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.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, the CHS case has reached a verdict, and, by almost any measure, GW lost, and handily.

But there are appeals to be worked through. The fact that yet another legal firm, with one of the best reputations for IP-related law, has come in, for free, to help Chapterhouse with the appeal does not bode well for GW.

The Lord Inquisitor seems to have tacit approval, Aaron Dembski Bowden is even on board as some sort of writer/script editor, and he's hitherto been an exclusively BL author.

No Az, GW filed its own appeal.

GW is still trying to prevail on claims it lost at trial; not merely attempting to prevent Chapterhouse from overturning some or all of the verdict. There is a substantive difference.

30% a thief is still a thief.

Orktavius wrote:
30% a thief is still a thief.

This was a civil suit, not a criminal case. No one is a thief. However, if using someone else's ideas is thievery, take a look at Jes Goodwin's testimony in that case:

Q. Fine. And so, the Imperium, the civilization, that's the
setting in which this game is to take place; is that right?
A. Yep.
Q. And that game is an amalgamation of so many ideas that were
floating around, taken from sources like 2000 AD, right? Isn't
that true?
A. That just doesn't finish off the sentence, does it?
Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from
2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put
into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?
A. That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.
Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?
A. Yes.

"The Imperium is an amalgam of so many ideas that were floating around, taken from 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put into a big pot and regurgitated by us."

That's GW's own words man, published in their own book, describing their artwork. Don't break your neck falling off that high horse.

Oh, and as a bonus, claiming to own the word "Halberd" and "piles of skulls" as a decorative motif smacks much more of thievery to me. See, that's because we; you, me, everyone in the world in fact, already own those things. And GW literally tried to take them, and may other things, away from every artist in the world for more than 100 years.

Thank God they failed, but GW failed because someone had the sand to stand up and say it was wrong.

Trying to copyright "Space Marine" even though it was already in use could be considered thievery if not douchbaggery.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Trying to copyright "Space Marine" even though it was already in use could be considered thievery if not douchbaggery.

That would be trademark. And GW did trademark Space Marine. Whether that mark is valid is debatable, though GW has never successfully enforced it to my knowledge.

Sending a DMCA takedown notice to Amazon about a book that has the phrase "Space Marine" in the title, even though the DMCA applies to copyrights, not trademarks, and even though a book title is not a trademark is a disingenuous at best. But the Electronic Freedom Foundation nipped that in the bud.

weeble1000 wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
30% a thief is still a thief.

This was a civil suit, not a criminal case. No one is a thief. However, if using someone else's ideas is thievery, take a look at Jes Goodwin's testimony in that case:

Q. Fine. And so, the Imperium, the civilization, that's the
setting in which this game is to take place; is that right?
A. Yep.
Q. And that game is an amalgamation of so many ideas that were
floating around, taken from sources like 2000 AD, right? Isn't
that true?
A. That just doesn't finish off the sentence, does it?
Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from
2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put
into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?
A. That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.
Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?
A. Yes.

"The Imperium is an amalgam of so many ideas that were floating around, taken from 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put into a big pot and regurgitated by us."

That's GW's own words man, published in their own book, describing their artwork. Don't break your neck falling off that high horse.

Oh, and as a bonus, claiming to own the word "Halberd" and "piles of skulls" as a decorative motif smacks much more of thievery to me. See, that's because we; you, me, everyone in the world in fact, already own those things. And GW literally tried to take them, and may other things, away from every artist in the world for more than 100 years.

Thank God they failed, but GW failed because someone had the sand to stand up and say it was wrong.

And the fact that GW was making games in the 200AD and Moorcock's settings as they were creating WH and WH40K makes the theft a little more apparent.

Let us see now, where did the eight pointed Star of Chaos come from?

The Auld Grump, I have high elves that read Melniboneans on their tabs....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Spoiler:

Orktavius wrote:
30% a thief is still a thief.

