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.

 Selym wrote:
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...

Yes, yes in fact they do...

...and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer world are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2013, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world.

That would imply a claim to Dwarves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Ogres, Goblins, Dark Elves, Vampires, Giants, Lizardmen... Not to mention all the real places throughout the 40K system like Mars, Titan, Saturn...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=6&aId=3900002&start=7&multiPageMode=true

And...

The letters G and W.

along with the HHHobby.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Selym wrote:
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...

Yes, yes in fact they do...

...and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer world are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2013, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world.

That would imply a claim to Dwarves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Ogres, Goblins, Dark Elves, Vampires, Giants, Lizardmen... Not to mention all the real places throughout the 40K system like Mars, Titan, Saturn...

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=§ion=&pIndex=6&aId=3900002&start=7&multiPageMode=true

Mother of God... They own the entire solar system, includin planet Earth!

A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.

You can start grandstanding all you want.

But this specific situation is pretty clear. A cheapo sculptor decided not to due his own work, or due diligence and used the design that was a pretty dead on copy of a copyrighted and IP protected work.

He wouldn't be in any trouble had he spent a modicum of effort to change things up, as so many other sculptors have done. Thus, what's happening to him is his fault.

 Vertrucio wrote:
A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.

Do you want to maybe clarify what you mean by this?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.

Do you want to maybe clarify what you mean by this?

I can do that for you chief; he's incapable of responding to the various points of law, comparison, and fact regarding the creative process that various people have brought up, but he thinks if he says the word "hyperbole" we'll be bamboozled enough by them thar fancee wurds wot folks with learnin use that we won't notice he's simply repeating his initial claims without providing even a shred of argument to support them.

Doesn't anyone else think somebody higher up needs to come up with another set of rules for how this cnd stuff works. Seems slated against the little guy if they can just send you cnd letters with basically whatever they want and since you don't have the money to defend yourself then your screwed. There needs to be something in the middle there somewhere like somebody making sure this is legal first?

 wowsmash wrote:
Doesn't anyone else think somebody higher up needs to come up with another set of rules for how this cnd stuff works. Seems slated against the little guy if they can just send you cnd letters with basically whatever they want and since you don't have the money to defend yourself then your screwed. There needs to be something in the middle there somewhere like somebody making sure this is legal first?

No one is forced to do anything with regard to a cnd letter. A court on the other hand is a different story. Fortunately, there are lawyers who take on cases pro bono, as has happened in the CH case. So the little guy is not always screwed. I agree that it would be good if money did not hold so much weight, but it does. It buys judges, politicians, etc.

People have stated that there is legal argument in this thread. Legal opinions are settled in a court of law, not in a wargame thread. Thus GW taking this to court would be justified, as that is the place to have the matter adjudicated.

Presumably the model was given away at Salute, and GW will now have to decide whether to sue Blight Wheel.

I can't be bothered to read through ten pages of people arguing past each other on this, so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

The model is exactly the same as the artwork. It's not 'a bit similar', it's not 'coincidental', it's excatly the same. Same pose, same accessories, same shape. It was clearly scuplted straight from the picture.

Whether or not GW have done a mniniature of this race, or many people have the piece of source material or whatever is irrelevant. They hold the copyright, and the mini is clearly an infringement.

Simples

G

how can it be "exactly" the same when not even the amount of fingers is the same?
How can a 3d model be "exactly" the same as a 2d drawing?

Questions....

 blagmasterg wrote:
I can't be bothered to read through ten pages of people arguing past each other on this, so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

The model is exactly the same as the artwork. It's not 'a bit similar', it's not 'coincidental', it's excatly the same. Same pose, same accessories, same shape. It was clearly scuplted straight from the picture.

Whether or not GW have done a mniniature of this race, or many people have the piece of source material or whatever is irrelevant. They hold the copyright, and the mini is clearly an infringement.

Simples

G

When I'm standing upside down on a wall, I have the exact same pose as when I'm standing upright on the floor! True story bro!

 blagmasterg wrote:
so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

Or 'Troll', as we could also call it.

Riquende wrote:

 blagmasterg wrote:
so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

Or 'Troll', as we could also call it.

Oh, how droll - I bet that you're quite the wit in your social circle.

Just because I don't have the time or inclination to read through ten pages of people going 'I know all about the law' 'No you don't' 'GW are evil' etc etc ad nauseum, but I do have an opinion on the actual thread subject, doesn't make me a troll. If I came out with some bizarre argumnet designed only to antagonise people and didn't ever answer anything else that was said, that would be more like a troll.

