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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
£750 an hour?!! I'm in the wrong job.

The temptationmust have been great to drink lots of water and take as many bathroom breaks as possible.

"And this pee just earned me $25."

 Gargantuan wrote:
This time GW is right. That's a shameless copy

Which is incredibly ironic....

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
£750 an hour?!! I'm in the wrong job.

Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.

 Balance wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
£750 an hour?!! I'm in the wrong job.

Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.

Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.

 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.

As I have said more than once - you should actually do the same before you start throwing around terms like creative bankruptcy...though it goes well beyond just yourself as others have not looked with a critical eye either it would assume.

When you actually examine the two images that I know of of the GW Loxatl and then compare those two images to the Blight Wheel miniature...a lot of things become apparent.

1) The Head. The head on the GW drawing is flat and wide - like a frogs head. It is attached directly to the body absent of any definition like a neck. You can see this quite clearly in the area near the corner of the mouth on the drawing and where the shoulder of the armor/vest comes across. Assuming the creature is symmetrical (as the detail drawing would seem to indicate) then it is reasonable to conclude the shape of the head when viewed from above is much wider than when viewed from the side. The BW head is roughly square when viewed from the front and has a skull shape more like a lizard, in particular a komodo dragon. The BW head is also offset from the body by a short neck. Ears are in similar locations for each, roughly in line with the corner of the mouth, which also coincides with the placement of the external ear on real world lizards and frogs. Both feature an exposed set of teeth, which is quite common on fantasy, sci-fi and other toothed miniatures and drawings. Both the drawing and the miniature feature barbels, though the ones on the drawing are rather long while the BW barbels are shorter, comparable to what you find on a Southern two-lined salamander.

2) The Front Hands. The GW drawing features 4 or 5 (depending on which hand) fingers and a dew claw. The BW miniature features 3 fingers and a thumb. The proportions of the BW figures front appendage are much closer to being a hand, while the GW drawing is much more foot like - lacking a properly structured opposable thumb (what would be the thumb looks like a short toe ending in a rather large claw...and not the dew claw).

3) The Rear Feet. The GW drawing features 5 toes and a spur. The foot is rather long and shaped very much like you might find on a fast moving terrestrial lizard like a basilisk or collared lizard. The BW foot features 4 toes and a spur. The BW foot is shaped much more like slower moving lizards and crocodilians. The toes and overall foot are short and create a roughly round footprint. The spur which is present on the drawing and the miniature is a common feature in prehistoric reptiles and an uncommon mutation on modern crocodilians (roughly one in one thousand).

4) The Tail. Leaving length aside for a moment (will be addressed below), the GW tale is flattened - as you find on aquatic salamanders like the axolotl or newts like Eastern newt. You can see this quite clearly when the tail curves back against itself. The BW miniatures tail is rounded and tapered to a thick tip. There is a ridge present on the top of the tail, but no "fin" area as you see starting behind the tail spurs on the GW drawing (set off by a reddish brown line). Both the drawing and the miniature feature tail spurs (which, if earth biology applies...would indicate that this is a male).

5) General Proportions. Using the available materials, measure each feature and set the body as equal to "1". Use those measurements to determine relative proportions in order to make an apples to apples comparison between the two figures...and you get something like this for the GW drawing:

GW Tail 2.42
GW Arm 0.84
GW Head 0.49
GW Body 1.00
GW Leg 1.15
GW Neck 0.00
GW Hand 0.61
GW Foot 1.08

And something like this for the BW miniature:

BW Tail 1.55
BW Arm 0.86
BW Head 0.47
BW Body 1.00
BW Leg 1.34
BW Neck 0.09
BW Hand 0.28
BW Foot 0.51

Looking at those numbers, the GW drawing tail is significantly longer than the BW miniature. The front arms/legs of the two are comparable - but the back legs of the BW miniature are longer...almost inline for something that could be a bipedal creature as well. Both heads are comparable in length, but as addressed early the actual shape is significantly different. The GW drawing is completely lacking a neck of any kind. The GW drawings hands are over twice as long as the BW miniatures hands, as are the feet.

