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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.

I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.

It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.

They're in the Gaunt books...I think Dan Abnett invented them. They were also in the Fire Caste book for a bit. The book the picture is from is a background book for the Gaunt series and has now been out of print for a while.

In other words, if you don't read BL stuff, you would have to hunt around to even have heard of them.

I can see where GW is coming from on this particular matter, it's a far greater resemblence than the Spots case, but even still, unless they have a model in the planning for the Loxatl, how is this detrimental to their company? As mentioned before with the Da Vinci joke, there are many, many aspects that GW could easily be sued over.

Edit: If this is really the case, surely Satan and the minions of the Underworld can issue a C&D to GW saying that they have based their Bloodthirster model around depictions that are part of the Antichrist's IP, particularly in regards to:

- Red skin
- Canine-like head
- Presence of curved horns
- Equine-style hooves
- Weapons of torment such as a whip

*Meanwhile, over in Games Workshop HQ, a letter is hastily dispatched to the artist who originally drew the Loxatl. Inside is a casual reminder that whilst he signed the rights to it over to them, they just happen to have lost the paperwork, so if he could just sign along the dotted line and send it back...?*

I would assume that IP rights do extend across media. Otherwise why would a company need rights to make figures based on the Hobbit movie. They could just call them Habbit figures and make them look just like Hobbit ones.

I think the Blight Wheel miniature is highly derivative of the GW art. (However, the pose is different. In the GW art the figure looks like it is climbing down a wall and onto the ground, hence the scratch marks behind its rear feet.) GW really needs to get off of its butt and start making these figures, as presumably people would buy them.

Lorien - Home to Wood Elves in Middle Earth

Loren - Home to Wood Elves in the Old World

That may not be IP infringement, but it's an example of GW's moral hypocrisy with regards to copying themes and ideas.

 RatBot wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.

I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.

It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.

All those bits in your first line is true, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence. I'd like better, more detailed pictures of the miniature, but it does look like the belt and the gun are identical to the ones in the concept art.


I think it's pretty well known that I have very little love for GW and their shenanigans, but with this one I'm not so sure that GW is completely in the wrong. With that said, if GW never planned on producing a model for this piece of art, then it seems a tad moot; it's not like GW's going to be losing any sales here.

Clearer pictures and close-ups would be nice.

I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.

It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?

 Flashman wrote:
Lorien - Home to Wood Elves in Middle Earth

Loren - Home to Wood Elves in the Old World

That may not be IP infringement, but it's an example of GW's moral hypocrisy with regards to copying themes and ideas.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that GW has not copied themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.

It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?

Not entirely true. As we have found out with other IP cases if they don't defend their IP, they may lose the right to be exclusive about it. As someone brought up above, Chapterhouse has them shaken and they are going to be much more aggressive about things now.

Looks like a Loxatl to me.

 NAVARRO wrote:
So I guess that GW still managed to find something to participate on Salute

Ha!

 spaceelf wrote:
I would assume that IP rights do extend across media. Otherwise why would a company need rights to make figures based on the Hobbit movie. They could just call them Habbit figures and make them look just like Hobbit ones.

They don't and they can. The reason for the licenses is that nobody would buy knock-off figures if they were obvious knock-offs. Having the license means you get all the cool logos, screengrabs, etc. to use in promoting your stuff. If you were a LotR fan, would you buy a Frodo figure with the LotR logo from the store or the Frappo figure with the Legend of the Rogues logo?

 pretre wrote:
Not entirely true. As we have found out with other IP cases if they don't defend their IP, they may lose the right to be exclusive about it.

Perhaps the best policy with things that are so insignificant is just ignore them. To point them out by sending a C&D and then not pursuing it does make a public statement that you are not attempting to defend your IP, which I imagine could be hazardous. So don't do that. Just don't register they exist, because it's just too far beneath you to notice, seems the best way. There are so many 'counts as' miniatures online, no studio has ever been suggested to be at risk of losing their IP. This idea that GW's IP is at risk if they don't jump on every tiny thing that looks anything like their stuff is just wrong. Otherwise companies would be losing their IP all over the place because of all the products that are inspired by this and that but which they don't notice because they are in interests that are too niche.

I would be one of the last peopel to say that GW hasn't been doing shed-loads of stupid stuff lately, but I can certainly understand this one.

