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.

We don't even know for a fact that this is GW's IP to defend. They've failed in the past to actually own the license for artwork (ref. Chapterhouse case) and have mailed artists after the fact saying "We know you signed this over to us before but we lost the paperwork, can you sign this again please?"

If they had always been honest in their persecution in the past I'd look on this much more favorably for them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

I imagine they think that if they don't stamp on everything and become a bit more permissive, then they worry where it will end. How far will others go in making things that are filling gaps in their range, and when people really start making stuff they intend to do. I don't believe for a moment they were planning to make this lizard though, the drawing has say in a book for years untouched.

They probably operate under the belief that if they don't offer a female farseer then players will be compelled to buy their male version instead. If someone else sells a female figure it directly has taken a sale away. Of course, there must be people whose alternative to buying the female farseer was simply not to buy a miniature at all. But their attitude in the CH case is like music companies, every download or sale elsewhere translates directly into a sale they've been denied. But it just doesn't work like that in reality, a lot of the time people don't want what you're offering and even if you had complete exclusivity you still wouldn't get those sales.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Who is to say that the appeal is to GW's playerbase alone though?

A great example of this is Corvus Belli's "Infinity" line and the controversial "Catgirl" Daktari model. She is supposedly the top selling model, of all time, from their Infinity ranges.
Yet you don't actually see her on the table too much...especially now that there's an actual alternative that doesn't look so furry.

So where are all the sales going? Who is buying the model if she isn't showing up in Nomad lists with any kind of regularity? If she was so appealing of a model, why is she getting replaced by a successor model?

I think GWS is correct to send a C&D in this situation - they are very, very similar to each other, and I think GW's very specific implementation of a komodo dragon with a gun was clearly and unambiguously present in the Blight Wheel model.

Sure would be awesome if they made the model themselves instead of being IP trolls about it though. But that's their prerogative.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Who is to say that the appeal is to GW's playerbase alone though?

A great example of this is Corvus Belli's "Infinity" line and the controversial "Catgirl" Daktari model. She is supposedly the top selling model, of all time, from their Infinity ranges.
Yet you don't actually see her on the table too much...especially now that there's an actual alternative that doesn't look so furry.

So where are all the sales going? Who is buying the model if she isn't showing up in Nomad lists with any kind of regularity? If she was so appealing of a model, why is she getting replaced by a successor model?

Your line of reasoning is not clear to me.

1. The Loxacatl is a limited edition give-away, not a regular line.
2. Corvus Belli's production planning would seem to have nothing to do with this copyright claim by GW.

I don't understand the point you are making.

 azreal13 wrote:
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.

I agree. GW has nothing to gain here. This reeks of GW's legal team trying to justify their existence by sniffing out anything that MIGHT be actionable. Note that GW wouldn't dare bring this lawsuit up against Disney or anyone with more money to throw at it. GW threatens small companies in order to quash possible competition. It's a common tactic in corporations sadly.

I understand GW wanting to protect their IP, but as it stands GW would only have copyright on the design, and copyright isn't lost if you don't protect it like trademarks are. GW has no competing product, and has suffered no loss here. They are not legally obligated to take action, and doing so is just really a waste of money.

This is all effort that GW COULD be putting into one of their actual lawsuits where they claim some actual manner of loss.

 Aerethan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
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.

I agree. GW has nothing to gain here. This reeks of GW's legal team trying to justify their existence by sniffing out anything that MIGHT be actionable. Note that GW wouldn't dare bring this lawsuit up against Disney or anyone with more money to throw at it. GW threatens small companies in order to quash possible competition. It's a common tactic in corporations sadly.

I understand GW wanting to protect their IP, but as it stands GW would only have copyright on the design, and copyright isn't lost if you don't protect it like trademarks are. GW has no competing product, and has suffered no loss here. They are not legally obligated to take action, and doing so is just really a waste of money.

This is all effort that GW COULD be putting into one of their actual lawsuits where they claim some actual manner of loss.