So...the pose...really not so much a like, but still a common pose to find lizards in.

The bandoleer...nothing new there.

The chest gun...a somewhat unique idea, but simply an idea what GW can not copyright. The actual implementation of that idea is different on the BW miniature when compared to the GW drawing. The barrel on the BW miniature is shorter, it is a larger caliber and it doesn't have as many of the other tubes around it - whatever their purpose might be meant to represent. On the side of the gun which is visible on the GW drawing - you have 4 different tubes around the barrel of the gun. On the whole of the BW miniature you have three tubes which are spaced roughly equidistant around the barrel.

Under close inspection, there are many significant differences between the two works in question. Generally speaking, there are many more differences than there are things which are the same.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 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.

As I have said more than once - you should actually do the same before you start throwing around terms like creative bankruptcy...though it goes well beyond just yourself as others have not looked with a critical eye either it would assume.

When you actually examine the two images that I know of of the GW Loxatl and then compare those two images to the Blight Wheel miniature...a lot of things become apparent.

1) The Head. The head on the GW drawing is flat and wide - like a frogs head. It is attached directly to the body absent of any definition like a neck. You can see this quite clearly in the area near the corner of the mouth on the drawing and where the shoulder of the armor/vest comes across. Assuming the creature is symmetrical (as the detail drawing would seem to indicate) then it is reasonable to conclude the shape of the head when viewed from above is much wider than when viewed from the side. The BW head is roughly square when viewed from the front and has a skull shape more like a lizard, in particular a komodo dragon. The BW head is also offset from the body by a short neck. Ears are in similar locations for each, roughly in line with the corner of the mouth, which also coincides with the placement of the external ear on real world lizards and frogs. Both feature an exposed set of teeth, which is quite common on fantasy, sci-fi and other toothed miniatures and drawings. Both the drawing and the miniature feature barbels, though the ones on the drawing are rather long while the BW barbels are shorter, comparable to what you find on a Southern two-lined salamander.

2) The Front Hands. The GW drawing features 4 or 5 (depending on which hand) fingers and a dew claw. The BW miniature features 3 fingers and a thumb. The proportions of the BW figures front appendage are much closer to being a hand, while the GW drawing is much more foot like - lacking a properly structured opposable thumb (what would be the thumb looks like a short toe ending in a rather large claw...and not the dew claw).

3) The Rear Feet. The GW drawing features 5 toes and a spur. The foot is rather long and shaped very much like you might find on a fast moving terrestrial lizard like a basilisk or collared lizard. The BW foot features 4 toes and a spur. The BW foot is shaped much more like slower moving lizards and crocodilians. The toes and overall foot are short and create a roughly round footprint. The spur which is present on the drawing and the miniature is a common feature in prehistoric reptiles and an uncommon mutation on modern crocodilians (roughly one in one thousand).

4) The Tail. Leaving length aside for a moment (will be addressed below), the GW tale is flattened - as you find on aquatic salamanders like the axolotl or newts like Eastern newt. You can see this quite clearly when the tail curves back against itself. The BW miniatures tail is rounded and tapered to a thick tip. There is a ridge present on the top of the tail, but no "fin" area as you see starting behind the tail spurs on the GW drawing (set off by a reddish brown line). Both the drawing and the miniature feature tail spurs (which, if earth biology applies...would indicate that this is a male).

5) General Proportions. Using the available materials, measure each feature and set the body as equal to "1". Use those measurements to determine relative proportions in order to make an apples to apples comparison between the two figures...and you get something like this for the GW drawing:

GW Tail 2.42
GW Arm 0.84
GW Head 0.49
GW Body 1.00
GW Leg 1.15
GW Neck 0.00
GW Hand 0.61
GW Foot 1.08

And something like this for the BW miniature:

BW Tail 1.55
BW Arm 0.86
BW Head 0.47
BW Body 1.00
BW Leg 1.34
BW Neck 0.09
BW Hand 0.28
BW Foot 0.51

Looking at those numbers, the GW drawing tail is significantly longer than the BW miniature. The front arms/legs of the two are comparable - but the back legs of the BW miniature are longer...almost inline for something that could be a bipedal creature as well. Both heads are comparable in length, but as addressed early the actual shape is significantly different. The GW drawing is completely lacking a neck of any kind. The GW drawings hands are over twice as long as the BW miniatures hands, as are the feet.

