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.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Asking an artist to sell artistic freedom for a 9-5 job is not a good idea. Or as Bryan Ansell said to Rick Priestley about Games Workshop's design studio:

Rick Priestley wrote:Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there!

That's why we now get so many copypaste sculpts, so many "just add skulls and candles to the storm talon", so many uninspired toy-like giant models. Because lawyers and managers try to tell artists how proper artistic work functions.

Isn't that part of the contract they sign in the first place? I remember something along the lines " anything you sculpt, even not GW related etc is automatically GW property"??
I can only imagine the nightmare to work restrained in such a way.

 cincydooley wrote:
That's great and all. But having some business infrastructure and business acumen ensures debacles like Gates of Anteres don't happy.

At GW, managers fail at their job (like growing business by standard marketing strategies) AND keep the creative staff from doing their job as well. And it is past midnight at Raging Heroes office, so blaming them for sleeping at night is a bit unfair.

Managers failing, eh?

You're like, entitled to your opinion man.

The rich get richer. Love just about every single sculpt Zenit has put out

 NAVARRO wrote:
I remember something along the lines " anything you sculpt, even not GW related etc is automatically GW property"??

Well, that's totally illegal so could be true considering GW legal practices. Sort of a pre-emptive C&D/repossession verdict.

@HMV: I assume that clause is only valid for the duration of the contract.

I've seen companies outside the miniature wargaming industry enforce similar clauses to prevent their creative personnel from freelancing. I don't know the technicalities, but sounds legal to me.

Of course, in the current environment, it also makes working for such a company quite an unattractive prospect.

Yeah, I've heard of similar constrictions on 'creative' contracts. Helps prevent people from walking off with a portfolio they have developed on company time and claiming that it's all their own private work.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I remember something along the lines " anything you sculpt, even not GW related etc is automatically GW property"??

Well, that's totally illegal so could be true considering GW legal practices. Sort of a pre-emptive C&D/repossession verdict.

Is it? I know at every company I have worked at as part of being hired, had to sign an agreement that any patentable ideas I develop are property of the company. I know similar contracts exist for friends that work in the creative fields.

Alessio Cavatore mentioned in interviews that GW had first right to publish any game ideas he came up. They passed on Loka and that is why he was able to publish it independently. It is likely such a contract exists with sculptors as well.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I remember something along the lines " anything you sculpt, even not GW related etc is automatically GW property"??

Well, that's totally illegal so could be true considering GW legal practices. Sort of a pre-emptive C&D/repossession verdict.

That's nonsense: The Perry Twins have a complete company producing non-GW miniatures.
UK law allows people to give all their copyright to someone else though, while in German law you always keep copyright on your own creations no matter what (gave the killing blow to the German 40k fan movie).

 Kroothawk wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I remember something along the lines " anything you sculpt, even not GW related etc is automatically GW property"??

Well, that's totally illegal so could be true considering GW legal practices. Sort of a pre-emptive C&D/repossession verdict.

That's nonsense: The Perry Twins have a complete company producing non-GW miniatures.
UK law allows people to give all their copyright to someone else though, while in German law you always keep copyright on your own creations no matter what (gave the killing blow to the German 40k fan movie).

You never know how individual employment contracts might work. The Perrys have been at GW for a hell of a long time, so I wouldn't be surprised if their contracts, (like Blanche's) were very differently worded and structured when compared to newer employees. We know that Rick Priestly had a non-compete clause in his contract after he left, which is why he could only work on things like Black Powder, Bolt Action, etc for a long time. The Perry's business is selling historical figures to historical gamers.

 Kroothawk wrote:

That's why we now get so many copypaste sculpts, so many "just add skulls and candles to the storm talon"....

I remember 25+ years old Citadel catalogues with C&P sculpts - slight alterations to heads, spears etc. And 'Just Add Skulls' is hardly new to the Imperium/Chaos dynamic.

So, I don't think it is fair to blame current management for that. However, I don't think 3-D sculpting is helping.

Some of their best models ever (even to this day, IMO) are C&P of other models. Look at Jes' old-school chaos champions for example.

There are far less C+P sculpts now than there used to be in my experience!

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
@HMV: I assume that clause is only valid for the duration of the contract.

I've seen companies outside the miniature wargaming industry enforce similar clauses to prevent their creative personnel from freelancing. I don't know the technicalities, but sounds legal to me.

Of course, in the current environment, it also makes working for such a company quite an unattractive prospect.