Rather than GW legal trying to justify their existence do GW feel compelled to act in such a way to appease investors or to show potential investors they are getting their house in order regarding their works?

The CHS case looks to have been running away from GW, Something that won't have gone unnoticed by people who have cash invested or by individuals and groups who want to invest ion a company with a strong and protect able IP?

Did GW feel like they had to act against Blight Wheel out of fear that another party may have noticed another GW vision being violated?

Could GW expand their licencing model to physical product? a Licencee will want to know that their rights are unassailable.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
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.

I agree. GW has nothing to gain here. This reeks of GW's legal team trying to justify their existence by sniffing out anything that MIGHT be actionable. Note that GW wouldn't dare bring this lawsuit up against Disney or anyone with more money to throw at it. GW threatens small companies in order to quash possible competition. It's a common tactic in corporations sadly.

I understand GW wanting to protect their IP, but as it stands GW would only have copyright on the design, and copyright isn't lost if you don't protect it like trademarks are. GW has no competing product, and has suffered no loss here. They are not legally obligated to take action, and doing so is just really a waste of money.

This is all effort that GW COULD be putting into one of their actual lawsuits where they claim some actual manner of loss.

Rather than GW legal trying to justify their existence do GW feel compelled to act in such a way to appease investors or to show potential investors they are getting their house in order regarding their works?

The CHS case looks to have been running away from GW, Something that won't have gone unnoticed by people who have cash invested or by individuals and groups who want to invest ion a company with a strong and protect able IP?

Did GW feel like they had to act against Blight Wheel out of fear that another party may have noticed another GW vision being violated?

Could GW expand their licencing model to physical product? a Licencee will want to know that their rights are unassailable.

How is frivolous use of C&Ds appealing to investors? Look at it this way: GW spams C&Ds like the internet spams viagra emails, then when a company actually bothers standing up to them GW ends up caught with their pants down and scrambles to gain footing..

Had GW NOT been out spamming C&Ds perhaps they wouldn't be in the legal mess they are in now where they stand to lose quite a bit. That to an investor is likely more important than going after some garage company for that model they made that looks like a drawing GW did in an obscure OOP book years ago.

And why is it frivolous? who says it is frivolous?

Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.

GW think they are in the right. CHS caught them out, or has it? Until the case ends we don't know gak.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And why is it frivolous? who says it is frivolous?

Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.

I think Aerethan was referring to their previous track record, not this specific instance. I think GWS does have an established track record of sending out frivolous C&D's - I feel OK with categorizing them as frivolous as they have generally backed down immediately when challenged on them ("Spots").

I don't think this one is, though.

There is a big difference between enforcing your marks, and being Monster Cables. I think GWS tends a great deal towards the latter.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And why is it frivolous? who says it is frivolous?

Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.

GW think they are in the right. CHS caught them out, or has it? Until the case ends we don't know gak.

I didn't say the CHS suit was frivolous. I am not saying the BWM C&D is frivolous. GW does have a history of throwing them around even when they have zero legal legs to stand on, and because those small operations cannot afford to argue their legal rights the end up folding. THAT is frivolous and is an abuse of the system.

GW sued CHS thinking they would have backed down by now as so many other companies have, and currently GW stands to lose far more than CHS does from it.

In this specific case, the ONLY issue is potential copyright infringement, and GW has no legal obligation to pursue action for that. GW doesn't lose any copyright if someone makes the damn lizard and GW doesn't sue them for it.

GW gains nothing but tarnished reputation for moves like this, and reputation matters a great deal to investors as well. No one wants to invest in a company that is widely regarded as a tyrant to it's consumers as that reputation has a serious risk attached to it.

With GW's rep as it is, any company with enough money behind it could come in with a new game, allow model crossover with their ruleset or some other method of converting those customers, and completely destroy GW based mostly on the fact that consumers in general would love a different company if only the product was right.


