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.

JB_Man wrote:
That thing is an obvious copy... you can't even defend that.

I know what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? I've buried at home some Dragonlance Graphic novels and ok they are in a fantasy setting, the lizardmen in there have a similar look and feel about them. There's the Kleggs from Judge Dredd. I think there was even a lizardman story at some point.

JB_Man wrote:
That thing is an obvious copy... you can't even defend that.

Of what currently produced GW miniature is that thing an obvious copy of?

I am fairly familiar with all they make, where is the quadruped lizard man with gun they make?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

JB_Man wrote:
That thing is an obvious copy... you can't even defend that.

Of what currently produced GW miniature is that thing an obvious copy of?

They don't have to produce a current model or a competing product for it to be infringment.

JB_Man wrote:
That thing is an obvious copy... you can't even defend that.

Except for the number of points where the details don't match, you mean?

Starting with the pose...

Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?

Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?

Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!

I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

 mattyrm wrote:
Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?

Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?

Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!

I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.

And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.

What profits from the model? It's a give away with purchases over a certain size. You could argue that people are specifically spending more to get the model, but putting a figure on that is going to be pretty difficult to justify.

Have not read through all this as its long and I do not have the time etc...

While GW may have a case on this one they also may not. Can GW prove they even own the artwork because so far like with CHS case where they do not. It just maybe a case that blight house can say hey show me you own the rights to the art or take your c&d letter and shove it.

I hope someone at salute tells blight house this!

 mattyrm wrote:


I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

I think the key phrase here is 'why the feth not' ?

Really - who gives a feth about any of this? Can you imagine any GW games developer or otherwise employee, or fan, seriously giving a damn about this one-off miniature that will be released and then disappear? No, of course not.

Once again, this has got 'expensive legal department trying to justify its existence' written all over it. And whether they are justified in this action or not, once again they will come out of it looking like a bully.

 Pacific wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:


I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

I think the key phrase here is 'why the feth not' ?

Really - who gives a feth about any of this? Can you imagine any GW games developer or otherwise employee, or fan, seriously giving a damn about this one-off miniature that will be released and then disappear? No, of course not.

Once again, this has got 'expensive legal department trying to justify its existence' written all over it. And whether they are justified in this action or not, once again they will come out of it looking like a bully.

Too true, as you say, its one model.

The fethers really should consider licensing gak out, it just seems like a way to print money. If every company that wants to make the models that GW aren't providing, or even intending to make at all(gak, they could even ask them before hand like "You want to make Space Marines? feth off.., oh but you can make these Necromunda gangers") it can only be good news for the cretins that seem to be running things surely?

Getting some money, from things you weren't going to make and sell anyway? What's not to like?

 Aerethan wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?

Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?

Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!

I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.

And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.

I think it would hard to argue that it is a derivative work. Copy, maybe, but derivative work...a derivative work has to be a copy anyhow. Being a derivative work does not expand the scope of copyright protection beyond copying. A derivative work, at least in the US, transforms, adapts, or recasts the root work. That is, a derivative work beings with the root work or a copy of the root work and then modifies it.

It is difficult to say, in my opinion, that a sculptural work is a modification of a 2D work of art. I would think it is easier to make a case that it is simply a straight up copy. Almost all examples of derivative works in the US Code are narrative in nature: translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation. Those remaining are direct ports of the root work into a new work of art, i.e. sound recording and art reproduction. I believe that these refer to, for example, printing a photograph of a painting in a book and a sound recording that is in some way transformed, recast, or otherwise adapted, i.e. the new work is a compilation of copies of different works. The compilation is a new work of art because it requires potentially original creativity to make it (choosing the art, the arrangement, etc.) but it reproduces works of art.

You can't take a page of the compilation out of context and say that the compilation is a copy of bla work of art, because the compilation is the work of art. But that page IS a copy of bla work of art, so the compilation infringes, AND is a new work of art.

A derivative work is a unique, protectable work of art in its own right, simply one that unfairly appropriates the protected expression of the root work in a transformed, adapted, or recast format. A pictoral or graphic work of art and a sculptural work of art both rely on visual appearance. You can copy the many of the protected elements from a pictoral or graphic work in a sculptural work.

I would look at a derivative work to be something like all of the different poses of separate Cadian IG models. It is essentially the same figure positioned different ways. You could take a cast of one Cadian IG guy, transform it into a different pose by cutting it up and rescupting a few bits, and give it a different face. That, to me, says derivative work. You take one work of art and make it into another, different, work of art that is DERRIVED from the first work.

