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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I wonder if the ratfolk one I'm backing will make it through...

8 days seems like a long way off. If the Not-Nighthaunt were pulled, which were a lot more distant to actual Nighthaunt than the Ravenous Horde is to Skaven, I fully expect them to be gone by the end of the week :(
Wonder who is the first with enough money to stand up to their bullying.

The strikes don't have to be the end - some of the ratmen are very similar and some are not. GW can't copyright the concept of ratmen in general, but might have issues with specific designs. Those could either be pulled or reworked.

If bedsheet ghosts can be shut down, so can rat people. I'd be interested to know how much weight GW puts on weapon loadouts in these cases as that's often the most direct way models integrate into GW games, but it also seems absurd to claim it as infringement.

usually it is the combination of several points, like icons, weapons, themes, that causes it

you just need to compare the Mantic Rats with those from the KS to see the difference, and the former are made in a way to avoid Skaven, while the others are modeled so people recognize them as Skaven to use them for Warhammer

there was never a question if GW would shut those down, but just how long it takes

 Ketara wrote:

 kodos wrote:
3 skulls in a circle can not
3 skulls in a circle on a mutated scifi soldier in armor can

it is not the symbol alone but in combination with the count as Space Marines

At best, it gives you an exceedingly weak case in a court of law for arguing that the other guy took inspiration from your work (it's three separate circles - hardly the Pepsi logo). It's a long, long, legal haul from pointing those out to being able to successfully argue that the -entire model- infringes upon a -specific expression of an idea- (aka, another Death Guard model with associated backstory) devised by Games Workshop. You'd need a damn sight more, and frankly, the Mark III style pad on one of them is far better evidence in that regard.

I'm not saying that that shoulder pad turns it into a strong case (it doesn't), but more that what people think is copyright protected, what GW claims is copyright protected, and what actually is are very different beasts.

it does not need to be a strong case, many weak ones that make up are enough
and the argument usually comes down to can someone recognize them as not being a rip off of the original model line or not, so the case won't be that clear in court

assuming you would have the money to fight them, it is hard to proof the your intention was to make unique SciFi mutant warriors in heavy armour and just by coincidence the symbols, armour and weapons look similar and you cannot copyright such symbols
GW is also in a better position as they were years ago, were brand recognition is part of the trial and today GW has came out of the niche and is wider known so this has more impact

overall, those KS are clearly modeled after a specific GW model line, hence KS stopped them and it is now on the creator of the 3D designs to proof that they are not

 kodos wrote:

assuming you would have the money to fight them, it is hard to proof the your intention was to make unique SciFi mutant warriors in heavy armour and just by coincidence the symbols, armour and weapons look similar and you cannot copyright such symbols
GW is also in a better position as they were years ago, were brand recognition is part of the trial and today GW has came out of the niche and is wider known so this has more impact
overall, those KS are clearly modeled after a specific GW model line, hence KS stopped them and it is now on the creator of the 3D designs to proof that they are not

Again, that's not how copyright works. If I sculpt a model, I don't need to prove my 'intention'. I'm fully allowed to sculpt a model with the intent of having it used in somebody else's game, much like how I'm allowed to make a plastic case that fits an iPhone. I don't need to put on some saintly 'Oh my, I just happened to sculpt a model that conveniently fits a Games Workshop game, teehee, how silly of me'. If I market a new 'Frosted Flakes' cereal, I don't need to prove that I had never heard of or have no intent of copying Frosties. I have to make sure not to steal any proprietary recipes, but just adding sugar to cornflakes is a common as hell idea and so they can't stop me from doing it.

What matters here is the letter of the law. Does my product infringe upon the -specific expression of an idea- as created by Games Workshop? In this case, the sculpts involved? If so, I'm breaching copyright. If not, everything else is irrelevant.

What is interesting in the Wraith KS case is that they claim it has copied 'a significant part of Games Workshop's expression of Nighthaunt'. Which is clearly ludicrous. Wraiths, skeletons, scythes, shrouds, and so on are extremely common and uncopyrightable concepts. They might have put those elements together in a similar way to Games Workshop, but that doesn't mean it breaches copyright - any more than Mickey Mouse breaches Batman's copyright because both are humanoid, use the colour black, have ears, and so on.

This is a very obvious case of stomping on the competition. With the Dark Gods, you could at least make a pretence that certain design elements (like the shoulder pads) on a handful of models had been copied. Here, there's sweet fanny adams in that direction. The Wraith KS may walk like the GW duck, quack like the GW duck, and sound like the GW duck - but that doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to own a duck because GW didn't invent ducks. Ducks were here first, owned by other people first, and will be here after GW is gone.

