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.

 mwnciboo wrote:
You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Look at Flames of War, there is no IP claim on WW2, so there are lots of Companies producing the exact same Tanks in various or the same scales.

Then look at GW's Universe, something they created from nothing and own almost entirely, now other Companies cannot directly reference their material without permisson. Fantasy Flight Games and others have all worked with GW, companies like Codex Pictures or THQ, to produce in Universe IP items all above board and legally.

CHS might win, they might not, but it's very difficult to see how they will not end up in a protracted Legal War over the next 10 years if they continue to try to release things that get GW's attention.

I guess we have to rehash 150+ pages of discussions in a single post.

1) It is perfectly legal to refer to another product with its trademark name to indicate compatibility. CHS won on almost all of those counts in the lawsuit. Most were dropped by GW even before the whole thing went to trial, and at trial CHS won almost 2/3 of all claims against them.
2) You cannot copyright common geometric shapes, public domain icons, numbers, numerals, the shape of the human body, etc. For example, the shoulder pads GW makes are not copyrightable, because they are just a 1/4 sphere. Their ornamentation however is copyrightable if it is outside the public domain.
3) It is perfectly legal to make product compatible if you keep the above guidelines in mind. CHS definitely overstepped its bounds on some issues. The verdict reflects this. However GW went into this lawsuit claiming that every single item CHS has ever produced infringed every single trademark and copyright GW claimed to hold. In the end GW could not prove a lot of their trademarks and copyrights and/or CHS was found not to be infringing. There were a couple of cases where CHS was found to be infringing and that is where the $25k in penalties come from. However $25k is a lot less that the $400k and complete shut down of CHS that GW wanted.

 mwnciboo wrote:
You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Look at Flames of War, there is no IP claim on WW2, so there are lots of Companies producing the exact same Tanks in various or the same scales.

Then look at GW's Universe, something they created from nothing and own almost entirely, now other Companies cannot directly reference their material without permisson. Fantasy Flight Games and others have all worked with GW, companies like Codex Pictures or THQ, to produce in Universe IP items all above board and legally.

CHS might win, they might not, but it's very difficult to see how they will not end up in a protracted Legal War over the next 10 years if they continue to try to release things that get GW's attention.

Don't hate on CHS because they make some crappy bits. I didn't know pewter could look like fine cast until I got their bits. I got a couple of replacement thunder hammers with the same issue. I just wasn't happy with their quality and don't plan on buying anything else from them and haven't in about 3-4 years. If only liquid green stuff was around back then. I will say I only dropped $10 on them and am happy I didn't drop more than that. If you want quality go for Scibor or Pig Iron.

Mwnciboo, I highly recommend you read this thread in its entirety before posting further.

If you simply do not have that kind of time, then read the jury's verdict (if its out yet). That will outline why you are wrong.

I would wish people stop referring to Apple cases, Apple patents are some of the most questionable patents around and a firm case to those that maintain patent law should be reformed.

Now from what I remember from Apple vs Samsung trial,judge was an ex apple attorney and for sure the jury foreman was somebody who not only had the same vague patents as apple did (method of downloading song or video from the internet) but also he had a legal struggle he lost with Samsung (which he claimed did not feel he should mention because more than 10 years had passed), adding to all that the speed the jury gave verdict and the amount of random numbers thrown as damages (even making the galaxy tab 10.1 which started the whole thing non infringing) it is questionable why the whole thing is not labeled as a mistral.

Sorry for been off topic.

Redacted.

Mohoc wrote:

2) You cannot copyright common geometric shapes, public domain icons, numbers, numerals, the shape of the human body, etc. For example, the shoulder pads GW makes are not copyrightable, because they are just a 1/4 sphere. Their ornamentation however is copyrightable if it is outside the public domain.

Copyright is more difficult to establish, aye.

Trademark is a bit of a different matter though. Within specific domains, you can trademark what would be considered public domain names, shapes, and iconography.

