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.

 prplehippo wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I know you're aware Weeble, but just to chime in for the benefit of those who aren't, that's gold jewellery on an unpainted model as sold.

Funny. I painted mine to look like Jade.

Well you weren't doing it properly, were you. Those were GOLD bands, man. How dare you paint your unpainted unassembled miniature however you want to, using your own creative expression! How dare you, sir. You must not be a TRUE fan.

weeble1000 wrote:

 prplehippo wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I know you're aware Weeble, but just to chime in for the benefit of those who aren't, that's gold jewellery on an unpainted model as sold.

Funny. I painted mine to look like Jade.

Well you weren't doing it properly, were you. Those were GOLD bands, man. How dare you paint your unpainted unassembled miniature however you want to, using your own creative expression! How dare you, sir. You must not be a TRUE fan.

see, but i find that strange. What's the difference between someone who builds a miniature and someone who paints it? If both mimic GW's product, how is it that the commission painters are getting off? Technically speaking it's entirely possible to recycle massive armies wholesale without GW getting one penny from the process, and if the armies that are sold are all based on GW designs and color schemes.... .well...aren't the commission painters living off of GW? I don't see the difference between the two.

weeble1000 wrote:


This case is a darn big mess that touches on scores of fundamental issues for the miniatures industry and beyond.

Which is the reason we have seriously high powered IP law firms standing in line to assist in this case. I suspect that huge amounts of IP law and practice come crashing down if the GW wins stand up on appeal.

Tim

 poda_t wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 prplehippo wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I know you're aware Weeble, but just to chime in for the benefit of those who aren't, that's gold jewellery on an unpainted model as sold.

Funny. I painted mine to look like Jade.

Well you weren't doing it properly, were you. Those were GOLD bands, man. How dare you paint your unpainted unassembled miniature however you want to, using your own creative expression! How dare you, sir. You must not be a TRUE fan.

see, but i find that strange. What's the difference between someone who builds a miniature and someone who paints it? If both mimic GW's product, how is it that the commission painters are getting off? Technically speaking it's entirely possible to recycle massive armies wholesale without GW getting one penny from the process, and if the armies that are sold are all based on GW designs and color schemes.... .well...aren't the commission painters living off of GW? I don't see the difference between the two.

Are you suggesting that painting a miniature is not a work of art? The Golden Demon competition itself disagrees with you. And color schemes themselves are generally not considered to be original works of authorship by the US copyright office. I think there are many many many miniature painters that would be seriously offended by your implications.

Copyright protects works that are at least minimally creative. Are you suggesting that painting a miniature does not involve at least a minimal degree of creativity? If painting a miniature is as you suggest, it would mean that the artist that sculpted the miniature owe and controls any way the such miniature is painted. And yet the painting of a miniature dramatically alters the nature of that work of art. Even if the exact same color scheme is used. The manner in which such an IDEA is EXPRESSED can be radically different because it involves substantive choices by the artist which are integral to the meaning and character of the work.

Besides, hasn't GW given an implied license to paint its miniatures? Hasn't any manufacturer of miniatures, which are designed and intended to be painted. Their purpose is to be painted, as is their value as a product to the consumer. In the UK, such miniatures themselves, being mass produced, would not qualify as artwork, and so the painting woe be the only extant work if art. Assembling a miniature as intended even involves creative choices if the miniature is posable. And those are creative choices the seller intends the customer to make, vacating any ownership or control over those choices, even if they could be owned by the manufacturer.

Just go and look at a Lysander miniature painted by 20 different people, all in the "appropriate" color scheme and tell me if you think there is no creative difference between those works.

...I *think* he was being sarcastic, weeble...

 Bolognesus wrote:
...I *think* he was being sarcastic, weeble...

Or he's GW exec who is planning where the next round of C&D's are going as soon as they replace Ms. Stevenson.

 derek wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
...I *think* he was being sarcastic, weeble...

Or he's GW exec who is planning where the next round of C&D's are going as soon as they replace Ms. Stevenson.

Talking of the erstwhile Ms. Stevenson, I had a thought recently. Didn't her departure just slightly pre-date the announcement of the involvement of those heavyweight IP lawyers?

Could the timing suggest desertion of a sinking ship, rat stylee, rather than termination?

Academic at best, as the outcome is the same, but that extra little bit of info could spin the situation slightly differently.

 azreal13 wrote:

 derek wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
...I *think* he was being sarcastic, weeble...

Or he's GW exec who is planning where the next round of C&D's are going as soon as they replace Ms. Stevenson.

