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.

 wowsmash wrote:
but it doesnt even sound like their making money on the model. it sounds like its just a freebee?

Blight Wheel has a history of doing this kind of thing. Look into their "Grant's Spectres" model.

 azreal13 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 Triggerbaby wrote:
Rogers v. Koons

For anybody who is unsure how this might turn out.

Again, blindly referencing a case does not say much.

More so because it wouldn't be dealt with under US law - rather through courts in the UK or the home country of Blight Wheel (Poland, France, Monaco...where ever that might be).

Wouldn't GW be hosed in the UK then since case law currently supports no copyright for toys?

Assuming that's true, I suspect these wouldn't fit the legal description of toys.

It is true (more or less - See LucasFilm vs Ainsworth) - but it might not apply, and might not apply fully quite yet if it did apply.

If the original artwork was done by a member of GW proper (as opposed to Black Library or a Black Library freelancer) - a strong case could be made that the original would be a design document as opposed to artwork. If it was done for the Black Library book specifically by a freelance artist AND they managed to actually secure the proper assignment of rights by that artist...then the copyright issues would be in play.

If it were done by a member of the design team though, GW would still have a design right - something that is different than a copyright. Design rights provide for an term of 10 years after the first article using the design is marketed or 15 years after the design is created. Since GW never got around to actually doing a miniature...that would mean 15 years after the creation date. Since the book was published in 2005, chances are pretty good the picture was created in 2004 or earlier...which would put us at around 9 years or more into that term. However, during the last 5 years of the term of a design right - owners of the design must issue License of Rights. They can not choose not to issue the license and the terms must be reasonable. If they are not reasonable, Her Majesty's Bureaucrats over at the IPO get involved and force terms on the right holder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:
but it doesnt even sound like their making money on the model. it sounds like its just a freebee?

Blight Wheel has a history of doing this kind of thing. Look into their "Grant's Spectres" model.

Rather generic looking sci-fi soldiers?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

If the original artwork was done by a member of GW proper (as opposed to Black Library or a Black Library freelancer) - a strong case could be made that the original would be a design document as opposed to artwork. If it was done for the Black Library book specifically by a freelance artist AND they managed to actually secure the proper assignment of rights by that artist...then the copyright issues would be in play.

If it were done by a member of the design team though, GW would still have a design right - something that is different than a copyright. Design rights provide for an term of 10 years after the first article using the design is marketed or 15 years after the design is created. Since GW never got around to actually doing a miniature...that would mean 15 years after the creation date. Since the book was published in 2005, chances are pretty good the picture was created in 2004 or earlier...which would put us at around 9 years or more into that term. However, during the last 5 years of the term of a design right - owners of the design must issue License of Rights. They can not choose not to issue the license and the terms must be reasonable. If they are not reasonable, Her Majesty's Bureaucrats over at the IPO get involved and force terms on the right holder.

From what I can tell, the Loxatl might have been a commissioned sketch by either Dave Kendall or Wayne Richardson. They're the only two who worked on both "The Inquisition" and "The Sabbat Worlds Crusade", where the Loxatl artwork appears.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:
but it doesnt even sound like their making money on the model. it sounds like its just a freebee?

Blight Wheel has a history of doing this kind of thing. Look into their "Grant's Spectres" model.

Rather generic looking sci-fi soldiers?

Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.

As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.

Admittedly I have a bit of a biased view as I was did read the thread when Blight Wheels out and out named the model as "Grant's Spectre Scout" and released it alongside a "Mantis Tank"(the Blood Pact "Stalk Tanks" are referred to as "mantis-like" in several of the Gaunt's Ghosts novels)...and then further showcased the rest of their stuff for their Grant's Spectres line.

Edit: That's not saying "SHUT THEM DOWN! CURSE YOU BLIGHT WHEEL!", etc. Just saying. Blight Wheel has been very cheeky about the fact that they're mining Black Library's artwork.

I'm very intrigued by the timing of this whole thing though. Blight Wheel has been operating for awhile, why did they get noticed now?

BRB I'm gonna go publish a stick figure in a random book and then sue anyone who makes 3d stick figures.


That is what is going on here, just with more detail.

Also, jurisdiction makes a MASSIVE difference. In the UK these items are classified as design rights, which have insanely limited lifespans as seen in the Lucasfilm stormtrooper suit.

