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.

 Kingsley wrote:

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.

You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improving GW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.

Even then, you've still singularly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate how it's wrong to "knock off" the concept of generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry, any more than it's wrong for GW to sell an entire race of miniatures obviously and gratuitously ripped off(Tyranids) from another franchise - a franchise the design for which is substantially more unique and original than most of GW's own products.

EDIT: Also, it's pretty blatantly dishonest of you to post that second image considering GW don't sell those four minis any more and haven't for some time now. How exactly are Blight Wheel supposed to be competing against something that isn't sold?

The two do look similar, but its such a generic look in the first place one could hardly claim ownership of it.

Bit like the term "Space Marine", GW now own cloaks and rifles, I suppose.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Seems like an obvious case of infringement to me.

No surprise there.

Kingsley may be a lunatic who thinks GW doesn't raise their prices (except in line with inflation) but he's not wrong here. If it walks like a Loxatl, talks like a Loxatl and has several sculpted details that match a Loxatl... then it's a Loxatl. This is just like the Raging Heroes Lammasu. Yes, GW didn't invent the concept of the Lammasu, but RH didn't need to make their head more GW-y than ancient history-y. I like Blight Wheel, and I really want to get some of their minis for my AdMech army, but this is a copy and it takes a seriously deluded Dark Knight not to see that.


As far as his comments on the not-Gaunts Ghosts... the gun looks just like a Lasgun (or the barrel does). The rest could be anything.

If you don't want to get a cease and desist for copying GW artwork, don't copy GW artwork.

GW artwork copying advice, there.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:
Seems like an obvious case of infringement to me.

No surprise there.

Kingsley may be a lunatic who thinks GW doesn't raise their prices (except in line with inflation) but he's not wrong here. If it walks like a Loxatl, talks like a Loxatl and has several sculpted details that match a Loxatl... then it's a Loxatl. This is just like the Raging Heroes Lammasu. Yes, GW didn't invent the concept of the Lammasu, but RH didn't need to make their head more GW-y than ancient history-y. I like Blight Wheel, and I really want to get some of their minis for my AdMech army, but this is a copy and it takes a seriously deluded Dark Knight not to see that.


As far as his comments on the not-Gaunts Ghosts... the gun looks just like a Lasgun (or the barrel does). The rest could be anything.

Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).

As for the Lammasu I couldn't disagree more, there is no such thing as making a head GW-y (unless they covered the head in skulls ? ), Raging Heroes representation was of a Mesopotamian monster with a pretty markedly Mesopotamian head, GW only "won" that one because they picked on someone that couldn't defend themselves, again...

I love the last bit of that C&D letter... i'd throw the mold out... into a postage bag... to ChinaForge.

As far as I can see, GW are pissed off that someone copied a drawing they own.

GW had an idea -- Lizards in Spaaace! With guns!! -- and did a drawing of it.

If this idea embodied in a drawing grants them the right to prevent anyone else in the world from making a model of a space lizard with gun, then they have a good case.

Otherwise you can pick apart all the similarities and say that the lizard is a lizard, the pose is a pose, the bandolier is a bandolier, etc. (this has been done above) and you end up with the point of what exact harm has GW suffered from this?

 Yodhrin wrote:
You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improving GW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.

Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Even then, you've still singularly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate how it's wrong to "knock off" the concept of generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry, any more than it's wrong for GW to sell an entire race of miniatures obviously and gratuitously ripped off(Tyranids) from another franchise - a franchise the design for which is substantially more unique and original than most of GW's own products.

We're not talking "generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry." We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name. Tyranids at least incorporate multiple influences-- Bugs from Starship Troopers, the Xenomorphs from Aliens, the Predator...

 Kingsley wrote:

We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name....

Tyranids at least incorporate multiple influences-- Bugs from Starship Troopers, the Xenomorphs from Aliens, the Predator...

It doesn't matter if its different sources though, copying is copying... and GW are the Kings of that Castle.

Woman in jeans with a gun? Yeah, GW totally invented that. Sue the NRA!

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name....

Clearly Disney is now going to be in trouble.

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name....

Quick! Someone tell Disney. That'll be a fight for the ages.

The Armageddon pattern Sentinel wasn't done until a few years after the regular plastic version was released though..

Too slow.

 n0t_u wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name....

<snip>

Clearly Disney is now going to be in trouble.

All this has happened before; all this will happen again. http://strangewars.livejournal.com/4552.html

 Kingsley wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improving GW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.

Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Even then, you've still singularly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate how it's wrong to "knock off" the concept of generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry, any more than it's wrong for GW to sell an entire race of miniatures obviously and gratuitously ripped off(Tyranids) from another franchise - a franchise the design for which is substantially more unique and original than most of GW's own products.

