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.

Front page of all the newspapers tomorrow - "Lawyers in throwing mud to see if it sticks shocker!"

1. Buy blank dice in the color of your choice.
2. Laser etch them from a local dealer with the designs of your choice.
3. Fill in the etched design with your own paint.
4. ???
5. Profit.

I guarantee you a local laser shop won't give a damn about what you put on your dice or where it comes from, especially if you are paying cash.

 Aerethan wrote:
1. Buy blank dice in the color of your choice.
2. Laser etch them from a local dealer with the designs of your choice.
3. Fill in the etched design with your own paint.
4. ???
5. Profit.

I guarantee you a local laser shop won't give a damn about what you put on your dice or where it comes from, especially if you are paying cash.

Seems like a great work-around plus you're supporting a local business.

Someone mentioned that GW 'own' them in 'context', but what is the context? GW make miniatures for war games. I imagine they could argue that they 'own' these symbols on miniatures, but on dice, which are a generic product for all sorts of toys and games, and even to things like divination and just random number generation purposes, is surely stretching GW's context to the limit.

GW asking that other companies don't print things like 'Warhammer' or the 40K eagle symbol on dice is fair enough IMO, those are clear trademarks which their artists designed the form and typeface for. But if they were to claim symbols they've just looted from historic texts then that's simple IP bullying yet again. This isn't a rival miniatures company, they're making dice, 'context' is a stretch even if GW do own these symbols. And their very occasional use of these symbols with various Eldar factions doesn't seem to give their claim enough substance anyway.

We don't know what GW have in mind when making this request for Chessex. GW like making demands without being clear. Could they furnish Chessex with a list of designs they consider to own? It doesn't seem fair to say 'don't use our designs' if they don't then tell you what those designs are. Even after the Chapterhouse case they still claim the Chaos Star on their copyright page. What should Chessex do if someone asked for that to be printed on a die and GW said 'stop'? Because then there's the risk of a legal battle that will cost Chessex even though GW's claim would be illegitimate. The person with the most money can bully others into submission. That's how many industries work, that's how GW work.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

It depends on what is "GW's artwork".

The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Secondly, GW will probably claim trademark status for the Alaitoc symbol, which means it doesn't need to be original.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
A few people have posted about dice companies not cutting dice with GW's designs which is fair enough as far as I am concerned.

Can't see a pic. Is it arrows, skulls or Roman numbers? Because GW claims to have invented those.

From Lexicanum.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


From Lexicanum.

Also thr first image that comes up when you google alaitoc - was going to post it earlier but my phone kept on posting thr url in the middle of text for some reason and it was too much of a pita to change it around.

So yeah, it is a distinct and identifiable design rather than just a skull or something.

Ediy - and im sure people know i am not the biggest fanof gw and never go ouy of my way to defend them...

For all I know, they could have sued for these:

Or maybe they think they invented dice now

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Leave the cog off (it's a die so you don't want three layers of detail anyway), and you're not too far off this.

There's another side to this, thinking from GW's point of view. They're knee deep in the legal mire at the moment. As they started stalking the small companies for peanuts, now they sort of need to keep on going and keep staking their ground, all the way. So they are shipping the "GW legal team is watching you!" notifications by the bulk, to anything that might touch their IP - as a sort of pre-cease&desist, just in case something, someday needs actual attention. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd target the tattoo parlors next, lol

There's two questions here: can they legally, and should they keeping PR et al in mind. Another way to look at this is that GW could choose to be a bit more relaxed about it, and be creating a healthy ecosystem of small players around them, encouraging appearance of tons of printed 'fan products' like the Eldar dice in question. It can be a good move marketing-wise, as it boosts their image and presence.

Obviously, going after tiny companies is all bad publicity for GW. Larger companies are a bit more careful about their public image - GW is still a medium-sized player so they might not have the most skilled people, when it comes to this.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

Agreed! This is an overreaction by the OP...

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Leave the cog off (it's a die so you don't want three layers of detail anyway), and you're not too far off this.

The Rebel Alliance!

I think the design in question is pretty damn stylized, regardless of what other generic symbols it may slightly resemble. I think Chessex is right as I see no wrongdoing by GW here.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Someone mentioned that GW 'own' them in 'context', but what is the context? GW make miniatures for war games. I imagine they could argue that they 'own' these symbols on miniatures, but on dice, which are a generic product for all sorts of toys and games, and even to things like divination and just random number generation purposes, is surely stretching GW's context to the limit.

http://chessex.com/Dice/Custom_Dice_Home.htm
Chessex makes custom dice for gaming. GW owns the mark with respect to gaming. It's not that hard to follow.

And their very occasional use of these symbols with various Eldar factions doesn't seem to give their claim enough substance anyway.

It really does.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
I would agree with prowla-- its a legal out.

Tell Chessex its an "artists rendition" of an Astrological sign.

Gw can take a flying leap...trademark symbols that have been around since cavemen were drawing on walls...pff!

No, it isn't a "legal out." The liability, were there any, would rest on the shoulders of the individual actually infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights. e.g. making and distributing copies of the work, selling copies of the work, etc. That would be Chessex.

