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.

Well, that submissions policy is deftly hidden. I don't think I've ever seen it when emailing them.

I didn't mean to derail the conversation, what I had to say I thought was relevant to a few comments about GW as it is today.

They are now essentially at that point where they are believing their own propaganda, for lack of a better word.

Many companies are like this. They have the "Rah, Rah we're the best" attitude and to say otherwise would show that you aren't a team player or as Kirby's Red Book would say "Not a good fit".

In the end staff just go along with it because they might be afraid to make waves and lose their jobs. For all we know people within GW might have said "We should probably reduce our claims" or "We really don't own everything we say we do" etc.

I'd bet money that this lawsuit got as far as it did due to GW staff probably being too afraid to speak out and go against the "Company line". "You don't believe in the company, FINE. We'll find someone who will".

They think they are doing what is in the best interest of themselves and the company, but in the end they are really hurting the company, which this lawsuit IMHO has done.

Going back to the sculpting example, I've known many sculptors who are excellent at what they do but just can't spend the time to go through GW's hoops to get a job there even though they would love to work for GW.

GW's own procedures and policies are hurting them and it's likely the same issues crop up in other departments like HR, Manufacturing and Legal. Not just the Studio.

Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

 Shandara wrote:
Well, that submissions policy is deftly hidden. I don't think I've ever seen it when emailing them.

Most of them just say 'All submissions to GW are subject to our submissions policy'. You actually have to go look up their submissions policy that's posted on their website. It's a fairly long read, but has that down toward the end, past the sections on if you can get your submissions back afterward (in a nutshell: maybe, if we feel like it).

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

Pardon me forbeing out of loop, but who is Gill Stevenson?

Relapse wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

Pardon me forbeing out of loop, but who is Gill Stevenson?

GW's now former Legal Counsel. Seems screwing up the CH case was bad for her career.

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

But that's publicly, which is expected. It's not like she's going to publicly say "Yeah I told them they have no real case and this will go badly for them, but they didn't listen".

Do we really know what she was advising to her superiors behind closed doors?

 prplehippo wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

But that's publicly, which is expected. It's not like she's going to publicly say "Yeah I told them they have no real case and this will go badly for them, but they didn't listen".

Do we really know what she was advising to her superiors behind closed doors?

She actually can't say what she told them, attorney client privilege and all. That said, she was the pooh bah of GW legal, being GW's only in house counsel until she hired three more attorneys to work for her.

She might have advised GW to not do it, but you'd have to assume Tom Kirby is ABSOLUTELY bonkers if you also believe Jonathan Moskin advised against it. You'd have to believe Kirbry ignored his in house counsel and ignored his outside counsel. That begins to defy credulity, even for GW.

What is more likely is that management handed down a dictum "destroy 3rd party manufactures," that dictum was implemented aggressively by Gill Stevenson who hired an aggressive lawyer to handle it aggressively once they had found their first target.

At some point both of them may have covered their butts with an "analysis of risks" email, but the case was handled so aggressively, and continues to be, by GW that it is extremely unlikely management was fighting an uphill battle against well meaning detractor for three years.

My bet is that Moskin was telling GW, 'We are going to crush them, don't worry. We'll get the in the next brief, we'll nail them on summary judgement, we cN whip them at trial, don't worry, we'll get them on appeal.' Gill was probably taking that advice right back to HQ IF and WHEN they asked about the case, which was probably almost never. Stay the course. They'll run out of money eventually. This won't REALLY go to trial, etc.

And bear in mind that Moskin had basically zero substantive trial experience before the CHS trial, so he may have had his own motivations for taking the case to trial. If you want to come off like a big, important trial lawyer , you've got to have trials under your belt.

Maybe they'd rather lose the battle than admit to making a mistake.

 prplehippo wrote:
Maybe they'd rather lose the battle than admit to making a mistake.

That actually does sound like the GW we all know and resent.

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

[pedant] toe the line [/pedant]

On that front, Ms. Stevenson appears to have bounced back and found another in house counsel position.

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

[pedand] toe the line [/pedant]

On that front, Ms. Stevenson appears to have bounced back and found another in house counsel position.

Spoiler:

Now we wait to see if there is a dramatic uptick in design patent lawsuits in the shoe retailer business.....

You misspelled the first "Pedant".

How long does it normally take someone in Stevenson's position to get a new job?
Is it unusual at all for her to be back in the game already and if so could that suggest she left willingly (jumped ship)?

