Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kingsley wrote:

 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.

People would mostly ignore it unfortunately...a few months back, GW through FW did somethi g that actually was comparable in many ways.

As far as I can recall, none of the HH artbooks have a jetbike design that looks like the current offering from Forge World...but, it does bare some semblance to something else?



http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Dieselpunk_by_hayenmill2_8470.jpg - doesn't like hot links

While I wouldnt say that what GW is doing is theft...there are as many things the same with the drawing by the independent artist as this miniature has in common with the GW drawing.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30508

http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/TSR,_Inc.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/48933/the-games-workshop-files-purge-of-09

http://war.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=22294

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2012/01/06/copyright-litigation-settlement/

http://www.victorianadventureenthusiast.com/Rowland.html

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/fe/articles/interviewJMW.shtml

Does this sound familiar?

"TSR seemed having a real interest in pursuing lawsuits in the ‘90s. Perhaps the most famous ones were hose against Gary Gygax and GDW about their Dangerous Dimensions (renamed Dangerous Journeys) RPG. Designed by Gary Gygax himself, the game never had much of a chance to stand in the market and Gary Gygax always maintained that TSR lawsuits had the scope to ‘destroy’ him as a possible competitor. When GDW and TSR reached an agreement and the entire DJ stock was moved to the TSR warehouse in 1994, the game de facto completely disappeared. What were, as far as you may recall, TSR’s true reasons for suing GDW and Gary Gygax? Was he right?

JMW: When a company like TSR( or GW) has a valuable concept like AD&D (... or a lizard) needs to protect that concept from those who would use the idea and make their own products. The lawsuit against Gary was a simple matter of Gary using too many of his AD&D ideas in the Dangerous Journeys game. He lost because he was guilty. TSR sent out many warnings about lawsuits because it was necessary to protect the copyright of AD&D. The company didn’t like the expense of such suits, but they liked the idea of losing the rights to the brand name even less. I’m quite proud to say I was often the expert witness in such actions. The company never, ever went after a competitor to hurt or quest for revenge. . ."

-"GW" and "the lizard" are my adds in there.- Grot 6


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Journeys


Commence to freaking out. Yes, they were indeed in the exact same position as they continue to put other people.

As the old saying goes- The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The only thing different in this case though is the names. Which leads me to think they will end up in the same position. I haven't even started digging up the underbelly of the "Endless Quest" books Debacle.

I am super confused by people saying "the pose is identical" when one of them has its hind legs on an apparently vertical wall, apparently stationary, and the other is in motion on a flat, horizontal surface.

The pose is also identical to...a lizard...



Like the circular implant behind the eye...mother nature has GW beat on that by a few million years.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
The pose is also identical to...a lizard...



Like the circular implant behind the eye...mother nature has GW beat on that by a few million years.

Sue that lizard!!! Its great news!

 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?

My first statement is as such. I think most of the people, including ones trying to quote legaleze at others, don't actually understand most of it. I know I don't understand all of it. I stand by my statement, yes even if it is quite derogatory.

I do understand that copyright protects against a large majority of derivative works, the main problem isn't getting the protection under law, it's establishing that you have something to be protected in the first place, then exercising that option.

I also think that people overlook the common decency and courtesy aspects of daily life, especially when involved with these kind of incidents of art theft and creative bankruptcy. This isn't just a legal issue here guys, this is one guy taking the hard work of another, and using it for his own profit. Yes, that's right, this sculptor is trying to turn a profit, he's not trying to just give you these little lizards for free. This is why my opinions have been very vehement against this sculptor, he has chosen to eschew common courtesy, and decency, as such he is not deserving of mine.

If GW wasn't involved in any way, and say this was an argument between two artists, one a well respected concept artist, another was an up an coming sculptor. I suspect many people would be more willing to see how utterly derivative the sculpt is on the GW concept art. And as I keep saying, as as many people seem to gloss over as much as they say I gloss over the legal aspects, there are many points of comparison that this legal battle is based on that could have easily been changed if that sculptor had still wanted to create something inspired by GW's art. Things as simple as changing the position of the gun, varying the pose more, changing the positions of the spikes, modifying the lizard head.

