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.

He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.

He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.

weeble1000 wrote:
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.

Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.

Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?

I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?

Just regards your two numbered points

1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?

2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?

 BryllCream wrote:
He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.

He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.

There really is nothing we can say to you is there?

 BryllCream wrote:
He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.

He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.

That's sarcasm?

It has to be sarcasm right?

Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.

If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.

There was a pretty good article a few years ago in the Business Law Journal that I recall. My lawyer pointed it out to me, as our discussions around IP issues often pivoted around these issues (he tended to favor a more aggressive stance than I did...).

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2006-05-06/wilcox.shtml

Specifically related to the US and covers a wide variety of issues...mostly as tied to trademarks, but still - an interesting perspective.

 mattyrm wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
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.

Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.

Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?

I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?

Just regards your two numbered points

1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?

2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?

That is sort of a problem with the existing laws though...they may have seen the picture (probably) and may have modeled the miniature after it (probably) but still not be in the wrong. The image itself uses a lot of generic things, and a couple of unique things. The generic things are protected only as much as making "exact copies"... If I were to take the image and blow it up to poster size and sell on eBay...that would be a clear violation of the copyright no matter how generic it might be. The unique things can be protected provided that they are unique enough.

For example, the belly mounted gun is a somewhat unique idea...however, the idea can not be protected. Other companies can do lizard miniatures with belly mounted guns all they want. The protected aspect would be the very specific rendering of the gun used by GW in their image. Without having a figure to examine in detail or high resolution pictures to see the specific details of the figure - it is hard to make that determination.

A lot of people get too tied up in the concept and think that that is important - but every countries copyright laws that I have looked into make a clear distinction between ideas and the execution of those ideas. The number of differences between the GW drawing and the BW miniature could very well be enough to distinguish between the two as two distinct representations of the same idea.

 mattyrm wrote:

1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?

2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?

As to your first point, it would be inappropriate conjecture to say either way. We do not know what the facts are. Do I feel there is enough similarity that an inference of access can be made? Absolutely yes. But that is neither an opinion as to infringement nor would such an inference preclude the rebuttal of said inference.

As to your second point, again, I feel that you are going to far, just as when you said that the BW miniature was a 100% copy, which is simply impossible. GW has a right to original works of authorship that it owns. And GW should be free to assert its exclusive rights to make copies of original works of authorship that it owns.

That is a much different sentiment from "[GW has] the right to stop this production." IF the BW miniature is a copy of a work of art that GW owns, THEN yes GW has a right to stop its production. But it is inappropriate to come to such fact-intensive legal conclusions without having the relevant facts.

For example, with a similar sort of conjecture based on known facts, one could say that GW does not have a right to assert works of art that it does not own. One could say that knowingly asserting such non-existent rights gives Blight Wheel the right to receive damages from GW.

That conjecture is as inappropriate as yours. So no, I do not think avoiding conjecture is hypocrisy.

What IS hypocrisy is GW vigorously asserting its own alleged rights when it does not similarly respect the same rights possessed by other artists.

Should GW be allowed to assert its rights? Yes. Would me saying GW is not allowed to assert its rights be hypocritical? Yes. Is it nevertheless hypocritical for GW to aggressively assert its rights? Yes. But saying that it is hypocritical is not the same as saying GW is barred from doing so.

 mattyrm wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
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.

Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.

Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?

I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?

Just regards your two numbered points

1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?

2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?

1. It is not "near as dammit", it is similar in some respects. The only even slightly unique aspect of the GW Loxatl concept is the torso-mounted shooting weapon, and it could be argued that an underslung or back-mounted weapon would be the only logical way for a quadrupedal creature to carry a ranged weapon given its natural method of locomotion. The core idea of a space lizard in a sci-fi setting is not even remotely original, and any similarities between the Blight Wheel mini has to the GW artwork could be argued away as necessarily proceeding from the original concept, or being due to their both drawing elements from the same limited pool of real-life creatures used as reference by the artists. But even if we put all that aside and accept your basic premise that the Blight Wheel sculptor literally sat down to make their model with the GW artwork in front of them, weeble has already pointed out to you that they are still not necessarily guilty of infringement, or even of "copying" in the legal sense; the BWM miniature has different appendages, its legs are in different positions, the BWM mini is moving along a horizontal plane while the GW artwork has the creature attached vertically to a wall, and beyond those things both miniature and artwork share many aspects in common with real lizards, which makes such aspects protectable in neither case.