The whole "Spots the Space Marine" kerfluffle originated because Games Workshop does hold a trademark on the term Space Marine within the realm of gaming. When they expanded into other media, however, they tried to assert their right to enforce that trademark elsewhere. There's some logic to their position, but it's a difficult case to make without filing for a proper trademark, particularly in the United States.

Moreover, you can copyright some public domain things in relation to a larger work. If you flip through the verdict you see that they ruled in GW's favor on things like shoulder pads with Roman numerals on them. While you'd have a difficult time asserting copyright to the shape (though CHS also lost on just blank shoulder pads, which does seem rather odd to be honest when you consider that they won on some of their other shoulder pads), if you've got the shape and the design, and you have evidence that you've depicted that exact thing in artwork or other forms, regardless of whether or not you can copyright the individual components in isolation you've got a case for copyright violation.

As for 'rounded corners and calling it an iWatch'...

Look up iDog.... A plastic speaker. Shaped like a dog. With rounded corners.

GW lost, and deserved to lose.

The Auld Grump, bleedin' amateurs!

Some of those items seem a bit "random" as to why CHS lost the ability to sell them like the crested shoulder pad (Pic attached), when they can still sell pretty much the same thing just with a Lion emblem sculpted on it.

Would this mean other bits makers, current or future, would (or should) remove any shoulder pads that have that "crest" from their catalogs and stop selling them?

Judging from the descriptions in the court document it seems kind of strange that CHS can't sell shoulder pads with Roman numerals on them when they still can sell a Terminator shoulder pad with a Roman Numeral on it.

They can no longer sell the 2 studded shoulder pads (pics also attached), but they can still sell the one with a small shield attached. That seems very weird to me.

Would this be part of the appeals process? Trying to get some clarity on the items that are no longer allowed based on what is now allowed?

 prplehippo wrote:
Some of those items seem a bit "random" as to why CHS lost the ability to sell them like the crested shoulder pad (Pic attached), when they can still sell pretty much the same thing just with a Lion emblem sculpted on it.

Would this mean other bits makers, current or future, would (or should) remove any shoulder pads that have that "crest" from their catalogs and stop selling them?

Judging from the descriptions in the court document it seems kind of strange that CHS can't sell shoulder pads with Roman numerals on them when they still can sell a Terminator shoulder pad with a Roman Numeral on it.

They can no longer sell the 2 studded shoulder pads (pics also attached), but they can still sell the one with a small shield attached. That seems very weird to me.

Would this be part of the appeals process? Trying to get some clarity on the items that are no longer allowed based on what is now allowed?

I think the idea that the jury were going for there is that GW have the right to be the only ones making the generic shoulder pads that you'd see on any flavour of marine veteran but CH have every right to slap a lion on it, call it a chapter specific one that GW doesn't produce and allow it.

Blank shoulder pads that are pretty much carbon copies of GW products have been ruled as infringing in this case but as stated above if you put artwork on that shoulderpad that GW does not produce your fine to sell those,

Which is a little odd as the US copywrite office have stated that the blank shoulder pads are not protectable haven't they, twice now I believe??

We're finished with the OT digression, right folks?

mullet_steve wrote:
Blank shoulder pads that are pretty much carbon copies of GW products have been ruled as infringing in this case but as stated above if you put artwork on that shoulderpad that GW does not produce your fine to sell those,

Which is a little odd as the US copywrite office have stated that the blank shoulder pads are not protectable haven't they, twice now I believe??

Thats something that's likely going to be appealed, since the judge twice ruled contrary ti tge copyright office and then denied allowing the jury from hearing testimony from the representative of the copyright office. CHS wasn't allowed to inform the jury that any outside decisions had been made.

The copyright office determined that a shoulder pad wasn't protectable. Then GW submitted to them the shoulder pad with an arrow on it and the copyright office again denied protectability.

I think the inconsistencies in the jury verdict are exactly why the judge called them for an extra meeting.

 mwnciboo wrote:
This whole thing has gotten stupid.

Seriously, CHS deserve to be shot down for being stupid. Clearly infringing the IP using certain lines and not even having the where-with-all to leave enough doubt to be viable.