So...the pose...really not so much a like, but still a common pose to find lizards in.

The bandoleer...nothing new there.

The chest gun...a somewhat unique idea, but simply an idea what GW can not copyright. The actual implementation of that idea is different on the BW miniature when compared to the GW drawing. The barrel on the BW miniature is shorter, it is a larger caliber and it doesn't have as many of the other tubes around it - whatever their purpose might be meant to represent. On the side of the gun which is visible on the GW drawing - you have 4 different tubes around the barrel of the gun. On the whole of the BW miniature you have three tubes which are spaced roughly equidistant around the barrel.

Under close inspection, there are many significant differences between the two works in question. Generally speaking, there are many more differences than there are things which are the same.

Are you a lawyer? That whole post reeked of lawyer, you know like how those orthodox Jews that aren't allowed to use the phone on Saturdays so they invented phones that you can programme to make specific calls at certain times on Saturday without needing to touch them so they can beat God on a technicality instead of just not using the fething phone?!

No concept looks exactly like the mini. The sedition wars female mechanic was a leggy model who turned out like rosey the rivetter, but it was obviously based off the art, the same applies here.

You can lawyer it up and pay attention to your 0.07 paw length difference as much as you like, I, and the majority of clearly impartial observers in this thread, including the perennialy anti GW phantom viper can accept the fact.

GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.

Wow, that is a really not an impressive reply.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Wow, that is a really not an impressive reply.

Yeah cos I'm all about impressing people.

It was better than yours though wasn't it, because mine was on topic and added something to the discussion, that a great many people are of the imression that the model is sculpted after the drawing.

The point of yours was what exactly?

Let's all calm down and stick to the points under discussion, thank you!?!?!

GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.

But that is in fact the point.

I dont think anyone is saying BW never saw the drawing, I dont think anyone is saying that BW did not use the idea presented by the drawing. What is being said is that it doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual implementation of that idea, and how much that qualifies under the law for protection. Those are the issues which woulld be evaluated in court by judges and lawyers to determine if infringement actually happened.

Since that is the core of the C&D, it is the core of whether or not it is a 100% copy or just heavily inspired by. You have to go beyond just "Yep, that looks like that...so it must be a copyright violation". Confusion is irrelevant largely for copyright claims, so those issues do not matter.

BTW - since the numbers presented are ratios, they are much more significant than you might think. For simplicity, just call them centimeters. A foot on one being 1 centimeter long while the foot on the other being only 5mm is significant, even if you ignore the shapes...which are also quite different.

 mattyrm wrote:
No concept looks exactly like the mini. The sedition wars female mechanic was a leggy model who turned out like rosey the rivetter, but it was obviously based off the art, the same applies here.

You can lawyer it up and pay attention to your 0.07 paw length difference as much as you like, I, and the majority of clearly impartial observers in this thread, including the perennialy anti GW phantom viper can accept the fact.

GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.

Since copyright cases have been decided on far less, every point he brought up is valid. People say "they're very similar, it must be a copy" so you have to decide exactly how similar they are.

A few years ago there was a big Henry Moore exhibition in Kew Gardens, which I went to and took pictures of the sculptures.

Here is an example (not my shot) from Wikipedia.



Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?

What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?

What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?

If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?

What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?

What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?

If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?

A lot of cases have been tried versus this exact issue...and, quite often - yes...it has been found to be a violation of copyright. Heck, by strict interpretation of the law - just taking a picture for your own personal photo album would likely be a violation of the sculptors copyright.