From an investors standpoint, GW isn't worthwhile unless a takeover is why you're buying. GW takes out loans to pay dividends and shows falling volume of sales hand over fist. Selling less at higher margins only goes so far, because eventually less becomes zero.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
And why is it frivolous? who says it is frivolous?

Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.

GW think they are in the right. CHS caught them out, or has it? Until the case ends we don't know gak.

That is not quite true. GW has lost a considerable number of claims already. GW lost all trademark dilution claims when the Court found that GW could not demonstrate that its trademarks are famous. GW lost its claims against the CHS website for lack of evidence. And more than 40 claims of copyright infringement against CHS have been dismissed with prejudice. The Court has found no liability on the part of the Defendant, and all remaining issues survive as fact issues for the jury. GW has already lost a considerable amount while CHS has lost nothing, not even legal fees.

GW's attorney was sanctioned by the Court, meaning GW must pay CHS expenses. GW has also paid CHS expenses incurred in pushing back the trial date. GW has also provoked an expert report by one of the preeminent authorities on UK copyright law opining that all of GW's miniatures are likely toys, and therefore not subject to copyright protection. GW has provoked an expert report that likens its asserted iconography to the iconography of socialist and neo-Nazi radical organizations in the post WWII period. GW has provoked an expert report that compares its asserted artwork to a font of pre-existing science fiction artwork. And, of course, for the bulk of GW's claims, the questions of ownership and validity will be before the jury, meaning GW may lose every trademark and piece of artwork it has asserted against CHS other than the basic design of the shoulder pad, and that decision by the Court seems to be a rather ripe appellate issue.

For all of this GW has probably invested hundreds of thousands of dollars through years in which its revenue had remained static, the company has borrowed money to pay dividends, and is remaining revenue neutral party because of expanding the licensing of its alleged intellectual property, which of course it risks losing in a very public jury trial in which Alan Merrett, Jes Goodwin, John Blanche, Andrew Jones, Bob Naismith, and even GW in house counsel Gillian Stevenson will probably be on the witness stand.

I'm no business wiz, but to me it seems that thus far GW has paid a substantial amount of money to harm its business and stands to pay a great deal more to potentially cause substantially more harm.

To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.

And that fact alone may prompt future C&D targets to do some digging and see how well they may fare in court before folding up shop.

And that goes back to my first comment in this thread. Does GW even own the rights to the picture in question? The CHS case has shown that they sue over items they don't even own.

If this did go to trial, given the CHS case, could BWM say to the judge "GW needs to show they own the rights" can the judge demand such proof before allowing the case to continue?

I know that CHS did that, and yet the judge is letting certain things remain in the case(at this point for his own amusement I'm sure). How can one sue for infringement if they cannot prove ownership?

 Aerethan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.

And that fact alone may prompt future C&D targets to do some digging and see how well they may fare in court before folding up shop.

And that goes back to my first comment in this thread. Does GW even own the rights to the picture in question? The CHS case has shown that they sue over items they don't even own.

If this did go to trial, given the CHS case, could BWM say to the judge "GW needs to show they own the rights" can the judge demand such proof before allowing the case to continue?

I know that CHS did that, and yet the judge is letting certain things remain in the case(at this point for his own amusement I'm sure). How can one sue for infringement if they cannot prove ownership?

Ownership is a threshold issue and is required as part of a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The Court in the CHS case essentially said (and this is condensing many disparate arguments and facts) that GW's word is good enough to make a claim, and that a jury will have to make the final decision. Note that the Court did find that GW owns some works via interpretations of UK copyright law. I forgot to mention that in my previous posts. What those works are, I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it was only a fraction of the claims.

Notably, many of the copyright infringement claims that GW sought to withdraw, and which were subsequently dismissed with prejudice by the Court, had to do with claims regarding which CHS had raised ownership questions. For example, Chapterhouse's Mantis pads are on that list, and the author of the asserted work was, wait for it, Gary Chalk! That would be the artist who denied ever signing over the rights in question to GW, and the guy who GW had been communicating with whilst denying the company possessed his contact information. Stay classy Mr. Moskin!

