fun to try.

The record will reflect a tinge of sarcasm

Automatically Appended Next Post:

THE COURT: We're going to -- sadly, we're going to have to get together one more time. Nothing personal. Well, sort of.

Ooh, I like this from Moskin:

"Games Workshop customers. They are all -- at least the best customers are all participating or many of them are participating on the forums."

GW clearly missed a trick, getting him to do legal advice for them when he could be doing their marketing instead. Gosh. Imagine if GW had a representative on Dakka, actually directly communicating with its best customers, looking out for us, addressing our queries and concerns, giving us a few hints and rumours in advance. I, for one, would buy more GW stuff. Sorry. Off-topic. Ish.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

GW clearly missed a trick, getting him to do legal advice for them when he could be doing their marketing instead. Gosh. Imagine if GW had a representative on Dakka, actually directly communicating with its best customers, looking out for us, addressing our queries and concerns, giving us a few hints and rumours in advance. I, for one, would buy more GW stuff. Sorry. Off-topic. Ish.

Perish the thought!

I just have to say, that this document is quite the interesting read. It's long, and some of it is difficult for the layman to understand, but seriously, read it. Some interesting quotes, and really kind of nice to see how the judge 'feels' about some of the stuff that has been brought up.

The double headed eagle also appears on the inside of Russian Passports.

I propose the only way to deal with this is:

A Cage Match: Wells vs Putin

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Well I don't know if it's a blindfold, maybe I am thinking of the blindfold on Justice. It could be a blind eye or something. It's blind, anyway.

The point is that the blindness is the only significant difference between the GW eagle and a thousand other double-headed eagles found in heraldry and decorative arts.

There is a blind eye. IIRC, it's symbolism representative of the Adeptus Astra Telepathica and the fact that the binding ritual renders them blind.

Whether that blind eye makes it unique enough is, of course, a matter of debate.

Well regardless of our thoughts and deliberations on the matter, the people that count get to do their work tomorrow (unless they've moved it and I missed the fact).

Best of luck to all those involved, because I think that a few might need it.

Cheers

Andrew

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

 Ketara wrote:

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

This reminds me of how Starcraft was actually based off of 40k in the very, very, start... Wonder why GW didn't throw any C&Ds their way...

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

This reminds me of how Starcraft was actually based off of 40k in the very, very, start... Wonder why GW didn't throw any C&Ds their way...

No, no it wasn't, this is just an old internet myth that refuses to die.

Warcraft on the other hand during its pre-production had the idea thrown around to get GW to attach the Warhammer name to their game.

http://kotaku.com/5929157/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1

Allen Adham hoped to obtain a license to the Warhammer universe to try to increase sales by brand recognition. Warhammer was a huge inspiration for the art-style of Warcraft, but a combination of factors, including a lack of traction on business terms and a fervent desire on the part of virtually everyone else on the development team (myself included) to control our own universe nixed any potential for a deal. We had already had terrible experiences working with DC Comics on "Death and Return of Superman" and "Justice League Task Force", and wanted no similar issues for our new game.

 Ketara wrote:

Q So Ridley Scott's films, were they a
15 point of reference for the Warhammer 40K?
16 A It was not a point of reference,
17 probably discussion maybe, but certainly not a point
18 of reference.

So Blanche denies that Alien was a point of reference for the Tyranids. Interesting,

James Cameron's Aliens on the other hand was totally ripped off
BTW I don't think that Blanche did the design, Alan Perry was credited for designing the old metal hormagaunt.

Space Hulk on the other hand was quite obviously influenced by Aliens, and the tyranids in turn by the concept of genestealers - I still remember a guy in the shop selling Space Hulk to me as 'Aliens the Boardgame'

I don't think anyone looking at the Tyranid Hive Tyrant (or warrior for that matter), with the shape of it's head and carapace, can do anything but think of the alien queen from Aliens.. And if they show that kind of thing to a jury of course that is the first thing they are going to think.

-1 to John Blanche from this :(

Although I suppose there is the argument that the idea of a space-fairing insectoid race, organised in a manner similar to an ant or termite colony, came from the likes of Starship Troopers (or numerous other pulp sci-fi of the 60's).

 Pacific wrote:
Space Hulk on the other hand was quite obviously influenced by Aliens, and the tyranids in turn by the concept of genestealers - I still remember a guy in the shop selling Space Hulk to me as 'Aliens the Boardgame'

Be fair though, after Alien came out A E Van Vogt sued them for ripping off stories from Voyage of the Space Beagle, it settled out of court. There's no such thing as an original idea!

If I recall correctly, the trial was set to begin today. Any news if it has/hasn't?

It's listed on the judge's calendar. He also put out a bunch of rulings on sunday. Grindley is testifying, with some limits.

 Lansirill wrote:
If I recall correctly, the trial was set to begin today. Any news if it has/hasn't?

I emailed Nick about an order I made last weekend and he said he had court today and would have to email me info about my order later. Unless he's in court for something else, I'd say that it has.

I'm not sure we're going to hear much for a bit. I don't think proceedings will be published before the end of the trial and the people involved might not be able to talk about it until its over. I may be wrong, but we'll just have to wait for a bit.