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.

 mattyrm wrote:

 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 said earlier in the thread that the sculpture clearly is derivative (not necessarily in a legal sense) of the picture. That does not make GW's actions right.

It is entirely possible to take a picture, change all of the details, and still have something that is very reminiscent of the first picture. The human mind is good at finding patterns, (sometimes even when none exist).

Look carefully again at the picture and the sculpture. You will find that the broad sweep is the same. It is a four limbed space lizard with a tail, a gun under its torso and a bandolier. Then look at the details. In every single case they are slightly different. Different pose. Different anatomical details and so on.

Creatively bankrupt? Perhaps, though if the sculptor was given the drawing as a reference he wasn't being required to show design originality.

Morally bankrupt? I suppose that depends on what you see as the purpose of wargame model companies. If it is to put out interesting figures, GW are the bankrupt one, having spent years not making a model of the space lizard (nor the female space elf farseer, which was the last model to inspire this debate.)

What degree of difference would make the sculpt acceptable? Two barrels on the gun? No bandolier? A longer, bendier tail? Not being a gecko at all?

You risk denying people the right to copy and adapt ideas at all. You would allow companies like GW to put out all kinds of sketches and thereby prevent anyone from making any models of anything.

 azreal13 wrote:

 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?

You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.

Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.

If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.

It's also possible that they're really just not making sense.

Just saying.

Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?

The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.

You are simply hilarious.

 BryllCream wrote:
Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?

The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.

"I am love Games Workshop because everyone is potato banana is ice cream pie. Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."

See, it's possible,

I also don't think it's possible that you know that they do have erotic dreams. You are a really creepy man if you know what they're thinking about in their erotic dreams. A really creepy man.

 heartserenade wrote:
"... Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."

That just might be the single greatest rebuttal in the history of man.

I concede.

 heartserenade wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?

The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.

"I am love Games Workshop because everyone is potato banana is ice cream pie. Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."

See, it's possible,

I also don't think it's possible that you know that they do have erotic dreams. You are a really creepy man if you know what they're thinking about in their erotic dreams. A really creepy man.

If you re-read my post above, you'll see I covered sentances with no context or meaning behind them, and why my post was not as such.

If you continue to simply attack me for no other reason than refusing to share your viewpoint then I'll simply ignore and report you, please reply to my content.

 BryllCream wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?

The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.

"I am love Games Workshop because everyone is potato banana is ice cream pie. Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."

See, it's possible,

I also don't think it's possible that you know that they do have erotic dreams. You are a really creepy man if you know what they're thinking about in their erotic dreams. A really creepy man.

If you re-read my post above, you'll see I covered sentances with no context or meaning behind them, and why my post was not as such.

If you continue to simply attack me for no other reason than refusing to share your viewpoint then I'll simply ignore and report you, please reply to my content.

Pointing out that it's entirely possible that a person's argument may not make any sense is considered an attack? I've never told you your argument does not make any sense.

It's also worth noting that if you don't want people to attack you, stop doing posts like this:

Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?

The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.

If we could debate the points and issues it'd be much better.

Thank you.

[

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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?

You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.

Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.

If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.

Oookay.

Now could you please stop shadow boxing and actually address my original comment, which was simply a request for some clarity?

I'll overlook the allusions to my stupidity and ignorance in favour of keeping the thread open, rule one and you actually explaining what the hell you meant?

 azreal13 wrote:
[

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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?

You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.

Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.

If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.

Oookay.

Now could you please stop shadow boxing and actually address my original comment, which was simply a request for some clarity?

I'll overlook the allusions to my stupidity and ignorance in favour of keeping the thread open, rule one and you actually explaining what the hell you meant?

I meant that they could just take the latter and remove that model from their website, it's not the end of the world.

Whether or not GW were morally/legal right in doing so is one a different matter, but one which, and this is very important to mention, must be weighed against the consequence of said action. Demanding that a single model not be sold/displayed on a website is, morally speaking, not a great crime.

When a police officer asks to search your vehicle without a warrant, you should let him. It's not the end of the world.