If that sculptor had bothered to use a bit more creativity, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, he deliberately chose to do so, and probably in an effort to gain a bit of promotion from using GW's art. And let's just be frank here, there are a whole lot of studios that are based around the cottage industry of making GW-like miniatures as proxies or stand ins, you can't deny that. What makes me respect a lot of those guys more is that they are definitely inspired by GW's work, but most of them take it a step further and make things that still have their own look to them.

Heck, I have spent a lot of time and money creating, and having art created to establish my own scifi works, I know how the process works. I have posted some promotional art for my game, and you bet it worries the heck out of me if someone takes my work and uses it before my own miniatures are out on the market.

If you want me to go through the legalities, I can certainly sit down and go through them. But right now I have better things to do with my time, such as actually creating this artwork. And you know what, maybe there is some kind of legal loophole that would allow this sculptor to get away with copy catting. But us as a community should not be so eager to praise and defend him either way since all you are doing is establishing a creatively bankrupt community.

Not to mention, there are plenty of other, better sculpts from more original artists that you could buy from, and not support someone who doesn't do his pre-production own work.

 Vertrucio wrote:
This isn't just a legal issue here guys, this is one guy taking the hard work of another, and using it for his own profit. Yes, that's right, this sculptor is trying to turn a profit, he's not trying to just give you these little lizards for free.

Actually - he was. It was a free figure that they were giving away at Salute - it was not being sold, and as far as I know they never intended on selling it.

On the other issue - regarding the right of the worker...GW's employment contract for artists - freelance or otherwise - strips them of all their rights, both legal and moral (and it is moral rights in relation to copyrights...things like getting credit where credit is due). The artist's only expectation is to be paid for the job - then GW punts them to the curb.

While I'm in agreement with you Sean, wasn't the figure only free if you bought 50GBP worth of stuff from him? Isn't that an incentive to buy from him, and give him money, allowing him to gain a profit?

Just Devil's Advocate

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
On the other issue - regarding the right of the worker...GW's employment contract for artists - freelance or otherwise - strips them of all their rights, both legal and moral (and it is moral rights in relation to copyrights...things like getting credit where credit is due). The artist's only expectation is to be paid for the job - then GW punts them to the curb.

That’s not all that uncommon though.

I mean, from personal experience, everything I’ve written for FFG belongs to them. I may have written it, but they own it. I don’t really mind as long as I get my name in the credits.

That doesn't mean the figure isn't free - if you opt not to receive the figure you don't get a discount. If they run out if the figure you don't get a discount.

It's free.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 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.

People would mostly ignore it unfortunately...a few months back, GW through FW did somethi g that actually was comparable in many ways.

As far as I can recall, none of the HH artbooks have a jetbike design that looks like the current offering from Forge World...but, it does bare some semblance to something else?





While I wouldnt say that what GW is doing is theft...there are as many things the same with the drawing by the independent artist as this miniature has in common with the GW drawing.

Your second image link doesn't seem to be working on the boards, though copying and pasting the URL does. To be honest, it seems plain as day that the similarities in the second are coincidental in nature. I would be surprised if the FW sculptors had seen that image; I would be outright stunned if the Blight Wheel sculptors hadn't seen GW's loxatl art.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, but there is such thing as a free lizard!

 Kingsley wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kingsley wrote:

 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.

People would mostly ignore it unfortunately...a few months back, GW through FW did somethi g that actually was comparable in many ways.

As far as I can recall, none of the HH artbooks have a jetbike design that looks like the current offering from Forge World...but, it does bare some semblance to something else?





While I wouldnt say that what GW is doing is theft...there are as many things the same with the drawing by the independent artist as this miniature has in common with the GW drawing.

Your second image link doesn't seem to be working on the boards, though copying and pasting the URL does. To be honest, it seems plain as day that the similarities in the second are coincidental in nature. I would be surprised if the FW sculptors had seen that image; I would be outright stunned if the Blight Wheel sculptors hadn't seen GW's loxatl art.

Wy do you believe one more likely than the other? Any sort of prejudice towards GW or FW's moral purity aside?

 Alfndrate wrote:
While I'm in agreement with you Sean, wasn't the figure only free if you bought 50GBP worth of stuff from him? Isn't that an incentive to buy from him, and give him money, allowing him to gain a profit?