Further, the country in which BWM operates may not give a flying feth about UK design right laws.

I swear I'm just going to start up a 1:1 ripoff company and base it in China just to screw with GW. Oh wait, those exist, and while they may not be mainstream, they appear to do healthy volumes of business and keep rather up to date with new releases.

GW's reach is not global. They do not have some divine right to every idea they've ever passed off as their own.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.

As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.

I'm very intrigued by the timing of this whole thing though. Blight Wheel has been operating for awhile, why did they get noticed now?

I tend to stuff post-apoc into sci-fi, in terms of general categorization. The rest of the line is less rough looking than she is (regular chests and armored chests, some bionic bits....).

A lot of GW customers see GW products when they see common tropes. She isn't much different than a dozen other characters in a dozen other books, movies and comics. The lasgun design is comparable to GWs, but it is also comparable to the laser rifles which were used by Grenadier in their Future Warriors line and a few others as well. Not to mention one of the Sega light guns used in arcade games and one laser tag rifle that slips my mind right now...though oversized a good bit. Even as it applies directly to Gaunt's Ghosts, the concept is generic and old - you can find it repeated over and over again since WWII movies and throughout various other fiction mediums since (likely even older than that as well).

BTW - when you evaluate for infringement, you generally need to forget everything you know about the property. Most laws are written to evaluate each item on a case by case basis from the perspective of a common person. When an average guy off the street sees something - what does he think. Aficionados tend to know specific details and things which would not be applicable (both in support of or against a claim of infringement).

As far as why now...I would guess Salute. Not sure if they had gone in the past - but that demonstrates that they are doing business in the UK and would be subject to UK laws. Even if the suit is flimsy, if they are significantly outside of the UK (and apparently they are outside the UK...and not English speaking natives) they will have additional difficulty in defending themselves. The intricacies of the EU trade laws makes me think that if GW were to win a case against them in the UK (even by default...say if they couldn't afford to hire an attorney or show up to the various trial parts) then that win in the UK would effectively shut them down in their home country as well and prevent them from doing business.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.

As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.

I'm very intrigued by the timing of this whole thing though. Blight Wheel has been operating for awhile, why did they get noticed now?

I tend to stuff post-apoc into sci-fi, in terms of general categorization. The rest of the line is less rough looking than she is (regular chests and armored chests, some bionic bits....).

Fair enough.

A lot of GW customers see GW products when they see common tropes. She isn't much different than a dozen other characters in a dozen other books, movies and comics. The lasgun design is comparable to GWs, but it is also comparable to the laser rifles which were used by Grenadier in their Future Warriors line and a few others as well. Not to mention one of the Sega light guns used in arcade games and one laser tag rifle that slips my mind right now...though oversized a good bit. Even as it applies directly to Gaunt's Ghosts, the concept is generic and old - you can find it repeated over and over again since WWII movies and throughout various other fiction mediums since (likely even older than that as well).

I wouldn't really call the "wooden stocked high tech rifle" design a common trope, personally. If you look at the green you can see where they attempted to add texturing ala wood grain to the stock.

Like I said though: I'm biased in this situation and I know I'm biased. I posted in the very thread where Blight Wheel Miniatures showcased the model and flatout called it "Grant's Spectres". This isn't really an instance though where it's "a GW customer sees GW product where there's a common trope". BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.

As far as why now...I would guess Salute. Not sure if they had gone in the past - but that demonstrates that they are doing business in the UK and would be subject to UK laws. Even if the suit is flimsy, if they are significantly outside of the UK (and apparently they are outside the UK...and not English speaking natives) they will have additional difficulty in defending themselves. The intricacies of the EU trade laws makes me think that if GW were to win a case against them in the UK (even by default...say if they couldn't afford to hire an attorney or show up to the various trial parts) then that win in the UK would effectively shut them down in their home country as well and prevent them from doing business.

I think they've been at Salute before.

 Kanluwen wrote:


BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.

They may very well have - but that doesn't make GW's concept protectable.

Regarding the wood stocked, high tech rifle. Common - especially out of Japan...and Star Wars too if my memory is correct (things like the T-21 and DLT-19 both had wooden stocks on them).

 Aerethan wrote:
BRB I'm gonna go publish a stick figure in a random book and then sue anyone who makes 3d stick figures.


That is what is going on here, just with more detail.