Those kinds of contracts are almost universal. A good number will allow outside work with non-competing companies when approved by a manager, but this is common, and legal, as part of the normal "work for hire" contract. There are plenty, more heinous rights grabs going on within the world of IP than this, and plenty of companies who are even more rapacious than GW - for instance, Google, who have pushed a huge rights land grab in the UK, known as Orphan Rights, where they get to make money from, say, the photos you might post online.

The clause about owning all sculpts/game design whilst working for GW even applied to retail staff.

 Azazelx wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
I remember something along the lines " anything you sculpt, even not GW related etc is automatically GW property"??

Well, that's totally illegal so could be true considering GW legal practices. Sort of a pre-emptive C&D/repossession verdict.

That's nonsense: The Perry Twins have a complete company producing non-GW miniatures.
UK law allows people to give all their copyright to someone else though, while in German law you always keep copyright on your own creations no matter what (gave the killing blow to the German 40k fan movie).

You never know how individual employment contracts might work. The Perrys have been at GW for a hell of a long time, so I wouldn't be surprised if their contracts, (like Blanche's) were very differently worded and structured when compared to newer employees. We know that Rick Priestly had a non-compete clause in his contract after he left, which is why he could only work on things like Black Powder, Bolt Action, etc for a long time. The Perry's business is selling historical figures to historical gamers.

Word on the street was at the time the Perry twins said: "Let us do our sidebusiness or we leave."

Makes perfect sense, and people need to remember, the old guard (Perrys, Jes, the Morrisons, Blanche) were the cornerstone of the company in so many ways. They had (and still have) a lot more "pull" then the more recent hires. Marauder miniatures were the Morrison's own line for a few years, but got folded back in with GW proper, so their contracts/personal IP rights obviously changed way back when. It's also why you don't see the Perrys putting out sci-fi or fantasy figures, and it's hardcore historical all the time within their own range.

silent25 wrote:
Is it? I know at every company I have worked at as part of being hired, had to sign an agreement that any patentable ideas I develop are property of the company. I know similar contracts exist for friends that work in the creative fields.

Those clauses are closely tied to non competition rules, but there is no way your company can blanket claim your IP* unless you a) bring it up within the company, b) try to market it outside of the company without relevant contractual provisions and/or using company IP.


*except when they do it and you're too poor to challenge that.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Asking an artist to sell artistic freedom for a 9-5 job is not a good idea. Or as Bryan Ansell said to Rick Priestley about Games Workshop's design studio:

Rick Priestley wrote:Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there!

That's why we now get so many copypaste sculpts, so many "just add skulls and candles to the storm talon", so many uninspired toy-like giant models. Because lawyers and managers try to tell artists how proper artistic work functions. Now compare the skullmower (July apocalypse release) to the creative explosion of the Raging Heroes kickstarter and you see a difference.

As a creative professional, I have no idea what you're going on about here.

Of course working for GW or any company stifles personal creativity. That's because you're working for them and receiving various types of compensation for it -- benefits, a healthy salary, paid vacation, etc. That's the entire point.
If you want to work without limits, you go into business for yourself. Another option is to do what Juan seems to be doing and going to a smaller shop where you can presumably have much more influence over your parameters, etc. But note that's not perfect freedom either.

I think -- as is commonplace around here -- some of you are making this to be about GW when it's about a creative pro who was ready for a change and more personal growth. And really, if working for GW is undesirable, then why do the creatives there stay at the company so freakin' long? Did someone say he was there for 15 years? That's a damn eternity, especially for creatives and their wandering eyes/minds, lol.

 gorgon wrote:
Of course working for GW or any company stifles personal creativity. That's because you're working for them and receiving various types of compensation for it -- benefits, a healthy salary, paid vacation, etc. That's the entire point.
If you want to work without limits, you go into business for yourself. Another option is to do what Juan seems to be doing and going to a smaller shop where you can presumably have much more influence over your parameters, etc. But note that's not perfect freedom either.

I think -- as is commonplace around here -- some of you are making this to be about GW when it's about a creative pro who was ready for a change and more personal growth. And really, if working for GW is undesirable, then why do the creatives there stay at the company so freakin' long? Did someone say he was there for 15 years? That's a damn eternity, especially for creatives and their wandering eyes/minds, lol.

GW isn't alone in this, PP (and probably several other companies) does the same thing to their sculptors. I mention PP specifically since I know several of the sculptors there and we've had this conversation before. The sculptors job is to sculpt the model that was already concepted and on their desk, they have little input in the design or look of the model unless there is a serious problem.