Peace

G

If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.

The last thing I want to do is get dragged into an argument, or to have people 'take my argument seriously' which implies that I am attemting to enter into what is sure to be another circular 'debate' wherein a lot of people argue amongst themselves with no resolution.

Apologies - all I was really saying was that I had a point of view based on observable facts. The miniature was clearly based on the sketch. To argue that the sculptor had not seen the sketch, or used it to inform his work would be folly in my opinion. Yes, its got a different number of fingers, but it also looks the same proportionately, has the same kind of gun in the same place, same bandolier, same limbs, same pose.

Now you can argue all day long about whether the sketch was a popular one, whether GW were going to make a miniature etc etc, but its the thin end of the wedge. If they don't defend this, then where does it stop? Ultimately, love or hate GW, they are a business, and business is about making money, which means protecting your assets. We might not always like to see the 'big bad corporate wolf' winning out over the little guy, but if GW don't protect their IP, they will lose money, hence they will lose shareholders and eventually they will lose the business.

All I really meant with my preface was to apologise if I ended up recycling any comments alreay made by others. I certainly wasn't trolling, and I resent being accused of such.

 blagmasterg wrote:
I certainly wasn't trolling, and I resent being accused of such.

so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

Oh, how droll - I bet that you're quite the wit in your social circle.

Not trying to be funny, but you posted something with the outright intent of stoking the argument without any intention of actually being involved in the discussion.

Riquende wrote:

 blagmasterg wrote:
I certainly wasn't trolling, and I resent being accused of such.

so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

Oh, how droll - I bet that you're quite the wit in your social circle.

Not trying to be funny, but you posted something with the outright intent of stoking the argument without any intention of actually being involved in the discussion.

Good job then, mission accomplished

Fine, I said 'and then leg it' which was an illadvised comment. The fact that this is my fourth response and I have yet to abuse anyone or storm off in a rage kinda argues against the whole 'trolling' concept though.

Then again, that's just my opinion, and opinions are like bums - everyone has one.

Peace

G

The real question is will GW go to court, if Blight wheel is outside the EU do they care?

IMO it is the same issue as the shoulder pads case, it all comes down to the jury or juror

I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?

 marv335 wrote:
I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?

GW ONLY DO ORIGINAL WORK.

 marv335 wrote:
I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?

A very large portion of GWs models "strongly resemble" other companies artwork, so I fail to see your point.

 Vertrucio wrote:
A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.

You can start grandstanding all you want.

But this specific situation is pretty clear. A cheapo sculptor decided not to due his own work, or due diligence and used the design that was a pretty dead on copy of a copyrighted and IP protected work.

He wouldn't be in any trouble had he spent a modicum of effort to change things up, as so many other sculptors have done. Thus, what's happening to him is his fault.

"I do not think it means what you think it means."

giggity giggity!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blagmasterg wrote:
I can't be bothered to read through ten pages of people arguing past each other on this, so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.

The model is exactly the same as the artwork. It's not 'a bit similar', it's not 'coincidental', it's excatly the same. Same pose, same accessories, same shape. It was clearly scuplted straight from the picture.

Whether or not GW have done a mniniature of this race, or many people have the piece of source material or whatever is irrelevant. They hold the copyright, and the mini is clearly an infringement.

Simples

G

And...

No. Go back and read the ten pages, you'll save yourself a heart ache.

If you can't be bothered, you are going to miss out on some ironic hyperbole, and some fancy lawyer talk, along with a really good add on for White Dwarfs from the past that... do the exact same thing that you are drive by trolling/ mudering kittens/ kicking puppys about.

And no. They don't have a copyright on Kleggs.

Edited, thanks for that. Puts the discussion up on an entirly new... tangent.

I/E How big does a company have to get before they actually stop in the idea business and stop being visionary? When you outright proudly claim that you are using your lawyer as a way to fund your company, you lose more credibility then if you would have.. you know.. actually worked and made something that people actually wanted.

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

" 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."

WHAT, DOES THIS MEAN? It means exactly that. Pay for the company through litigation because the property is weak.

 marv335 wrote:
I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?

I appreciate your sentiment, but I have a few observations.

This dichotomy is not merely big company vs small company. That is there, to be sure, but it is not so simple that a mere reversal is entirely apt.