Just Devil's Advocate

Sure - but if you have that discussion with my wife...she will explain much better than I that spending the $500 on a new purse to get the $20 belt for free is free...or something along those lines...

Most of the people who are buying from them, would have probably spent the money anyway. Getting the free figure is more of an elaborate thank you by BW as opposed to an actual enticement to spend money.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
On the other issue - regarding the right of the worker...GW's employment contract for artists - freelance or otherwise - strips them of all their rights, both legal and moral (and it is moral rights in relation to copyrights...things like getting credit where credit is due). The artist's only expectation is to be paid for the job - then GW punts them to the curb.

That’s not all that uncommon though.

I mean, from personal experience, everything I’ve written for FFG belongs to them. I may have written it, but they own it. I don’t really mind as long as I get my name in the credits.

Oh, I know - it was really just a kick back to this comment that he made a bit ago (and keeps inferring through the moral arguments he wants to make as opposed to dealing with legal issues:

 Vertrucio wrote:
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.

The artist no longer has a claim to the work - the work is GW's. Their contract severs all rights, legal and moral...there fore - there is no stealing from a fellow artist as those moral rights have already been assumed by GW. I wasn't actually making a judgment on the practice - it is standard and that is what I did with my programmers and graphic artists and what I still do anytime I contract out a miniature sculpture.

One point of note though, your name in the credits is your "moral right" - GW takes that away, and although they do sometimes attribute things...they do not always attribute things. Your moral right ensures that you are always credited for what you produce (draw, paint, sculpt, write...).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:


Your second image link doesn't seem to be working on the boards, though copying and pasting the URL does. To be honest, it seems plain as day that the similarities in the second are coincidental in nature. I would be surprised if the FW sculptors had seen that image; I would be outright stunned if the Blight Wheel sculptors hadn't seen GW's loxatl art.

If I had to guess - GW sculptors would have definitely seen the second picture. It has come to define diesel punk as a style for the past 6 years or so and shows up on the vast majority of related sites and searches. Considering what they produce at FW - them not seeing it would be more than stunning to me.

However, the point was that if you read the letter with the claims made by the GW lawyer and then take that and compare the two images I linked to...you can find just as much to draw comparisons to. Just as I do not immediately assume that BW is guilty of breaking any specific law, I also do not assume that FW is guilty of breaking any specific law. You can actually have two nearly identical items that draw on the same references and not violate any copyrights.

The idea which GW did provide, is not protectable. The various features which have been commented on in this thread (from the pose, to the proportions, to the ear/implant...) - all of those are rather generic. It isn't necessarily copyright infringement just because you see something's that are the same. You need to look for the things that are the same and not common. At that point you can make a determination on the nature of the work to a greater degree of clarity - though even then, an actual court case will go much deeper than a simple examination on face value.

Well do they have an "Artwork by" section in pretty much all their books.

True - but who developed the Space Marine?

The Space Marine for GW, you mean? Or Space Marines in general?

For GW...it is their most valuable property after all, whoever created it should recieve credit and near god like adoration.

No idea. I imagine it was more than one person though, with the concept refined over time.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.301.9.pdf

Up until he stopped working for GW, they attributed the design to him...after he left, those attributions disappeared.

Just so you know. Artists being paid for contract work and not retaining copyright is a standard practice in many areas of entertainment media because the artwork created in this case is part of a larger whole. The creator of that larger whole would be under too much of a burden to track every royalty, every license, every single print fee when it came time to expand on that larger whole.

Usually, when this occurs, the artist is paid a higher fee than usual. The better the artist and more complex the image, then even higher the percentage.

I have contracted to many artists and requested a full copyright buyout, and with all of them we've come to an agreed on fee.

Whilst GW's policies can be harsh, you have to realize, every artist that worked for them knew that ahead of time and have been paid accordingly.

This is not to say all such policies are okay, but rather, we do generally know who has worked on GW stuff, and those artists can probably claim them, even if their names aren't in the books. Trust me on this, I've seen worse treatment of artists than GW.

There is no "punting to the curb" here. Someone was paid for their work, and all the rights associated with that work, and a business was the one that paid for it. It just so happens that in this case it was GW, a corporation known for bad business practices.