I can believe that GW would fail to understand the power of an internet search, but perhaps Mr. Moskin should have given his client better advice, especially considering that Defense counsel has represented Google...in cases involving internet searches...

weeble1000 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.

And that fact alone may prompt future C&D targets to do some digging and see how well they may fare in court before folding up shop.

And that goes back to my first comment in this thread. Does GW even own the rights to the picture in question? The CHS case has shown that they sue over items they don't even own.

If this did go to trial, given the CHS case, could BWM say to the judge "GW needs to show they own the rights" can the judge demand such proof before allowing the case to continue?

I know that CHS did that, and yet the judge is letting certain things remain in the case(at this point for his own amusement I'm sure). How can one sue for infringement if they cannot prove ownership?

Ownership is a threshold issue and is required as part of a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The Court in the CHS case essentially said (and this is condensing many disparate arguments and facts) that GW's word is good enough to make a claim, and that a jury will have to make the final decision. Note that the Court did find that GW owns some works via interpretations of UK copyright law. I forgot to mention that in my previous posts. What those works are, I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it was only a fraction of the claims.

Notably, many of the copyright infringement claims that GW sought to withdraw, and which were subsequently dismissed with prejudice by the Court, had to do with claims regarding which CHS had raised ownership questions. For example, Chapterhouse's Mantis pads are on that list, and the author of the asserted work was, wait for it, Gary Chalk! That would be the artist who denied ever signing over the rights in question to GW, and the guy who GW had been communicating with whilst denying the company possessed his contact information. Stay classy Mr. Moskin!

So the court says that "GW's word" is tantamount to actual proof of ownership? Or will these facts be brought before the jury and explained "GW says they own X, GW has not in the 2.5 years this has been going on shown that they actually do".

Would the judge not dismiss those claims there on the spot if GW cannot show any actual proof at the time of trial?

It's actually not unreasonable to expect that a multimillion dollar international public company that has been in existence for several decades in the IP business, would have proper records and proofs of entitlement to its IP, and therefore take them on trust at the beginning.

That is why the revelations of GW's incompetence in this area have been so shocking.

And why I refuse to take them at their word that they own this image.

rigeld2 wrote:
And why I refuse to take them at their word that they own this image.

This. They have been caught lying on something that most of us assumed they were in the clear on. Fool me once...

Good points. It's no longer a reasonable article of faith that GW even owns what they claim to, even if it clearly appeared in one of their properties.

First thing to remember is that the Chapterhouse situation, if you want to talk legally, is a different situation entirely. Especially so if part of that case hinges on misfiling or losing paperwork.

However, there still are similarities, but it's not enough to just dismiss GW's case in this particular instance either way. All it really means is that whenever GW brings up legalities, the lawyers, not us, should make sure to make GW produce the paperwork.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

I think it does serve the community if it forces third party sculptor to either pay artists, or come up with better looking designs on their own to use as stand ins for those models. Let's face it, that space lizard design is old as heck and not even that good. The sculpt of it is okay, but again, not that good of a sculpt. There are some really good not-Eldar out there where the designers went beyond into something that GW could never do, that's where you'll find the farseer.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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".

Wow, then you are blind then, because there are a helluva lot of similarities. Which is also why I think you're trying to bring up some really poor criticism of the art for my game. Go and look, again. This time, do it with your mind cleared from the want for GW to not. Count the specific similarities such as proportions and planes of the head.

Also, ignore, for a moment, whether or not GW dotted its I and Ts with its legal documents, and assume they were on the ball with their paperwork as to the rights to this design, because that is a separate issue.

I honestly don't have to explain that much about the artwork for my tank if you're failing to fully read by posts, or actually look at the imagery. Have a little bit of creativity in your mind. The main similarities between my Sphinx tank and the Mammoth is the quad track system and the fact that it is a tank. But the entirety of the model, including lines, the smooth panel work, weapon systems, suspension system, and more, are influenced more from the Hammerhead's look than the Mammoth. Sure, there's some Mammoth in there, no one who has played games since the 80s and 90s can avoid being influenced by it when designing a tank with a quad track setup. But, following through with my argument. The artist I worked with, and my own design contributions have both turned something that was obviously influenced by both tanks, into something of its own thing. And, unlike the space lizard concept from GW, and Blight Wheel's copycat sculpt, you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities everywhere across the design.