If you shall learn one thing about IP law today, it shall be that "the devil is in the details"

weeble1000 wrote:

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?

Perhaps looking for an easy win to assuage their bruised egos after the drubbing they are taking in the Chapterhouse case?

T

Wow, not only is it a complete Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, it's a "sexy" Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff. I hope these guys get shut down for sure.

timd wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

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?

Perhaps looking for an easy win to assuage their bruised egos after the drubbing they are taking in the Chapterhouse case?

T

But the win is against no one for virtually nothing. There's no trademark issue, therefore no legal obligation to GW to take action(going off US law for that, no clue how EU works).

There's no lost profit to sue for, there's no damages really.

At the same time, I don't think a single product like that is worth defending against GW. I really can't wait for the company to topple or be bought out. I really doubt it could get much worse on the business side.

Remember when GW cared more about hobby than business? Pretty sure that's how they ended up with a business at all.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Like I said though: I'm biased in this situation and I know I'm biased. I posted in the very thread where Blight Wheel Miniatures showcased the model and flatout called it "Grant's Spectres". This isn't really an instance though where it's "a GW customer sees GW product where there's a common trope". BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.

This is the difference between attaching oneself to the underbelly of a shark and going unnoticed and swimming near the shark's mouth. You want to make a living off other people's properties? Let your customers connect the dots themselves.

This lacks the moral highround of Spots which legitimately had nothing to do with GW properties. While you can criticize GW for 'why bother', they have the right to piss away as much money as they wish defending what they feel they have the right to defend. Other companies do the exact same thing every day in the same situation and don't catch as nearly as much flack for it. If a company is flat out bragging in a public forum about making direct copies of your properties, referencing your art and characters by name... seems legitimate to attempt to defend it. I am not sure they need to worry about the 'goodwill' of a community who wants to see GW legitimately harmed in every way possible. This doesn't spark any outrage to me like the Spots incident.

Let customers connect the dots themselves and stay silent about your possible homages to other properties... I thought people had figured that one out already. Worldwar II orks VS Knights in space armor VS post apocalyptic 'mad mutants' VS Fat rotting armor men.

 Kingsley wrote:


Wow, not only is it a complete Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, it's a "sexy" Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff. I hope these guys get shut down for sure.

Yeah, those evil buggers, daring to use an unprotectable concept that itself is based on other sci-fantasy tropes in order to create miniatures that the supposed-"owner" of aforementioned derivative concept has no intention of making or selling. They should be whipped through the streets like animals!

Tyranids are an Aliens knockoff, Catachans are a knockoff, just about every part of GW's IP started out or even remains today a total knockoff of someone else's work. That doesn't make the amalgamated universe those knockoffs have come together to create any less cool or interesting, but it does pretty thoroughly undermine any claim by either GW or the part of their fanbase which eschews critical thinking that anyone who draws inspiration -even blatant inspiration- from their products is some kind of parasite leeching profits from poor, defenceless GW.

I thought that these where being given away free as a promotional item? If so is there a case to answer? BW will make a loss on these so no profits to recover. Also doesn't the human rights act protect the right to dispose of goods or chattels as the owner see's fit? Can I not give away any models I have sculpted/converted to look like another GW product? If it is the case that BW are indeed not selling the miniature but giving it away then I think it poses more questions to consider.

 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?

They want the mould with rights, the miniatures and any profits* made from it. Essentially they want ownership of the sculpt to use it themselves**.

*Which is especially stupid as it's a free promo model.

**Except it's in real resin, so they'd need to redesign it for finecast.

In some previous cases where companies have surrendered moulds, perhaps because a licence has ended, they've smashed them. That way they prove that they haven't been passed on for future production by anyone else (which is important to the copyright holder), but their new owners can't have free use of them.

They can just run the mould til it wears out then chop it up and send to GW. If its a one off promo who cares about giving them the rights, sign them over. Give away all the minis at salute then send a signed statement saying you no longer posses any. As for profits feel free to pass the costs incurred in giving it away onto GW.

If the model was being sold then this would have different implications but if its given away then just screw 'em.

 Yodhrin wrote:
That doesn't make the amalgamated universe those knockoffs have come together to create any less cool or interesting, but it does pretty thoroughly undermine any claim by either GW or the part of their fanbase which eschews critical thinking that anyone who draws inspiration -even blatant inspiration- from their products is some kind of parasite leeching profits from poor, defenceless GW.