Here's a good example I think. You could take the drawing of the loxatl, and draw all of your own crazy cool background around it. The thing is crawling on a wall that we do not see, right. So you could draw all of that stuff in. Because of what you added, it would be a new work of art, but it would incorporate the loxatl drawing someone else did. So it is a copy AND an original work of art. That is a derivative work. The artist has an exclusive right to, say, fill out the background around his mutant lizard drawing.

The problem that I have with derivative works is that people look at it and say, "Well, it looks similar, but there are a lot of differences. It isn't a copy, but it must be derivative." The similarities may very well have to do with common public domain sources, or things that are not protected expression in the asserted work. The differences in such a context would be much more significant. Throwing around the concept of derivative works can become a surrogate for diminishing the significance of extant differences, i.e. used as evidence to argue in favor of the work being a copy.

But a work has to be a copy FIRST in order to be derivative. The concept of derivative works does not allow you to back into a finding of copying that would otherwise not be sustainable.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?

Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?

Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!

I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.

And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.

Surely a 2d image would be used for inspiration or a base to work from? Which means you could argue that there is no guarantee that the finished model made by GW would be a 100% copy of the 2d image. So if GW hasn't produced a 3d model, how can it be a copy? If it was a model of a Space Marine then GW would be well within their rights to put the boot in.

I think it would hard to argue that it is a derivative work. Copy, maybe, but derivative work...a derivative work has to be a copy anyhow. Being a derivative work does not expand the scope of copyright protection beyond copying.

It is a derivative work to the extent that the sculptor has (presumably) taken the original drawing and interpreted it with a new pose, new weapon, and various new details of the anatomy of the base lizard.

The core idea of a lizard with a gun underneath is clearly the same.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?

Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?

Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!

I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?

But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.

And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.

I think it would hard to argue that it is a derivative work. Copy, maybe, but derivative work...a derivative work has to be a copy anyhow. Being a derivative work does not expand the scope of copyright protection beyond copying. A derivative work, at least in the US, transforms, adapts, or recasts the root work. That is, a derivative work beings with the root work or a copy of the root work and then modifies it.

It is difficult to say, in my opinion, that a sculptural work is a modification of a 2D work of art. I would think it is easier to make a case that it is simply a straight up copy. Almost all examples of derivative works in the US Code are narrative in nature: translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation. Those remaining are direct ports of the root work into a new work of art, i.e. sound recording and art reproduction. I believe that these refer to, for example, printing a photograph of a painting in a book and a sound recording that is in some way transformed, recast, or otherwise adapted, i.e. the new work is a compilation of copies of different works. The compilation is a new work of art because it requires potentially original creativity to make it (choosing the art, the arrangement, etc.) but it reproduces works of art.

You can't take a page of the compilation out of context and say that the compilation is a copy of bla work of art, because the compilation is the work of art. But that page IS a copy of bla work of art, so the compilation infringes, AND is a new work of art.

A derivative work is a unique, protectable work of art in its own right, simply one that unfairly appropriates the protected expression of the root work in a transformed, adapted, or recast format. A pictoral or graphic work of art and a sculptural work of art both rely on visual appearance. You can copy the many of the protected elements from a pictoral or graphic work in a sculptural work.

I would look at a derivative work to be something like all of the different poses of separate Cadian IG models. It is essentially the same figure positioned different ways. You could take a cast of one Cadian IG guy, transform it into a different pose by cutting it up and rescupting a few bits, and give it a different face. That, to me, says derivative work. You take one work of art and make it into another, different, work of art that is DERRIVED from the first work.

Here's a good example I think. You could take the drawing of the loxatl, and draw all of your own crazy cool background around it. The thing is crawling on a wall that we do not see, right. So you could draw all of that stuff in. Because of what you added, it would be a new work of art, but it would incorporate the loxatl drawing someone else did. So it is a copy AND an original work of art. That is a derivative work. The artist has an exclusive right to, say, fill out the background around his mutant lizard drawing.

The problem that I have with derivative works is that people look at it and say, "Well, it looks similar, but there are a lot of differences. It isn't a copy, but it must be derivative." The similarities may very well have to do with common public domain sources, or things that are not protected expression in the asserted work. The differences in such a context would be much more significant. Throwing around the concept of derivative works can become a surrogate for diminishing the significance of extant differences, i.e. used as evidence to argue in favor of the work being a copy.