In most cases, it goes to what the focus of your picture is. If you have your family posing in front of a sculpture and then use that to make some holiday greeting cards - that would be allowed, as the focus of the picture would be your family...not the sculpture. If it were to just be the sculpture, as in the linked to image, then the copyright - the right to determine how and where a work is displayed - of the artist is violated (an issue that gets all mucky when it comes to hotlinking images from other websites too, and there you are not copying at all).

One of the more significant cases involved the background of a scene in the "Devil's Advocate". Although that case was ultimately settled out of court, it showed the significant level of control that an artist can exhert over people using their work. I am sure there are other examples as well - but that particular case jumps to my mind in relation to that question.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?

What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?

What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?

If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?

A lot of cases have been tried versus this exact issue...and, quite often - yes...it has been found to be a violation of copyright. Heck, by strict interpretation of the law - just taking a picture for your own personal photo album would likely be a violation of the sculptors copyright.

In most cases, it goes to what the focus of your picture is. If you have your family posing in front of a sculpture and then use that to make some holiday greeting cards - that would be allowed, as the focus of the picture would be your family...not the sculpture. If it were to just be the sculpture, as in the linked to image, then the copyright - the right to determine how and where a work is displayed - of the artist is violated (an issue that gets all mucky when it comes to hotlinking images from other websites too, and there you are not copying at all).

One of the more significant cases involved the background of a scene in the "Devil's Advocate". Although that case was ultimately settled out of court, it showed the significant level of control that an artist can exhert over people using their work. I am sure there are other examples as well - but that particular case jumps to my mind in relation to that question.

The sculpture itself would have to actually be copyrighted first.
Like with a couple of other GW things, they didn't solidly have the rights to something they were claiming was theirs.

 Selym wrote:
The sculpture itself would have to actually be copyrighted first.
Like with a couple of other GW things, they didn't solidly have the rights to something they were claiming was theirs.

Copyrighting is inherent. You do not have to register a copyright.

 Selym wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?

What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?

What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?

If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?

A lot of cases have been tried versus this exact issue...and, quite often - yes...it has been found to be a violation of copyright. Heck, by strict interpretation of the law - just taking a picture for your own personal photo album would likely be a violation of the sculptors copyright.

In most cases, it goes to what the focus of your picture is. If you have your family posing in front of a sculpture and then use that to make some holiday greeting cards - that would be allowed, as the focus of the picture would be your family...not the sculpture. If it were to just be the sculpture, as in the linked to image, then the copyright - the right to determine how and where a work is displayed - of the artist is violated (an issue that gets all mucky when it comes to hotlinking images from other websites too, and there you are not copying at all).

One of the more significant cases involved the background of a scene in the "Devil's Advocate". Although that case was ultimately settled out of court, it showed the significant level of control that an artist can exhert over people using their work. I am sure there are other examples as well - but that particular case jumps to my mind in relation to that question.

The sculpture itself would have to actually be copyrighted first.
Like with a couple of other GW things, they didn't solidly have the rights to something they were claiming was theirs.

It is art, not a toy(nor could it be argued otherwise). In the US, art has inherent copyright. There is no need to register it. The artist owns the copyright to that sculpture forever unless his rights are transferred via contract or death.

Copyright exists the exact second that the idea is put into expression in a tangible medium. The second his chisel hit stone and created something distinguishable from a block of stone, copyright existed for the work.

It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?

 jonolikespie wrote:
It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?

I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.

As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).

Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).

In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.

 Aerethan wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?

I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.

As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).

Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).

In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.

£0.50 on ebay then

 Selym wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?

I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.

As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).

Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).

In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.

£0.50 on ebay then

I'm sure if you jump over to the ebay follies thread you could dig around and find one for $50 though.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?

I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.

As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).

Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).

In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.

£0.50 on ebay then

I'm sure if you jump over to the ebay follies thread you could dig around and find one for $50 though.

That's just GW talking then

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.

But that is in fact the point.

I dont think anyone is saying BW never saw the drawing, I dont think anyone is saying that BW did not use the idea presented by the drawing. What is being said is that it doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual implementation of that idea, and how much that qualifies under the law for protection. Those are the issues which woulld be evaluated in court by judges and lawyers to determine if infringement actually happened.