Steelmage99 wrote:

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

[pedand] toe the line [/pedant]

On that front, Ms. Stevenson appears to have bounced back and found another in house counsel position.

Spoiler:

Now we wait to see if there is a dramatic uptick in design patent lawsuits in the shoe retailer business.....

You misspelled the first "Pedant".

Hoisted with my own petard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
How long does it normally take someone in Stevenson's position to get a new job?
Is it unusual at all for her to be back in the game already and if so could that suggest she left willingly (jumped ship)?

[speculation zone]

Lining up a job in 6 months isn't unusual at all. She was an established professional, hopefully with a network of contacts to work.

The unusual bit was leaving and not having a job lined up ahead of time. This suggests that the parting was unexpected and little or no heads up was given (also she was let go about a month after the CHS verdict came down which suggests it was tied to that event). If I was jumping ship in this economy, I'd wait until I had secured employment first.

[/speculation zone]

Wow has it been 6 months already? I was asking because I had it in my head she left like a month or two ago :/

That makes a lot more sense now, thank you.

weeble1000 wrote:
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is the one that recently made a ruling upholding a Fair Use dismissal in the South Park case.

I can only imagine the face of the judge as he/she had to preside over a case that centers around "what what in the butt". While I can see serious aspect of the legal issue driving the case, the subject manner would be like having a Jerry Springer Show set in the courtroom. Way to stay classy America

My phone won't let me quote for some dumb reason but the talk of the 'chilling effect' and 'copyright trolls' in that south park link makes reminds me greatly of GWs entire MO throughout this case.
Would it be wrong to say that the views of the 7th circuit are highly favourable for CH given that they threw that case out?

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

Fun fact: All redshirts, blackshirts and all foreign HQs towed the company line and still lost their job.
Actually, the only one safe is the one defining the company line.

Which is true for every company, really. The one in charge never takes the blame for failure even when they're directly responsible, someone always has to take the blame, and they really don't care how loyal you are or if you were just doing what you were told.

 jonolikespie wrote:
My phone won't let me quote for some dumb reason but the talk of the 'chilling effect' and 'copyright trolls' in that south park link makes reminds me greatly of GWs entire MO throughout this case.
Would it be wrong to say that the views of the 7th circuit are highly favourable for CH given that they threw that case out?

That case was about parody, but you should take a look at some of the other 7th Circuit decisions, or read what Judge Posner has to say about copyright and trademark law. Generally, certain judges on the 7th Circuit favor narrowing and more sharply defining copyright, trademark, and patent protection. Posner in particular seems to have a view that protecting business interests is important, but not so far that it harms someone else's ability to have an equally legitimate business or perverts the intention of the law. And Posner dislikes frivolous or predatory lawsuits.

The South Park case is interesting because although it was an upholding of Fair Use (in that case a dismissal on the basis of fair use), the opinion is pretty strongly worded, and it did involve a for profit use of the asserted copyrights. The Chapterhouse Studios lawsuit involves a substantial amount of copyright fair use and trademark fair use, and Games Workshop has already argued to the lower court that Chapterhouse should not have been allowed to articulate its copyright fair use defense, and doubtless this will be a very important argument for Games Workshop on appeal. As you point out though, the wording of the opinion comes down pretty hard on the potential harm done by the plaintiff in filing the suit and essentially lauds the lower court for dismissing a totally BS case, preventing it from doing even more harm.

Games Workshop's argument is essentially that if you are selling something, you don't get to claim fair use as a defense when it comes to copyrights. This is different from the South Park case because Chapterhouse never claimed that the purpose or character of the use was parody; it was merely commercial, though purpose or character of use is only one of several factors to consider and Chapterhouse has cited Supreme Court precedent stating that commercial use is not dispositive of a fair use defense in and of itself.

Games Workshop's arguments lead down a very concerning path, because GW would seek to make it so that the only relevant factor to consider in determining fair use is the purpose or character of the use. Games Workshop has basically argued that it doesn't matter what the degree of copying was; it doesn't matter what effect the copying had on the value of the asserted work; all that matters is that your goal is to make money selling something that in any way to any degree copies some part of the owner's work of art. That would be a substantial shift in copyright law, and if GW loses that argument on appeal, the wording of the opinion will be incredibly significant for artists and copyright holders across the board because how and why the appellate court denies GW's appeal on that basis (assuming it does) would be very important.

Toy soldiers could very well have a significant effect on copyright and trademark case law.

czakk wrote:


On that front, Ms. Stevenson appears to have bounced back and found another in house counsel position.