But a work has to be a copy FIRST in order to be derivative. The concept of derivative works does not allow you to back into a finding of copying that would otherwise not be sustainable.

Thank you for the clarification of the legal concept of derivative works.

Derivative is the wrong word choice for me then. Inspired might be a better word. Clearly the model takes ideas from the drawing, but it changes details in a way that make it unique from the drawing.

I was not aware that something needed to be a copy in order to be derivative, and that alone means I used the term incorrectly.

So if I sculpt a 3d rendition of the Mona Lisa, it's copying?

Furthermore, most of this discussion is from the eyes of US citizens, and we generally don't know UK law as well as we know our own(and we don't usually know our own too well to begin with).

Design rights for this item as a toy would have expired 15 years after it's creation iirc. Anyone in the UK want to start cranking out pre 1998 GW models?

 Aerethan wrote:

So if I sculpt a 3d rendition of the Mona Lisa, it's copying?

Well, you can pick widely used things like the Mona Lisa (probably the most heavily parodied image of all time) to try and dilute the point, but clearly, yes you are.

Obviously you are! If you made a 3D mona lisa, people would not say "thats a cool 3d model of a random bird" they would say "feth me, thats a great 3d Mona Lisa!"

Surely its a bit daft to say you can't infringe on an artwork if you make a model from a drawing?

That seems really silly. If I make a mini of a drawing, say Link from Legend of Zelda, and its identical to a drawing, thats obviously copyright infringement.

All minis start out as a drawing, I loved some of Mantics artworks, especially for their KOW kickstarter, If I got the artwork of their ogres, and then made an absolutely identical model and started selling it, I would hugely be taking the piss.

I know people like to look for any excuse to have a go at (the almost always entirely deserving!) GW, but that seems to be splitting hairs.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

So if I sculpt a 3d rendition of the Mona Lisa, it's copying?

Well, you can pick widely used things like the Mona Lisa (probably the most heavily parodied image of all time) to try and dilute the point, but clearly, yes you are.

Obviously you are! If you made a 3D mona lisa, people would not say "thats a cool 3d model of a random bird" they would say "feth me, thats a great 3d Mona Lisa!"

Surely its a bit daft to say you can't infringe on an artwork if you make a model from a drawing?

That seems really silly. If I make a mini of a drawing, say Link from Legend of Zelda, and its identical to a drawing, thats obviously copyright infringement.

All minis start out as a drawing, I loved some of Mantics artworks, especially for their KOW kickstarter, If I got the artwork of their ogres, and then made an absolutely identical model and started selling it, I would hugely be taking the piss.

I know people like to look for any excuse to have a go at (the almost always entirely deserving!) GW, but that seems to be splitting hairs.

But copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea in all forms. For all we know, the underside of the lizard in the 2d drawing is full of fur and genitalia, and the model(I assume) is not. We don't know because in 2d roughly 50% of the thing is not represented, and that 50% could be vastly different from what we assume it to be.

For all we know, the Mona Lisa has a wicked neck tattoo on the back of her neck which isn't shown. For all we know, she has a tail and horns. Perhaps she's a flat piece of paper that was drawn to look as if it were a portrait(I doubt with the Mona Lisa that is the case, but insert random 2d art and the point remains).

One cannot say that a 3d model is an exact replica of a 2d drawing. What about scale? Show me where in the drawing scale is shown. I see no points of reference.

I'm not saying that BWM has a solid defense, but this thing isn't as cut and dry as many think.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a derivative work to the extent that the sculptor has (presumably) taken the original drawing and interpreted it with a new pose, new weapon, and various new details of the anatomy of the base lizard.

The core idea of a lizard with a gun underneath is clearly the same.

Ideas are not protected by copyright, at all. So a work cannot be derivative if the only similarity it shares with the asserted work is a common idea. This is the fundamental confusion I am talking about.

To be derivative, a work must be a copy of the root work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:

Derivative is the wrong word choice for me then. Inspired might be a better word. Clearly the model takes ideas from the drawing, but it changes details in a way that make it unique from the drawing.

And inspiration is not equal to infringement. Copyright provides the exclusive right to prevent other from making, displaying, etc. etc. copies of an author's original work of authorship. Original is an important term because that is where you get the concept of "protected expression." What did the author do that no one else did and that is not already in the public domain?

Using anything else is not appropriating "protected expression."

weeble1000 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a derivative work to the extent that the sculptor has (presumably) taken the original drawing and interpreted it with a new pose, new weapon, and various new details of the anatomy of the base lizard.