When someone wanders into your house and takes your things, you should let him. It's not the end of the world.

Or maybe GW is in the wrong here and should be punished. The Chapterhouse case has proven that while GW is great at throwing C&D notices left and right, actually protecting their IP is evidently low on the priority list.

I want to call GW stupid on this one, I really do, but they have a pretty good point.
It does look exactly like the artwork. I'm hoping that they just both had the exact same idea by accident, because otherwise I'd have to face the fact that someone's copied GW almost lizard-for-lizard, without even bothering to change small details to separate the two...

@selym.
But they are NOT identical are they.They DO vary in the details.

GW studio staff artists are inspired by much the same as any other group of artists.
And so any one using SIMILAR sources of inspiration are going to arrive at SIMILAR concepts.

Similar to is not a direct copy of, is it?

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
[

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 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?

You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.

Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.

If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.

Oookay.

Now could you please stop shadow boxing and actually address my original comment, which was simply a request for some clarity?

I'll overlook the allusions to my stupidity and ignorance in favour of keeping the thread open, rule one and you actually explaining what the hell you meant?

I meant that they could just take the latter and remove that model from their website, it's not the end of the world.

And with that one sentence you show you have simply not read the thread at all and just used this for another attempt to get in some nasaly snark at the so-called "butthurt brigade". Take your condescending ad hominem elsewhere please.

The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.

And, yes, when someone is holding a gun to your head you often want to do what they tell you, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to judge the person with the gun rather harshly. Christ. A little dab'll do ya indeed.

 Lansirill wrote:
The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.

You mean the "plate/circle" like that:



I see an ear, common to all lizards, often circular in nature.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Gotta love people trolling GW back.

http://gamingexpat.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/a-response-to-gw-cd-to-blight-wheel-miniatures/

Made me LOL, but it would be hilarious if descendants of Leonardo took up the claim.

While I still do believe GW is in the right with the loxatl thing, I do find that Leonardo email hilarious and apt for all the other daft stuff GW does.

Also, it reminded me of this:

 Ravenous D wrote:

Sly Marbo, the pic is obviously Stallone, and Marbo is an adjusted version of Rambo.

Isn't there such a legal concept as, "Unauthorised use of a persons likeness."

Mind you, it is the classic thing, if people on the internet really did care about this, they'd do something about it, other than just writing a sarky email to some minimum wage paid GW webmonkey.

For example, by emailing info@lusasfilm.com notifying them of GW has claim to have trademarked the term "Land Speeder" since at least 2004 (Codex: Space Marines, 4th edition) and are still claiming to hold it (I believe I saw it in the latest Dark Angels codex as well), Of course, I don't actually know trademark law, but I'm pretty sure that just because the original trademark for Land Speeder has expired, someone else can't just turn up and claim to own it now....

 Lansirill wrote:
The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.

And, yes, when someone is holding a gun to your head you often want to do what they tell you, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to judge the person with the gun rather harshly. Christ. A little dab'll do ya indeed.

The plate/circle thing is the tympanum which is the lizard equivalent of the human ear (the human tympanum is inside the head) and can be seen on any lizard or frog. It would be inaccurate to draw a lizard and not put a tympanum on its head.

"Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future...."

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/





http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Kobra_Khan

http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Whiplash

http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Tung_Lashor


Sick them, my over steroid infused, tongue in cheek named, over simplified minions!!!!

http://he-man.org/collecting/toycollection.php?id=1

Quick GW- Theres a guy in there with muscles!!! And some lizards too!!

Deploy the C and D a tron, and support the HHHobby!!!!

LOOK! Theres another one!!!

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Killer_Croc

And theres ONE MORE !!!!!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/silurians/detail.shtml

And....

http://www.heavymetal.com/shm/product_info.php?products_id=5698

Issue #262 has a... Woman on it!!!! She has CAMO ON!!!!

C and D this!!!!

Heros in a half-shell!!!!

http://turtlepedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mondo_Gecko


Looking at it like this is beyond funny Ha-Ha.... and into HHa HHa.

 Grot 6 wrote:
"Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future...."

