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.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 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?

You have to look at it like GW would look at it of the tables were turned.

GW might say that their artwork has the following "combination" of elements:

Gaunt humanoid
Primitive
Wearing few clothes or a loin cloth
Feral features
Spiky hair swept back from the head
Primitive-looking stick-like gun

GW would say that these elements, while individually not necessarily unique, are combined into a unique, protectable "combination" of unprotectable elements and that the "protected expression" in their original work of art is that very unique, very specific combination of loosely described 'elements'. If all of those elements can be found in the accused work, that means the accused work copied "protected expression."

The problem with that analysis is that it first of all has no real relationship to whether certain elements of combinations of elements are or are not original to the asserted work. Second, the generic categorization of those elements is overly simplistic and far too broad. Even within said broadly-defined 'emements' you can find a world of variation.

Spiky hair swept back from the head? Okay, both works sort of have that style, but if you look at the Kroot you see that the spikes are not only of a different color, but are also decorated with clasps and rings, and seem to sprout from slightly larger pours or bits that are the same color as the scalp. You don't see that in the MtG artwork.

Feral features? Sure, both have 'feral features' if you want to define it that broadly. But the Kroot have avian, beak-like faces with pointed tongues. In fact, the Kroot seem to have no teeth at all.

Primitive? One wears a loincloth. The Kroot do not seem to wear loincloths. In fact, the Kroot seem to carry bags and wear jewelry without wearing much in the way of clothes at all, and when they do it seems to have a different cut and style to the breech clout worn by the figure in the MtG art.

This is the problem with GW's view of the world. Those are the sorts of broad, overly general, not terribly specific, meaningless arguments GW made against Chapterhouse Studios. GW claimed to own bipedal Lizards with Mesoamerican weapons. GW claimed that this was unique because those elements (bipedal, lizard, Mesoamerican weapons) was essentially the sum total of the protected expression in their multiple works of art, even with disparate elements coming from disparate works of art! If you look at the claim chart, GW asserted a picture of the Croxigor models and a picture of some Lizardman weapons from the codex art. The implication was that the weapons were copied from the codex art and the bipedal lizard was copied from the Croxigor models. That only makes sense if you are insane.

'We have a "unique" combination of not unique elements that we have defined separately in the broadest possible sense, reduced in that manner to broad generalities because that is where the similarities end between your work and ours, but in point of fact we can't actually point to all of those elements being combined in one work of art. But we totes did both pieces, so, you know, it all belongs to us.'

GW lost on the Lizard Ogre claim, but the argument typifies GW's entire case from roman numerals to slanted gun barrels to piles of skulls. It wasn't actually a presentation of any proper evidence beyond showing the fact finder the two works of art. But is that ipso facto sufficient evidence to prove copying? What you, as an author, own is only that which is specifically unique in your expression and never, ever, in any way, encompasses an idea or concept.

If Dark Eldar, for example, are protectable because they are 'spiky and evil' then any other prior existing work of art that is 'spiky and evil' is similarly protectable and Dark Eldar are therefore completely unoriginal and deserving of no protection whatsoever. That is what people on these boards have been saying for years now, and that is why people look at that Tau-esque CD art and call shenanigans. It is because the door swings both ways, and if GW wants to assert such a broad ownership as it has, such broad ownership applies equally to every other artists in the world, and GW would have no artwork to protect in the first place. But the world doesn't work like that. The Kroot are different from that MtG art. Both are unique pieces of artwork deserving of some limited measure of copyright protection that prevents people from making copies of that work of art.

Edit: Ninja'ed by an excellent post by weeble! Cheers to the "lawyers for good" among us

czakk wrote:

 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.

Don't forget about clubbing the baby seals. Honestly how do you sleep at night

Thanks for that post weeble, but I'm not sure what you were getting at. Your post goes over similarities and disimilarities, and finishes with a comparison to the GW vs Chapterhouse case.
My postwas that I refuted his comments that they were similar enough for WotC to start a lawsuit over design similarities, and I wanted clarification if it was sarcasm that went over my head.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 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?

Was your comment, itself, sarcasm!?! If you actually look at the MtG cards you can see that the hair is similar in that it is swept back, and in two of the cards, clumped together (like kroot). The body poses even reflect the miniatures "body language". The weapons are similarly primitive and wrapped in cloth on certain areas. The facial shape is similar to kroot. The lack of clothing, beyond loin clothe, is also similar to kroot.