At least, theoretically, anyway. None of above means anything if GW can threaten to sue anyone else who owns a duck and they can't fight back.

Yes but if you breed a very specific breed of duck you can own that breed of duck. .. Actually lets puts ducks aside and use plants. You can very much breed your own variety of a plant with a unique flower and look and you can have that licenced so that only you (and those you sublicense too) can propagate and sell that specific plant.

Which is where GW is, or at least appears to be trying to be. They aren't claiming all bedsheet ghosts are theirs; just some that are super similar

plants are tricky, the EU is currently fighting the US ruling that you can patent said special plants which is limiting the possibilities of farmers to keep growing their own stuff without a license and use removes the natural plants of the regions from the markets

so you can do a lot if you make a special version of something generic and if the company has enough money you can control the market and remove everything but your special version from it

 Ketara wrote:
Again, that's not how copyright works

but this is how DMCA strikes work

you host your stuff on a 3rd party platform, a random guy opens a copyright claim on the stuff you host on that platform and now you need to proof that this copyright claim is wrong to the platform to open your project again

Kickstarter is no different to Youtube or Github in that case, and if the claim is made by a company with the possibility to sue the hosting platform, no further questions are asked

this is also used to take bad review videos on YT down, the companies just open a copyright claim and the video is gone until after the release as no matter how stupid it is it takes time to settle it and bring it back online

I'm fully allowed to sculpt a model with the intent of having it used in somebody else's game, much like how I'm allowed to make a plastic case that fits an iPhone.

of course you can, just don't put an Apple on that case or name "iCase" and you are fine

 Overread wrote:
Yes but if you breed a very specific breed of duck you can own that breed of duck. .. Actually lets puts ducks aside and use plants. You can very much breed your own variety of a plant with a unique flower and look and you can have that licenced so that only you (and those you sublicense too) can propagate and sell that specific plant.

Which is where GW is, or at least appears to be trying to be. They aren't claiming all bedsheet ghosts are theirs; just some that are super similar

The super-similarity in the case would only apply if it was a direct replica (aka recast level) of the original GW sculpt. Because that's what's protected. Not the concept of a half-skeleton in a shroud with a scythe. The sculpt itself is the copyrighted element, that's the -expression-. The bar for artistic originality in artwork is extremely low - to the point where you can literally take a copy of somebody's work, and tweak it sufficiently to generate a new copyright. Piecing together similar concepts does not equate to a copyright infringement.

Remember, ideas cannot be copyrighted.

Quite frankly, in making an 'undead' sculpt/army range, virtually all the Wraith KS elements could possibly even be held to fall under Scènes à faire. Even if not though, these are all original sculpts, using widely available public concepts. There is simply no way that they infringe. They are original sculpture and original copyrighted -expression of an idea- in their own right. The fact that Games Workshop bundles these selfsame generic concepts as a 'Nighthaunt' army grants them no additional legal protection. Otherwise they'd be suing over Dungeons and Dragons, Warcraft, Mantic, and a dozen other franchises. It's why they themselves didn't get sued for Necrons and Tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
plants are tricky, the EU is currently fighting the US ruling that you can patent said special plants which is limiting the possibilities of farmers to keep growing their own stuff without a license and use removes the natural plants of the regions from the markets

Just to clear this up (since it's been raised twice now), a patent is not a copyright. They both fall under IP law, but copyright is as different to patents as it is to trademarks. No genetically modified plant falls under copyright law, because copyright is there to protect fixed expressions of ideas. Patents protect inventions. Very different ball courts, and not relevant here.

Rihgu wrote:
If I know which Kickstarter you're talking about, the wraiths weren't really that generic. Much more Nighthaunt (smokey robes with skulls and arms and stuff) than say, every other generic wraith I've ever seen which is nothing more than a smokey robe.

So, Gravelord Nito from Dark Souls? Because that's the image that popped into my head from your description.

Almost like undead stuff featuring bones and skulls and smoky robes is so generic that it has been used literally everywhere.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
If I know which Kickstarter you're talking about, the wraiths weren't really that generic. Much more Nighthaunt (smokey robes with skulls and arms and stuff) than say, every other generic wraith I've ever seen which is nothing more than a smokey robe.

So, Gravelord Nito from Dark Souls? Because that's the image that popped into my head from your description.

Almost like undead stuff featuring bones and skulls is so generic that it has been used literally everywhere.

Okay, that thing is terrifying. It makes me think of that bathroom stall scene in The Grudge.

