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.

I'm almost certain that Ketara's interpretation of the law is correct, as a very similar situation was put to the test in Lucasfilm versus Ainsworth, where Ainsworth won and was allowed to continue producing and selling storm trooper costumes. I can only assume that storm trooper miniatures would be the same. Since GW sculpts are made with the express purpose of casting "toys", the court would likely interpret the sculpts as industrial design rather than art, so they would fall under design rights rather than copyright.

I'm sad to hear that the law is changing. While I think it is important that creators are able to profit from their ideas, I would prefer to see IP laws relaxed so that creativity isn't stifled, and cool ideas aren't left to languish. I quite like the "use it or lose it" approach (similar to unregistered trademarks). If creators aren't doing anything with their ideas, then I don't see why other people shouldn't be allowed to pick them up and show them some love.

Hasn't there been a very deliberate push from GW to have their products redefined as 'art' in the public eye rather than 'toys' for this very reason?

Was that something that came up in the chapterhouse case or am I imagining that?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Hasn't there been a very deliberate push from GW to have their products redefined as 'art' in the public eye rather than 'toys' for this very reason?

Was that something that came up in the chapterhouse case or am I imagining that?

It was argued in CHS suit but became largely a moot point since GWs claims were invalid in a number of other ways.

It's hard for GW to push their models as "art" because of the fact that they are model kits. From how you purchase to how it's intended to be used there is a transformative expectation inherent to the product. In both US and UK law there are also numerical thresholds that automatically make "art" into just "industrial design" but it's more largely based on how the person is intended to use what is sold. You can not admire the aesthetic qualities of an unassembled kit in the same way you would if it were preassembled and painted to a high quality in a limited number of instances. Art vs toy comes down to the fact that neither you or GW intend you to buy its model kit solely for the aesthetic of an unassembled model kit... You get joy from building it, painting it, and playing with it and though it aesthetically pleases those othe purposes make it not "art".

What will happen is that wannabe Internet lawyers will think they've got the law on their side and recast stuff. They may well be right about the law being on their side. GW send a C&D with a threat for court action. Small guy hasn't got any money to see this through court and cover all the expenses so they have to fold. GW win again, regardless of the law.

This is how IP law goes over and over. It's not enough to be in the right, it's having the money to fight to prove it that lets you down.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What will happen is that wannabe Internet lawyers will think they've got the law on their side and recast stuff. They may well be right about the law being on their side. GW send a C&D with a threat for court action. Small guy hasn't got any money to see this through court and cover all the expenses so they have to fold. GW win again, regardless of the law.

This is how IP law goes over and over. It's not enough to be in the right, it's having the money to fight to prove it that lets you down.

Yes, plus the potential profit has to be worth enough for the risk. If it's just something you can exploit in the UK, the market is probably not be large enough to be worth exploiting. Couple that with the threat of litigation, and there are just better things to do with your time than rip off 30 year old sculpts.

The UK market is about £25 million a year. There must be a couple of hundred thousand pounds can be got out of that.

A garage industry, possibly using the spin-casting machines that GW sold off when they changed to plastic only.

Cast up a bunch of stuff, sell it, then when GW come after you close down.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What will happen is that wannabe Internet lawyers will think they've got the law on their side and recast stuff. They may well be right about the law being on their side. GW send a C&D with a threat for court action. Small guy hasn't got any money to see this through court and cover all the expenses so they have to fold. GW win again, regardless of the law.

This is how IP law goes over and over. It's not enough to be in the right, it's having the money to fight to prove it that lets you down.

Do you think GW would be so cavalier about legal action after the CHS case? Especially if it's pretty obvious they're legally in the wrong with a comparably similar recent precedent? All it takes is one fan with a Rothschild or an IP lawyer for a cousin after all, and suddenly GW could be repeating the whole CHS debacle again; only setting another precedent in the UK as well as the US. I'm of the opinion that for a few years gap over a handful of vintage models, they most likely wouldn't bother. It could never be a long term issue due to the change in law in 2020, so the self-rectifying nature of the problem would probably put them off anything too potentially expensive. A C&D would probably be issued if they thought it would work, but nought beyond that.

 Ketara wrote:
Do you think GW would be so cavalier about legal action after the CHS case? Especially if it's pretty obvious they're legally in the wrong with a comparably similar recent precedent? All it takes is one fan with a Rothschild or an IP lawyer for a cousin after all, and suddenly GW could be repeating the whole CHS debacle again; only setting another precedent in the UK as well as the US. I'm of the opinion that for a few years gap over a handful of vintage models, they most likely wouldn't bother. It could never be a long term issue due to the change in law in 2020, so the self-rectifying nature of the problem would probably put them off anything too potentially expensive. A C&D would probably be issued if they thought it would work, but nought beyond that.