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/





http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Kobra_Khan

http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Whiplash

http://he-man.wikia.com/wiki/Tung_Lashor


Sick them, my over steroid infused, tongue in cheek named, over simplified minions!!!!

http://he-man.org/collecting/toycollection.php?id=1

Quick GW- Theres a guy in there with muscles!!! And some lizards too!!

Deploy the C and D a tron, and support the HHHobby!!!!

LOOK! Theres another one!!!

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Killer_Croc

And theres ONE MORE !!!!!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/silurians/detail.shtml

And....

http://www.heavymetal.com/shm/product_info.php?products_id=5698

Issue #262 has a... Woman on it!!!! She has CAMO ON!!!!

C and D this!!!!

Heros in a half-shell!!!!

http://turtlepedia.wikia.com/wiki/Mondo_Gecko


Looking at it like this is beyond funny Ha-Ha.... and into HHa HHa.

That actually made me LOL.

I don't think anyone would deny it is similar to the art work. But what is the artwork? A lizard with some bits on it, it's not breaking the law to be inspired by something else, the model isn't identical to the artwork in many respects. If GW own that whole concept because of that simgle art, where do you White Knights draw the line before other people can make models of lizards with guns in safety?

The problem with many GW things is that they too are inspired by other things and are often largely generic in composition. Sure, the model may be based on the artwork or adapted from it, but that doesn't mean the design in the artwork is protectable in the way GW want it to be meaning that no one can produce a model that looks anything like it.

The subject of 'unclean hands' comes up quite a but with GW but my feeling is that this is quite difficult to argue which is why it doesn't seem commonly used. That said, what GW complain about with the lizard model is exactly what they did with Moorcock's 'chaos star'. Furthermore to slapping it on figures, they've printed it in books and even claim ownership of it. GW now seem to put out so many spurious C&D orders that they can't be taken to be acting in good faith at any time so it's hard to know when they really need protection. My feeling in the case of this lizard figure is that it was far too minor an issue to warrant chasing up, all they've done is draw attention to it and made themselves look stupid.

Honestly, the white-knightery is unsurprising given that it consists of the usual suspects and the people who've not read through the(admittedly now quite long) thread and are making a "gut reaction" judgement.

What does surprise me is the few purported artists who've come out so strongly in favour of using stifling legal tactics to enforce IP, since such views show a staggering lack of awareness of the mechanisms of human creativity and indeed of the history of art in human culture.

Human creativity is primarily an iterative process; the "eureka moment" is a nonsense, created by egotists and Hollywood film makers(because showing a person doing years of grinding hard work to reach their goal is "boring"). Everything we do draws either on nature or the work of other people, it's unavoidable.

"Intellectual property" is an unfortunately necessary evil in order to ensure that the labour of people using the creative process has value in a capitalist economy, but the idea that it is some kind of inherent right is bizarre, and IMO it should be enforced only to the very minimum necessary to ensure it meets its primary purpose.

There is no need to bring IP law into this particular instance, because BWM producing this miniature does nothing to damage the ability of the artist of the artwork to earn money from their work(they've already been paid for it), nor does it damage GW's ability to make money from the creativity of those they employ(since they do not produce a miniature designed to represent the same concept, and even if they did the BWM miniature would pose no threat to their legal right to do so).

 Yodhrin wrote:
Honestly, the white-knightery is unsurprising given that it consists of the usual suspects and the people who've not read through the(admittedly now quite long) thread and are making a "gut reaction" judgement.

What does surprise me is the few purported artists who've come out so strongly in favour of using stifling legal tactics to enforce IP, since such views show a staggering lack of awareness of the mechanisms of human creativity and indeed of the history of art in human culture.

Human creativity is primarily an iterative process; the "eureka moment" is a nonsense, created by egotists and Hollywood film makers(because showing a person doing years of grinding hard work to reach their goal is "boring"). Everything we do draws either on nature or the work of other people, it's unavoidable.

"Intellectual property" is an unfortunately necessary evil in order to ensure that the labour of people using the creative process has value in a capitalist economy, but the idea that it is some kind of inherent right is bizarre, and IMO it should be enforced only to the very minimum necessary to ensure it meets its primary purpose.