This was a civil suit, not a criminal case. No one is a thief. However, if using someone else's ideas is thievery, take a look at Jes Goodwin's testimony in that case:

Q. Fine. And so, the Imperium, the civilization, that's the
setting in which this game is to take place; is that right?
A. Yep.
Q. And that game is an amalgamation of so many ideas that were
floating around, taken from sources like 2000 AD, right? Isn't
that true?
A. That just doesn't finish off the sentence, does it?
Q. Well, let's look at the rest of the sentence. Taken from
2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put
into a big pot and regurgitated by us. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't that what Games Workshop did?
A. That's a very, very simplistic reading of it, yes.
Q. And that's in The Art of Warhammer book, right?
A. Yes.

"The Imperium is an amalgam of so many ideas that were floating around, taken from 2000 AD and Michael Moorcock novels and real history all put into a big pot and regurgitated by us."

That's GW's own words man, published in their own book, describing their artwork. Don't break your neck falling off that high horse.

Oh, and as a bonus, claiming to own the word "Halberd" and "piles of skulls" as a decorative motif smacks much more of thievery to me. See, that's because we; you, me, everyone in the world in fact, already own those things. And GW literally tried to take them, and may other things, away from every artist in the world for more than 100 years.

Thank God they failed, but GW failed because someone had the sand to stand up and say it was wrong.

And the fact that GW was making games in the 200AD and Moorcock's settings as they were creating WH and WH40K makes the theft a little more apparent.

Let us see now, where did the eight pointed Star of Chaos come from?

The Auld Grump, I have high elves that read Melniboneans on their tabs....

Such is the nature of chaos, time may even flow backwards

Orktavius wrote:
30% a thief is still a thief.

70% liar is still a liar.

If you're talking about GW stealing stuff don't forget the Mantis Warriors artwork they tried to tell everyone they owned while quietly telling the artists to sign over the rights 'again' because they 'lost' them. Or if you want to talk about GW lying there was the whole thing where they swore they didn't have his contact information AFTER ASKING HIM TO DO THAT.

Oh, also recently Jeremy from Creature Caster was talking about how they blatantly stole the demons from D&D in that video that accompanied the Future of Games Workshop no.14 article over on Painting Budda. I loved that, and his highway robbery remark, and he's right. If the internet had been around when GW began they'd have been torn a new one for suddenly stopping production of D&D demons and immediatly releasing their own, incredibly similar demons.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Oh, also recently Jeremy from Creature Caster was talking about how they blatantly stole the demons from D&D in that video that accompanied the Future of Games Workshop no.14 article over on Painting Budda. I loved that, and his highway robbery remark, and he's right. If the internet had been around when GW began they'd have been torn a new one for suddenly stopping production of D&D demons and immediatly releasing their own, incredibly similar demons.

You're right, and I wonder how many people realize that. The Keeper of Secrets is basically a D&D Glabrezu, the Lord of Change is a D&D Vrock, and the Bloodthirster is a D&D Balor (itself a reskin of the LotR Balrog). The GUO doesn't have a direct counterpart, but the Nurglings look an awful lot like D&D Lemures.

If any modern company took another's designs and released them as their own, the Internet would scream bloody murder. But GW gets away with it solely because they did it 30 years ago. It beggars belief.

Such monsters have so many possible prior influences from world myths and fiction that it is unlikely anyone in the late 20th century could realistically claim to have designed them entirely independently and thus made an original creation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Such monsters have so many possible prior influences from world myths and fiction that it is unlikely anyone in the late 20th century could realistically claim to have designed them entirely independently and thus made an original creation.

Bingo! Which is why everyone should just make their artwork and let other people alone to make theirs.

The TTG industry has generally been pretty good about that, with a few big, sagging companies like TSR, FASA, and GW trying to 'protect' their 'assets' and souring it for everyone else.

Influence from other precedents has always been a part of creating art, toys and other artefacts. It's entirely legitimate.