If there was an issue with the pose interfering with detail on the model or it just looks "weird" like armor plates not matching up properly due to the pose, since 2D drawings cannot accurately portray a 3D sculpt, the sculptor can give recommendations to fix it but otherwise has no real say in the rest of the design and have been told at times "That's not their job and to stay out of it".

Big loss. All hail the Hypno Toad

 His Master's Voice wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Is it? I know at every company I have worked at as part of being hired, had to sign an agreement that any patentable ideas I develop are property of the company. I know similar contracts exist for friends that work in the creative fields.

Those clauses are closely tied to non competition rules, but there is no way your company can blanket claim your IP* unless you a) bring it up within the company, b) try to market it outside of the company without relevant contractual provisions and/or using company IP.


*except when they do it and you're too poor to challenge that.

Except that GW is a miniature company and any miniatures a sculptor would try to sell miniatures on the side would fall under the non-competition clause.

The whole Bratz vs. Mattel case is a good example of companies being able to claim the IP of an employee. While MGA won on appeal, but only because the court felt Mattel's contract with the creator didn't contain sufficient language to cover the IP claim. Not because claiming IP's of employees is illegal.

silent25 wrote:
Except that GW is a miniature company and any miniatures a sculptor would try to sell miniatures on the side would fall under the non-competition clause.

Preventing an employee from marketing products is not the same as claiming copyright on very creation of said employee.

A company trying to lay claim to employee IP has to prove that said IP either directly contains IP owned by the employer or was created as a direct derivative of that IP. Going back to GW, any rule that states "everything you sculpt belongs to us" is hogwash and nothing more.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Except that GW is a miniature company and any miniatures a sculptor would try to sell miniatures on the side would fall under the non-competition clause.

Preventing an employee from marketing products is not the same as claiming copyright on very creation of said employee.

A company trying to lay claim to employee IP has to prove that said IP either directly contains IP owned by the employer or was created as a direct derivative of that IP. Going back to GW, any rule that states "everything you sculpt belongs to us" is hogwash and nothing more.

That's true - except where a contract says otherwise, which is increasingly the case. It's very common for creative contracts to try and claim IP generated outside of work hours, but within the term of employment.

Yeah, I imagine GW need the Perry's more than they need them. There's always going to be work for people with that talent and reputation.

On the topic of old GW staff. What happened to Aly and Trish Morrison?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
It's very common for creative contracts to try and claim IP generated outside of work hours, but within the term of employment.

Seriously? Within EU? When did that practice start?

And more importantly, how is that even enforceable, not to mention in line with existing creative copyright laws?

Sad but true. Started at least 10 years ago, common in publishing and ad agencies.

With similar copyright disputes we've found German law in particular is much better, but these kinds of copyright land grabs are increasingly common in the UK (and the US).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yeah, I imagine GW need the Perry's more than they need them. There's always going to be work for people with that talent and reputation.

On the topic of old GW staff. What happened to Aly and Trish Morrison?

Aly and Trish still work for GW but they got divorced so look for Trish Carden, she had a fish monster thing on display at the Forge World open day. I wasn't aware that the Perry's were still working full time for GW. I think the only thing they do now is stuff relating to the Hobbit / LotR and I gather that that is because Peter Jackson is a fan. I'd be very intrigued about the contract on that work.

As for Juan, if you look at some of the lovely sculpts he's done and the original concept by Jes you'll notice there is very little change compared to a while back when the sculpts were adapted more as they went. Also I'd be curious about how much the older sculptors want to get involved with the CAD side of things. I know Aly did some work on the Goblin king's throne from the Hobbit box and helped with the CAD translation of the Perry Sculpts. Check out the Design Studio article in the back of December 2012 edition of White Dwarf for more on that (and Goblin poo).

Again it's common in University research contracts dating back 10-12 years in the UK

They have the absolute right to take forward any idea I come up with while I work for them though if they took one of my independent ideas(ie not related to the project I was paid to do) I would get a cut of whatever money it made (30-50% if I remember right).

They could also decide they didn't want the idea, if so I could then shop it around elsewhere.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Sad but true. Started at least 10 years ago, common in publishing and ad agencies.

With similar copyright disputes we've found German law in particular is much better, but these kinds of copyright land grabs are increasingly common in the UK (and the US).

Damn, it looks like I managed to go through three different creative jobs without signing away anything even remotely like that. And in an industry that's known to be anal about this stuff...

Feth this, I'm staying freelance.