Those cards are more Kroot-like than not. To not see that is only admitting that your eye exam is seriously overdue. The last sentence was the only actual sarcasm in this posts non quoted areas. This poster is not responsible for quoted comments or the readers inability to correctly interpret what the poster typed.

Shepherd23 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 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?

Was your comment, itself, sarcasm!?! If you actually look at the MtG cards you can see that the hair is similar in that it is swept back, and in two of the cards, clumped together (like kroot). The body poses even reflect the miniatures "body language". The weapons are similarly primitive and wrapped in cloth on certain areas. The facial shape is similar to kroot. The lack of clothing, beyond loin clothe, is also similar to kroot.

Those cards are more Kroot-like than not. To not see that is only admitting that your eye exam is seriously overdue. The last sentence was the only actual sarcasm in this posts non quoted areas. This poster is not responsible for quoted commenyts or the readers inability to correctly interpret what the poster typed.

It was not. In my opinion, I see few similarities between being emaciated and evil looking. Kroot are generally birdlike, with an obvious beak. They boh carry guns, but the mtg card lacks the blades and general shape of a kroot weapon. Also kroot artwork generally shows hem in forested areas vs swamps.
*edit- I hate autocorrect shenanigans

Shepherd23 wrote:
This poster is not responsible for quoted comments or the readers inability to correctly interpret what the poster typed.

You should put this disclaimer in your signature. From a Design Engineer's perspective, there are a lot of critical design aspects that are pretty damning. I don't want to drag this off-topic, but if someone else starts a thread on it, I'll do a full design study comparing the two.

Good plan. Enough with the MTG card/Kroot conversation.

Since my question was lost in the OT discussion above, I'll ask it again- What can the final verdict change in relation to this case? Can it completely disregard the jury's verdict? Award more-less damages? Just reiterate what was already said?

 RiTides wrote:

czakk wrote:

 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.

Don't forget about clubbing the baby seals. Honestly how do you sleep at night

I will soon add this to my original post, thanks

And the left Nightstalker on the secons pic looks indeed almost exactly like a Kroot, esp. the face.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Since my question was lost in the OT discussion above, I'll ask it again- What can the final verdict change in relation to this case? Can it completely disregard the jury's verdict? Award more-less damages? Just reiterate what was already said?

Yes.

The trial judge has discretion to enter basically whatever final verdict he wants to, although he needs to have some basis on which to do so, e.g a finding that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict of X. The appellate court has a bit more discretion because it can additionally correct an error made by the trial judge, and remand some or all claims fr a new trial. Technically, I suppose the trial judge could correct his wn error at this point, but that would be exceedingly odd.

On a practical level, it takes a lot to overturn a jury verdict, and mostly what you'd see do it is a finding of insufficient evidence, I.e no reasonable jury could have found the facts in this way because they had no facts on which to make that finding. For exa,ple, if I recall Chapterhouse's JMOL motion (and post trial motions will be a renewed, and possibly altered JMOL), CHS argued something about GW providing no evidence of likelihood of confusion. Czakk can probably quote the relevant parts. Presumably, the trial judge could agree with the defendant and find that for X claims, the plaintiff in fact did not provide sufficient evidence to meet its burden of poof, ergo a finding for the plaintiff on such claims could not be anything other than an error on the part of the jury.

My point with the Kroot thing was not really directed at you. The point about the Kroot (this is very minimal Janthkin) was merely to use that example as a way to demonstrate the type of arguments GW made to prove substantial similarity in its case against CHS. In other words, if you don't think the Kroot are similar to the MtG drawings, the arguments GW used to prove substantial similarity in the CHS case could have been made to prove substantial similarity between the MtG drawings and the Kroot.

People who favor GW tend to have rose tinted glasses. The CHS works are so clearly ripoffs of GW art, but when it comes to differences between GW work and other artwork, there's a huge world of very detailed differences. Generally speaking, GW itself falls victim to this distorted view of reality in which what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

GW and Chapterhouse still have trouble agreeing on the judgment.

406 Status Report:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.0.pdf

406 GW's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.1.pdf

406 CHS's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.2.pdf

czakk wrote:
GW and Chapterhouse still have trouble agreeing on the judgment.