There is no need to bring IP law into this particular instance, because BWM producing this miniature does nothing to damage the ability of the artist of the artwork to earn money from their work(they've already been paid for it), nor does it damage GW's ability to make money from the creativity of those they employ(since they do not produce a miniature designed to represent the same concept, and even if they did the BWM miniature would pose no threat to their legal right to do so).

I recently wrote something similar in defense of a DMCA takedown issued at a project on github. The project itself is a set of icons and palettes -- among other.. minutiae -- in that instance, an american corporation claimed ownership of a /trend/ that has been ongoing since at least Josef Müller-Brockman and the new art movement -- flat design.
the main thing is that art, it is derivative, it is iterative. to Claim it isn't is intellectually dishonest and shows an ignorance towards the creative process not to mention a basic lack of understanding when it comes to concepts such as Originality (something wholly unto itself, lizardmen aren't they've been around since arthur conan doyle and illustrated around the same time, aside from those lizard.. things in 2000ad back in the eighties)

but this is also interesting from a legal standpoint, re: stormtrooper.

Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.

You mean the "plate/circle" like that:

Spoiler:

I see an ear, common to all lizards, often circular in nature.

Welp, good thing I'm not a herpetologist. Thanks for the fancy lizard learnin'. Then, yeah, that's a pretty darn generic miniature.

Hm, this time I will have to agree with GW, the model looks like they pic a lot... But not enough, proportions are not near the same, and the pose too...

The picture show a very lizard like think, in a very crawling position... The model is almost bipedal.

But, for the first time, i agree with GW.

Now, let me go back to my "GW-hater" pose...

The Layer Vault/Design Modo issue goes to a point in this particular situation as well...

https://news.layervault.com/stories/1992-layervault-whats-up-with-the-dmca

If you take a look down aways in that discussion - you see a comment made by the owner of Layer Vault (who issued the DMCA in that particular case)...

Eventually, he removed the most blatant icons which (in my eyes) is an admission of guilt.

That is why way back at the beginning of all of this, I recommended that no matter what BW does...they have a lawyer orchestrate it for them. By simply rolling over on this issue as a few have mentioned in this thread...it is often seen as an admission of guilt which could open them up to further action by GW regarding things which are more generic. Given that GW has demonstrated in the past and present that they have no problem making long shot claims regarding their IP - what starts with something that is apparently a 100% copy as some have claimed may well end up being their entire catalog of goods by the end of the year.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lansirill wrote:

Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Lansirill wrote:
The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.

You mean the "plate/circle" like that:

Spoiler:

I see an ear, common to all lizards, often circular in nature.

Welp, good thing I'm not a herpetologist. Thanks for the fancy lizard learnin'. Then, yeah, that's a pretty darn generic miniature.

Don't worry - you are not the only one. If you read the letter sent by the GW lawyer...they specifically call out "A distinctive circular head implant just behind the eye" as their first point of comparison between the BW miniature and the GW drawing. I would have to agree - it is very distinctive...but it doesn't make me think of the GW drawing, it tells me that whatever this is, it is based on either a lizard or an amphibian which has an exposed ear drum.

Granted their next couple of items of comparison are not much better either "An ammo belt around body with large separate bullets"...

Uh Oh...they are gunning for Arnie next I guess:



And of course "A shield plate on back under ammo belt"

Now, to be honest, it looks like that shield plate on back actually attaches to a shield plate on front...something which someone might even call armor - say something like a bell cuirass?

This particular example is dated late 7th/early 6th century B.C.



In fact, if you look at the shoulder of the lizard drawing - you see what looks like it might be a hinge pin as you find on the bronze age examples of the same style of armor.

Well, I wonder what else GW thinks it owns...

Imperial Guardsmen = All laz-weaponry, flak armour, the human image (Well, looks like I'm f****d.)...

Space Marines = The term "Space Marine", power armour, beefed-up human image (Oh noez, not Arnold!)

Eldar = All the Elves!!!

and so on...