GW is a large company for sure, and its IP enforcement practices are by and large focused on small companies. But not only does GW focus on small companies, it has an established pattern of making overly broad and unsupportable claims against small companies. Now, the reason to do that is a type of SLAPP litigation. The small company likely has little means to so much as respond to a lawsuit, or the threat of a lawsuit, rendering the need to make supportable claims virtually meaningless. The mere threat of litigation is enough to achieve the desired goal, at least in theory. Thus, the large company can force a smaller company to accede to its will regardless of the merits of its claims.

This is not merely conjecture at this point, but fact. Many of GW's claims have failed on the threshold, and in fact GW's 30(b)(6) witness has repeatedly disclaimed GW's allegations under oath. Further, note the Spots the Space Marine debacle, wherein GW made a DMCA takedown demand for alleged trademark infringement when (A) GW arguably does not own the asserted mark in the asserted context (remember that GW already has a Court's opinion that none of its marks are famous in the US), (B) the asserted mark is arguably weak to the point of nonexistence, (C) the accused conduct arguably could not have infringed said mark if it had existed, and (D) the DMCA is not applicable to trademark infringement.

With such a pattern of behavior, GW's assertion of alleged rights in the present instance is surrounded by a rather dismal context. Were the dichotomy of size to be reversed, such a similar context could simply not exist.

Second, GW's IP enforcement practices are arguably hypocritical in that GW is asserting rights that it does not respect in others. Again, were the dichotomy of size merely to be reversed, such a similar context would not necessarily exist.

Third, the reversal of said situation does actually exist. Take a look at GW's product releases subsequent to December 22nd, 2010 when it filed a lawsuit against Chapterhouse Studios. Note that prior to the commencement of this action, GW never designed, manufactured, marketed, or sold a modular combi-weapon set. Several of GW's allegations of infringement are related to the combi-weapon magnetic kit produced by the defendant. GW now produces a modular combi-weapon product.

Has GW been sued? Has GW received a C&D? Note too that Anvil Industries now produces a modular combi-weapon kit. Has Anvil been sued? Has Anvil received a C&D? No, no, no, and no. Why, I cannot say as I do not know, but one reasonable inference would be that the first company to design and manufacture such a product does not feel that its rights broadly extend to the concept of a modular combi-weapon kit, but rather to the discrete, original creations of its artists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grot 6 wrote:

And no. They don't have a copywright on Kleggs.

Copyright Grot, copyright. The right to control copies of your original works of art.

I am sorry to call you out on that, but I generally feel that knowing the proper term is an excellent way to begin understanding what copyright is and what it is not.

 marv335 wrote:
I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?

People would, of course, freak out.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.

I have been following this thread, and it does indeed boil down to one group of people saying it looks very similar, and another group of people saying that it looks nothing like the drawing. That's more or less all there is to this "debate".

I tried to read this thread, but now have an urge to drive knitting needles into my eyes. The vitriol is really quite something to behold.

I'm no GW apologist, but even when someone is blatantly ripping off a piece of copyrighted work (that to my knowledge is not generic or 'done before') they're not allowed to defend it? The 'differences' are so minor as to be basically irrelevant. The C&D letter states enough similarities to be enforceable through court. The pose in particular (though lizards are not the most posey things going) is too similar to be coincidental, especially when coupled with the anatomical quirks of the artwork, especially the ear spiracle (which does not resemble the pit present on komodo dragons and presumably their mutant brethren).

In this particular case, I believe it's a correct call from GW legal.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.

I have been following this thread, and it does indeed boil down to one group of people saying it looks very similar, and another group of people saying that it looks nothing like the drawing. That's more or less all there is to this "debate".

That is a pretty inaccurate characterization. Just read all posts by myself and Sean, for example. I have never said that looks nothing like the drawing. And there is a very significant difference between saying that it looks very similar to the drawing and saying that it is a copy, that GW is right to sue, and that BW is in the wrong.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.

I have been following this thread, and it does indeed boil down to one group of people saying it looks very similar, and another group of people saying that it looks nothing like the drawing. That's more or less all there is to this "debate".

Really? So the whole "lawyery" discussion that is going on on the implications of copyright has gone completely over your head?

White Knight syndrome strikes again I suppose...

I still think that if people want to do something about it, GW has left plenty of ammo lying around that can be used by companies even more used to launching law suits than GW. Heck, I've even some a load of research for them. The fact that no one has done so, seems to say to me is just a load of internet hot air. As to why I'm posting in this thread.... Well, I haven't figured that out yet...