Talking of the erstwhile Ms. Stevenson, I had a thought recently. Didn't her departure just slightly pre-date the announcement of the involvement of those heavyweight IP lawyers?

Could the timing suggest desertion of a sinking ship, rat stylee, rather than termination?

Academic at best, as the outcome is the same, but that extra little bit of info could spin the situation slightly differently.

If Gill Stevenson jumped ship from Games Workshop Ltd, I would think that she might have lined up a new job first, even a token position like of counsel for a firm so she could say she was never unemployed.

I checked her LinkedIn page just now to make sure Gill was still "looking for a new opportunity," and this was interesting:

Gill Stevenson commented on this update:
Dave Kerpen: If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. - Milton Berle
5 days ago

I wonder if we're not reading too much into her departure and activities.

Anytime anyone significant leaves GW, we tend to read a lot into it. I'm not sure that that's always warranted.

I can't imagine being lead council in that affair was any fun. Indeed there could be all sorts of reasons other than a deliberate (or non-deliberate) "push". However, I do think it is highly unlikely that she and/or GW don't think her remaining with them would be a mistake. Either she no longer likes GW or they don't like her. One of those things must be true for her to be let go of. No one quits a job they like voluntarily for no money.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
I wonder if we're not reading too much into her departure and activities.

Anytime anyone significant leaves GW, we tend to read a lot into it. I'm not sure that that's always warranted.

That's possible, but then you have to consider Weeble's point from earlier in the thread, as a rule, professionals don't just up and quit without a new job at the point in their career she seems to be at.

Time may tell, but that one thought is very difficult to reconcile with any voluntary actions she might have made.

 azreal13 wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
I wonder if we're not reading too much into her departure and activities.

Anytime anyone significant leaves GW, we tend to read a lot into it. I'm not sure that that's always warranted.

That's possible, but then you have to consider Weeble's point from earlier in the thread, as a rule, professionals don't just up and quit without a new job at the point in their career she seems to be at.

Time may tell, but that one thought is very difficult to reconcile with any voluntary actions she might have made.

I think the most absurdly glaring point is that Gill Stevenson 'departed' Games Workshop Ltd. a month after the verdict in the Chapterhouse case. And before anyone says that she might just have been hanging around until the case was finished as a super nice favor to GW, keep in mind that the suit is not over, and losing senior in house legal counsel at this point in the case is a blow. As senior in house counsel, she would have been the mediator between the company and outside counsel. Now that she is gone, someone else has to come up to speed quickly because executives are going to be looking to their lawyers for advice when decisions have to be made.

And you might want to consider the reverse. If GW wanted to fire her, maybe they figured it would be best to wait until after she testified in court . Disgruntled employees do not make good witnesses.

If Gill Stevenson had planned to leave, why is she "looking for a new opportunity?" If she was handling the trial to close out her time with GW, shouldn't she have been using that time to find that opportunity?

At the end of the day, the simplest explanation is that Games Workshop was not happy with the jury verdict and put the blame on the one person at the company who was arguably the architect of the whole thing.

@Weeble:

Seems like a case of Ockham's Razor, right?

 Bolognesus wrote:
...I *think* he was being sarcastic, weeble...

essentially, yes.
The entire premise was ridiculous, but at the same time, it just makes you scratch your head and wonder if maybe GW won't attempt some sort of jab at this. Obviously it's in GW's interests if it sells the army brand new, and not some other bloke who makes it his business to recycle used stuff. I know certain companies do use the trade of used armies to turn a profit, and if GW decides they don't like this policy, because somehow if follows the same trend as the trade of bits.... I'm pretty sure that those dealers also depend heavily on the sale of new boxes, and if GW sees the trade of used armies/parts badly, well, that business will likely not be getting any new orders filled by GW. That's the context under which I fail to see the difference, whether someone's copying GW's artistic works in refurbishing and selling their already sold product, or filling a gap in their product line or creating a third party rendition of what the model should look like if it wasn't stuck waiting for around 15+ years for an update/new sculpt.

 mechanicalhorizon wrote:
Back in 1998-1999 I worked for Hot Topic in Columbia Mall (part-time), during the day I worked for GW at the Glen Burnie HQ....

Just as a quick aside: Hot Topic is infamous for stealing other people's IP.

So over the last couple of pages people have been mentioning the appellate court, could a lawyery type explain to the rest of us what that means?

Obviously it deals with appeals but will a new judge/jury get involved or anything or are we more or less back to where we started with lawyers arguing only this time they both have the verdict to poke holes in/back them up?

