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.

GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Wasn't the "Toy Soldier" bit because labeling them as "Art" limited their ability to copyright or patent them in some way?

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

I wasn't even aware it counted as part of the hobby, I thought it was just something we had to do to begin the hobby. Like how cleaning flash off a model is not considered painting but it is something you begrudgingly do anyway because you want to get to the painting.

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.
.

Maybe I'm not understanding, as my main experience is specifically with copyrights, but design rights give them pretty much the same legal scope. They protect the outward appearance of the product. In addition, the artwork from a codex would specifically be protected by copyright, and derivative works, ie toys based on those artworks, would also be covered under copyright. I don't know about US law but GW would seemingly have a pretty good case under European law.

Not saying I agree with GW's overall behaviour, but in Europe I don't think the toy definition harms their case at all.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.
.

Maybe I'm not understanding, as my main experience is specifically with copyrights, but design rights give them pretty much the same legal scope. They protect the outward appearance of the product. In addition, the artwork from a codex would specifically be protected by copyright, and derivative works, ie toys based on those artworks, would also be covered under copyright. I don't know about US law but GW would seemingly have a pretty good case under European law.

Not saying I agree with GW's overall behaviour, but in Europe I don't think the toy definition harms their case at all.

IIRC, design rights have a much shorter period of protection, I think only 20 years or something? Whereas a copyright is for the life of the artist + 70 years. That's the big difference, so if GWs designs were ruled under Design rights.... well, they're original designs from the 80s-90s would now be unprotected.

Yup, that's very true. That's why you'd try and protect your product with a combination of copyrights, trademarks and design rights.

Perhaps those jurors are getting a real education in the distinctions between those three as we speak...

So they maintained the line of creating "unique sculpts, definitely not toys" all this time only to have the IP manager come and say "we sell toy soldiers", I think the judge must have raised an eyebrow.

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.
So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

And if they claim in UK, that they don't sell toy soldiers, maybe they could be sued in USA for false oath, right?

I would not say its so cut and dried. While what they sell in the UK may, in the UK be defined as one thing that same thing may be defined as somthing other in a different jurisdiction.

For example what is sold as an English muffin in the States is not sold or defined as such in, ironically enough, England.

GW's pitch to investors has for years been, "We make the best toy soldiers in the world".

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Yup, that's very true. That's why you'd try and protect your product with a combination of copyrights, trademarks and design rights.

Perhaps those jurors are getting a real education in the distinctions between those three as we speak...

The US has nothing directly analogous to the UK's design rights; a design patent is about as close as we get, and that's a very different animal.

It's extremely difficult to argue successfully that a sculpture is a derivative work of a drawing/painting.

If CHS lawyers can get any testimony he gave in England, it is technically admissible to refute his assertion, even if the laws read differently, it damages his testimony,



Though since they mentioned dakka,, is it possible to have CHS bring up what's actually being said on Dakka about this?

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Different countries have different laws as to what is and isn't a 'toy' and what protections that entails. In the US, toys and toy IPs are very protected and the company that the designer worked for when the designer made the design usually owns the IP and any design elements. Case in point, BRATZ debut line was banned from production because the designer originally created it under Hasbro (or some other toy company) and Hasbro decided not to move the project forward. The designer quit and started production with someone else. Hasbro sued because, in the designer’s work contract, Hasbro owns the rights to anything created while the designer worked at Hasbro and used Hasbro’s resources to create a design.
It’s to combat corporate espionage. It’s a good thing.

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

 Kwosge wrote:

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

You would not pitch an idea to a manufacturer, a manufacturer would hire you to present a solution to a problem, just as architects are hired, just as engineers are hired, just as programmers are hired (if they dont set up shop them selves). It would screw up current status quo that is for certain, its a game changer, having said that, i am ok with it. Secrecy is the answer to corporate espionage, not law, has always been will always be.

Okay, to any of the lawyers on this thread. I'm in Chicago, work downtown, and am mere blocks from the courthouse on Dearborn.

If, on a whim, I wanted to wander over on my lunch break or whatever, would that be possible? Is there an audience chamber for these sorts of trials, like they show on TV shows? Do you need any sort of credentials to get in?

 Kwosge wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Yes the laws and definitions are different, but the statement has still been made (presumably under oath) and recorded in the proceedings.

To stand in a court and say "We don't make toys", whilst being on record in another court saying "We make toys" is not going to help you in any way. You could go on to argue that the US definition of toy differs from the UK, but you run a pretty serious risk of being viewed as duplicitous.

 Kwosge wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Different countries have different laws as to what is and isn't a 'toy' and what protections that entails. In the US, toys and toy IPs are very protected and the company that the designer worked for when the designer made the design usually owns the IP and any design elements. Case in point, BRATZ debut line was banned from production because the designer originally created it under Hasbro (or some other toy company) and Hasbro decided not to move the project forward. The designer quit and started production with someone else. Hasbro sued because, in the designer’s work contract, Hasbro owns the rights to anything created while the designer worked at Hasbro and used Hasbro’s resources to create a design.
It’s to combat corporate espionage. It’s a good thing.

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

Until 1776, UK law was US law. There are precedents in contract older than that which are applicable in both countries.

Thanks to this shared foundation, it is possible for courts in many ex-UK administrations (USA, Canada, Australia, etc) to "have regard" for decisions in the other countries' courts.

That means a UK decision would not be binding, but if a US judge wanted to take it into consideration in his judgement, he would be able to do so if it had relevance to the case.

 Kwosge wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
GW branding themselves as "toy soldiers" kills their copyright claims in the UK, as toys fall under design rights.

Also, buying from GW is not my favorite part of the hobby, if anything it's my least favorite.

Interesting. However, since they're filing right now in a US court, if it ever comes up under a UK court, would they then be able to state that they're not toy soldiers?