And I'm confused about what you're actually trying to argue about my artwork in the first place? I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that the creative process is all about copycatting, but then trying to berate me about using influences? As others have posted, there's a big difference between copying, and using influences. Perhaps you should look that up.

Which is also why tell you: There are no moving goalposts, why don't you actually state what posts I moved if you're going to try some first grade level logical fallacies. Perhaps you are the one not reading properly into what I've been posting. I mean, why not stick on the issue at hand instead of attacking me and my art if you want to get all into fallacies. Ad hominem much? I'm sure we can both go browse the wikipedia article and pick through that laundry list of fallacies to try to look smarter. Because me continuing my prior argument about why stealing from artists does still apply seems to be me still aiming for the same post, don't you think?

Admittedly, I did also say people do hate on GW too much, so I'm guilty of ad hominem just as much. But go ahead and try to call me a liar about that, on these forums. Try it. Funny thing is, I also dislike GW a great deal, but I can be mature enough to see when they have a point.

Anyway, @Grimtuff: I'm not sure Sheldon Cooper is the best video to be quoting to try to "burn" me from that other poster. After all, he's known for being, well, utterly wrong about quite a few things and oblivious to the obvious. Has a certain sense of irony about you posting that.

Edit: There is another issue should bring up that matters, which is Independent Parallel Discovery/Creation. The situation that comes when two people or groups, working independently from each other come up with practically the same idea, seemingly independent of each other. It's a real thing, and it happens quite a lot, and with the internet people are finding more and more cases of it. You can't have a such a large population of people and not have people coming up with the same stuff. However, there are just too many factors that indicate that this sculpt was not a product of independent and parallel thought.

 Vertrucio wrote:
First thing to remember is that the Chapterhouse situation, if you want to talk legally, is a different situation entirely. Especially so if part of that case hinges on misfiling or losing paperwork.

However, there still are similarities, but it's not enough to just dismiss GW's case in this particular instance either way. All it really means is that whenever GW brings up legalities, the lawyers, not us, should make sure to make GW produce the paperwork.

Absolutely. Before vilifying either side, you should verify the legality of the claim.
Oh, wait - who's been vilifying the "little guy"?

Also, ignore, for a moment, whether or not GW dotted its I and Ts with its legal documents, and assume they were on the ball with their paperwork as to the rights to this design, because that is a separate issue.

But very relevant.

Also, ignore, for a moment, whether or not GW dotted its I and Ts with its legal documents, and assume they were on the ball with their paperwork as to the rights to this design, because that is a separate issue.

Why should we assume GW are on the ball with any paperwork? They've shown in the CHS case that they don't always own what they claim to, so the seed of doubt carries over to ANY claim they make from that point on about the legitimacy of their claim on the art rights.

Furthermore, "ignore whether or not GW dotted its I's and T's with legal documents"? Are you serious? In the transfer of copyright, those documents are all that matter. It doesn't mean a damn thing if GW published a picture of art. If they don't own the art, they can't sue for any infringement of it.

Unless you are insisting that GW as a corporate entity created the artwork and as such is the inherent copyright owner of said work, then legal documentation of the transfer of the rights to that work are the only basis for GW claiming the work as its own.

Before any of this potential lawsuit can move forward, ownership of copyright needs to be established. I can't go around suing people for making bootleg Disney swag, on account of I don't own the rights to any of that crap.

Furthermore(and this point matters a ton here) is that these items under UK law are toys, and as such are only entitled to design rights which expire rather rapidly, just ask Lucasfilm.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's actually not unreasonable to expect that a multimillion dollar international public company that has been in existence for several decades in the IP business, would have proper records and proofs of entitlement to its IP, and therefore take them on trust at the beginning.