As far as I can remember, while the loxatl show up in several black library novels, there's only one image of them that I remember, and that's the one posted in this thread from the Xenology book.

I'm not a lawyer, and I have no particular expertise in IP law, but when you make a model of a Sci-Fi Mutant Komodo, and base the stance, pose, features, and equipment directly off the ONLY image published by GW, you have only yourself to blame.

It would have been trivially easy to sculpt the 'mutant komodo' in a different pose than the GW artwork, and trivially easy to make it look more distinct from that artwork.

I'm not claiming it was illegal, but I think it was certainly lazy, sloppy, and a jerk move. I don't think it's a 'vague resemblance'. A space lizard with a belly gun would be a vague resemblance, but a space lizard with the same pose, same details, and same equipment? That's a damn copy.

Go ahead and crib stuff from GW all you want. I'd love to buy me some space lizards, and I like the Space Dwarfs that are out there (which GW doesn't sue anybody over). But for Pete's sake, take the idea and do your own version of it, instead of slavishly copying it. Have some respect for yourself.

 azreal13 wrote:
Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?

Copyright in the United States carries with it the ability to do "derivative works" - which are expressive works based upon another pre-existing and protected work. I would describe your statement as not accurate. This isn't legal advice though.

Not a lawyer, but do know a bit about IP law - not legal advice etc etc

Games Workshop themselves seem to be under the impression that artwork protects miniature IP, which is not true in a number of countries.

As for "habbit" miniatures, try looking for "halfling" miniatures and you will find some pretty damn close ones.

Names are protected, so the Dr Who miniatures are not labeled as such, thus are fine. If they were provided pre-painted there might be a case to argue that a consumer might get confused between them a action figure, but if I was in a jury, I'd be pretty insulted that the company thinks I'm so stupid as an ordinary person as to be unable to tell the difference.

Chapterhouse really does have them spooked - its going to be an epic, groundshaking case, so its no wonder they are getting free representation.

I honestly can not see GW winning that one, and I think this is them making the same mistake of confusing artwork as protecting against miniature IP claims.

Killjoy00 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?

Copyright in the United States carries with it the ability to do "derivative works" - which are expressive works based upon another pre-existing and protected work. I would describe your statement as not accurate. This isn't legal advice though.

Neither GW or Blight Wheel are based in the US, so while I still remain unsure as to the accuracy of my statement, I am confident in saying that yours has no bearing in it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 RatBot wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.

I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.

It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.

All those bits in your first line is true, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence. I'd like better, more detailed pictures of the miniature, but it does look like the belt and the gun are identical to the ones in the concept art.


I think it's pretty well known that I have very little love for GW and their shenanigans, but with this one I'm not so sure that GW is completely in the wrong. With that said, if GW never planned on producing a model for this piece of art, then it seems a tad moot; it's not like GW's going to be losing any sales here.

Clearer pictures and close-ups would be nice.

I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.

It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?

Oh, I absolutely agree with you that the Blightweel miniature doesn't harm them in any fashion, they themselves are known to copy from others so this is rather hypocritical, and they're making themselves look like jackasses (again), I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.

 RatBot wrote:
I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.

Exactly.

This miniature doesn't harm GW and GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.

WotC did almost the exact same thing to a KS I backed for making 'not' versions of some of their literary characters. They simply didn't want someone to make miniatures which were clearly their character in every way shape and form except for name. WotC doesn't want to make a mini, but it is still their character, and it dilutes their control for being able to use it however they want.

The KS changed the model design and colorschemes to be a unique Darkling ranger instead of "Not-Drizzt Do'Urden" and Aged wizard instead of "Not-Elminster"

WotC was in the right regardless if they make the Mini or not and the company responded reasonably because they wer clearly designing something off someone else's IP. And simple changes in design made both parties happy and customers still get what they want.

This idea that anyone can just make a model of anyone else's character and that is 'free game' isn't reality and GW isn't the only one who sends out C&D letters to mini makers.

 Ketara wrote:
*Meanwhile, over in Games Workshop HQ, a letter is hastily dispatched to the artist who originally drew the Loxatl. Inside is a casual reminder that whilst he signed the rights to it over to them, they just happen to have lost the paperwork, so if he could just sign along the dotted line and send it back...?*

Unless GW Legal are completely imcompetent I would imagine they might have learned from the CH case , and made sure they actually own the copyright on this artwork

Did make me laugh though

The question is really one of scope of copyright protection. That is a fact intensive inquiry. What in GW's artwork is "protected expression?" Does the accused work copy that "protected expression?"