2. Actually, weeble seems to me to have been arguing that GW may very well not have a right to stop this production at all, and that if they do that should be determined in a court of law by experts, not by people on forums making their "common sense innit guv" judgements, and not by GW's downright sleazy attempts to bully people with threatening letters, letters which may themselves be in breach of good legal practice.

Also, I will ask you to please refrain from bringing real-life political arguments into discussions like this, even as comparison, because it's bloody unfair to throw your own entirely arguable viewpoints out there as factual knowing that the rest of us are unable to respond to you without dragging the thread off-topic and risking mod censure.

 Grot 6 wrote:
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

Those would actually be pretty cool for a race of aliens to ally with Tau models.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
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.

Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.

Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?

I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?

Just regards your two numbered points

1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?

2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?

1. It is not "near as dammit", it is similar in some respects. The only even slightly unique aspect of the GW Loxatl concept is the torso-mounted shooting weapon, and it could be argued that an underslung or back-mounted weapon would be the only logical way for a quadrupedal creature to carry a ranged weapon given its natural method of locomotion. The core idea of a space lizard in a sci-fi setting is not even remotely original, and any similarities between the Blight Wheel mini has to the GW artwork could be argued away as necessarily proceeding from the original concept, or being due to their both drawing elements from the same limited pool of real-life creatures used as reference by the artists. But even if we put all that aside and accept your basic premise that the Blight Wheel sculptor literally sat down to make their model with the GW artwork in front of them, weeble has already pointed out to you that they are still not necessarily guilty of infringement, or even of "copying" in the legal sense; the BWM miniature has different appendages, its legs are in different positions, the BWM mini is moving along a horizontal plane while the GW artwork has the creature attached vertically to a wall, and beyond those things both miniature and artwork share many aspects in common with real lizards, which makes such aspects protectable in neither case.

2. Actually, weeble seems to me to have been arguing that GW may very well not have a right to stop this production at all, and that if they do that should be determined in a court of law by experts, not by people on forums making their "common sense innit guv" judgements, and not by GW's downright sleazy attempts to bully people with threatening letters, letters which may themselves be in breach of good legal practice.

Also, I will ask you to please refrain from bringing real-life political arguments into discussions like this, even as comparison, because it's bloody unfair to throw your own entirely arguable viewpoints out there as factual knowing that the rest of us are unable to respond to you without dragging the thread off-topic and risking mod censure.

1. Oh come on, how does life work if not simply by evidence? How does any court case work? We don't go "Oh sure it looks like that bloke stabbed that woman to death, and here is X Y Z evidence, but sorry, we didn't actually sit there and watch it take place, so let not have an opinion either way and forget about it.

All we have is an educated guess, and in this case It's clearly not merely "a little bit similar"

2. What on earth is a forum for if not "common sense innit guv" its for random people to discuss things. If you only want to let "experts" discuss anything, why are you even here? If someone posts a photo of their new hairstyle do we all have to be trained barbers to have an opinion?

No doubt you are happy with "common sense innit guv" if said random civilian with no professional qualifications entirely agrees with you though eh?

And once again, I am against GWs IP lawyers in 90% of cases, I want CH to crush them in their litigation, I am simply stating an opinion, that this case does indeed look like a pretty obvious case of seeing some GW material and making a model off said drawing.

As to your points about using our own real life arguments, how else do you draw an analogy? If that, or simply having an opinion on something without being involved in the industry makes you so uncomfortable, why on earth do you bother coming to a public discussion forum at all?

Question for anyone who went to Salute - were you able to get this model from Blight Wheel or not?

 Darth Bob wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
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

Those would actually be pretty cool for a race of aliens to ally with Tau models.

Even as is, these would be pretty boss. I have about three other projects I can see these in. Pulp City, Judge Dredd, and Superfigs.

I missed out on them in the KS, but after i dug them back up, i really do want a few for some Superhero gaming I'm working on at the moment.

And they kick the IP out of the space lizard


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BryllCream wrote:
He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.

He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.

This IS wargaming miniatures figures we are talking about, right?

How can you be sick of it, GW doesn't make this creature, nor do I see any semblence of them anywhere else.


Aliens, Star Wars, the Dirty Dozen, Rambo, the army of Commando knock offs, etc, etc, etc....


Take a break from your brightly bleach dented armor, and dig back into White Dwarves of the past and bask in the glory of what once was.....

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?325009-White-Dwarf-The-First-100-issues-A-Read-Through-and-Review/page4

Great link by the way Grot. I love all the old covers, It reminds me of when I first picked up a FF game book in the eighties and got started on the hobby from there.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
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.

Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.

Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?

I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?

Just regards your two numbered points

1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?

2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?

1. It is not "near as dammit", it is similar in some respects. The only even slightly unique aspect of the GW Loxatl concept is the torso-mounted shooting weapon, and it could be argued that an underslung or back-mounted weapon would be the only logical way for a quadrupedal creature to carry a ranged weapon given its natural method of locomotion. The core idea of a space lizard in a sci-fi setting is not even remotely original, and any similarities between the Blight Wheel mini has to the GW artwork could be argued away as necessarily proceeding from the original concept, or being due to their both drawing elements from the same limited pool of real-life creatures used as reference by the artists. But even if we put all that aside and accept your basic premise that the Blight Wheel sculptor literally sat down to make their model with the GW artwork in front of them, weeble has already pointed out to you that they are still not necessarily guilty of infringement, or even of "copying" in the legal sense; the BWM miniature has different appendages, its legs are in different positions, the BWM mini is moving along a horizontal plane while the GW artwork has the creature attached vertically to a wall, and beyond those things both miniature and artwork share many aspects in common with real lizards, which makes such aspects protectable in neither case.

2. Actually, weeble seems to me to have been arguing that GW may very well not have a right to stop this production at all, and that if they do that should be determined in a court of law by experts, not by people on forums making their "common sense innit guv" judgements, and not by GW's downright sleazy attempts to bully people with threatening letters, letters which may themselves be in breach of good legal practice.

Also, I will ask you to please refrain from bringing real-life political arguments into discussions like this, even as comparison, because it's bloody unfair to throw your own entirely arguable viewpoints out there as factual knowing that the rest of us are unable to respond to you without dragging the thread off-topic and risking mod censure.

1. Oh come on, how does life work if not simply by evidence? How does any court case work? We don't go "Oh sure it looks like that bloke stabbed that woman to death, and here is X Y Z evidence, but sorry, we didn't actually sit there and watch it take place, so let not have an opinion either way and forget about it.

All we have is an educated guess, and in this case It's clearly not merely "a little bit similar"

2. What on earth is a forum for if not "common sense innit guv" its for random people to discuss things. If you only want to let "experts" discuss anything, why are you even here? If someone posts a photo of their new hairstyle do we all have to be trained barbers to have an opinion?

No doubt you are happy with "common sense innit guv" if said random civilian with no professional qualifications entirely agrees with you though eh?

And once again, I am against GWs IP lawyers in 90% of cases, I want CH to crush them in their litigation, I am simply stating an opinion, that this case does indeed look like a pretty obvious case of seeing some GW material and making a model off said drawing.

As to your points about using our own real life arguments, how else do you draw an analogy? If that, or simply having an opinion on something without being involved in the industry makes you so uncomfortable, why on earth do you bother coming to a public discussion forum at all?

1. We're not talking about life, we're talking about a specific set of legal arguments which have defined limits on applicability, and whether or not those arguments apply in this case. This has been pointed out to you several times already; two things can be very similar, but still not be similar enough in a legal context for one to infringe upon the other. If the basic concept is "armed quadrupedal lizard in a sci-fi setting", the question is are there any elements of the BWM miniature which are both A; the same as in the artwork based on the concept by GW, and also B; are not required by the original concept, and do not come from other non-protectable sources. You continue to argue that because "they look the same" the miniature must be infringing upon the artwork, but it doesn't matter if "they look the same" if the original concept is a trope or otherwise generic, and the elements which are similar are drawn from real-life sources(actual lizards) or proceed logically and inescapably from the original concept.

2. You put forward your opinion as being the only obvious conclusion that anyone could reach, and that we shouldn't criticise GW for their actions because their actions are obviously justified; what weeble appears to have been saying, and what I was attempting(apparently fruitlessly) to explain to you is that the situation is nowhere near that clear-cut, and that there is a fair argument that GW should be criticised for their actions, but most importantly that we certainly shouldn't be making any actual judgements of the rightness of either party because the only place such judgements can be rendered appropriately is in court when all the facts are available.

And we'll add 3. How else do you draw an analogy? With some tact. A good first step is to not draw analogies you know nobody can question the validity of without dragging the thread miles off-topic, risking that it be closed and the respondent would face mod action. Another useful idea is to not present extremely questionable -opinions- as factual statements. For example, you could easily have presented exactly the same point that you did in generic terms, by discussing "utopian political ideology", or a preference for pragmatism over idealism, without bringing up specific examples which might elicit a dispute with someone who disagrees with your presentation of those examples.