That is why the revelations of GW's incompetence in this area have been so shocking.

Been avoiding this thread for the most part, but wanted to chime in that no, it is not that is not unheard of. The best example of this came out in the late 90's when Marvel was in a lawsuit with Marv Wolfman over the character Blade. A successful movie based on the character had just come out and Wolfman sued Marvel claiming he had created the character under a work-for-hire contract and he had not agreed to transfer the character to Marvel. During the trial is was revealed Marvel could not find any contracts or agreements with any contractors from 1979 to the early 80's. Wolfman created the character in 1979. Marvel was only able to win the lawsuit by switching tactics and demonstrate that the movie character was sufficiently different from the original character Wolfman wrote that he couldn't claim ownership on the movie character.

Have dug through enough shipping containers searching for documents to find stuff to know that pre-digital paper tracking can be a nightmare. Worst, the document you need has become some rats bedding.

What is going on at GW right now is likely what went on at Marvel after the revelation from that lawsuit. Things were cleaned up, contractors strong armed to sign paperwork, and questions of ownership put to rest. The whole superhero movie craze was just starting and Marvel didn't want it to die because suddenly studios would not be certain the movies they were backing were actually owned by Marvel. If the rumors of GW being for sale are true, I'm pretty sure they want to make whoever might buy the company doesn't have to worry about IP questions.

Whether they own the original art or not is likely being clarified.

On topic, regardless of GW being in the right or not to sue, my question is why did the artist make the fig off a piece of GW art? Even if it isn't an exact copy, it definitely is close enough that I don't think most people won't disagree that the artist was "inspired" by the art. There are too many similarities for it to be coincidence. It isn't a secret GW is sue happy regarding this stuff and making such a fig only strikes me as trying to poke the bear. Even if he was giving it away, it still strikes me as asking for trouble.

 Vertrucio wrote:
-snip-

OK, this will be the last post, since I'm completely uninterested in dealing with your obvious "wot, me guv?" faux incredulity.

You talk about "the proportions, the planes of the head", well sorry bub, those would fall under "characteristics of a lizard", in particular the Komodo(huh, it's almost as if BWM called their miniature a "Komodo Warrior" for a reason....). So putting those aside; the bandolier is generic, the lizard characteristics are generic, the pose is completely different(position of the legs is not the same, BWM mini is on a horizontal plane while the Loxatl artwork is aligned vertically grasping a wall with its rear limbs), and lots of minor details like the number of toes, number of protrusions on the tail and so forth are different. The ONLY actual point of similarity which is of any relevance is the weapon itself, which has similar geometries to the artwork and is mounted on the belly, however even that is questionably an issue since A; the weapon is fairly generic in appearance and B; where else are you going to mount a weapon on a quadrupedal lizard other than around the torso - sticking out of its backside? It could be argued quite easily that the similarities in the weapon are a mixture of coincidence and necessity to the concept.

You ask me to single out a post in which you moved goalposts, but I'm afraid I can't do that, because you've done it in every one since your first. You insisted it was legal copying, then after that notion was dismissed by more knowledgeable people, you insisted it didn't matter if there was a legal issue since it was morally wrong to "steal" from the artist. It was pointed out to you that nobody was stealing from any artists, since the work was done on commission for GW, is owned(ostensibly) by GW, and the artist was paid in full for their work long ago. Then all of a sudden it didn't matter if the artist got paid or not, because now BWM's miniature had become some kind of affront to the very notion of "art" and "creativity".

You ask me why I bring up your art. Well, it was an apparently futile attempt to make you recognise the rampant hypocrisy and hubris you display by pretending you and you alone are capable of acting as arbiter of what is "inspiration" and what is "creative bankruptcy".

