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.

Same here.

Start selling Unlicensed Disney products and see what happens!

 Monster Rain wrote:
Same here.

Start selling Unlicensed Disney products and see what happens!

What if I made accessories to Disney products? Like a dress for a Minnie doll or something.

Does it incorporate unlicensed Disney IP?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Does it incorporate unlicensed Disney IP?

It's compatible with it

There have been more than enough threads on this, and I genuinely don't feel like getting caught up in another one.

My point is pretty obvious.

 Monster Rain wrote:
There have been more than enough threads on this, and I genuinely don't feel like getting caught up in another one.

Very well. While we have differing opinions, I won't continue it in this thread.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Why did you put "should" in ''? Assuming, arguendo, that the two artists with nothing to gain are being truthful in their independent statements, the following is what is going on;

I think this portion is a misunderstanding: I meant that if GW wanted to obtain the rights of the pieces from the artists, they SHOULD pay them for them.

- That the copyrights are assigned to GW. Untrue, Chalk and Nichols are quite clear that no such assignment was ever made.

-That the assignment was contemporaneous with the work being done (that is, GW has held ownership for the last 30 odd years). Again, flatly contradicted.

Thanks for clarifying this piece. That's pretty much what I assumed; I don't think I articulated that understanding well.

reduced to the simplest formulation, if you believe the sworn declaration of G. Chalk, Games Workshop is lying to artists in an attempt to steal their property

I agree this is an unethical act. They should pony up the cash and pay. Like I stated, I don't understand their lack of willingness to be forthright about it. Would it have been that damaging to the case, or would that have necessitated the artists' willingness to participate in the suit because, at the time of the suit, the copyright wasn't owned by GW? Had GW purchased these copyrights from the artists prior to the suit, would that have made a difference?

The reason for asking for the documents isn't particularly important, the problem with the "shore up records that may have been lost" assertion is... the records weren't lost, they never existed.

I'm probably wrong again here, but what I read made it sound like a paper trail didn't exist out of lack of due dilligence, but rather no one did it at the time. Have we come that far since 1985 in regards to paperwork filing? Or is GW just a disorganized mess?

"gaks the Space Marine"? (Please note that Cinc did not use the word "gaks".) So, a woman writes a book, using terms that are completely generic and have been in use since before the second World War. Games Workshop misuses a legal filing in an attempt to improperly increase their IP and destroy this random woman's livelihood, and and in the interest of fairness you insult her? ]

I probably shouldn't have insulted her, but the book looks like a pile of crap to me. If Amazon believed they were being truthful, shouldn't they STILL Have allowed the author to respond before removing the files? I have more trouble seeing this as more an unethical act as an act of bad faith or, in crude terms, a crappy move. But I can understand why they'd do it. If they can establish a precedent for ownership of the phrase Space Marine I'm sure that somewhere that makes the road to aquiring that trademark easier. Or not. There's a good chance I'm completely off base here.

It seems almost incomprehensible how you are able to reconcile these beliefs. GW isn't in breach of some petty, corner case legalities here, they are violating bedrock principles of law and order: seriously now, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely are... not new ideas.

You're right. Though Shalt not steal and thou shalt not swear falsely aren't new. But if we're going to apply them to GW, we have to apply them to Chapterhouse. All the legalese aside, it's very apparent that Chapterhouse ONLY exists because of GW. While studios like Kromlech, Puppets War, etc, can say the same, none of those companies removed photos or webpages or so brazenly abused any grey area that exists within IP law. I have no sympathy for Chapterhouse. None. If in fact GW is suborning perjury or doing anything else illegal, they'll be punished for it.

If that's the case, my opinion will certainly change. But if they're doing stuff that is legal but a bit seems a bit crappy...well at least in regards to Chapterhouse, I don't care. Because the perception of ethics isn't a black and white area, and because it seems like most of the acts in this instance that would be considered unethical are also illegal, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to think. Should our code of ethics be dictated by the Bible or Darwin? Living in the United States, especially now, I can't say there aren't times I lean more towards Darwin and survival of the fittest. I realize this is going to win me exactly zero points with a bunch of you, but it is what it is.

Again, I have no respect for Chapterhouse or their business practices or their arrogance in regards to what could have been an easy fix. Based on how they've operated, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that CHS wanted this to go to court from the outset. If that's the case, they're as bad as the woman that spills hot coffee on her hooch and the sues because she didn't realize it was hot.

In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

 d-usa wrote:
In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

There are just as many people that think that is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit as there are that claim it isn't. HBO documentarys aren't the end all be all of opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

There are just as many people that think that is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit as there are that claim it isn't. HBO documentarys aren't the end all be all of opinions.