No jury gets involved on appeal, no 'new' facts are entered into the record, and basically anything which isn't thrown out on appeal stands. Short and unlawyery enough?

It basically involves lawyers trying to convince a panel of judges that certain judgements made during the initial trial (and stuff leading up to it) were in error and should be reversed.
Basically, it's where you finally get to make a decent legal argument without 12 complete and utter idiots involved.
...Though that might be a continental European perspective talking, here

So all those calls people on here have made about ideas not being copyrightable and stuff like that which the current judge has let slide, this is CH's chance to turn around and get that overruled because it's now multiple judges who are paying attention rather than waiting for one side to settle?

Sounds fun

 Bolognesus wrote:
No jury gets involved on appeal, no 'new' facts are entered into the record, and basically anything which isn't thrown out on appeal stands. Short and unlawyery enough?

It basically involves lawyers trying to convince a panel of judges that certain judgements made during the initial trial (and stuff leading up to it) were in error and should be reversed.
Basically, it's where you finally get to make a decent legal argument without 12 complete and utter idiots involved.
...Though that might be a continental European perspective talking, here

Well you know the "12 complete and utter idiots" are a "Jury of our peers"......

I will refrain from posting anything mentioning the average American -- even when blatantly baited

Yes, let's end the talk of American/European jury views and stay on topic. Thanks.

 Bolognesus wrote:
I will refrain from posting anything mentioning the average American -- even when blatantly baited

The jury of peers is fine and well for criminal cases, but a case like this I honestly feel would be better served by having a jury of judges who understand the implications of the decisions being made for this type of case.

Imagine if there was no appeal process. Then 12 literally random people from Chicago decided how a massive part of IP law will function without any comprehensive understanding of the impact those decisions will have. This case is about far more than toy soldiers, as evidenced by the very large firms chomping at the bit to get in on it at this stage.

I do feel that the jury of peers works fairly well for criminal cases(at least when celebrity is not involved), but a case like this that is ALL "legal nonsense" should really be decided by those educated in the field.

My 2 copper on it at least.

I maintain the stand that I've had since day one: GW have spent millions and have everything to lose, CHS has spent just over $100k and have nothing further to lose. What is the worst that happens for CHS? They close and the owner gets a different job, life goes on. What is the worst that happens to GW? A billion smaller companies decide to open shop now that they know well defined boundaries in which they can create products(which only benefits us as consumers). CHS has no reason to settle except that they be bought out entirely by GW, but at this point I'd imagine that CHS's counsel is heavily advising against that since they are so well poised to win in appellate court.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I can remember several GW staff happily admitting that Tau were an attempt to cash in on the popularity of anime and manga, at the time of their release. Not that any design elements were borrowed from other art, obviously.

Not that the average GW staff have any authority to speak for the company. I do not speak for the guys I do contract work for despite regularly talking to the owner of the company. A guy working retail for a much larger corporation is in much the same boat.

Off topic - But it was pithy Bolognesus, it was pithy.

Oh, and Aerethan, where did you get that 100K number? I think as far as we know, Chapterhouse only spent ~$1,200.00 to pull some files at the copyright office, and Jonathan Moskin is required to pay that back on account of having failed to provide those documents in the first place. Other than that, there's probably a smattering of court fees, travel costs, and of course an immense amount of both time and mental anguish, but I daresay that 100K is way too big of an estimate of what Chapterhouse has actually spent on the litigation.

Now, the pro-bono firms have put in hundreds of thousands, if not millions in costs and lord knows what amount in terms of unpaid fees. I expect that whatever GW put into the case, Chapterhouse's counsel put in several times the amount.

And it also is not really an "investment" for Chapterhouse Studios, it is a matter of survival. It has always been a fight or die situation, if you remember Judge Gilbert intimating that GW's goal was "go away, die, and pay us whatever you can of our attorneys' fees." It is an investment for Chapterhouse's counsel, though only the firms know the exact nature of how they perceive that investment, which could be as simple as justice or the public good.

An appeal in the US Court of Appeals will take place before a panel of 3 Judges. Those three judges will be chosen randomly out of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, a party can request an en banc hearing or rehearing, which brings the case to the whole bench, or all of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges. This, however, can only be a request as it is not a right, and a court can make its own independent decision to hear or rehear a case en banc.

Matters before a court of appeals are typically issues of reversible error or arguments to vacate a judgment. An appellate panel could for example vacate all or part of a judgement, enter new judgment, reverse a lower court's ruling, or remand all or part of a case for re-trial. The rulings of a court of appeal tend to carry more weight and have more force as precedent.