Er, except that this GW knockoff miniature directly competes with actual GW products, so anyone who buys it is potentially not spending money on the actual GW miniatures that it's ripping off? That seems pretty darn close to "leeching profits" to me.

@kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x

 Kanluwen wrote:


Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.

As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.

It just says "Generic post apoc warrior" to me. I've not read Gaunts Ghosts.

If anything, I thought Fremen first.

Shame that the art they chose to base the spoof on is out of copyright. Kinda undermines their riposte.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
@kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x

The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.

 Kingsley wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
That doesn't make the amalgamated universe those knockoffs have come together to create any less cool or interesting, but it does pretty thoroughly undermine any claim by either GW or the part of their fanbase which eschews critical thinking that anyone who draws inspiration -even blatant inspiration- from their products is some kind of parasite leeching profits from poor, defenceless GW.

Er, except that this GW knockoff miniature directly competes with actual GW products, so anyone who buys it is potentially not spending money on the actual GW miniatures that it's ripping off? That seems pretty darn close to "leeching profits" to me.

You go girl! Don't let things like the fact that not a single word in that entire sentence is remotely true to stand in your way to white knight GW!

This isn't a GW "knock off miniature" because GW has never produced a loxatl miniature, they have a drawing of one.
No one is going to buy it, because it is intended as a limited production free give away.
There are no actual GW miniature that a potential customer might wan't to buy instead so GW can't possibly loose any profits over this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
@kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x

The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.

Please show us all the Gaunts Ghost GW miniature that that Blight Wheel miniature is supposed to be copying.

PhantomViper wrote:
You go girl! Don't let things like the fact that not a single word in that entire sentence is remotely true to stand in your way to white knight GW!

This isn't a GW "knock off miniature" because GW has never produced a loxatl miniature, they have a drawing of one.
No one is going to buy it, because it is intended as a limited production free give away.
There are no actual GW miniature that a potential customer might wan't to buy instead so GW can't possibly loose any profits over this.

Again, the comment was in reply to someone talking about the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, which competes directly with GW's official Gaunt's Ghosts miniatures.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoiler:

Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.

As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.

It just says "Generic post apoc warrior" to me. I've not read Gaunts Ghosts.

If anything, I thought Fremen first.

Aren't Gaunt's Ghosts supposed to be wearing Flak Armour? And if that is supposed to be a representation of Criid, what's with the Mad Max knee pad? And where is the Ghost beret?

PhantomViper wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
@kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x

The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.

Please show us all the Gaunts Ghost GW miniature that that Blight Wheel miniature is supposed to be copying.

Your wish is my command:

 Kingsley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
@kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x

The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.

Please show us all the Gaunts Ghost GW miniature that that Blight Wheel miniature is supposed to be copying.

Your wish is my command:

Spoiler:

There is not a single miniature in that lot that Blighted Wheel's one could classify as a copy of.

Copyright means right to COPY, doesn't mean right to develop-any-type-of-miniature-that-passes-as-a-resemblance-of.

PhantomViper wrote:
There is not a single miniature in that lot that Blighted Wheel's one could classify as a copy of.

Copyright means right to COPY, doesn't mean right to develop-any-type-of-miniature-that-passes-as-a-resemblance-of.

Welcome to my ignore list. Backing down when you're wrong is okay, dude, nobody's going to judge you.

 Kingsley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
There is not a single miniature in that lot that Blighted Wheel's one could classify as a copy of.

Copyright means right to COPY, doesn't mean right to develop-any-type-of-miniature-that-passes-as-a-resemblance-of.

Welcome to my ignore list. Backing down when you're wrong is okay, dude, nobody's going to judge you.

Except that I'm not wrong, you are.

With the type of ignorant statements that you post, if you are going to put on ignore every poster that shows you up, your ignore list must be pretty massive!

 Kingsley wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
There is not a single miniature in that lot that Blighted Wheel's one could classify as a copy of.

Copyright means right to COPY, doesn't mean right to develop-any-type-of-miniature-that-passes-as-a-resemblance-of.

Welcome to my ignore list. Backing down when you're wrong is okay, dude, nobody's going to judge you.

Wow. Is that your reaction?

I'll second PhantomViper. The BW looks nothing like the GW models, and the elements that it do share are generic (like a cape).


...