The core idea of a lizard with a gun underneath is clearly the same.

Ideas are not protected by copyright, at all. So a work cannot be derivative if the only similarity it shares with the asserted work is a common idea. This is the fundamental confusion I am talking about.

To be derivative, a work must be a copy of the root work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aerethan wrote:

Derivative is the wrong word choice for me then. Inspired might be a better word. Clearly the model takes ideas from the drawing, but it changes details in a way that make it unique from the drawing.

And inspiration is not equal to infringement. Copyright provides the exclusive right to prevent other from making, displaying, etc. etc. copies of an author's original work of authorship. Original is an important term because that is where you get the concept of "protected expression." What did the author do that no one else did and that is not already in the public domain?

Using anything else is not appropriating "protected expression."

So in essence, there is a huge difference between my photocopying something and selling it, and redrawing the same image myself and selling copies of that, legally speaking?

 azreal13 wrote:
So in essence, there is a huge difference between my photocopying something and selling it, and redrawing the same image myself and selling copies of that, legally speaking?

Only in the sense that a photocopy would be a rather faithful copy, so presumably proving copying would be relatively simple. However, "redrawing" something very well might be a copy. The question, as I have said, is whether the accused work unfairly appropriates protected expression.

Is the accused work substantially similar to that which is protectable in the asserted work? That's it, but you have to know what is and is not protectable, and depending on the work in question, protection could be very narrow. It could also be very broad.

Photographs are protected by copyright, in theory, right? So imagine all of the photographs of the Lincoln Memorial that are being sold. Each one is a protected work of art, as it should be. I don't care how common those photographs are, if I copy your photo and sell it, that is wrong. But, the scope of protection is on a practical level probably narrow almost to the point of literal, 100% duplication because the factors that a photographer can manipulate in such a circumstance are few and the number of extant photographs of the subject are numerous.

There are also a whole host of things that just don't reach the bar of protectability. For example, the US Copyright Office determined that GW's Space Marine shoulder pad design does not qualify for copyright protection under US law. But Judge Kennelly found the shoulder pad design to in fact be protectable. This is why these cases rarely go to trial. At the end of the day, it comes down to a very subjective interpretation. Judge Kennelly's shoulder pad ruling could get flipped on appeal, should the Defendant seek an appeal. It could get upheld. Upheld or not, another judge in another case could make a different decision.

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

I remember when this was new.

By and by- where can I get some of those femal specters, and some gaunts ghosts?

I missed these gits the first time around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:
GW have been playing IP bully for so long I find it hard to care whether they're in the right or not in this case. Maybe it is an infringement, I dunno, but seeing as how there's a mountain of bs ownership claims behind them I'm not too keen to take them seriously anymore.

And I don't really see the similarity between GW's GG model and BWM's "homage". Honest to god I can't even tell which one of the GW models this girl is supposed to be, the only thing that looks similar to me is her fething gun. I see no bare midriffs, I don't see anyone with that hairstyle, and I don't think you can sue because of a cloak. Are you sure any of these models are actually female?

+1 for this sentiment.

And as a second thought-

How do you use this model? Is it a solo, a squad, or a commander?

As much as I hate to admit it, I've never seen one like this.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Stop lounging about in boardrooms 'defending' your IP and go and USE IT!!!!

Pretty much sums it all up.

What I'd like to see is gw winning this, to be honest. Them, then learning about what is 'legitimate' things to go for. Open season being declared by either sides of the 'copyright coin' wouldn't be cool.

 Compel wrote:
What I'd like to see is gw winning this, to be honest. Them, then learning about what is 'legitimate' things to go for. Open season being declared by either sides of the 'copyright coin' wouldn't be cool.

Not really.

Then they open up themselves for back pay for everyone else from Lucas films/ Disney, Marvel, DC, Heavy Metal magazine, Judge Dredds many evolutions from the 2000 AD lines, Every scifi movie and specific from Fox, Parmount, Soney, and... each and every one off that they've used since the company inception.
MGM, New Line, Funmation, hell, even Cox cable and the scifi channel could get in on some of that action.
Thing is that Sci fi gaming WAS once a homage sport. We used and use everything that we want to, make derivitave stuff and continue the process of evolving the work.

Like it or not, GW is a laughable facsimile of what they once were.

That earlier post on what THEY said about copies is stuff that they had to go through themselves, when TSR decided they wanted to go all out and start this gak. T.S.R. (They sue Regularly.)