We're done here.

weeble1000 wrote:
GW's attorney was sanctioned by the Court, meaning GW must pay CHS expenses. GW has also paid CHS expenses incurred in pushing back the trial date. GW has also provoked an expert report by one of the preeminent authorities on UK copyright law opining that all of GW's miniatures are likely toys, and therefore not subject to copyright protection. GW has provoked an expert report that likens its asserted iconography to the iconography of socialist and neo-Nazi radical organizations in the post WWII period. GW has provoked an expert report that compares its asserted artwork to a font of pre-existing science fiction artwork. And, of course, for the bulk of GW's claims, the questions of ownership and validity will be before the jury, meaning GW may lose every trademark and piece of artwork it has asserted against CHS other than the basic design of the shoulder pad, and that decision by the Court seems to be a rather ripe appellate issue.

Geez, I thought I was following the CH thread closely but I've missed most of this stuff. How did 'expert reports' get summoned up? That actually occurs in the pre-trial process?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Wow, then you are blind then, because there are a helluva lot of similarities. Which is also why I think you're trying to bring up some really poor criticism of the art for my game. Go and look, again. This time, do it with your mind cleared from the want for GW to not. Count the specific similarities such as proportions and planes of the head.

It is a lizard with a different pose, different anatomy, and in a different medium. They look similar because they are both quadripedal lizards. They are obviously different lizards because they have different numbers of toes, posture, and dimensions. Anybody who tries to claim they're exactly the same is ignoring all the ways they are not exactly the same and trying to claim that GW has ownership of 'Lizards' in all media. If we really, really want to get into the nitty gritty, then the sculpt lacking the dewclaws of the GW Loxatl is actually a very significant omission to the 'functionality' of the alien race, as that is basically the tool they've evolved to travel across vertical surfaces. Lacking that, the 'sculpt' version must then live a dramatically different lifestyle, ground-bound, like a modern Komodo and less like the super-Gecko that the Loxatl seems to represent behaviorally.

The only possible sticking point is whether having an underslung bandolier gun makes them similar enough... and honestly after following the CH thread I don't think that's sufficient in and of itself given that GW's is a drawing and BWM's is a sculpture.

Sourclams,

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "summoned up," but the defense has retained the services of 4 different experts, all of whom have written expert reports which you can find on the public docket, and all of whom have been deposed.

The plaintiff has one expert who is not testifying at trial, so three of the defense experts are unrebutted.

It works like this:

During discovery, if you want to have a qualified expert opine on an issue the merits the opinion of an expert, you retain the services of a qualified expert. Said expert drafts an initial report laying out his or her expert opinion. Opposing counsel then has an opportunity to both depose the expert and to put forward its own expert to rebut the opinion of the opposing expert. Rebuttal experts go through the same process of report followed by deposition. Experts may then testify at trial.

Fact witnesses can only testify to facts. They cannot give their opinions about an issue in which they are not a qualified expert. Mr. Merrett, for example, is a fact witness, and cannot opine about a topic in which one would need to have proper qualifications in order to have a meaningful opinion.

The defense has an expert in military history with a specialty in badges and insignia if I recall correctly, who has been a curator of military history for almost 20 years.

The defense has an expert in science fiction literature who I believe is a professor at a college in Chicago.

The defense also has an expert on medieval, sci-fi, and pop culture, who seems to study the development of tropes. He is a professor at a college in New York.

All three of these experts have been deposed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has designated no rebuttal experts.

The plaintiff designated an expert on UK employment law, who I believe they paid something like $700/hour. Whoops! No, it was 750 POUNDS per hour, plus VAT! That is...$1,145/hour! Holy crap! I forgot how much GW paid that guy. And there was another guy on the report being paid $380/hour. Yea, that is absurd, and I work on billion dollar patent cases on a regular basis. $1,000+/hour for an expert, even in a multi-billion dollar big pharma lawsuit is pushing it. Bloch (750/hour guy) was deposed and the transcript runs to 196 pages. That was probably 10K just for Bloch's time in depo, not including attorney's fees, time for preparation, travel, etc. And of course not considering how much that report must have cost GW. Yowzers!