On the other side of the coin, I've let the artists I've worked with post the concepts for my game in their portfolios and other places online, some of them have gotten awards for them. But they bear my copyright on the images they post. Thus not only get paid for their work, they get to use it to promote themselves, which is rare. I also get a little bit of extra promotion. But, this is coming from myself, I'm not only running a company, but I'm also an artist who understands the plight of other artists.

The reason I do this is because i know I have some measure of copyright protection, just like GW does. And where I can't afford to protect myself, I can at least enlist the community's help in chastising and ostracizing the offending party. But now that I see I can't rely on that, then perhaps I should just start adopting more GW-like policies? Do you see the problem here?

Another thing to remember here is that while Blight Wheel may have given away the figure, it is still being used as self promotion. After all, why do you think any business gives away free stuff at a major gaming convention? He is advertising his miniature company by having something to showcase and give away. While he may have also done so out of the goodness of his heart, I bet you it was also motivated by the need to advertise and promote his business. There is an expectation of getting more orders for his other work, but lashing them and his company alongside a miniature that represents something currently missing from 40k's lineup. It was a deliberate choice to do so, and these are the repercussions.

Blight Wheel should have had to either come up with his own design, or pay the artist for a license. And since the license was no longer the artist's, it was legally bought by GW from the artist, he wouldn't have been able to.

One harsh reality here is that a lot of miniatures in the grey market are copies of concept art that I see in the artist community. The only reason why people are making a stink this time is that it's GW and GW is standing up for itself, as strange as it is to say that.

But where are all the people making a stink and throwing out legal jargon for those uncreative sculptors that make carbon copies of say, an art student's portfolio illustrations? Heck, I suspect that Blight Wheel could have found some art student's illustration and asked him is he could make a limited edition sculpt to be given away for free at a convention, and that student would have agreed provided that his name be attached to the sculpt and giveaway to give himself some promotion. Then, both sides win, Blight Wheels gets a good design without having to come up with their own, and both the artist and BW gets promoted, all without worrying about money changing hands.

As for Space Marines, they were a concept developed over time, by many artists. Again, this is a reason why companies buy out the full rights. Can you imagine the nightmare, and the roadblocks that would pop up if you had to track every display license and reuse license for concept art?

All of the current Space Marines were derived (as a legal term) from the original design. Whether 20 or 200 people added more skulls tom it between then and now do not change the issue of the moral right which HBMC referred to when he said he was happy as long as he was credited.

To the other issues, you seem to want to ignore the "legalese" in favor of a gut feeling you have personalized. You have a concern that your ideas will be stolen by someone, and seem to want some form of consensus that even though using an idea from a different source is legal...it shouldnt be allowed. Those sorts of determinations though go against the core of creative work. Even your own works are inspired heavily by other ideas which are developed over years at the cost of thousands of dollars (heck, my gut said C&C Predator when I first saw your tank design posted here...the character concept made me think of one of the drawings Moebius did for the first alien movie).

You might not even realize all the different sources that you draw upon..and if it were relegated to something less than the "legalese" method of determining what a copy was, then no one would be able tocreate anything.

And as I said, I make no judgement of how GW handles their contracts, however you seemed to make an effort to link it to the artist and not the company. I myself used the same type of contracts for my own employees and when I contract with sculptors for my own use, I have them sign the same type of contract granting me all rights. It isnt unusual...but it isnt an artist stealing from another artist, if it were stealing at all.

Legally, it's not copying from another artist. But as you say, it's still copying, this time from a business.

But let's face it, you hire an artist for his skill and the things he brings to the table in his art. You don't hire someone to be creative and design stuff if you don't like the particular ways he designs things, or the things he's influenced from.

If you copy work from that same art, even if by that time someone else owns it, you're still taking that artist's own kind of creativity. That's the kind of taking I'm talking about. If this sculptor wants that "something" that created the space lizard concept, he should pay the artist.

@Sean: You're kinda making less sense than my first posts did there. It seems you're agreeing with me here, but it doesn't seem you've read my entire posts.

My designs are definitely influenced by other work. But you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities. I actually know exactly the direct influences for the concept I've shown. The tank, for instance, does bear a resemblance to one from C&C, but strangely enough, the tank design I have was influenced more off the Hammerhead vehicle from Mass Effect 2, but imagining it in a universe where the cost of operating hovering vehicles is a lot more than is presented in other settings.