Also, a curious question: Why do some of you put your "amount spent" in 2012 in your signature? Is there some kind of competition here that we should all be aware of?

1) Never saw any HBO documentary, but thanks for assuming.
2) Why does anybody put anything in their signatures?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
In an unrelated note:

The Hot Coffee lawsuit was valid and is often misused as an example of a frivolous lawsuit even though it isn't.

There are just as many people that think that is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit as there are that claim it isn't. HBO documentaries aren't the end all be all of opinions.

Well fortunately the court managed to identify negligence in spite of the uninformed opinions of some who think saying 'coffee it hot' is the be all and end all.

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, a curious question: Why do some of you put your "amount spent" in 2012 in your signature? Is there some kind of competition here that we should all be aware of?

Several DCMs are attempting to track how much they spend on models in an attempt to either put everything into perspective or to see how much they can spend so they can curb it.

The "money spent on GW" is because someone in this thread had said that the bashers who don't spend money have no room to talk, and d-usa had shown roughly how much he spent on GW models in 2011 and 2012, and then 2013... because and he says it best...

 d-usa wrote:
"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Also, a curious question: Why do some of you put your "amount spent" in 2012 in your signature? Is there some kind of competition here that we should all be aware of?

Several DCMs are attempting to track how much they spend on models in an attempt to either put everything into perspective or to see how much they can spend so they can curb it.

The "money spent on GW" is because someone in this thread had said that the bashers who don't spend money have no room to talk, and d-usa had shown roughly how much he spent on GW models in 2011 and 2012, and then 2013... because and he says it best...

 d-usa wrote:
"Bashers who don't spend money" used to be loyal customers.

Thanks for the explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

The argument wasn't that the coffee was hot, but that it was too hot. Hot enough to cause "deep tissue damage" at a significantly faster rate.
The woman suffered some pretty extensive burns, it's not as if it was some minor issue like a scalded palette.

Np

 Amaya wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

The argument wasn't that the coffee was hot, but that it was too hot. Hot enough to cause "deep tissue damage" at a significantly faster rate.
The woman suffered some pretty extensive burns, it's not as if it was some minor issue like a scalded palette.

She still spilled it on herself and the fact that she had on cotton sweatpants exaserbated the burn. Why didn't she sue Fruit of the Loom?

The fact that the jury found an 80-20 fault discrepancy is absurd. The amount they awarded in punative damages is absurd, which the judge pretty much said by reducing it.

A different jury could have found differently. Simply because one found in her favor doesn't make it any less frivolous a lawsuit. She took the lid off the coffee. She put the coffee between her legs. Take some freakin accountability.

And if it wasn't 180 degrees+ it wouldn't have been as severe.

Edit: Whether or not the amount awarded was frivolous it besides the point. As is the fault breakdown. McDonald's was at least partly at fault and the lawsuit was not entirely frivolous as it is frequently decried.

Visit a burn center if you think suing over third degree burns is frivolous.

Or google third degree burn.

Warning: NSFW and may induce vomiting.

I'm not going to belabour this point anymore, especially since it isn't related to the topic.

I think I'm just a gakky, uncaring person compared to the rest of you.

I read about a lawsuit filed by a dude in a wheelchair because the ordering counter was too high and he was 'deprived of the Chipotle experience' on ADA grounds.

Here's a link to the article, written by someone with a disability, that also thinks it's a load of bs:

http://abledbody.com/2011/08/23/chipotle-ada-suit-is-a-big-fat-flop/

But again, I'm pretty sure this lack of compassion makes me a big right wing American donkey-cave.

Why would you bring up an unrelated lawsuit at all?

It's almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Or coffee to wheel chairs, as it were.

Not seeing a burrito is the same at 3rd degree burns of course.

And everytime I use GW clippers I cut my finger and their glue makes my skin burn. They are evil.

Damn it, the DCM sharks smell blood again.

 Amaya wrote:
Damn it, the DMC sharks smell blood again.

DMC?




Walk this way son...

Please don't perpetuate that bull gak.

Kung Fu Hamster has spread that lie enough here and elsewhere.

 kronk wrote:
Please don't perpetuate that bull gak.

Kung Fu Hamster has spread that lie enough here and elsewhere.

Really? can I have links? I've got nothing better to do atm.

40k Radio forums require a subscription, sadly. A link won't help you.

 kronk wrote:
40k Radio forums require a subscription, sadly.

I'm now really sad...

We are 40K radio famous?