White dwarf was once a game mag. They had everything in there, along with MOST of the same sort of 3d party content that they now decry and fail to realize that they arn't the big fish in the pont that they think they are.

I say Gak them. Keep them tied up in court until they die the death of a thousand cuts, or realize that they suck in thier treatment of the general public, gamers, and modelers.

Looks like a drawing I did when I was around five and thought Komodo Dragons were the coolest animal ever, coupled with Dino Riders being my most favorite toys. If only I'd have had the foresight to register my Kindergarten scribblings, I could have beat GW to the punch on their (at least in their view) Lizards with underslung guns monopoly.

In all seriousness though, I can see the resemblances. Still sucks for people that wanted the model and would have thrown some extra money to a smaller company to acquire it, or now, because of seeing this thread want the model, cause I admit, I still think Komodo Dragons are the coolest animal ever.

Not to worry though, lizard lickers....

Those raptors got funded, maybe you can get in on those instead.

Suck it, GW!!!

http://loudninjagames.blogspot.com/

from the OTHER best idea for lizard troops... Raptors.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/485545784/loud-ninja-games-space-raptors

A couple things.

First, GW cares on this for one reason: They have figured out that a picture of a unit in a book does not preclude others from making that model BEFORE them. If they put out a picture of something without a model for sale, then a group creates a model that looks like it, then GW is screwed. If GW then produces that exact model they are open to being sued...

This basically means, GW needs to stop various people from creating models out of their artwork. Hence, IMHO, the reasons we have seen various shoulder pads and other minor bits being released. To protect their IP.

Next, you can't win a suit against someone who takes *your* picture and makes a model out of it. That's not protected. You *can* win if they take your artwork and basically photocopy it and call it their own; but that's not what has happened here.

In short, Blight Wheel has c**kblocked GW by producing that model. So, GW is trying to intimidate Blight into pulling it. Unless Blight has a decent lawyer who works for peanuts, they will.

clively wrote:
A couple things.

First, GW cares on this for one reason: They have figured out that a picture of a unit in a book does not preclude others from making that model BEFORE them. If they put out a picture of something without a model for sale, then a group creates a model that looks like it, then GW is screwed. If GW then produces that exact model they are open to being sued...

This basically means, GW needs to stop various people from creating models out of their artwork. Hence, IMHO, the reasons we have seen various shoulder pads and other minor bits being released. To protect their IP.

Next, you can't win a suit against someone who takes *your* picture and makes a model out of it. That's not protected. You *can* win if they take your artwork and basically photocopy it and call it their own; but that's not what has happened here.

In short, Blight Wheel has c**kblocked GW by producing that model. So, GW is trying to intimidate Blight into pulling it. Unless Blight has a decent lawyer who works for peanuts, they will.

No, not really. Not really at all at all. First of all, Copyright is inherent, so first to market with something is immaterial.

Second, two miniatures that could be used to represent the same unit in a fictional game are potentially competing products. Products that compete do not block. They compete. Generally speaking, competition is a good thing.

Third, do you think that GW could actually be blocked by a miniature produced by a company the size of Blight Wheel?

Let's look at the possibilities here. So let's assume that the market for a Loxatl miniature is so small that Blight Wheel can, on its own, saturate that market completely. If that was the case, I don't think GW would be interested in producing a miniature that has a market in the low thousands. Perhaps this is why GW has produced no such product for a decade. In such a case, Blight Wheel gets to enjoy modest sales of a new product, the customer gets to enjoy a product that would otherwise not have existed, and the value of GW's complimentary products is increased. Blight Wheel wins, GW wins, and the customer wins.

Let's assume that such a model would be wildly popular, with tens or hundreds of thousand potential unit sales over many years. If that was the case, Blight Wheel could not meet such a demand. GW could easily create and sell a better, cheaper product and obliterate the majority of Blight Wheel's business, gobbling up the lion's share of the Loxatl market share. Competition would drive GW to create a better product at a competitive price. GW wins, the customer wins, and Blight Wheel could probably still find some market for its own miniature, and being a smaller, more nimble company not relying on high volume sales for profitability, could easily win as well.

Either way you look at it, GW wins, Blight Wheel wins, and the customer wins. Everybody wins.

When GW attempts to squash the product, nobody wins; not Blight Wheel, not GW, and not the customer.

weeble1000 wrote:

Either way you look at it, GW wins, Blight Wheel wins, and the customer wins. Everybody wins.