And that is what I want the sculptor of this lizard to do. Use the influences, but exercise some level of creativity and make it his own work, but inspired by these influences. So, I agree, influences are the core of the creative process, and I'm saying that people should be influenced, but also be creative from those influences.

I've taken a good long look at the concept and the sculpt, both are still on page 1 of this thread. There are so many specific similarities that go beyond the general concept of "reptile, lizard, space mercenary, and guns" that even you would cry foul, I know I would. If he wants to be creatively bankrupt and just copy, being hit with legal troubles is just one of the consequences. Especially when he could have actually sculpted a much better looking space lizard with guns by going off concept.

And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.

I disagree.

I think part of the problem with GW is that there are models with appeal to players that they aren't making. The Female Farseer and the Loxacatl are two recent examples.

It doesn't serve the users one jot to prevent other companies from supplying that market if GW aren't.

And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.

For some time GW have been in the position of being able to release complete kits and add ons that would effectively deter most 3rd party bits and figure manufacturers. GW are in the position of being able to release more "interesting and fun miniatures". For whatever reason GW refuse to do this. (anyone seen an official plastic Nid pod?

At the same time GW are reacting to perceived threats from the 3rd party market in a pretty gak handed way whilst not even having an idea of what they actually own or have rights to produce (The CHS case has been showing this).

It really isn't GW hate, its exasperation.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Legally, it's not copying from another artist. But as you say, it's still copying, this time from a business.

But let's face it, you hire an artist for his skill and the things he brings to the table in his art. You don't hire someone to be creative and design stuff if you don't like the particular ways he designs things, or the things he's influenced from.

If you copy work from that same art, even if by that time someone else owns it, you're still taking that artist's own kind of creativity. That's the kind of taking I'm talking about. If this sculptor wants that "something" that created the space lizard concept, he should pay the artist.

@Sean: You're kinda making less sense than my first posts did there. It seems you're agreeing with me here, but it doesn't seem you've read my entire posts.

My designs are definitely influenced by other work. But you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities. I actually know exactly the direct influences for the concept I've shown. The tank, for instance, does bear a resemblance to one from C&C, but strangely enough, the tank design I have was influenced more off the Hammerhead vehicle from Mass Effect 2, but imagining it in a universe where the cost of operating hovering vehicles is a lot more than is presented in other settings.

And that is what I want the sculptor of this lizard to do. Use the influences, but exercise some level of creativity and make it his own work, but inspired by these influences. So, I agree, influences are the core of the creative process, and I'm saying that people should be influenced, but also be creative from those influences.

I've taken a good long look at the concept and the sculpt, both are still on page 1 of this thread. There are so many specific similarities that go beyond the general concept of "reptile, lizard, space mercenary, and guns" that even you would cry foul, I know I would. If he wants to be creatively bankrupt and just copy, being hit with legal troubles is just one of the consequences. Especially when he could have actually sculpted a much better looking space lizard with guns by going off concept.

And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.

Your continual attempts to mischaracterise everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a mindless GW-hater is getting almost as old as your continually shifting goalposts whenever someone points out that your emotional appeals about "stealing from artists" doesn't apply.

Some of us looked at the same images you did and came to a different conclusion; there are no more similarities between the art and this model than there are between the Alien xenomorph aesthetic and the Tyranids, and many of the similarities that do exist are so inherent to quadrupedal lizards that they would necessarily exist in any such depiction.

You keep blathering on about creativity, but for an artist you have a shocking lack of understanding regarding the creative process, to the point that you'll sit there and defend your own designs that are every bit as derivative(in the non-legal sense of the word). For example, you'll have to explain how on earth your tank is supposed to be a massively creative reimagining of the Hammerhead(a vehicle which hovers, has a large aerodynamic tail section housing a fan engine, protruding fan-like engines at the sides, and a fixed weapon mount rather than a turret), when has already been pointed out it looks rather more like someone took a C&C3 Mammoth Tank and fiddled with the geometries a bit.

Now, I'm sure you put a lot more effort into the design than that, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're similar enough to make your design every bit as vulnerable as the BWM miniature if you accept GW's legal reasoning, and even if you don't, every bit as vulnerable to criticism under your own stated definitions of "creative bankruptcy".