 Balance wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I can remember several GW staff happily admitting that Tau were an attempt to cash in on the popularity of anime and manga, at the time of their release. Not that any design elements were borrowed from other art, obviously.

Not that the average GW staff have any authority to speak for the company. I do not speak for the guys I do contract work for despite regularly talking to the owner of the company. A guy working retail for a much larger corporation is in much the same boat.

But if it's such an obvious rip-off that their own retail staff are discussing it makes it harder to claim independent design, no?

Herzlos wrote:

 Balance wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I can remember several GW staff happily admitting that Tau were an attempt to cash in on the popularity of anime and manga, at the time of their release. Not that any design elements were borrowed from other art, obviously.

Not that the average GW staff have any authority to speak for the company. I do not speak for the guys I do contract work for despite regularly talking to the owner of the company. A guy working retail for a much larger corporation is in much the same boat.

But if it's such an obvious rip-off that their own retail staff are discussing it makes it harder to claim independent design, no?

Not really, if you are talking about what matters in a court of law.

What does tend to make things harder to support a claim is when a designated 30(b)(6) witness (as in a representative of the corporate entity on a particular subject - e.g. Alan Merrett, Andy Jones, and Gill Stevenson) say stupid stuff, such as explaining that the Tau are redolent of classic science fiction, describing the Dark Eldar aesthetic as spiky and evil, describing a claim as sounding crazy or not one of the strongest, saying that something is a copy of an idea, saying that one has provided no evidence of confusion, admitting that one has done no advertising in 30 years of business and has performed no consumer surveys or market research, and so forth.

As a general matter, plaintiffs have to bring a little thing called evidence when they make a claim. You will note that Chapterhouse's motions for judgment as a matter of law frequently describe a lack of such evidence, sometimes in its entirety. Now, those are just arguments the defendant is making, articulated in publicly available documents.

Indeed. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. And GW has made the defense as easy as saying "they didn't provide any proof, which is the one thing they are supposed to do".

We've speculated since day 1 that GW threw out the C&D thinking it would work, and when it didn't they scrambled to throw together a case but did a piss poor job getting their gak together.

 Aerethan wrote:
Indeed. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. And GW has made the defense as easy as saying "they didn't provide any proof, which is the one thing they are supposed to do".

We've speculated since day 1 that GW threw out the C&D thinking it would work, and when it didn't they scrambled to throw together a case but did a piss poor job getting their gak together.

GW registered hundreds of copyrights more than a year into the lawsuit, and then tried to pretend that it could seek statutory damages because its copyrights were registered, and then "deliberately or at least recklessly" failed to provide its communications with the copyright office to the defense knowing it has received refusals to register some of its works, and then used Judge Kennelly's summary judgment opinion of copyrightability in an attempt to overcome that refusal, all after swearing to the Court that it had produced or was in the process of producing all responsive documents.

I think it is fair to say that GW was not "ready" to actually litigate the case. That Judge Kennelly let so much of this type of behavior slide so easily is...well, let's just say I think it will be interesting to see how the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reacts to the case if it goes to the appellate court.

 Balance wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I can remember several GW staff happily admitting that Tau were an attempt to cash in on the popularity of anime and manga, at the time of their release. Not that any design elements were borrowed from other art, obviously.

Not that the average GW staff have any authority to speak for the company. I do not speak for the guys I do contract work for despite regularly talking to the owner of the company. A guy working retail for a much larger corporation is in much the same boat.

Yes but even so it is obvious.

Like when they released Adeptus Teenytechicus at the height of the Battletech boom.

Clearly an attempt to horn in on a new market.

weeble1000 wrote:
GW registered hundreds of copyrights more than a year into the lawsuit, and then tried to pretend that it could seek statutory damages because its copyrights were registered, and then "deliberately or at least recklessly" failed to provide its communications with the copyright office to the defense knowing it has received refusals to register some of its works, and then used Judge Kennelly's summary judgment opinion of copyrightability in an attempt to overcome that refusal, all after swearing to the Court that it had produced or was in the process of producing all responsive documents.

I think it is fair to say that GW was not "ready" to actually litigate the case. That Judge Kennelly let so much of this type of behavior slide so easily is...well, let's just say I think it will be interesting to see how the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reacts to the case if it goes to the appellate court.

Isn't that sort of behaviour illegal? If not, then it probably should be. It sounds like Contempt of Court, Perversion of the Course of Justic, that sort of thing.