Well, proof is in the pudding. Please give it a shot, and see what they do! I wait with baited breath

I suspect you could resculpt them the way the law seems set,

but I don't belive you'd get away with bunging a set of GW metal original in a mould and directly copying those

(not to mention unless you were really lucky the metals would probably show the effects of years of casting out of some pretty worn moulds)

If you messed around and invested the time and money getting them tidied up to the condition to make good re-casts you might as well get them totally resculpted to modern standards (and size) and then there would be even less chance of an issue anyway

 Ketara wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What will happen is that wannabe Internet lawyers will think they've got the law on their side and recast stuff. They may well be right about the law being on their side. GW send a C&D with a threat for court action. Small guy hasn't got any money to see this through court and cover all the expenses so they have to fold. GW win again, regardless of the law.

This is how IP law goes over and over. It's not enough to be in the right, it's having the money to fight to prove it that lets you down.

Do you think GW would be so cavalier about legal action after the CHS case? Especially if it's pretty obvious they're legally in the wrong with a comparably similar recent precedent? All it takes is one fan with a Rothschild or an IP lawyer for a cousin after all, and suddenly GW could be repeating the whole CHS debacle again; only setting another precedent in the UK as well as the US. I'm of the opinion that for a few years gap over a handful of vintage models, they most likely wouldn't bother. It could never be a long term issue due to the change in law in 2020, so the self-rectifying nature of the problem would probably put them off anything too potentially expensive. A C&D would probably be issued if they thought it would work, but nought beyond that.

So you'd feel comfortable calling their bluff and ignoring a C&D if you were pursuing what is suggested in this thread? Easy to say until actually receiving one. I don't think anyone can be sure that GW wouldn't be reckless again, mostly due to their hubris.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but I don't belive you'd get away with bunging a set of GW metal original in a mould and directly copying those.

Well "technically" that's exactly what you can do. Once the protected period is over, it's over. Of course, as has been said, what you are technically allowed to do and what the concerned parties would be willing to fight in court, might be very different.

I'm also not sure how copyrights work either on successor and derivative works.

For example, Star Wars was released in 1977. Does that mean that anyone can pop out Darth Vader masks and call them Darth Vader in the UK? How about creating light sabers and selling them as such? Or R2D2 models? Or are there subsequent protections because the character is used in sequels?

For that matter, how knocking off comic book character action figures that were invented a long time ago, like Captain America or the Fantastic Four...

I'm no expert at this. Just posing the question.

 Talys wrote:
I'm also not sure how copyrights work either on successor and derivative works.

For example, Star Wars was released in 1977. Does that mean that anyone can pop out Darth Vader masks and call them Darth Vader in the UK? How about creating light sabers and selling them as such? Or R2D2 models? Or are there subsequent protections because the character is used in sequels?

For that matter, how knocking off comic book character action figures that were invented a long time ago, like Captain America or the Fantastic Four...

I'm no expert at this. Just posing the question.

I think design rights is largely related to 3D shapes in the UK. The shape of the Darth Vader mask would likely be the same as the Storm Trooper helmets. The Darth Vader name is probably a registered trademark, I believe even the sound of his breathing is trademarked. The same with lightsabers, 3rd party toys exist, but the name is trademarked. I think protection is from the time of creation, so sequels shouldn't matter unless it is changed enough to become a new creation (possibly why they keep adapting the storm trooper helmets). Captain America and F4 would be trademarked names. The stories and images would be copyright. Elements of the costume might be trademarked (such as the superman logo), I believe the term Superhero is trademarked (or a trademark was sought). The costume is probably general enough that you could create a very similar looking character, and call him Captain USA or something (if that isn't already taken).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
What will happen is that wannabe Internet lawyers will think they've got the law on their side and recast stuff. They may well be right about the law being on their side. GW send a C&D with a threat for court action. Small guy hasn't got any money to see this through court and cover all the expenses so they have to fold. GW win again, regardless of the law.

This is how IP law goes over and over. It's not enough to be in the right, it's having the money to fight to prove it that lets you down.

Do you think GW would be so cavalier about legal action after the CHS case? Especially if it's pretty obvious they're legally in the wrong with a comparably similar recent precedent? All it takes is one fan with a Rothschild or an IP lawyer for a cousin after all, and suddenly GW could be repeating the whole CHS debacle again; only setting another precedent in the UK as well as the US. I'm of the opinion that for a few years gap over a handful of vintage models, they most likely wouldn't bother. It could never be a long term issue due to the change in law in 2020, so the self-rectifying nature of the problem would probably put them off anything too potentially expensive. A C&D would probably be issued if they thought it would work, but nought beyond that.

So you'd feel comfortable calling their bluff and ignoring a C&D if you were pursuing what is suggested in this thread? Easy to say until actually receiving one. I don't think anyone can be sure that GW wouldn't be reckless again, mostly due to their hubris.

I don't have any immediate plans to do the above, so I'm good.

That being said, if I did, the first thing I'd do is consult an IP lawyer. Assuming they confirmed my reading was correct, I'd have them issue GW with a legal letter notifying them of my intended course of action and citing the relevant laws and legal reasoning.