They could, but they'd have a hard time getting away with it if they've been quoted in court saying otherwise, even if said court is in the US.

So they've potentially given a suitable defence for most of their C&D claims.

Most court systems don't care about other countries’ court systems. Other countries have different laws and definitions. Furthermore, the US doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK so why would the UK use a US ruling as UK law?

Different countries have different laws as to what is and isn't a 'toy' and what protections that entails. In the US, toys and toy IPs are very protected and the company that the designer worked for when the designer made the design usually owns the IP and any design elements. Case in point, BRATZ debut line was banned from production because the designer originally created it under Hasbro (or some other toy company) and Hasbro decided not to move the project forward. The designer quit and started production with someone else. Hasbro sued because, in the designer’s work contract, Hasbro owns the rights to anything created while the designer worked at Hasbro and used Hasbro’s resources to create a design.
It’s to combat corporate espionage. It’s a good thing.

Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

The issue here isn't jurisdiction. Here is the breakdown:

GW claim not to be toys in the UK, so that they qualify for copyright and not just design right(which would be well expired for most of their products). AFAIK GW hasn't had to go on record in the UK to that end about not being toys.

Then here in the US, GW's head of IP says flat out in court "We make toy soldiers".

So if GW were to try and sue another company in the UK for copyright, the argument is that GW is on a legal record as saying they make toys. I'm fairly sure that the UK courts would accept that as an admission of making toys and not art.

Now if GW were to insist in a UK court that they don't make toys, but rather art, then they've just lied to a US federal court.

That's the rub here. GW can't claim to be a toy in one country and then art in another country who views said products virtually the same way. The UK way of thinking in regards to what is a toy isn't far from the US way of thinking.

 Redbeard wrote:
Okay, to any of the lawyers on this thread. I'm in Chicago, work downtown, and am mere blocks from the courthouse on Dearborn.

If, on a whim, I wanted to wander over on my lunch break or whatever, would that be possible? Is there an audience chamber for these sorts of trials, like they show on TV shows? Do you need any sort of credentials to get in?

Every court is different, I can't speak to US courts. But here are some general tips:

Courts are really just rooms in a building. You walk in the building, usually past security, there will typically be a registry of some sort (for filing paperwork), a wall with a bunch of calendars / dockets posted on it (to tell the lawyers where to go) and then a bunch of different courtrooms.

Courtrooms are normally open to the public. They'll make it clear to you if it isn't (sign on the door saying "No Public", or guard at the door etc).
There is normally security of some sort at the entrance to the courthouse - probably heightened for you folks down south. They'll probably check your bag if you have one.
You don't have to wear a suit or anything fancy.

Don't go on a lunch break - the court will be on lunch break as well, you won't see anything. However, if you have the afternoon off, going at lunch break will give you a chance to find the right courtroom and get seated before the trial starts again at the afternoon.

Make sure your phone is turned off.
Enter and exit as quietly as possible. Take the closest seat to the door so you don't disturb anyone. Try not to bang the door behind you. Try not to leave in the middle of someone being questioned. If you want to take notes, pen and paper is best.

Don't speak to witnesses who are hanging around outside - rules down south may vary, but its typical to exclude witnesses from a trial until they have testified. If they've been excluded, they aren't supposed to talk to folks about what is going on inside.

Court staff / security tend to be fairly helpful - ask for help if you get lost. Likewise, most lawyers tend to be pretty courteous and will give directions if asked nicely (YMMV).

The trial is listed as being in this courtroom: Courtroom 2103 (MFK)

Some courts have dress codes as well, at least around here. No hats, no tank tops or flip flops or shorts. You'd be surprised how annul some of these judges get.

 wowsmash wrote:
You'd be surprised how annul some of these judges get.

Especially in divorce proceedings.

Have fun in court, Redbeard! Take good notes, if allowed! Brush your hair!

As long as you treat the court and the parties with respect, you'll be fine. Pretend you are in church



And remember turn your cell phone off!

Customers could simply google for their products and find thriving communities of eager fans on websites such as "Dakka Dakka and Bell of Lost Souls".

What a cheek! How about all the the thriving communities over at TalkBloodBowl, and on BGG? Oh no wait! Someone closed them all down...

Mr. Merrett described Games Day to the jury as a Games Workshop event that...

Is slowly being phased out in favour of more profitable ventures like price gouging?

How much denial are these people in?

czakk wrote:
As long as you treat the court and the parties with respect, you'll be fine. Pretend you are in church



And remember turn your cell phone off!

Even more strict than church, I'd say. I'd wear a suit regardless, most everyone else in the courtroom is going to be, and you might feel awkward if you walk in wearing casual attire. Besides, it's showing respect for the court and the judge. I don't know about the US courts, but back home you have to pay respects in the form of a salutation when you enter and leave the courtroom, i.e. uniformed soldiers have to salute the flag/judge.

 Kwosge wrote:
Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission?

Because you're a creative sort of person and want to share?

I wouldn’t.

Nobody is forcing you to come up with ideas.

No one would.

I would.

I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

I'm glad I'm not in it as well. I tend to be far too flippant to really get along well in that world I'd imagine.

 Kwosge wrote:
Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would.

http://opensource.org/

There's thousands of projects where exactly this happens. So you're wrong - people do. And people make a living off of working with open source - Red Hat is a billion dollar open source company.

The northern district of illinois is part of the cameras in the court project (apparently). While they aren't filming this trial, you can see another hearing to get an idea of what goes on before you go in. (Sloan v Zurn - evidentiary hearing on patent claim construction I think). You get to see some expert evidence and some submissions to the court.

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/playvideos.htm

As you can see, it's a serious business but nothing magical.

I'd have taken vacation these 2 weeks if there was a live feed of the trial. Bollocks.