Since that is the core of the C&D, it is the core of whether or not it is a 100% copy or just heavily inspired by. You have to go beyond just "Yep, that looks like that...so it must be a copyright violation". Confusion is irrelevant largely for copyright claims, so those issues do not matter.

BTW - since the numbers presented are ratios, they are much more significant than you might think. For simplicity, just call them centimeters. A foot on one being 1 centimeter long while the foot on the other being only 5mm is significant, even if you ignore the shapes...which are also quite different.

Yeah see, that's my point Sean, I'm not disagreeing with the vast majority of what you are saying, but at the end of the day, its an emotional appeal, and its not grounded in the way that laws work.

I agree, I think that the way GW acts is fethed up, so I could almost agree that they deserve fething. What goes around comes around right? But that isn't right, and its not the way the world works.

If you mug someone, get caught and go to prison, and then a week after your release a few years later, then get mugged, the cops don't say "Haha, what goes around comes around" they go and find the guy and he gets prosecuted too. Thats how it works, no doubt, you and I would agree there too.. I say feth the guy, swings and roundabouts, but the law is the law, and what we might want to happen, isn't what happens.

Thats what my point has been this whole thread. I'm not saying I don't think GW are very hypocritical considering that they have stolen many sci fi staples and are now stopping everyone else from doing what they have clearly done, because I don't think we should look at the case anything other than objectively, thats what we try to do as adults.

Therefore, I am ignoring all of the past cases and simply saying that in this case, they have clearly and obviously copied that drawing for their sculpt.

And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.

GW are really awful for the way that they persue other companies, but it is utterly irrelevant to this individual case. Thats all I am saying.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.

But that is in fact the point.

I dont think anyone is saying BW never saw the drawing, I dont think anyone is saying that BW did not use the idea presented by the drawing. What is being said is that it doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual implementation of that idea, and how much that qualifies under the law for protection. Those are the issues which woulld be evaluated in court by judges and lawyers to determine if infringement actually happened.

Since that is the core of the C&D, it is the core of whether or not it is a 100% copy or just heavily inspired by. You have to go beyond just "Yep, that looks like that...so it must be a copyright violation". Confusion is irrelevant largely for copyright claims, so those issues do not matter.

BTW - since the numbers presented are ratios, they are much more significant than you might think. For simplicity, just call them centimeters. A foot on one being 1 centimeter long while the foot on the other being only 5mm is significant, even if you ignore the shapes...which are also quite different.

Yeah see, that's my point Sean, I'm not disagreeing with the vast majority of what you are saying, but at the end of the day, its an emotional appeal, and its not grounded in the way that laws work.

I agree, I think that the way GW acts is fethed up, so I could almost agree that they deserve fething. What goes around comes around right? But that isn't right, and its not the way the world works.

If you mug someone, get caught and go to prison, and then a week after your release a few years later, then get mugged, the cops don't say "Haha, what goes around comes around" they go and find the guy and he gets prosecuted too. Thats how it works, no doubt, you and I would agree there too.. I say feth the guy, swings and roundabouts, but the law is the law, and what we might want to happen, isn't what happens.

Thats what my point has been this whole thread. I'm not saying I don't think GW are very hypocritical considering that they have stolen many sci fi staples and are now stopping everyone else from doing what they have clearly done, because I don't think we should look at the case anything other than objectively, thats what we try to do as adults.

Therefore, I am ignoring all of the past cases and simply saying that in this case, they have clearly and obviously copied that drawing for their sculpt.

And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.

GW are really awful for the way that they persue other companies, but it is utterly irrelevant to this individual case. Thats all I am saying.

Sean is saying that intent to copy and access to the art are moot if copyright wasn't actually infringed(something that came up in the CHS case).

Sean has also outlined many ways in which the works are different, and those details are what actually determine infringement.

GW's history doesn't impact those facts. The models have readily visible differences in many different ways.

I don't know why people keep insisting that intent to infringe is the same as actually infringing.

 mattyrm wrote:
And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.