But it's worth pointing out to the OP that it's a morally different case when you're copying a company's artwork, in order to sell specifically to that company's purchasers, using the actual name of those artworks.

Despite what some people here might insist, guilt isn't exclusive to any one side. And as for GW as a company, like any large organisation there are doubtless corporate whores, as well as decent, creative people. Welcome to UK PLC.

Don't forget the decent Corporate People and Creative Whores!

weeble1000 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Such monsters have so many possible prior influences from world myths and fiction that it is unlikely anyone in the late 20th century could realistically claim to have designed them entirely independently and thus made an original creation.

Bingo! Which is why everyone should just make their artwork and let other people alone to make theirs.

The TTG industry has generally been pretty good about that, with a few big, sagging companies like TSR, FASA, and GW trying to 'protect' their 'assets' and souring it for everyone else.

The flip side of that is that the poor little companies should also just make their artwork. The problem is that many don't so there exists a need for corporate entities to protect their (as they see it) assets. You're arguing for a Utopia that doesn't/cannot exist in a world where you have to assert your rights because there are no other entities to do that for you.

They can by all means exist symbiotically but if the bigger entity doesn't want that then they will be seen as a parasite to be swatted.

 notprop wrote:
Don't forget the decent Corporate People and Creative Whores!

weeble1000 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Such monsters have so many possible prior influences from world myths and fiction that it is unlikely anyone in the late 20th century could realistically claim to have designed them entirely independently and thus made an original creation.

Bingo! Which is why everyone should just make their artwork and let other people alone to make theirs.

The TTG industry has generally been pretty good about that, with a few big, sagging companies like TSR, FASA, and GW trying to 'protect' their 'assets' and souring it for everyone else.

The flip side of that is that the poor little companies should also just make their artwork. The problem is that many don't so there exists a need for corporate entities to protect their (as they see it) assets. You're arguing for a Utopia that doesn't/cannot exist in a world where you have to assert your rights because there are no other entities to do that for you.

They can by all means exist symbiotically but if the bigger entity doesn't want that then they will be seen as a parasite to be swatted.

No. I'm not arguing for a utopia. I am talking about reasonable use of intellectual property laws.

You show me a copy. Really. Go find me something that is out and out a copy of someone else's artwork in the TTG industry. You'll have a really hard time finding one. You'll find lots of similar things. But similarity does not equal unfair appropriation. It is perfectly okay to make something that is similar to someone else's artwork, to be inspired by someone else's artwork, to use someone else's ideas to create your own work. In fact, copyright laws are designed to allow that to happen.

What little companies are often not making their own artwork? Seriously. Name one. Name a single small company that 'often' does not make its own artwork in the TTG industry. I daresay that any company you might pick would be incredibly offended by the implication that their work does not qualify as unique artwork.

Do you think Victoria Lamb doesn't do her own work? Do you think that Puppetswar and MaxiMini don't make unique, original works of art? Do you think that Creature Caster hasn't actually made any of his own artwork?

I don't have to name anything but you are being wilfully ignorant if you cannot see the many companies that exist primary to trade off of the larger works of others.

The point is is that if you set yourself up in this vein then there will be be times when they will stray near to the marque in the opinion of those that hold it.

If you make space crusader weapons that are designed to fit on GW Space marines then you will skirt this line. It may be tested it may not, but no one will step in for GW to check this so they have to enforce their opinion of what they assert is theirs.

Hardly rocket science or the needing of proof to understand that that is the way the system is set up.

Most of these companies have the sense to know this and position their products accordingly, some don't and get called.

I'm not sure what there is to get so vehement about.

The very idea that someone could besmirch Victoria Lamb, scandalous! Internet White knights to arms.

The problem with that assertion is that third party parts are legal - they are in fact the norm for things like automotive parts.