When GW attempts to squash the product, nobody wins; not Blight Wheel, not GW, and not the customer.

The thing is, while I agree in principle, and I hate GWs militant lawyers, ultimately copyright exists for a reason, and its for a perfectly fair reason.

There's all kind of crap fence sitting gak in the world, whereby people say "Oh in an ideal world it would work like this..." but we don't live in an ideal world.

I feel the same way about socialism, I don't dislike the idea of those that can work paying to help those that can't, I just ignore it because It doesn't work in the real world and it never will. Its a system that gets abused, because vast swathes of the population have no integrity, so I regretfully vote conservative because its better to get some of the richest guys money than none of it.. same goes with people that are wired wrongly and kill kids, in the ideal world, we could rehabilitate them with brain surgery, give them jobs as high school caretakers and release them, but no, I say regretfully kill them if they can never be realsed. I dont revell in the death of mentally ill people, I just figure its pragmatic.

In the same sense, we can't have fluid, shifting sands copyright laws that boil down to common sense, because they need to be in black and white to be workable, and generally speaking IP laws are. They exist not just to help the big guys, but the little guys too.

Think about it, hardly anyone on here thinks that GW is in the right with many of their ridiculous IP claims, I certainly don't like their ridiculous attitude, but its pretty much a case of what we have now, or nothing, unworkable idealism and wishing the world were different wont get us anywhere.

But in this instance, the fact of the matter is, that model IS a total, 100% of copy of a GW drawing, generally speaking, you can't do gak like that, and you can't say that its ok. If this wasn't a model, if it was your mother drawing a picture of a really cool car, and then a big ass company saw her drawing, photocopied it and then made the car, exactly as it was drawn, she would have been ripped off, and should be able to pursue the case legally, she would be getting ripped off by a big nasty company who stole her idea, and then make money off her toil. Surely the principle is the exact same?

If you designed a machine to recharge normal batteries, and Duracell hired a guy to rob you so they could mass produce it and give you nothing, they would be breaking the law.

As much as we all despise many of GWs actions, surely we despise hypocrisy more? And as a result, dislike them as I do, in this instance, you can't really say they are massively in the wrong because the model is almost a direct port, unless we are willing to practice staggering hypocrisy.

And I might not like corporate GW, but I dislike hypocrisy more, this idea that we really like minis so we should be allowed them all.

Unfortunately, I side with Mr Kirby and his flying monkeys on this one.

Matty,

1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.

2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.

GW could have done any number of things to assert its rights. GW could have offered BW a limited license to produce the miniature, for example.

This is a cannon being used to kill a mosquito, and we are taking the brunt of the collateral damage. And GW very well may not actually have standing in this instance.

For example, CHS is allowed to produce more than 40 different products because GW could not substantiate a claim, probably on threshold issues. GW may not even own the asserted artwork. Nor is it a foregone conclusion that the accused work is actually a copy of the asserted work.

GW's IP enforcement policy is scorched earth chemical warfare. GW does not care what the rules are. GW does not care what the law is. GW does not care about the impact its actions have on its customers, the industry it operates in, the broader market, nor about the legitimate rights of authors and artists.

Regardless of the arguably close similarity between the two works, this is not an example of GW moderating its treatment of intellectual property rights. This is another instance in a well-developed pattern of behavior that has, literally, been shown to fly in the face of both the letter and spirit of the law. Do not forget that GW's lawyer was sanctioned for withholding discoverable documents and making a misstatement in a sworn affidavit.

What did GW's lawyer withhold? COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE US COPYRIGHT OFFICE! Communications directly relevant to...GW's assertions of its intellectual property rights!

Do not forget also that GW has repeatedly attempted to bamboozle artists into giving up rights to their own works of art. Gark Chalk swore an affidavit that in spite of the fact that GW told him that GW already owned rights to his work of art, he had never in fact given up such rights to GW. And, of course, GW's lawyer failed to mention to defense counsel that GW had been communicating with Mr. Chalk.

Hell, the C&D itself may even expose GW to liability given its wording and the manner in which it was delivered.

It is not a fact that the BW miniature is a 100% literal copy of the asserted drawing. It is not a fact that it is even a copy. What I have described above are facts. What I have described above is neither speculation nor embellishment. What I have described above is the way that GW has behaved with respect to the law and the rights of artists.

Do GW's rights deserve respect, absolutely. Does GW respect the rights of artists, even its own artists? No.