No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.

rigeld2 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.

No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.

Well I would, do you draw? If I spent twenty hours on a picture, and then GW or anyone just nicked it off my website and made a model with it, I think I would be entitled to something..

Or I mean, I'm not a greedy person and I'm financially comfortable, but they could at least fething ask!

 mattyrm wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.

No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.

Well I would, do you draw? If I spent twenty hours on a picture, and then GW or anyone just nicked it off my website and made a model with it, I think I would be entitled to something..

Or I mean, I'm not a greedy person and I'm financially comfortable, but they could at least fething ask!

And you have the right to do the exact same thing GW is doing in this instance.
And the courts would let it shake out exactly like this one will (unless BWG folds).

I think BWG is in the clear on this, but that's my layman's opinion. I've worked on copyright cases for both the plaintiff and defendant but not from a legal standpoint, just a technical standpoint.

 mattyrm wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.

No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.

Well I would, do you draw? If I spent twenty hours on a picture, and then GW or anyone just nicked it off my website and made a model with it, I think I would be entitled to something..

Or I mean, I'm not a greedy person and I'm financially comfortable, but they could at least fething ask!

I spent the majority of my adult life as a creator of copyrighted goods (computer programming). I have dealt extensively with patents and trademarks. I have been paid for graphic design work, illustration and sculpting (both 3D and traditional). It isn't something that I am just taking a position on at a whim by any means.

That said - no, assuming the same level of changes were done as in this case - I would not be upset. What upsets me is the hypocrisy within GW, and amongst their defenders in this regard, where you see them doing many of the same things over the past 35 years and then they use their size to force compliance even when they are not necessarily in the right, legally speaking.

I believe that IP laws, specifically copyright have become way out of whack from their intended purpose. Initially, they were meant to allow artists to make a living being artists and encourage creativity. In order to accomplish this, they had a short term, where the artists had exclusive rights to their work and the details of it. Following that period of time though, the work entered the public domain - though the artist still maintained exclusive right to make copies of it. Real copies - like a word for word copy of a book or a block printing of a sketch (long before modern technologies of course). If another sculptor would sculpt something based on a previous sculpture...that wouldn't be considered a copy at the time...they needed to apply skill and craftsmanship to do so - but a casting would be a copy.

This short period ensured that the artist was able to put food in their belly, but it also ensured that they did not become fat and lazy off from a single work. However, it also ensured a healthy public domain which allowed young artists to create new works based on popular concepts of the time, encouraging competition through imitation and generally promoting the spread of ideas. The artist knows that they can collect a check for 10 years time - but after that...they need to make something new and innovative again.

With the current laws, it doesn't take much effort to locate prior works which could put the new item in violation of copyrights based on a casual examination. Copyright laws that last 120+ years will make it worse, so if you want to get tied up with gut feelings and emotional pleas - you will be bent over in pain for quite some time. Even off the gut feeling, it is a 10 year old image from a single page in a couple of books that (I think) are out of print. The artist has been paid, GW has been paid, even going off my gut feeling/emotional response - I would say that if the consumer wants a Loxatl miniature and GW won't give it to them...why should BW not be able to?

Apologies for the late retroactive reply, been busy with a new project. Really exciting stuff, that strangely enough applies to what we're talking about, but sadly I can't say more.

 Yodhrin wrote:

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.

Oh look, some guy trying to be the last word on the internet. You're done here because your argument is done. And now you're just trying to lash at me and ignore what is right in front of your eyes.

There's two, or more arguments going on here, both of which I'm trying to address. The legal argument, which I'm trying to address less, and the moral and creative argument.

Legally, people are harking on the paperwork and the specific circumstances of the Chapterhouse case too much. Legal aspects will resolve themselves in legal ways. Any amount of wishing that GW forgot to keep its paperwork doesn't apply to this particular instance. It is fair to ask for proof of ownership, and that's what BWM should do. But then, that's a bit of an admission that they used that image for their miniature in the first place, which goes counter to the arguments that people are saying there are no similarities worth noting between the concepts. Honestly, this side bores me to no end, and is why we hire lawyers for. If they use that as a defense, that's almost, but not quite, an admission of use.