After market parts for models are also the norm for high quality plastic models - and some model manufacturers go so far as to make certain that the models get to some of those people that make those after market parts, because it is good for sales. (Getting better deck guns for your Bismark requires you to own a model of the Bismark.)

It is legal.

As is saying what original model is required to use the after market parts.

GW's lawyers really should have told GW this, instead they racked up millions of dollars in billable hours.

This is not something that needed testing - it has been tested many, many times already.

The Auld Grump

I don't actually see what is wrong about supplying goods and services into an existing market.

I am trying very hard to get people in my area interested into warmahordes but it is like pulling teeth. I am picking up fantasy but most of my models are from mantic to make it cheap to play .

 notprop wrote:
I don't have to name anything but you are being wilfully ignorant if you cannot see the many companies that exist primary to trade off of the larger works of others.

The point is is that if you set yourself up in this vein then there will be be times when they will stray near to the marque in the opinion of those that hold it.

If you make space crusader weapons that are designed to fit on GW Space marines then you will skirt this line. It may be tested it may not, but no one will step in for GW to check this so they have to enforce their opinion of what they assert is theirs.

Hardly rocket science or the needing of proof to understand that that is the way the system is set up.

Most of these companies have the sense to know this and position their products accordingly, some don't and get called.

I'm not sure what there is to get so vehement about.

The very idea that someone could besmirch Victoria Lamb, scandalous! Internet White knights to arms.

But that line exists solely in your mind. When does a work of art that you create stop being a unique work of art that you enjoy your own rights to and start being the property of someone else? That's the line between something that is a copy and something that is not a copy.

Copy. Learn the word, man. Reproduction. The Same. Not Different. Not Unique. If I copy something, I have deliberately, and this is really important, deliberately taken what someone has created and made the same thing.

When you say that something is a copy of something else, you are saying, in effect, that the creator of that thing has done nothing original of any consequence. You are, quite literally, saying that the creator of the original work owns the offending artwork because it is the work of that creator. It isn't sort of like the work of that creator, it is, legally speaking, property owned by that creator because it is nothing more or less than a reproduction of an extant work of art.

So if you are going to say that, be an adult and tell me which products out there on the market involved no creative effort on the part of the artist. Name one. Just one. Even though you claimed that there are people out there who mostly don't create their own unique artwork, I only want you to give me one.

I want you post up a picture of the product, and post up a picture of the thing it is a copy of. I want you to tell that artist, in front of everyone on DakkaDakka, that what they created is not art because those two pictures show the same work of art.

If you can't do that, then you best stop talking about lines and morals, because a work of art requires a "minimal degree of creativity." That's it. You do that, you've got yourself a work of art that you enjoy your own rights to the instant that it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. For someone who is so concerned about people's rights, you seem to have forgotten that the rules apply equally to everyone.

<Sigh>

OP: run, run while you still can.
Get into anything else, they are all doing fantastic.

Unless you have good friends that are playing 40k look further afield.

Do not buy more stuff and validate their decision making...

Are you still there? RUN... R... U... N... !!!!

It is too late for the rest of us, sell to us what you have because we are beyond help.

 Talizvar wrote:
<Sigh>

OP: run, run while you still can.
Get into anything else, they are all doing fantastic.

Unless you have good friends that are playing 40k look further afield.

Do not buy more stuff and validate their decision making...

Are you still there? RUN... R... U... N... !!!!

It is too late for the rest of us, sell to us what you have because we are beyond help.

There is nothing factually incorrect about this.
(take that with teasing humor.)

 notprop wrote:
I don't have to name anything but you are being wilfully ignorant if you cannot see the many companies that exist primary to trade off of the larger works of others.

The point is is that if you set yourself up in this vein then there will be be times when they will stray near to the marque in the opinion of those that hold it.

If you make space crusader weapons that are designed to fit on GW Space marines then you will skirt this line. It may be tested it may not, but no one will step in for GW to check this so they have to enforce their opinion of what they assert is theirs.