 Yodhrin wrote:
2. You put forward your opinion as being the only obvious conclusion that anyone could reach, and that we shouldn't criticise GW for their actions because their actions are obviously justified

No I don't. I have stated numerous times that I hugely disagree with GWs IP policy en-masse, my point is merely that this one instance seems more clear cut, it is perfectly logical that the model was made with that picture in mind. I also agreed with Wee that its probably pointless to get lawyers involved over such a small issue. I agree entirely, I simply said that it seems to be hypocritical of us all to be so judgemental about GW, but not attempt to see things from their POV when the case in question is more obvious.

 Yodhrin wrote:

How else do you draw an analogy? With some tact. A good first step is to not draw analogies you know nobody can question the validity of without dragging the thread miles off-topic........

Have you actually been into a pub and discussed a topical issue face to face with people in such a ridiculously roundabout manner? A professor once told me that you should never make something more complicated than necessary when you are speaking to an audience, so why do so here? You and I are not Ed Miliband and David Cameron, were two blokes talking about minis, there is no need to make things more complicated than they need to be.

There is also the obvious point that you are now dragging the thread miles off topic with this somewhat petty point, so lets simply draw a line under it, and I'll reiterate that I think that this is one of the more palatable forms of cease and desist letters that GW has pulled lately, but pay more attention to what I wrote, because I fully agree with what most of GW critics say, I share their/your view, I was simply pointing out that we should see both sides of copyright issues or risk being staggeringly hypocritical. Surely you must see that? If a GW mini looks heaps like a video game model for example (has happened plenty of times) you would no doubt be vocal in saying "lol! they clearly ripped that off!" and no doubt you wouldn't say it "tactfully" you would voice a perfectly valid opinion openly and honestly.

Basically, I am definitely more of a GW hater than a GW lover, but I still try to sit on the fence and see things logically (objectively) and I feel that many posters in here are simply another side of the white knight coin. The fact is, GW deserve heaps of the gak they get, but many people are far too swift to condemn GW on this issue. 90% of their IP letters are ridiculously petty, but not all of them, and many fair minded observers will say the same thing. Im not even arguing that they should have sent a C&D letter, I mean, what harm can such a small production cause anyway?

I understand it, I'm just saying it seems pretty fair for GW to presume that BW did make that mini from the illustration in a GW book in this instance.

All Blight Wheel have done is to take the idea of a Lizard in Spaaace! and do a 3D rendition of it. Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.

If you accept the principle that you can't copyright an idea, then there is nothing wrong with what BW have done.

If you don't accept that idea, GW pinched the Lizards in Spaaace! idea from other sources anyway and have no moral or legal right to deny it to anyone else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All Blight Wheel have done is to take the idea of a Lizard in Spaaace! and do a 3D rendition of it. Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.

If you accept the principle that you can't copyright an idea, then there is nothing wrong with what BW have done.

If you don't accept that idea, GW pinched the Lizards in Spaaace! idea from other sources anyway and have no moral or legal right to deny it to anyone else.

Not so, I accept the principle that you can't really copyright an idea, because lizards in space is such an obvious thing that has many numerous renditions, but I don't accept that whoever sculpted that model didn't do it after seeing that image and made it accordingly, or that GWs most vocal crititcs wouldnt be throwing all kinda of gak at GW if the roles were reversed.

How can you say that every single one of the details is different from the pic?! Its as close an interpretation as any i've seen from concept to model!

This for example.





There is a big difference between making a similar idea, and fully sculpting someone elses drawings surely? You can't seriously believe that the model in question was made without the sculptor seeing the GW drawing? If someone just said to me "sculpt a mini of a space lizard with guns" it would look feth all like the GW picture, its a stretch to think it was merely coincidence.

And I will reiterate before people jump straight back onto to my back by the way, I fully believe that GW has done this in reverse many times, and that is my point. When GW steal other peoples ideas and sculpt them, we all love to come on here and go "aha!" I've seen loads of threads about it! People post threads with all these video game tanks, and cartoon SF knights and go "clearly GW stole this idea off them" so how is it not simply petty for us to ignore that it happens both ways? You cant criticize GW for doing it because you hate the company, and then not criticize other companies for doing it if you are even attempting to stay fair minded about proceedings surely?

If we use the same standards that GW white knighters are using in this thread for what constitutes :ripping off IP", GW is in a lot of trouble itself.

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.

He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.