And as such, on the moral and creative side, that means that person did use the artwork as more than just inspiration.

Another argument is whether they used the image at all.

But really Sean's argument is better.

Still, computer based goods are drastically different from art. The programmer's way of handling code is muuuch different and can cloud your view of the arts.

Programming is just as much a technical discipline as it is creative. What you produce has a different purpose than art. You can view code and use a great deal of another person's code because it is a technical matter. Code is the means to a functional goal, it is not the goal in and of itself. Art is the goal of itself. Code can be quantified much more easily by its function. This is coming from someone who also once did computer programming and swtiched to art, I know this first hand, just as you do.

You have basically admitted you have a stake in seeing GW fail in this regard, as well as a disdain for copyright law. In many ways I agree with you, but I do believe that those feeling are clouding your judgement in this case. And for all the talk about how a lizard is a lizard, sometimes a lizard isn't just a lizard, and you also admitted the tech it wears, the positions of that tech are problematic, which one of the things central to the issue. You're harping too much on the lizard, and not seeing the whole. A piece of code, not the entire program.

It seems to make you come up with technical argument about it, as though citing tiny minute technical details will change the. No concept remains entirely the same when going to sculpt. If art were judged on the same exacting technical level as code, every work would be completely different.

Copyright is copyright, there are problems, but we work here with what we have. But you forget one reason why copyright is in place, which is to also help foster creativity and progress by allowing creators to keep what they make, regardless of the shenanigans from major corporations increasing the time they hold on to it. That's a separate issue for others to figure out.

I haven't had time to read through your arguments about creative bankruptcy, but I actually do want to address them properly so I'll have to do that later. I have literally been working overnight the last few days.

BWM is not entitled in any way to make a Loxatl miniature. That's something you have to remember. Not to mention, GW is still within a normal copyright period for this piece of art. But, the original intent for copyright in the US, and like other IP laws that spawned from it was for 14 years initially, and an extra 14 years that had to be specifically applied for. How long as GW been in business, how old is that piece of art? I doubt it is older than 38 years, although it may be approaching that time.

If they don't want a miniature of that design, then there won't be. BWM, if they have a good enough artist, could honestly have made a design influenced by the Loxatl and put that out, all without any problems. What's more, BWM would then be able to claim and keep copyright on that work, even producing more of that sculpt to profit.

Think of it this way. Is there some scrap of art out there of yours, or code, that's just sitting there unused? You aren't doing anything with it. Someone comes along and thinks the same way you do, then makes a sculpt of it or puts it into a program and puts it out there without your consent. Now, that's the big deal. I get the feeling that you would actually give consent assuming it's not for direct profit. A lot of coders do put out code. But the key is, the ability to give or deny consent at all. You may have issues with how long corporations grasp at that ability, but don't forget it protects you. So, why shouldn't BWM not be able to make a Loxatl miniature? For the same reason they should not be able to make a miniature of one of your leftover artwork, or mine, at least until a reasonable amount of time has passed.

There is a BIG difference between "disdain for copyright law" and criticism about changes, and even relatively recent ones, that have been made to copyright law.

Intellectual property was always intended to be limited in scope, and its ultimate purpose is to serve a public good by encouraging creativity, encouraging new work, encouraging the spread of ideas, and encouraging competition.

The US Constitution is fairly unambiguous. Article 1, Section 8:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Limited protection for a limited period of time. Especially with respect to Copyright law, that 'limited' period has been extended and extended and extended and extended far beyond a limited period that serves the principle purpose of the statute: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."

So, please do not equate reasoned criticism of certain developments within the statute and the case law as disdain for the law. One could make a much more convincing argument that it is exactly the opposite.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Balance wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
£750 an hour?!! I'm in the wrong job.

Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.

Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.

Sorry, I was skimming again and thought the 750 was a lawyer's hourly rate, not an expert witness.