Hardly rocket science or the needing of proof to understand that that is the way the system is set up.

Most of these companies have the sense to know this and position their products accordingly, some don't and get called.

I'm not sure what there is to get so vehement about.

The very idea that someone could besmirch Victoria Lamb, scandalous! Internet White knights to arms.

If you're the dominant, whale sized, incontrovertible market leader, the way GW is in the TTWG market, and someone starts making a product which relies solely on purchases of your product in order to have a purpose, you have two avenues open to you. You can take an inclusive attitude, accept their presence in the market, and try and build a relationship with them, using them to take risks on items that aren't worth the investment they would take you, as the much larger company, to make, use them to shore up sales of your own products and perhaps even bring them on board early in the design process, so you can synchronise product releases and ensure compatibility.

Or, if like GW, you have a FW analogy, where arguably you are attempting to fill the same demand that the competitor company, you use your economies of scale, access to personnel, greater logistic network, brand recognition, etc, etc... to outcompete, either in terms of value or quality.

This is how a free market is supposed to work, not do some sort of corporate version of running to teacher because Johnny copied your homework.

 azreal13 wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I don't have to name anything but you are being wilfully ignorant if you cannot see the many companies that exist primary to trade off of the larger works of others.

The point is is that if you set yourself up in this vein then there will be be times when they will stray near to the marque in the opinion of those that hold it.

If you make space crusader weapons that are designed to fit on GW Space marines then you will skirt this line. It may be tested it may not, but no one will step in for GW to check this so they have to enforce their opinion of what they assert is theirs.

Hardly rocket science or the needing of proof to understand that that is the way the system is set up.

Most of these companies have the sense to know this and position their products accordingly, some don't and get called.

I'm not sure what there is to get so vehement about.

The very idea that someone could besmirch Victoria Lamb, scandalous! Internet White knights to arms.

If you're the dominant, whale sized, incontrovertible market leader, the way GW is in the TTWG market, and someone starts making a product which relies solely on purchases of your product in order to have a purpose, you have two avenues open to you. You can take an inclusive attitude, accept their presence in the market, and try and build a relationship with them, using them to take risks on items that aren't worth the investment they would take you, as the much larger company, to make, use them to shore up sales of your own products and perhaps even bring them on board early in the design process, so you can synchronise product releases and ensure compatibility.

Or, if like GW, you have a FW analogy, where arguably you are attempting to fill the same demand that the competitor company, you use your economies of scale, access to personnel, greater logistic network, brand recognition, etc, etc... to outcompete, either in terms of value or quality.

This is how a free market is supposed to work, not do some sort of corporate version of running to teacher because Johnny copied your homework.

Especially when you copied your homework from Michael....

It was not your homework to begin with....

The Auld Grump

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:Influence from other precedents has always been a part of creating art, toys and other artefacts. It's entirely legitimate.

But it's worth pointing out to the OP that it's a morally different case when you're copying a company's artwork, in order to sell specifically to that company's purchasers, using the actual name of those artworks.

Despite what some people here might insist, guilt isn't exclusive to any one side. And as for GW as a company, like any large organisation there are doubtless corporate whores, as well as decent, creative people. Welcome to UK PLC.

notprop wrote:I don't have to name anything but you are being wilfully ignorant if you cannot see the many companies that exist primary to trade off of the larger works of others.

The point is is that if you set yourself up in this vein then there will be be times when they will stray near to the marque in the opinion of those that hold it.

If you make space crusader weapons that are designed to fit on GW Space marines then you will skirt this line. It may be tested it may not, but no one will step in for GW to check this so they have to enforce their opinion of what they assert is theirs.

Hardly rocket science or the needing of proof to understand that that is the way the system is set up.

Most of these companies have the sense to know this and position their products accordingly, some don't and get called.

I'm not sure what there is to get so vehement about.