We're not talking "generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry." We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name. Tyranids at least incorporate multiple influences-- Bugs from Starship Troopers, the Xenomorphs from Aliens, the Predator...

So you're just going to ignore the fact that I've already pointed out that GW no longer sell the female Ghost model, and haven't for some time, so it's pretty bleedin' difficult for anyone to compete against it?

And as far as IP law is concerned, you may not need to be "an exact copy" to infringe copyright, but you do need to substantially copy elements which are unique to the concept at hand, or which are unique when taken as a whole. How many of these concepts are unique, alone or together; female soldier, sci-fi light infantry, stealthy light infantry, infantry wearing some form of cape, sci-fi infantry carrying a futuristic weapon, infantry carrying a knife as part of supplementary kit? Other than the name of the unit and the specific characters in the stories about that unit, the Tanith Ghosts are a hodge-podge of generic sci-fi tropes which do not become significantly unique by their amalgamation, and so since this female future light infantry soldier neither uses the name of the unit, nor the name of a character, nor is it substantially similar to any unique qualities that the no-longer-sold GW female Tanith trooper model may possess, arguing that it is an infringing work is completely unsupportable.

As for incorporating multiple sources; OK, someone else has already mentioned that the first association they made with that model was with the Fremen from Dune, so we're up to two influences already, and we've not even considered all the potential real-world influences, or the literally dozens-if-not-hundreds of other military sci-fi properties out there which describe futuristic light infantry with laser guns.

Also, I find it particularly hilarious that you're essentially arguing that Blight Wheel should be considered as in breach of copyright laws because they're infringing on one property(a point you've failed to prove), but GW aren't infringing on anyone's IP because they steal from lots of different people at once. Out of interest; how many different ideas would someone have to pinch before you stop considering them thieves and begin rushing to defend their honour on internet forums?

 Kingsley wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improving GW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.

Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

What's a Tanith knife and how does it differ to a standard Bowie knife?

Yes the lasgun looks a lot like the GW one, but it's fairly generic, and camo-cloaks are pretty standard for light/stealth infantry.

They have similar core elements, but the core elements aren't unique enough, and many of the core elements aren't there either. If it had a Tanith cap badge for instance, using that would be an infringement because it's actually unique. This is a light sci-fi trooper with a laser rifle, knife and cloak; all items that seem standard kit for a light sci-fi trope.

The names are obvious knock-offs, but that's perfectly legal.

Here's some irony from the beginnings of GW:

 Ravenous D wrote:
Here's some irony from the beginnings of GW:

Love it, just love it.

Considering the question of whether the not-loxatl is "competing" with GW as they don't actually make a miniature for them, would GW be able to argue that it's potentially causing them harm because they might have made a loxatl at some point in the future? I assume if so they'd have to provide proof like concept drawings or the claim would just be spurious; I doubt they could just say "well, they've been in our licenced novels and RPGs, so the option was always there."

Regarding the "Grant's Spectres" range, yes, the name is clearly meant to be a reference to Gaunt's Ghosts, and the theme of cape-wearing sci-fi light infantry is the same. I think Kanluwen used the ideal word earlier when he described it as "cheeky," which I can agree with, but on the other hand I would have thought certain aspects of the model made it too generic to be considered a direct copy. I certainly don't remember anyone in the books being gormless enough to run around with a bare midriff.

Incidentally, I thought it was meant to be Banda rather than Criid...

PhantomViper wrote:

Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).

Sean_OBrien stated earlier in the thread "transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own." I take this to mean that if there is an existing 2d drawing that is copyright, and I make a 3d sculpture based on it, then I can be sued for copyright infringement and will likely be found guilty. In the eyes of the law the transformation from 2d to 3d is not creative enough to constitute something completely different, and hence it is not out of reach of the copyright laws.

In terms of the other comments in the thread about GW copying all sorts of stuff, well of course it is true. Almost all of GWs stuff is highly derivative. They are just lucky that the people that they copied from are not a bunch of d-bags.

Keep in mind that I consider some of GW's designs to obviously infringe copyright as well (or at least when they were originally created). I think they're rather lucky Moorcock didn't go after them for the Chaos star...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So you're just going to ignore the fact that I've already pointed out that GW no longer sell the female Ghost model, and haven't for some time, so it's pretty bleedin' difficult for anyone to compete against it?

You edited that fact into your post after I had already started reply and I didn't see it, so claiming that I'm "ignoring" it isn't fair play. But it's a silly point anyway, because it's not like you have to be actively producing something for it to be yours. Would it be legitimate for someone to start making an old-school "HUGS" Carnifex because GW doesn't do so anymore? Of course not.