406 Status Report:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.0.pdf

406 GW's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.1.pdf

406 CHS's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.2.pdf

At the risk of sounding as stupid as I may actually be, and for those that don't speak lawyerian, What?

From what my caveman like brain could tell it says CH was guilty of some, but not all charges brought by GDub, right?
Does that mean CH will just stop making what it was told did infringe on copyrighted material, and keep on keeping on with what didn't get called infringement?

Yes they'll have to stop selling infringing products.

The jist of those documents are that GW and CHS want court phrase it's judgement slightly differently. The first document is a status reprort about the differences and proposals to reconcile the two.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Yes they'll have to stop selling infringing products.

The jist of those documents are that GW and CHS want court phrase it's judgement slightly differently. The first document is a status reprort about the differences and proposals to reconcile the two.

Thank you!

czakk wrote:
GW and Chapterhouse still have trouble agreeing on the judgment.

406 Status Report:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.0.pdf

406 GW's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.1.pdf

406 CHS's version: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.406.2.pdf

I think those filings are in error. The text of the document is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same as that of document 401, and is consequently titled "Joint Status Report For Entry of Judgment" in the actual document, as opposed to "Joint Status Report Regarding Entry of Permanent Injunction," which is what the docket entry is labeled. I assume the proper status report should bear a corresponding title, yes?

Edit: Of course as soon as I post this it gets fixed. Document 407 has the proper documents for the "Joint Status Report Regarding Entry of Permanent Injunction."

Dang. Mr Keener's making me look like an ass by misfiling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.407.0.pdf

czakk wrote:
Dang. Mr Keener's making me look like an ass by misfiling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.407.0.pdf

Lol, maybe he's reading the forums. 'OH Crap! that czakk guy's links go to the totally wrong documents!'

You're welcome Mr. Keener. Should we send them a bill or something?

I'm sure it was the lawyers on the other side who alerted him first.

I love how GW objects to being reminded that they were penalized by the judge for falsifying stuff during discovery.

But that would make them look foolish and possibly immoral?

 skyth wrote:
I love how GW objects to being reminded that they were penalized by the judge for falsifying stuff during discovery.

Because, and this is the best bit, they just don't want to "complicate" the ruling. Really, they're just doing everyone a favor, trying to keep things simple, see?

I am confused, has there been a final decision?

 MRPYM wrote:
I am confused, has there been a final decision?

Not yet, this is more like a summary of possible appeals, and random anti-GW banter.

Well, there has been but the wording is currently being debated.

I could be wrong, but this is not the judge's final verdict, but CH an GW arguing over the jury's verdict, correct?

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 MRPYM wrote:
I am confused, has there been a final decision?

Not yet, this is more like a summary of possible appeals, and random anti-GW banter.

The current issue before the Court is permanent injunction. There is a hearing on Monday, and at the end of the day on Monday rule 50 and 59 motions are due, i.e. renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for a new trial.

Once judgment is final (and the parties are now disputing when the judgment 'becomes' final) the parties have a certain amount of time (I think 30 days) to file a notice of appeal. If no notice of appeal is filed by that time, there can be no appeal.

So, right now the Court needs to make a decision on what permanent injunctions to impose and the parties have 4 substantive disputes about that. Next the Court will take up any renewed JMOL motions. Later, the parties will need to file a notice of appeal if they intend to appeal.

That's what is going on right now.

so although the jury has given their verdict GW and CH are now arguing that their translations of that verdict shold be the ones that become the final judges verdict...

Pretty much. And when you see the variety of decisions it does give cause for thought.

For example, why can GW copyright a shoulder pad with skull on, but not a shoulder pad with arrow on? Both sides might want to contest such a point.

408, 409, 410 are up, lots of exhibits etc.... GWs JMOL and CHS's JMOL / request for new trial.

Link: http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html (scroll down to the bottom)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From Exhibit K, trial transcript: Mr. Merrit and Mr. Moskin.

10 Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth
11 spreads?
12 A. Well, obviously, the Internet is the big one today and
13 social media, but the Internet is probably the biggest single
14 way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate
15 with each other. And actually, you can't -- if you were to go
16 online and type Games Workshop, you would find a myriad of
17 forums and blogs and websites of our fans goobering about our
18 stuff, basically.
19 Q. Goobering?
20 A. Getting excited about.
21 Q. I don't know how to goober. I'm sorry.

Certainly if you type in Games Workshop Social Media you won't get anything from them