The very idea that someone could besmirch Victoria Lamb, scandalous! Internet White knights to arms.

You guys have heard of the Free Market System is right and what makes it work right becouse your post make it seem like you have no clue.

weeble1000 wrote:

 notprop wrote:
I don't have to name anything but you are being wilfully ignorant if you cannot see the many companies that exist primary to trade off of the larger works of others.

The point is is that if you set yourself up in this vein then there will be be times when they will stray near to the marque in the opinion of those that hold it.

If you make space crusader weapons that are designed to fit on GW Space marines then you will skirt this line. It may be tested it may not, but no one will step in for GW to check this so they have to enforce their opinion of what they assert is theirs.

Hardly rocket science or the needing of proof to understand that that is the way the system is set up.

Most of these companies have the sense to know this and position their products accordingly, some don't and get called.

I'm not sure what there is to get so vehement about.

The very idea that someone could besmirch Victoria Lamb, scandalous! Internet White knights to arms.

But that line exists solely in your mind. When does a work of art that you create stop being a unique work of art that you enjoy your own rights to and start being the property of someone else? That's the line between something that is a copy and something that is not a copy.

Copy. Learn the word, man. Reproduction. The Same. Not Different. Not Unique. If I copy something, I have deliberately, and this is really important, deliberately taken what someone has created and made the same thing.

When you say that something is a copy of something else, you are saying, in effect, that the creator of that thing has done nothing original of any consequence. You are, quite literally, saying that the creator of the original work owns the offending artwork because it is the work of that creator. It isn't sort of like the work of that creator, it is, legally speaking, property owned by that creator because it is nothing more or less than a reproduction of an extant work of art.

So if you are going to say that, be an adult and tell me which products out there on the market involved no creative effort on the part of the artist. Name one. Just one. Even though you claimed that there are people out there who mostly don't create their own unique artwork, I only want you to give me one.

I want you post up a picture of the product, and post up a picture of the thing it is a copy of. I want you to tell that artist, in front of everyone on DakkaDakka, that what they created is not art because those two pictures show the same work of art.

If you can't do that, then you best stop talking about lines and morals, because a work of art requires a "minimal degree of creativity." That's it. You do that, you've got yourself a work of art that you enjoy your own rights to the instant that it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. For someone who is so concerned about people's rights, you seem to have forgotten that the rules apply equally to everyone.

See you're doing it again.

Copy.
Reproduction.
Morals.

Not my words? You might have a point if we were discussing counterfeit, but we are not. (Also a copy doesn't have to be an exact facsimile, you know that right? It's not my point but you might want to consider that maaan.)

You seem to be constructing an argument that isn't there to suit the point you are labouring to make. Are you my Mrs?

The law as you say is egalitarian but it is not specific enough to be clear every time. So the line doesn't exist, it's more of the idea of a line somewhere in a grey area. So it will be tested by legal cases as and when required.

I won't ask you to be an adult, a child should be able to get this.

 notprop wrote:

The flip side of that is that the poor little companies should also just make their artwork. The problem is that many don't so there exists a need for corporate entities to protect their (as they see it) assets.

Those are your words. The "problem" in your opinion is that "many" poor little companies don't "make their artwork," and instead trade off of someone else's artwork?

That's pretty damn unambiguous.

And no, a work does not have to be 100% the same to be a copy, but it does have to be substantially similar, which is why, if you actually read what I wrote, I said "When you say that something is a copy of something else, you are saying, in effect, that the creator of that thing has done nothing original of any consequence."

If the differences are insubstantial, it is a copy. If the differences are anything more than meaningless, it isn't a copy. And don't go throwing around derivative works, because there has to be a copy for a work to be derivative. A derivative work adds to or modifies a copy, leaving the copy within the work. So if you don't copy a work, you can't make a derivative work.

If you can't put your money where your mouth is and show an example of what you are talking about, then what you are saying is meaningless BS and you might as well quit harping on about it.