It is a lizard, that looks like a lizard, because it is supposed to be a lizard. Specifically, it looks very much like a komodo dragon. Obviously, real lizards are a reference that informs both works of art. The lizard has a gun, that looks like a gun, etc. etc.

Now, taking all of that into account, does the accused work appropriate that which makes the artwork unique, keeping in mind that a similar concept is not enough? Are the differences between the works, of which there are many, insubstantial or insignificant differences?

Now, it seems to me that GW has a point here. In my opinion, this is an example of a reasonable claim, as in a claim that is reasonable compared to the hundreds and hundreds of other claims that GW has made in the past. Is the accused work a copy of GW's artwork? Maybe, maybe not. Given GW's performance in asserting its alleged rights in the past, GW may actually be woefully unable to prove ownership of any "loxatl" artwork.

The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this? How does it benefit GW, in the long run, to assert its rights in this instance? Does GW feel that it may at some point in the future release a loxatl product? If so, is GW concerned about competing with this product? Does GW feel that it will not be able to compete with this product?

Artists reference other artwork all of the time. Artists steal from other artists all of the time. That is how art works. Doubtless one could find what inspired the GW loxatl in the first place, because there is something out there that did.

GW is trying to wall off its fictional universe, regardless of how porous the borders of that universe are in terms of originality and regardless of how relatively insignificant a portion of that universe may be. It does not benefit anyone, not even GW. Is this Blight Wheel thing wrong? Hell, I don't know. But that is not the point. The point is that like this is a drag on the whole community. Blight Wheel makes some cool products plenty of which are designed to allow GW's customers to enhance their enjoyment of GW's products.

Want to play a GW game? Want to have a loxatl in that game? GW does not, and has not for more than a decade, created or sold a loxatl product. Don't have the wherewithal to make your own loxatl, well now you can get one from Blight Wheel. You can buy your boxes of Cadian Shock Troops, Leman Russ Tanks, Chimeras, Sentinels, etc. etc. from GW, separately buy your not-Blood-Pact head bits from a third party manufacturer, or get some Forge World cultists, and round your army off with a not-loxatl model from Blight Wheel.

You read a GW novel, got inspired, purchased a load of GW products, and are having a fun time with GW's games, proselytizing GW to your friends and associates, explaining that your army is a converted Blood Pact army from the Ghost series. Why the Hell is GW upset about that?

Or, GW could throw its weight around against a tiny French company, stomp out the not-loxatl product, piss all over its customer goodwill, and watch that guy who was going to make a Blood Pact army get deep into Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Warpath, etc. etc. etc.

It is ignorant, unnecessary, and unproductive.

darkslife wrote:
I honestly can not see GW winning that one, and I think this is them making the same mistake of confusing artwork as protecting against miniature IP claims.

It seems important to me that they don't win it. Because if they do on the back of them being found to own many of the things that claim they do, I think it will put them in a position of great power to attack many others, even those that are not remotely infringing on them, because GW will claim ownership of many generic things and use the case to back themselves up. It'll be even more intimidating for small companies to fight back, it's just be poison to the hobby.

 azreal13 wrote:

Killjoy00 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?

Copyright in the United States carries with it the ability to do "derivative works" - which are expressive works based upon another pre-existing and protected work. I would describe your statement as not accurate. This isn't legal advice though.

Neither GW or Blight Wheel are based in the US, so while I still remain unsure as to the accuracy of my statement, I am confident in saying that yours has no bearing in it.

I guess I could have been more specific - my expertise is in the United States, but the concept is in most copyright regimes. You are completely wrong in your statement.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works.en.htm

It is important to remember that a derivative work is ipso facto a copy of the root work, i.e. it begins with a copy of the root work and transforms it into a new work that nevertheless contains significant protected expression from the root work.

Like, a translation is a derivative work under US law. The symbols used to convey the meaning of the story are entirely different, but the meaning is exactly the same, or as near as can be done. So the text is technically completely different, but the symbols used are not important, the meaning is the protected expression.

Just keep in mind that the concept of a derivative work does not expand the borders of copyright protection beyond copying.