Spoiler:

Now we wait to see if there is a dramatic uptick in design patent lawsuits in the shoe retailer business.....

It’s kinda fun to watch our tiny little hobby shaking the roots of copyright law. I wonder if future law students will get into the hobby after having to study GW vs. CHS in class?

 Nevelon wrote:


It’s kinda fun to watch our tiny little hobby shaking the roots of copyright law. I wonder if future law students will get into the hobby after having to study GW vs. CHS in class?

We'll have to see if the appeal even goes forward. Right now the parties are still discussing settlement. If it does go forward, chances are the decision of the appellate court, whatever that decision is, will be significant.

And your pun was much appreciated.

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

[pedant] toe the line [/pedant]

On that front, Ms. Stevenson appears to have bounced back and found another in house counsel position.

Spoiler:

Now we wait to see if there is a dramatic uptick in design patent lawsuits in the shoe retailer business.....

6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon - according to Linkedin, Gill Stevenson is a 3rd link from me - i.e. I am linked to someone who is linked to someone who is linked to Gill Stevenson - do I try and link to her on that basis??

richred_uk wrote:
6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon - according to Linkedin, Gill Stevenson is a 3rd link from me - i.e. I am linked to someone who is linked to someone who is linked to Gill Stevenson - do I try and link to her on that basis??

I'd love to buy her a few drinks and talk about working for GW as in-house counsel.

richred_uk wrote:

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Fun fact if you're right: Gill Stevenson towed the company line and still lost her job.

[pedant] toe the line [/pedant]

On that front, Ms. Stevenson appears to have bounced back and found another in house counsel position.

Spoiler:

Now we wait to see if there is a dramatic uptick in design patent lawsuits in the shoe retailer business.....

6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon - according to Linkedin, Gill Stevenson is a 3rd link from me - i.e. I am linked to someone who is linked to someone who is linked to Gill Stevenson - do I try and link to her on that basis??

Lol, yea, she's not more than a few links from me either. The world is small and I think Gill and/or some of the folks down the chain from me have lots of links.

Would she be able to even say anything though. I'd figure she'd still be locked under a non disclose agreement right?

 wowsmash wrote:
Would she be able to even say anything though. I'd figure she'd still be locked under a non disclose agreement right?

I can see it now....

Gill Stevenson wrote:What a bunch of they were!

GW wrote:You're giving away corporate secrets!

The Auld Grump - hey, not very far off from what really happened with the Scientologists....

Unless you can relate the relevance of Scientology to CHS vs GW and how that will impact the case or ruling, or how the pretence of a discussion with GW's former in-house staff while feeding them prodigious amounts of alcohol to satisfy ulterior motives contributes to the case, can it.

 poda_t wrote:
Unless you can relate the relevance of Scientology to CHS vs GW and how that will impact the case or ruling, or how the pretence of a discussion with GW's former in-house staff while feeding them prodigious amounts of alcohol to satisfy ulterior motives contributes to the case, can it.

Well, let us see now - Scientology sued over the 'secrets of their religion' being given out.

The secrets of their religion was that ancient aliens of stupidity once came down from the sky and spread stupidity by their deaths by volcanoes.

If they had laughed it off then all would have been fine - instead they sued, and it turned out that Scientology really is about ancient aliens of stupidity having once come down from the sky, and spreading stupidity by their deaths by volcanoes.

The point - for the lyrically challenged, is that sometimes leaving well enough alone is better than admitting that, 'Oh yeah, our religion really is about the ghosts of aliens of stupidity'.

Or, as the case may be, 'Oh yeah, we didn't actually have a trademark on Roman numerals and fur' or 'Oh yeah, we didn't actually invent Space Marines, did we?'

There - not only have I canned it - I have put a nice big label on the can, labeled 'Aliens of Stupidity' and put it on the shelf, for all to see - feeling better now?

Sometimes there really is a point to the snarky comment - this was one of those times.

GW has shown that they are willing to go to court over stupid things, and things that they actually had no grounds to go to court over - as has Scientology. Maybe Kirby is channeling the spirits of Xenu?

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Added a link about Xenu, for the sake of completion....

*EDIT 2* And, for the record, Ms Stevenson really would not be allowed to talk about confidential information - the joke is that GW would be willing to sue over being a bunch of as if it were a secret... when everybody already knows....

Is the continuing case the reason Chapterhouse hasn't made anything new in ages????