I looked at that wraith kings Kickstarter, and they clearly look like they are supposed to be night haunt to me. Same with the deathguard on the previous page are clearly deathguard. I'm not surprised at all they are getting c&d letters, honestly I'm surprised it took this long. If you're going to be trying to make money basically copying gws ip and aesthetic you're looking for trouble imo.

 jaredb wrote:
I looked at that wraith kings Kickstarter, and they clearly look like they are supposed to be night haunt to me. Same with the deathguard on the previous page are clearly deathguard. I'm not surprised at all they are getting c&d letters, honestly I'm surprised it took this long. If you're going to be trying to make money basically copying gws ip and aesthetic you're looking for trouble imo.

GWs night haunt aesthetic is not unique in any way.

Paint them all ghostly green and you could say it's the Army of the Dead from The Lord of the Rings (the book, not the film depiction) pretty easily.

Spectres and ghosts have been portrayed in fiction in such a wide variety of ways for so many years that anyone can just point at those depictions and say they are interpreting them into a model form and GW can't legally do squat because their models are just an interpretation of the same material.

It's exactly the same as the Bretonnians. You're adapting folklore, the only protection you have is if you make it truly unique, but that doesn't stop anyone from creating a Arthurian knight model, only from using your unique additions to the concept. What is unique about Nighthaunt that has never been depicted in any media prior to GW making these models?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I looked at that wraith kings Kickstarter, and they clearly look like they are supposed to be night haunt to me. Same with the deathguard on the previous page are clearly deathguard. I'm not surprised at all they are getting c&d letters, honestly I'm surprised it took this long. If you're going to be trying to make money basically copying gws ip and aesthetic you're looking for trouble imo.

GWs night haunt aesthetic is not unique in any way.

Paint them all ghostly green and you could say it's the Army of the Dead from The Lord of the Rings (the book, not the film depiction) pretty easily.

Spectres and ghosts have been portrayed in fiction in such a wide variety of ways for so many years that anyone can just point at those depictions and say they are interpreting them into a model form and GW can't legally do squat because their models are just an interpretation of the same material.

Agreed, there are lots of different types of ghosts. Nighthaunt models are very distinctive however. It's pretty obvious when someone is copying that aesthetic. Especially when making duplicates of unit types in the Nighthaunt army.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spectres and ghosts have been portrayed in fiction in such a wide variety of ways for so many years that anyone can just point at those depictions and say they are interpreting them into a model form and GW can't legally do squat because their models are just an interpretation of the same material.

I dunno, considering the Kickstarter has been taken down (temporarily perhaps) it does appear that GW can legally do squat.

Rihgu wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spectres and ghosts have been portrayed in fiction in such a wide variety of ways for so many years that anyone can just point at those depictions and say they are interpreting them into a model form and GW can't legally do squat because their models are just an interpretation of the same material.

I dunno, considering the Kickstarter has been taken down (temporarily perhaps) it does appear that GW can legally do squat.

What websites do often has little to do with whether the person making the claim has a legitimate claim. Just look at the many Youtube DMCA messes for evidence of that.

 jaredb wrote:
Agreed, there are lots of different types of ghosts. Nighthaunt models are very distinctive however. It's pretty obvious when someone is copying that aesthetic. Especially when making duplicates of unit types in the Nighthaunt army.

Are they, though? I mean, I'm not exactly sure what is it that makes them all that distinctive, TBF. Even the name is a one letter change from a H.P. Lovecraft critter. The one with the gallows might be a bit more distinctive, but the rest... eh.

They mostly look like someone at GW central took a peek at a D&D Monster manual focused in incorporeal undead. Maybe the Ravenloft one.

 jaredb wrote:
I looked at that wraith kings Kickstarter, and they clearly look like they are supposed to be night haunt to me. Same with the deathguard on the previous page are clearly deathguard. I'm not surprised at all they are getting c&d letters, honestly I'm surprised it took this long. If you're going to be trying to make money basically copying gws ip and aesthetic you're looking for trouble imo.

The fact that you can look at a very common theme through multiple fantasy tropes and ascribe it solely to GW says more about how little you've seen elsewhere, to be honest. It's a bit like assuming GW invented aliens because you personally never read a sci-fi. Literally two seconds googling those attributes produces hundreds of independent artworks which infringe no more or less than this KS did. There are so many examples both as art or as physical wargaming models that it really beggars belief that GW is attempting to claim ownership of the entire genre. Here are some of (literally thousands) of examples.

Because I just received a newsletter that is somehow relevant to this discussion on how platforms operate:
Amazon just updated their infringement policy, because they are forced to act immediately by German law if they receive an infringement complaint.
They don't verify the claims but lock the listing immediately.
So just like Kickstarter or other platforms.