Look at others like Anvil Industries, they have been extremely careful not to leave themselves open because they know GW will be on them like "a pack of Zombies after the last human being on earth. "

Even CHS website states...

"ChapterHouse Studios specializes in the creation of high end resin and metal miniature kits and bits applicable for use with a variety of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k models and the games.Our mission is to help address public demand for unavailable parts and iconography with the highest standards possible. "

Iconography is the dodgy bit (equally referencing the IP you are ripping is a bad start too), you've got to be so careful. This whole thing could have been avoided if they had been a bit more clever. Granted GW are hammering them, but so would I if I owned something and someone was making money off my own coat-tails. I think there is some Anti-GW Jingo-ism meets pseudo understanding of Economics and IP law here, with a big dose of "Morale Soap-boxing".

Like them or Hate them GW does own alot of IP, and there an awful lot of organisations that own things like the Song "Happy Birthday" and have to pay royalties etc and cannot reproduce without permission.

Look at Apples Claims on Samsung...Which they won.



So IP law and all it's associated elements are complex as hell...Best solution, don't make your product similar to anything else and make sure your register it, for a TM, Patent or as Intellectual property.

Yea, no. I'm getting tired of reminding people that Apple did NOT win on the shape of the phone. Not only did certain of Samsung's phones not infringe the various design patents, those designs were for a combination of design features, not just the shape of the phone. It was the outer shape, edge to edge black glass, thin bezel, AND a horizontal speaker. Apple never claimed to own a rectangle with rounded corners.

Did Samsung have to use all of those features in combination, knowing apple had a design patent? No. And in fact the jury verdict says that, yes, Samsung can make a rectangular phone with rounded corners that does not infringe Apple's patent. In the majority of devices, Samsung simply chose to make their phones look like iPhones. Why? Because Samsung wanted to capture Apple's market by doing exactly what Apple did to become successful, exactly. Not a new way to do the same thing, not inspired by Apple's inventions and good ideas, but by doing exactly what Apple did.

Were you at the trial, did you actually listen to the evidence, did you at all take the time to see what Samsung really did, or did you just underline "rounded corners" to make some not terribly apropos argument about a COPYRIGHT case?

Edit: And I will go ahead and add that not only did CHS win on the vast majority of the total asserted claims, not only did Magistrate judge Gilbert tell GW that CHS has a 'profitable business' and will probably win on some of the asserted claims, but that quote from the CHS you are ripping on, THAT was a claim n the case that, gasp, CHS WON on.

Before you go spewing vitriol about the state of IP law, do your homework. There's plenty to be pissed about, but you are way off the mark, and I'm betting you simply don't like CHS for some personal reason that has nothing th to with the law or a legitimate, sensible, logical criticism of the system.

weeble1000 wrote:
Before you go spewing vitriol about the state of IP law, do your homework.

It's amazing how common it is for people to go onto an internet forum and post completely inaccurate information when that very same internet would provide them with all the correct information if that person had bothered to spend the time educating himself.

A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

At the time did anyone say "Why the hell would an illustrator get involved in a copyright case between GW and a third party add-on manufacturer? Are you high?"

 plastictrees wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

At the time did anyone say "Why the hell would an illustrator get involved in a copyright case between GW and a third party add-on manufacturer? Are you high?"

No, but several people did bring up that the Tau were stolen from a Roger Dean Album cover for the band Uriah Heep. As far as getting involved, as the closest thing to the actual owner of the copyright...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A while back someone wondered why Roger Dean was not involved in this case against GW, as GW ripped him off when they produced the Tau.

Seems he's currently busy with a case against James Cameron for something similar.

At the time did anyone say "Why the hell would an illustrator get involved in a copyright case between GW and a third party add-on manufacturer? Are you high?"

No, but several people did bring up that the Tau were stolen from a Roger Dean Album cover for the band Uriah Heep. As far as getting involved, as the closest thing to the actual owner of the copyright...

Are you talking about this image?