That's sarcasm?

It has to be sarcasm right?

Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.

If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.

9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.

Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.

Coming from a the position of me being both an artist, and one who contracts out to other artists while making my own game, that guy is outright stealing the concept.

People need to understand that it costs time and money to just design these concepts.

It's not just some monkey in the back room drawing away and paid in bananas. It takes a lot of time and money to build the expertise to be a concept artist, then find jobs and get paid to create. The work that a concept artist creates isn't some magical thing that belongs to everyone the moment it's created.

This isn't just some small man versus big corporation deal, this is a guy who knowingly stole a concept.

People can say it's a grey area, going between mediums and all that BS, but this sculptor stole work from a fellow artist and is passing it off as his own.

He is creatively bankrupt, not to mention morally bankrupt.

This is just a situation of two evils, one being the lesser one, but certainly not good.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Coming from a the position of me being both an artist, and one who contracts out to other artists while making my own game, that guy is outright stealing the concept.

People need to understand that it costs time and money to just design these concepts.

It's not just some monkey in the back room drawing away and paid in bananas. It takes a lot of time and money to build the expertise to be a concept artist, then find jobs and get paid to create. The work that a concept artist creates isn't some magical thing that belongs to everyone the moment it's created.

This isn't just some small man versus big corporation deal, this is a guy who knowingly stole a concept.

People can say it's a grey area, going between mediums and all that BS, but this sculptor stole work from a fellow artist and is passing it off as his own.

He is creatively bankrupt, not to mention morally bankrupt.

This is just a situation of two evils, one being the lesser one, but certainly not good.

Pretty much what I was saying, although you do it more vehemently.

The blokes who are saying its "debateable" have clearly not looked at the same picture that we have. I'm not friend of GW, but this instance is flagrantly taking the slash in my eyes. Perhaps its because I draw a lot and try to be creative as you do, and we see that side of the argument. I'm not even saying its that big a deal though, I'm pointing out that we regularly haul GW over the coals for stealing other ideas, so we should at least retain some credibility by pointing out when it has actually happened to them.

I don't care about GW as the corporate entity, but If I was the artist who drew that picture, I would be psised off on an individual level. Its my work and my effort that a sculptor has copied, and I get no credit.

Its not just a space lizard with a gun, its my particular space lizard that I worked hard to create. In the same way that there are literally hundreds of designs for giant bipedal man robots that don't look identical to Optimus Prime, he should have drawn his own friggin..er.. lazer beam on the head, bandolier wearing space reptile.

Another aspect is to stop being childish and think that every action GW does is some terrible slight against you and everything you believe in.

I don't like most of what GW does, but that doesn't mean they're not legally and morally justified to do certain actions, and this is one of them.

GW paid good money, and their artists spent a lot of hard working time to come up with this concept.

When doing conceptual design, the artists goes through a long painstaking process, often drawing hundreds of variations to come up with the one concept that is decided on and eventually shown to the public.

Lastly, all that sculptor had to do was just be a bit creative, and he could have avoided this whole mess. Just change up the positions of equipment, adjust the proportions a bit, change major details and voila, a design that he can't be sued for this. And yet, he didn't do that and now people are jumping to his defense over his own sloppy work ethic?

Good design actually takes creativity and skill to make the final product look right, even if you're basing it off the style of someone else. That's the sort of thing that a concept artist takes a lifetime getting good at. A lifetime of hard work and money for education, supplies, and living.

If you want to have miniatures that look good, you either get good at design, or you contract or license to someone who can do that part for you. Don't play the small business card when you goof up, do your due diligence and contract work out, those artists out there can certainly use the money.

What's worse, I've got some awesome stuff for my game waiting in the wings, but I can't show it because of actions like this. But I can say that every artist I've worked with has produced awesome work, that is going to make people take interest, and has been paid fairly for it.

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.

He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.

That's sarcasm?

It has to be sarcasm right?

Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.

If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.

9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.

Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?

Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.

 spaceelf wrote:
Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.

I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree that it is almost definitely completely inspired by the drawing.

The disagreements are:
Whether it legally, not logically, is enough of a copy to support a GW prosecution.
Whether GW is right to pursue these sort of litigations, when it would arguably be better for the consumer and the industry as a whole just to leave them be unless they actively plan something similar.
Whether or not GW is right to pursue these suits when they are so horrendously obviously guilty of doing similar.
Whether GW wouldn't be better served getting their own house in order and addressing the issues between a significant portion of their target audience and themselves, rather than wasting resources on this.