The important thing from the newsletter is: you can counter-sue for obstruction of competition if those claims are unwarrented. I'm guessing other EU countries at least have similar rulings. I hope GW runs into the wrong creator who can stick it to them.

 Ketara wrote:
There are so many examples both as art or as physical wargaming models that it really beggars belief that GW is attempting to claim ownership of the entire genre. Here are some of (literally thousands) of examples.

none of those looks close to the Nighthaunt or the models in the KS

comapring them



those are not like 1000 other examples, but a little bit too close to the orginal and calling them Markers instead of Spells, won't do much

 Ketara wrote:

 jaredb wrote:
I looked at that wraith kings Kickstarter, and they clearly look like they are supposed to be night haunt to me. Same with the deathguard on the previous page are clearly deathguard. I'm not surprised at all they are getting c&d letters, honestly I'm surprised it took this long. If you're going to be trying to make money basically copying gws ip and aesthetic you're looking for trouble imo.

The fact that you can look at a very common theme through multiple fantasy tropes and ascribe it solely to GW says more about how little you've seen elsewhere, to be honest. It's a bit like assuming GW invented aliens because you personally never read a sci-fi. Literally two seconds googling those attributes produces hundreds of independent artworks which infringe no more or less than this KS did. There are so many examples both as art or as physical wargaming models that it really beggars belief that GW is attempting to claim ownership of the entire genre. Here are some of (literally thousands) of examples.

Spoiler:

Luckily, except for maybe the last 3, I don't look at those and see "nighthaunt". I see fairly generic wraiths/spectres/undead.
When I see nighthaunt, I think "nighthaunt". So there's got to be *something* about the designs that makes them noticeably unique.

 kodos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There are so many examples both as art or as physical wargaming models that it really beggars belief that GW is attempting to claim ownership of the entire genre. Here are some of (literally thousands) of examples.

none of those looks close to the Nighthaunt or the models in the KS

comapring them

Spoiler:

this is GW:


KS:


GW:


KS:

those are not like 1000 other examples, but a little bit too close to the orginal and calling them Markers instead of Spells, won't do much

It is interesting, because you see GW, stuff, while I see D&D incorporeal undead and living spells.

I guess it's true that people imprint to the first iteration they see of something.

Incidentally, whenever I see the term "nighthaunt" my mind reads "nightgaunt"

The Nighthaunt definitely draw from the same themes as many other undead.
But it's definitely true that they have a unique combination of those.

Does that mean GW has an ironclad case of IP infringement? Definitely not.
But it also doesn't mean they have absolutely nothing.

I certainly wouldn't want to gamble on a court battle if that court battle would take a lot of time and money.
So pulling the kickstarter or calling their bluff would be a hard call to make if I was in charge.
If I was Kickstarter themselves? Who really doesn't care about one tiny kickstarter? It's definitely not worth risking a fight with GW.

Is it fair? Not really. Is our legal system perfect in this regard? Absolutely not.

 kodos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There are so many examples both as art or as physical wargaming models that it really beggars belief that GW is attempting to claim ownership of the entire genre. Here are some of (literally thousands) of examples.

none of those looks close to the Nighthaunt or the models in the KS

comapring them

Spoiler:

this is GW:


KS:


GW:


KS:

those are not like 1000 other examples, but a little bit too close to the orginal and calling them Markers instead of Spells, won't do much

The inspiration is clear. However, they are not copies.
The scythe has hands attached, no chains. The swirly heads are just 3 heads, no chest. The hourglass is, well a floating hourglass - this one is pretty close, but GW can hardly claim this is an original idea.
Just because you see that they are similar, doesn't mean those are too similar. Because they are not. No idea is original and if you copy 80-90% like the wraith KS did and add 10-20% of your own ideas, that's enough.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Just because you see that they are similar, doesn't mean those are too similar. Because they are not. No idea is original and if you copy 80-90% like the wraith KS did and add 10-20% of your own ideas, that's enough.

I mean...





As said above, "The inspiration is clear. However, they are not copies".

 kodos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There are so many examples both as art or as physical wargaming models that it really beggars belief that GW is attempting to claim ownership of the entire genre. Here are some of (literally thousands) of examples.

none of those looks close to the Nighthaunt or the models in the KS

comapring them

Spoiler:

this is GW:


KS:


GW:


KS:

those are not like 1000 other examples, but a little bit too close to the orginal and calling them Markers instead of Spells, won't do much

...And that was the point where it crossed over from honest discussion to intellectual dishonesty.