Wow. If I were to have seen that, I'd have immediately said "Tau".

 mwnciboo wrote:
You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Wow. This is another "head in the sand" quote, too.
First... they absolutely CAN claim to be filing those gaps.

Your iWatch example is horrid, at best. It does nothing to mimic what happened between CHS & GW. Rather, it what GW would LIKE you to think happened.

The majority of what CHS did (in keeping as close as possible to your own example) is more akin to saying "I built a wrist strap that is compatible with your iPod Nano. Now, you can wear it like a watch." That IS legal. You're surrounded by it every day and have probably purchased similar products without a second thought.
The closest thing you have to an argument are the full models CHS created. While I happen to disagree, due to the number of differences, those models are close enough to GW's creations that they COULD be problematic. For now, the jury's ruled against them. The case is far from over, however.

Eric

 Enigwolf wrote:
Wow. If I were to have seen that, I'd have immediately said "Tau".

Like when I saw these and said,"Kroot!"? These were out about 3 years before the Tau army came to exist.

"In this case the creative process was that I saw that name, forgot that I saw it, and remembered it later."
-Liz Lemon

Excellent post Shepherd. See, artists take ideas from all over the place. Do I think GW's Kroot are any less entitled to a copyright, no, but this is an excellent example of how narrow copyrights should really be.

The types of differences between these works of art and the Kroot and GW's asserted works of art and at least some of the CHS whole models are pretty darn on par. Art is not created in a vacuum.

I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I wonder if there isn't some more logic to the Eastern/Chinese concept of ideas, whereby nature imprints itself on the creativity of individuals, in a flow of patterns that existed externally and passes through the artist, and that replication of those things is actually seen as a great indication of skill?

For something like GW, which historically has had creativity at it's heart (although I realise that has become somewhat strained over recent years) it seems almost paradoxical that they should expend such tremendous energy on shutting down the copiers of something that a) they didn't really create themselves to begin with, in the sense that GW was inspired by so many other SF/fantasy sources and b ) wasn't really costing them any money, or doing the world any harm.

Aside from comments regarding the nature of art and creativity, the whole thing seems utterly bonkers to me...

I actually think both of those are rather different. The "Tau" in the image is holding an ornamental sword, right?

GW was much more inspired by generic anime, as was that image, imo. Same thing with the MTG "kroot".

With so many images out there, unless you made something years ago, it's likely inspired/informed by prior art. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But they're not identical... an important distinction, imo.

Keep in mind that lawyers and creative staff think differently.

For creative staff it is normal to be inspired by the work of colleagues. As long as you add something to it (and don't deny the inspiration), this works perfectly for everyone. This is how GW grew, this is how creativity works.

For a lawyer, inspiration is IP theft paying his lifestyle. So he tries to hunt down creative staff that uses inspiration by colleagues. This is the situation we are currently in. Creative staff is always half convicted when working creatively. This is visibly drying up creativity at least within GW, restricting also the growth of second market. This is a bad thing.

So if you are trying to hunt down creative artists, be aware that you play the lawyer's game, not the creative artists' game.

Personally I am glad that one of GW artists saw the potential of the Magic Nightstalkers for a tabletop race

Good points although as GW found out here, it can be hard to convict even on works directly inspired by your own... if they have the money to defend themselves, at least!

 Aerethan wrote:
I must admit, those MTG cards are VERY damning against GW's Kroot designs, and there is not a damn thing the white knights and apologists can say to dispute that.

If GW was only "inspired" by those cards then CHS's standalone models were just as much only "inspired" by GW's relative works.

I wonder now if WotC will go after GW and throw their own weight around, which I imagine is heavier.

I'm sorry, but is this sarcasm? Other than being emaciated I don't see much similarity there.
As for the album cover, it's pretty much just a similar helmet.
I also have a question about the final judgement- what exactly can it change from the jury verdict?

 Kroothawk wrote:


For a lawyer, inspiration is IP theft paying his lifestyle. So he tries to hunt down creative staff that uses inspiration by colleagues.

You forgot to mention that we also steal candy from children, kick puppies, and throw our recyclables into the trash.