 NAVARRO wrote:
So I guess that GW still managed to find something to participate on Salute

We need a clap emote. So best I can give you is

weeble1000 wrote:
The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this?

The schoolyard bully couldn't beat up the little nerdy boy, because he called his big brother.
So the bully searched for another victim with no big brother, to beat him up and feel strong.
You would do the same if you were a miserable GW lawyer hired to defend's GW's claim on arrows and Roman numbers in front of an actual jury

BTW, GW still has to find a US sculptor not related to Blight Wheel, so that they can have a lawsuit in USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.

Exactly.

This miniature doesn't harm GW and GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.

They might be though. If this model was allowed to be manufactured unchallenged then if in some unlikely future GW made a Loxatl model then Blightwheel could sue GW because they had a model in the market first.

I imagine this was part of the driver for the Chapterhouse case too.

 notprop wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.

Exactly.

This miniature doesn't harm GW and GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.

They might be though. If this model was allowed to be manufactured unchallenged then if in some unlikely future GW made a Loxatl model then Blightwheel could sue GW because they had a model in the market first.

I imagine this was part of the driver for the Chapterhouse case too.

And my understanding is, GW's C&D letter notwithstanding, that would still be a possibility if Blight Wheel chose to defend their Mutant Komodo model against GW's putative copy of their 3D sculpture.

Valete,

JohnS

 Kroothawk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this?

The schoolyard bully couldn't beat up the little nerdy boy, because he called his big brother.
So the bully searched for another victim with no big brother, to beat him up and feel strong.
You would do the same if you were a miserable GW lawyer hired to defend's GW's claim on arrows and Roman numbers in front of an actual jury

This is not a Foley and Lardner deal. This is in house GW legal. This is some mook hired to trawl the internets for minimum wage. At best, this is Gillian Stevenson, and that is not saying much.

 pretre wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
I don't see it myself. Similar perhaps, but not similar enough IMHO.

Does GW own the rights to space lizards now?

Read the letter. Same stance, same hands, same gun under the chest, same bandolier of bullets, same head implant. One or two would be meh, whatever, but all of them?

Same stance? Nope - going by the curve of the spine, position of the hands/paws and the claw marks on the background texture, the Lox is meant to be coming off a wall onto the floor. The Mutant Komodo Dragon (hereafter referred to as MKD) is moving flat along the floor. In addition, the Lox's front limbs have the feet (for want of a better term) fairly close together, and on roughly the same plane - the MKD is reaching out with one limb whilst balanced on the other. The back legs are also different, even if we ignore the fact that the ones on the art are attached to a wall - the opposite leg is stretched back on the artwork compared to the model, and not to such a great extent.

Same hands? Nope - not unless three "fingers" (MKD) is the same as four (Lox).

Same gun under the chest? Can't tell clearly enough from the images posted in this thread, so I won't comment.

Bandolier of chunky bullets? I'll give you that one, even if it does seem a touch vague as an element to be protected (to this layman)

Same head implant? See comment regarding gun under the chest - there seems to be something there, but it isn't clear enough in these images to give comment on.

Because Games Workshop NEVER steal anyone else's IP........................................

 notprop wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.

Exactly.

This miniature doesn't harm GW and GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.

They might be though. If this model was allowed to be manufactured unchallenged then if in some unlikely future GW made a Loxatl model then Blightwheel could sue GW because they had a model in the market first.

I imagine this was part of the driver for the Chapterhouse case too.

That's not how copyright works. You are thinking about trademarks. In copyright, who markets first has no bearing on anything. Copyright is inherent, and exists from the moment the work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." All that matters in copyright (baring things like ownership and such) is access and copying. If Gw did release a loxatl miniature, and for some insane reason Blight Wheel sued for copyright infringement, in the US, GW would be able to make an affirmative defense of unclean hands, equitable estoppel, or something similar, arguing that the asserted work is a copy of their own, previously extant artwork.

There is virtually no need to sue when it comes to copyright infringement. If you do not assert rights, and that is very different from suing or sending a C&D, a later defendant may be able to argue that there was an implied license, selective enforcement, or something similar. But that is much, much different from the impetus to maintain a trademark.

The only thing you need to say in the above-described situation is that you have a good faith basis to believe that the previous work is not a copy, but that the now accused work is.