Link for truth Exhibit 8, page ID 3929
"I am being compensated at £750 plus VAT per hour."

The defense brought in an expert to rebut the opinion of the plaintiff's expert, and that is where you get the toys-are-not-copyrightable-under-UK-law opinion. In other words, that expert opinion, which is now in the public record, was absolutely provoked by GW.

weeble1000 wrote:
Sourclams,

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "summoned up," but the defense has retained the services of 4 different experts, all of whom have written expert reports which you can find on the public docket, and all of whom have been deposed.

The plaintiff has one expert who is not testifying at trial, so three of the defense experts are unrebutted.

It works like this:

During discovery, if you want to have a qualified expert opine on an issue the merits the opinion of an expert, you retain the services of a qualified expert. Said expert drafts an initial report laying out his or her expert opinion. Opposing counsel then has an opportunity to both depose the expert and to put forward its own expert to rebut the opinion of the opposing expert. Rebuttal experts go through the same process of report followed by deposition. Experts may then testify at trial.

Fact witnesses can only testify to facts. They cannot give their opinions about an issue in which they are not a qualified expert. Mr. Merrett, for example, is a fact witness, and cannot opine about a topic in which one would need to have proper qualifications in order to have a meaningful opinion.

The defense has an expert in military history with a specialty in badges and insignia if I recall correctly, who has been a curator of military history for almost 20 years.

The defense has an expert in science fiction literature who I believe is a professor at a college in Chicago.

The defense also has an expert on medieval, sci-fi, and pop culture, who seems to study the development of tropes. He is a professor at a college in New York.

All three of these experts have been deposed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has designated no rebuttal experts.

The plaintiff designated an expert on UK employment law, who I believe they paid something like $700/hour. Whoops! No, it was 750 POUNDS per hour, plus VAT! That is...$1,145/hour! Holy crap! I forgot how much GW paid that guy. And there was another guy on the report being paid $380/hour. Yea, that is absurd, and I work on billion dollar patent cases on a regular basis. $1,000+/hour for an expert, even in a multi-billion dollar big pharma lawsuit is pushing it. Bloch (750/hour guy) was deposed and the transcript runs to 196 pages. That was probably 10K just for Bloch's time in depo, not including attorney's fees, time for preparation, travel, etc. And of course not considering how much that report must have cost GW. Yowzers!

Link for truth Exhibit 8, page ID 3929
"I am being compensated at £750 plus VAT per hour."

The defense brought in an expert to rebut the opinion of the plaintiff's expert, and that is where you get the toys-are-not-copyrightable-under-UK-law opinion. In other words, that expert opinion, which is now in the public record, was absolutely provoked by GW.

Coincidentally "Bloch" is a character in the Swords of the Emperor" books.

So GW shot themselves in the foot here, and then didn't bother to defend against 3 expert opinions. Lovely.

Aerethan,

That is a matter of opinion, and it depends on how you choose to look at it.

Remember that the Court did choose to use US law over UK law, so GW won that point. GW also won on ownership of several works, though it is in the neighborhood of a dozen or something. that is why these experts are not being called to testify at trial. The relevant issues have been decided by the Court, and decided in GW's favor for the most part.

However, GW DID seek to withdraw a bunch of claims that involved questions of ownership, and the Court dismissed those with prejudice, so one could say that GW lost the ownership question on those claims.

At the end of the day, GW spent a ton on that report and got some good out of it. GW also provoked a report by a very significant authority on UK copyright law opining that its miniatures are not protected by copyright under a High Court decision. That is pretty serious stuff, and regardless of what Judge Kennelly decided to do with it, it hangs over GW's head like a Sword of Damocles.

Imagine what would happen if GW filed the same sort of suit against a UK company, or even an EU company. Not only is that report already out there, bought and paid for, but that expert is also still in the UK, probably maintains a similar opinion, and has already done all of the hard work. Hell, maybe Blight Wheel's lawyer should give him a call.

£750 an hour?!! I'm in the wrong job.