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Legally, it's not copying from another artist. But as you say, it's still copying, this time from a business.

But let's face it, you hire an artist for his skill and the things he brings to the table in his art. You don't hire someone to be creative and design stuff if you don't like the particular ways he designs things, or the things he's influenced from.

If you copy work from that same art, even if by that time someone else owns it, you're still taking that artist's own kind of creativity. That's the kind of taking I'm talking about. If this sculptor wants that "something" that created the space lizard concept, he should pay the artist.

@Sean: You're kinda making less sense than my first posts did there. It seems you're agreeing with me here, but it doesn't seem you've read my entire posts.

My designs are definitely influenced by other work. But you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities. I actually know exactly the direct influences for the concept I've shown. The tank, for instance, does bear a resemblance to one from C&C, but strangely enough, the tank design I have was influenced more off the Hammerhead vehicle from Mass Effect 2, but imagining it in a universe where the cost of operating hovering vehicles is a lot more than is presented in other settings.

And that is what I want the sculptor of this lizard to do. Use the influences, but exercise some level of creativity and make it his own work, but inspired by these influences. So, I agree, influences are the core of the creative process, and I'm saying that people should be influenced, but also be creative from those influences.

I've taken a good long look at the concept and the sculpt, both are still on page 1 of this thread. There are so many specific similarities that go beyond the general concept of "reptile, lizard, space mercenary, and guns" that even you would cry foul, I know I would. If he wants to be creatively bankrupt and just copy, being hit with legal troubles is just one of the consequences. Especially when he could have actually sculpted a much better looking space lizard with guns by going off concept.

And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.

Your continual attempts to mischaracterise everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a mindless GW-hater is getting almost as old as your continually shifting goalposts whenever someone points out that your emotional appeals about "stealing from artists" doesn't apply.

Some of us looked at the same images you did and came to a different conclusion; there are no more similarities between the art and this model than there are between the Alien xenomorph aesthetic and the Tyranids, and many of the similarities that do exist are so inherent to quadrupedal lizards that they would necessarily exist in any such depiction.

You keep blathering on about creativity, but for an artist you have a shocking lack of understanding regarding the creative process, to the point that you'll sit there and defend your own designs that are every bit as derivative(in the non-legal sense of the word). For example, you'll have to explain how on earth your tank is supposed to be a massively creative reimagining of the Hammerhead(a vehicle which hovers, has a large aerodynamic tail section housing a fan engine, protruding fan-like engines at the sides, and a fixed weapon mount rather than a turret), when has already been pointed out it looks rather more like someone took a C&C3 Mammoth Tank and fiddled with the geometries a bit.

Now, I'm sure you put a lot more effort into the design than that, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're similar enough to make your design every bit as vulnerable as the BWM miniature if you accept GW's legal reasoning, and even if you don't, every bit as vulnerable to criticism under your own stated definitions of "creative bankruptcy".

That is all there is to say. But I'm sure he'll come up with another way to shift the goalposts.

 Vertrucio wrote:
And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.

When GW actually produces minis for things instead of trying to "lock down" an idea by publishing a picture (even a not so clear one like the Tervigon) I'll support them more.

Hell, the Chapterhouse Tervigon wasn't even that much like the book picture and it earned GWs "wrath".

I'm seeing too many arguments for my liking, so I think everybody should try listening to this for a bit to calm down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoNkfOHBzQk
_______________________________________________

Everybody calmed down? Well, assuming you are, we can continue.

From what I can tell, the mini is almost exactly the same as GW's artwork. The producers may have used similar inspirations as GW, and just came up with the same design by accident, but afaik GW has the right to defend it's IP, and what seems to be its IP.

GW has absolutely no right to defend what 'seems to be' its IP, it can defend its IP, but at this moment in time, it is unclear whether this miniature infringes on that sufficiently from a legal standpoint, especially when, as you mention, it draws on many natural features of a lizard, which are in no way protectable under law.

As you cannot protect the idea of a lizard with a gun, only the specific details of YOUR lizard with a gun, and the majority of the non lizard features are different (sufficiently different is another argument) then it really does boil down to GW throwing their weight around for no real gain.