Chessex has to make a decision about risk. Could one make a "generic" version of the symbol? I think so. Is that symbol a GW trademark? Probably very, very unlikely. So it would come down to copyright. A sword is a generic symbol in the public domain. The combination of a sword and a moon is also probably in the public domain. So there's plenty of room to create differentiation.

But different or no, that has no bearing on whether you wind up getting sued. Is it worth that to do a single custom order?

The answer is no which is why they passed on the job, and well within their rights to not make these custom dice with a logo that may be protected.

weeble1000 wrote:
No, it isn't a "legal out." The liability, were there any, would rest on the shoulders of the individual actually infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights. e.g. making and distributing copies of the work, selling copies of the work, etc. That would be Chessex.

Chessex has to make a decision about risk. Could one make a "generic" version of the symbol? I think so. Is that symbol a GW trademark? Probably very, very unlikely. So it would come down to copyright. A sword is a generic symbol in the public domain. The combination of a sword and a moon is also probably in the public domain. So there's plenty of room to create differentiation.

But different or no, that has no bearing on whether you wind up getting sued. Is it worth that to do a single custom order?

While I agree with what you said in it's totality; I have to ask: is Chessex expected to be aware of every single copyrighted symbol, icon, and design in the world? Is there no safe harbor provision here?

If they're aware, though, they might as well avoid it. They are selling the dice, even if it's just one order.

Presumably if they printed a copyrighted design as a one-off commission and someone like GW found out, all they could do was write and tell them not to do it again for that design. Chessex would then agree not to do it again now that it's been brought to their attention. It's only if you defy a C&D that you risk going to court because you've been warned and chosen to use that design after being made aware by it's 'owner'. Though GW's claim of ownership of some things is decidedly dodgy.

Unless they furnish Chessex with a list of designs before they take orders for designs there's an argument for reasonableness. Many GW symbols are seldom printed and are a bit obscure in their own publications. How is anyone supposed to reasonably know what GW claim as theirs? The two headed imperial eagle is obvious, many of the eldar symbols are not. I'm not familiar with many of them, I know nothing about the symbols in Malufrax and some others, so why would I be expected to be familiar with every copyrighted symbol in existence?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

It depends on what is "GW's artwork".

The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Secondly, GW will probably claim trademark status for the Alaitoc symbol, which means it doesn't need to be original.

Heres what I sent, both are different from the "official GW design"

Perhaps you should try a slight variation on those designs -- turn the crescent the other way or something. There must be a point at which your design is different enough to the GW version to be a new piece of original artwork.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you should try a slight variation on those designs -- turn the crescent the other way or something. There must be a point at which your design is different enough to the GW version to be a new piece of original artwork.

This.

If you changed small things about it you'll be fine. Change proportions like the flare on the blade inside the crescent, change the hilt design a bit, etc.

It's such a basic design that it'd be easy to change and be recognizable as what you want it to be.

So after 10+ years GW now decide to stop Cheesex doning dice with "there" icons. Seem really late and donkey-cave thing to do. Yes atleast ten years as I still have a set from back then. GW only has a right to dice with that design if they can prove the made them first, I count find thous dice. GW lucky Cheesex is a bigish company so likey count get Pro-Bono.

GW new legal plan target company to big for Pro-Bono, but not big enouth to fight in court with there own money.

 Kroothawk wrote:
For all I know, they could have sued for these:

Or maybe they think they invented dice now

Or these



Because we all know GW created dices as we know them.

GW has a copyright on Earth, as it's the planet the emperor is from. Am I doing it right?

 Aerethan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you should try a slight variation on those designs -- turn the crescent the other way or something. There must be a point at which your design is different enough to the GW version to be a new piece of original artwork.

This.

If you changed small things about it you'll be fine. Change proportions like the flare on the blade inside the crescent, change the hilt design a bit, etc.

It's such a basic design that it'd be easy to change and be recognizable as what you want it to be.

Well if you look at that black and white pic (its cleaner in the original copy it went screwy here) is a modified version, the tip, pommel and hilt are all different. Its even different from the decal patterns GW makes. I'll try and get it done but at this point its looking like its more trouble then its worth and has only served to increase my discontent for GW and its policies.

Could Games Workshop go after these "Design your own T-shirt!" sites too? Cause I would love to walk into my GW wearing a shirt saying "Space Marine", with an arrow and the Roman numeral 4.

Technically GW could go after anyone that uses their designs for anything.

Years ago I remember hearing GW (when I worked for the company) wanted to start going after commission painters because they are free loading and profiteering on GWs work, but it never saw the light of day. Really in the end it just goes to show you that they are willing to attack anyone they perceive as smaller then them.

If anything all this thread proves is GW really thinks that they own Greek letters, alchemy symbols and religious symbols that are old as time and not only getting away with it, but have convinced people that it is okay do so.

fishy bob wrote:
Could Games Workshop go after these "Design your own T-shirt!" sites too? Cause I would love to walk into my GW wearing a shirt saying "Space Marine", with an arrow and the Roman numeral 4.

Actually, I have a black polo shirt with the Raven Guard chapter symbol on it. IIRC correctly, when I ordered it I had to check a box saying it wasn't copyrighted artwork, that was apparently good enough.

Now, if anyone wanted to take me to court, I'd have to point out that more people have asked me if it was some sort of historic German military symbol than have ever asked if it was anything GW related!