You're totally correct. When I linked all the wraiths/skeletons/reapers -of which there are multiple versions in both the KS and Nighthaunt - I very much was NOT trying to draw a comparison between them and the amazingly copyrightable and totally innovative/original design of a giant scythe. In the same way I also wasn't trying to compare to the heading font, my pet cat, and thirty five million other things. Here, have some actual examples of the patently obvious things I was comparing my previous examples against from both GW and the KS. Since we apparently need to be that specific.



Skeletons, wraiths, and blades/scythes are not original IP or copyrightable beyond their exact expression, no matter how you configure them. Nor is a handful of ghostly skills coming out a treasure chest, or a really big hourglass.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The Nighthaunt definitely draw from the same themes as many other undead.
But it's definitely true that they have a unique combination of those.

Does that mean GW has an ironclad case of IP infringement? Definitely not.
But it also doesn't mean they have absolutely nothing.

I think I'm going to have to duck out of the legal discussion at this point. Every time I explain to someone that IP infringement focuses upon infringement of a fixed expression of an idea, rather than an idea itself; another person drops by to say 'But they look similar and one makes me think of the other, so that must mean that it's a viable legal case!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

It is interesting, because you see GW, stuff, while I see D&D incorporeal undead and living spells.

I guess it's true that people imprint to the first iteration they see of something.

True this. Something to do with growing older and having more experiences. When I see a plot point in a show or artistic design now, my brain goes 'Oh, that's just like X & Y'; whereas when I was 15, it was something new and original and interesting. It's surprisingly hard to be really original - most creators don't manage it more than a few times in their lives.

 Ketara wrote:

I think I'm going to have to duck out of the legal discussion at this point. Every time I explain to someone that IP infringement focuses upon infringement of a fixed expression of an idea, rather than an idea itself; another person drops by to say 'But they look similar and one makes me think of the other, so that must mean that it's a viable legal case!'

Don't forget the second part of the argument: "if KS pulled it, there must be something to it" (and not just a platform playing it safe and which may be exactly what they are legally obliged to do, as stated above).

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

I think I'm going to have to duck out of the legal discussion at this point. Every time I explain to someone that IP infringement focuses upon infringement of a fixed expression of an idea, rather than an idea itself; another person drops by to say 'But they look similar and one makes me think of the other, so that must mean that it's a viable legal case!'

Don't forget the second part of the argument: "if KS pulled it, there must be something to it" (and not just a platform playing it safe and which may be exactly what they are legally obliged to do, as stated above).

I mean, I know that Patreon at least has a legal team that reviews these things and I know that they will throw out/defend creators cases where they think it's BS. Maybe Kickstarter doesn't do the same thing, I don't know. I've never seen a case either way.

 Ketara wrote:
...And that was the point where it crossed over from honest discussion to intellectual dishonesty.

well than

it as a very simple case, GW just need to show Kickstarter those 2 pictures for them shut the project down
it does not matter if this is enough before the law and will hold in court, it does not matter if this is how copyright works or not

it just need to be enough for the hosting company to play it save and keep away from it, and everything else not the done by the lawyers of both parties

if the people validating the claim (and there are unless KS already uses an AI for that) see enough similarities the case is clear and not of their business any more

 kodos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
...And that was the point where it crossed over from honest discussion to intellectual dishonesty.

well than

it as a very simple case, GW just need to show Kickstarter those 2 pictures for them shut the project down
it does not matter if this is enough before the law and will hold in court, it does not matter if this is how copyright works or not

it just need to be enough for the hosting company to play it save and keep away from it, and everything else not the done by the lawyers of both parties

if the people validating the claim (and there are unless KS already uses an AI for that) see enough similarities the case is clear and not of their business any more

Never a truer word was spoken. That's been the running theme here:- GW is busy firing out C&D's regardless of legal merit, in a fashion which we haven't seen since pre-Chapterhouse and the third party bitz companies. Hence why people are suddenly battening down/switching to other sites.

 kodos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
...And that was the point where it crossed over from honest discussion to intellectual dishonesty.

well than

it as a very simple case, GW just need to show Kickstarter those 2 pictures for them shut the project down
it does not matter if this is enough before the law and will hold in court, it does not matter if this is how copyright works or not

it just need to be enough for the hosting company to play it save and keep away from it, and everything else not the done by the lawyers of both parties

if the people validating the claim (and there are unless KS already uses an AI for that) see enough similarities the case is clear and not of their business any more

We have seen the C&D letter to KS.
As stated above, KS may be legally required to take action immediately, even before verifying claims.
A campaign being pulled is not "case clear".

We have seen campaigns go back live after KS investigation like the Signum one where Sans-Detour tried to throw them under the bus for similarities to the Rackham Confrontation line.