 Yodhrin wrote:
And as far as IP law is concerned, you may not need to be "an exact copy" to infringe copyright, but you do need to substantially copy elements which are unique to the concept at hand, or which are unique when taken as a whole. How many of these concepts are unique, alone or together; female soldier, sci-fi light infantry, stealthy light infantry, infantry wearing some form of cape, sci-fi infantry carrying a futuristic weapon, infantry carrying a knife as part of supplementary kit? Other than the name of the unit and the specific characters in the stories about that unit, the Tanith Ghosts are a hodge-podge of generic sci-fi tropes which do not become significantly unique by their amalgamation, and so since this female future light infantry soldier neither uses the name of the unit, nor the name of a character, nor is it substantially similar to any unique qualities that the no-longer-sold GW female Tanith trooper model may possess, arguing that it is an infringing work is completely unsupportable.

We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.

 Kingsley wrote:

Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

You are seeing things that isn't there, mate.

Camo-cloak? How the hell do you know that the model presented in an unpainted "green" state has a camo-cloak? Furthermore that cape on the model doesn't even look remotely big enough to be used for anything else that a head covering in case of bad weather.

Lasgun? Sure, I'll grant you that. Now we just have to determine if GW owns the rights to a lasgun obviously inspired by real-world weapons.

Tanith Knife? How do you recognize a Tanith knife? I'll tell you how...Straight Silver.

 Kingsley wrote:

We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.

They are obviously inspired by Gaunts Ghosts, but that's not the same as copying Gaunts Ghosts. They are just sci-fi light infantry with a scout specialization.

I'll admit to not knowing the GW ones existed, as a search for "Gaunt" didn't show them, but them existing doesn't make the Blight Wheel one a copy, especially since they look nothing like the GW ones.

What I still don't understand is why this is even a problem in the first place. It's not like there selling these models. There a free give away and from what I understand its a limited run. If GW isn't even currently selling a model for it or has no plan to then I don't see a problem. There not stealing sells. What I get out of it is look see what we sculpted here have one for free. I don't see how this is any different than your buddy next door sculpting thunder wolf calvery for your space wolfs ( before the models were out) and giving them to you for free.

 Kingsley wrote:


..and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

Or it is a tongue-in-cheek reference..

Kinda like.....oh, I don't know...

Last Chancers
Colonel Shaeffer
Sly Marbo
Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau
Lion'El Johnson
M'Shen and Konrad Kurze
Kruellagh the Vile
Holy Orb of Antioch
Hall of Leng

And many, many, MANY others perpetrated by your infallible GW.

This is not a question of "two wrongs does not make one right". This a case of the legal concept of "Clean Hands".

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:


..and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

Or it is a tongue-in-cheek reference..

Kinda like.....oh, I don't know...

Last Chancers
Colonel Shaeffer
Sly Marbo
Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau
Lion'El Johnson
M'Shen and Konrad Kurze
Kruellagh the Vile
Holy Orb of Antioch
Hall of Leng

And many, many, MANY others perpetrated by your infallible GW.

This is not a question of "two wrongs does not make one right". This a case of the legal concept of "Clean Hands".

So I know Marbo, IOSC, Lion'El, the Holy Orb, and I just now got the Kruellagh the Vile thing, but what do the rest refer to? I don't always catch onto these sorts of things as quickly as I ought.

 Lansirill wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:


..and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.

Or it is a tongue-in-cheek reference..

Kinda like.....oh, I don't know...

Last Chancers
Colonel Shaeffer
Sly Marbo
Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau
Lion'El Johnson
M'Shen and Konrad Kurze
Kruellagh the Vile
Holy Orb of Antioch
Hall of Leng

And many, many, MANY others perpetrated by your infallible GW.

This is not a question of "two wrongs does not make one right". This a case of the legal concept of "Clean Hands".

So I know Marbo, IOSC, Lion'El, the Holy Orb, and I just now got the Kruellagh the Vile thing, but what do the rest refer to? I don't always catch onto these sorts of things as quickly as I ought.

Last Chancers refer to the Dirty Dozen
Colonel Shaeffer is from Predator
Konrad Kruze and M'Shen are both from Apocalypse Now!. Colonel Kurtz is the moody, dark, brooding officer gone rogue and Martin Sheen plays the character sent to assassinate him.
The Hall of Leng is a hall in the imperial palace built in the Himalayas. The plateau of Leng is a place of horror in the Himalayas in H.P Lovecrafts works.

Someone please quote this so that Kingsley can see it please.

 Kingsley wrote:

We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.

Psst... Psst, my question for you to post the GW Gaunt's Ghosts was a rhetorical one so that I could show you that they aren't the same models. I'm perfectly aware that GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models, especially because I OWN a full 2 squad + command squad platoon of said models.