Factor in the general negative reaction people will have towards perceived bullying tactics and the natural desire of many to root for the underdog, and voila, this thread.

Nobody is arguing that it doesn't look a LOT like the picture.

 azreal13 wrote:

 spaceelf wrote:
Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.

I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree that it is almost definitely completely inspired by the drawing.

Nobody is arguing that it doesn't look a LOT like the picture.

Kilkrazy: Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.

Plenty are mate, see above. My point was entirely that, because I agree that it is a grey area, I agree that GW tend to be militant mother fethers, and I agree that they would probably be better off sorting their own lives out rather than bullying tiny companies, but the whole point of my post was that some people on this site really don't see things in a fair minded manner, and its terribly hypocritical to slate GW for copying things off other companies (they obviously do) and then not concede the point when it happens to them.

Thats the crux of my argument, I'm not even saying they should be forced to pull the model or that GW don't play dirty, I'm just saying you have to be seriously biased to not see that the model in question wasn't produced after seeing GWs work.

I seem to be interpreting what Killkrazy said differently.

As you can't copyright an idea, and there's not anything particularly unique about a large lizard, and as its a 2D to 3D translation, there is no basis for arguing about pose, it's the details that, legally speaking, the battle would be won or lost on. Now, if the specifics of say, the gun, are not exactly the same on the sculpt as they are in the artwork, then, legally, there's not much of a case.

What's logical and what's legal being two entirely separate concepts at this point.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?

It really doesn't. The Blue Knight has a nack for never responding to the point in question.

Then there's the obvious fact that Blight wasn't selling this model in the first place, something ol' Brylly missed.

 azreal13 wrote:


What's logical and what's legal being two entirely separate concepts at this point.

Indeed, I agree entirely, and that was the point of my first post. I don't think we have a perfect system, but one needs to be in place. I certainly don't excuse GWs heavy handed lawyers in general though.

I'm with mattrym on this one: but even though I do think GW has a claim, anything they do to defend their IP will put them in hot waters due to recent events (Chapterhouse, Spots). I think they do have a stake on this and they have a legitimate(ish) claim, but that doesn't mean they should defend it.

I would like to call it The Boy Who Cried Wolf status. GW has been crying "Wolf! Wolf!" on anything that people won't side with them when the real thing comes.

Although one could argue that the similarities are not defendable, as Sean_OBrien pointed out. Now I'm not an expert on IP so I'll leave that thing to you. The point still stands--even if GW is right, defending their right might be the wrong move here.

Thats the point though.

GW built thier company on the exact sort of thing. Now they get all high and mighty when someone else is drinking from the same trough.

Had they sold it, this would be a different conversation. BUT.... They didn't. This sculpt is the same as 95-99% of the same that is already out there and been done time and time again.

Cry about shameless rip-offs, GW having the right to copywrite the letters G and W, and everything else, but this stuff here, lizards and all is part in parcel of the real hobby of wargaming.

Or are you going to go goo-goo about this, but each and every thing GW has done is fine? They do this ALL THE TIME. To make it even worse, they are at the point now where even if they want to get all D-bag over it, anyone getting this sort of treatment can just pull out the GW D-Bag book of ill-fated law suits, and claim a counter suit for harrassment as a reason to stifle the market, and claim that GW is trying to monopolise the market. Leave them in court for years, if they really wanted to...

Yeah, to you starvng artists- You don't actually think that you get an open pitty party, just because you don't agree with it, I hope. This is tabletop wargaming. You don't get an open invite to decry the figures, just because you don't like the fact that someone did a better job then you. If the issue of the sculpt is that its a copy, then so what? The hobby is wargaming. Come up with better, and the market will decide. Point of fact, DriveThruRPG's full of material to back that statement up. The so called "Industry" is full of examples. If people don't like it, they won't buy.

As to the issue of GW, they have lost more good-will then they will ever know. At this point, they could be 110% in the right, but they won't get anyone but thier white knights and fanboies to even give them the time of day. I've already pointed to the fact, and it's been shown on an earlier page by someone else, how "Good Old" GW thinks of "Copywrites".

They can cry all they want, but as much as they have shafted the same community that they call Plebes, minions, and worse, They can stay on thier high horse and trample every tom, dick, and harry who puts resin, plastic, and metal to the table.

End of the day? The sculpt is going to be in some hands, not in others, and the price for it will increase because it is "The one GW once crushed on this company over and made a big deal about, now instead of paying the obiquitous $80.00- you can buy it for $110.00.