# GW's Lawsuit Stopping Releases?



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Cred to the DakkaDakkas _Kroothawk_ and _Straightsilver_ and BOLS _barcode_!

Found this stuff which might prove interesting to folks.



> The plot is thickening now:
> 
> via DakkaDakka's Kroothawk:
> 
> ...



Lets try to stay away from random flame wars shall we? 
Does this sound reasonable, or plain bull? I think there might be some gem hidden here...

Have at it folks!


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

I suppose there is some merit to the argument. All the companies that have produced giant bionic riding wolves could now theoretically sue GW if they brought out their version of thunderwolves. While this will probably never happen, it would certainly make them hesitant to release anything that might bring this on.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

I am not an expert in US intellectual property law (assuming that is the correct and only jurisdiction applcable); however, as there is already an HQ on Thunder Wolf I cannot see how other studios could challenge the release of others. Similarly taking the toys based around the Bugs from Starship Troopers as a comparison GW Tyranid kits have a distinct image which makes them a separate artistic endeavour rather than simply spiky bug aliens.

So, I think that the analysis is too simplistic; however I could foresee GW wanting to insulate themselves against a tactical counter-suit from Chapterhouse Studios to avoid having to over define their IP before they had a precedent that their IP could be infringed by a Chapterhouse-like sculpt.


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Do you see this? THIS IS MY ANGRY FACE! :ireful2:

I specifically chose not to play Tyranids because they lacked a Tervigon/Tyrannofex model. My knowledge of business and law is minuscule at best so I cannot really comment on that side. I suppose the prospect of an entire army lineup of miniatures being released at once is very nice. It just annoys the hell out of me to think that other companies can just come along and "scoop" miniatures out of a GW book, thus denying the inevitable (and much higher quality) GW miniatures.

Assuming any of this is real.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> I am not an expert in US intellectual property law (assuming that is the correct and only jurisdiction applcable); however, as there is already an HQ on Thunder Wolf I cannot see how other studios could challenge the release of others. Similarly taking the toys based around the Bugs from Starship Troopers as a comparison GW Tyranid kits have a distinct image which makes them a separate artistic endeavour rather than simply spiky bug aliens.
> 
> So, I think that the analysis is too simplistic; however I could foresee GW wanting to insulate themselves against a tactical counter-suit from Chapterhouse Studios to avoid having to over define their IP before they had a precedent that their IP could be infringed by a Chapterhouse-like sculpt.


what dave said, though i would add that if there is any part of this that is true i hope that its the part that GW will release every bloody model and kit they put in the codex within a shorter period of time like they have with DE/GK/OK (and i think TK too if memory serves). For no other reason than its just sensible to do so,by all means do it in waves but dont take 2 years and counting to do it.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

I always thought that ideas and concept were protected by IP laws... Because ideas and concepts ar IP. 

Take the tervigon as mentioned... No-one will argue that the first mention anyone saw of it was in GW Tyranid codex. No-one will argue that in there is also where the first concept of the look of it that anyone outside of the company would have seen. Therefore to me the idea and concept of a tervigon are 100% GW IP. 

Soo.. by that, if someone was to make a model and call it a tervigon, say its for use as the tyranid tervigon, and have based it off the design concepts of the tervigon mention in the GW IP, that is most defiantely infringement.

It would be like me hearing that say Ford was going to make a new mondeo car, but with tailfins and a rolls royce grill, and then my producing of that car before they did and calling it the Mondeo grintail.. I've stolen their ideas and concept and used them to profit for myself. No-one would argue that after Ford made that idea public that I've stolen it from them, so should be guilty of IP theft.


Now thats the sketchy stuff... but no-one can deny that with their Salamanders shoulder pads etc, they have defiantely stolen GW designs. That should be enough to convict them. The Salamanders symbol had been around for years in GW artwork etc, so making a space Marine style shoulderpad, with it on, is defiantely 100% theft of GW IP.


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

I call bullshit on it simply because in one sentence he says that they need to keep the investors happy and want to stay away from sales bubbles .... when earlier he said that they want to release full waves. This would create these sales bubbles. I honestly think that this is just GW dragging their feet, simple as that.


----------



## Dicrel Seijin (Apr 2, 2011)

GrizBe said:


> Now thats the sketchy stuff... but no-one can deny that with their Salamanders shoulder pads etc, they have defiantely stolen GW designs. That should be enough to convict them. The Salamanders symbol had been around for years in GW artwork etc, so making a space Marine style shoulderpad, with it on, is defiantely 100% theft of GW IP.


I'd say even this is sketchy since the mythological salamander that the Salamander SMs are based on have been around for hundreds of years. It is mentioned in the quotes of the OP that one question is: Can GW create a design based on historical elements and have a design that is copyrightable? 

Now I don't agree with CHS and their decision to use the language they did on their website, but I do think that forcing the issue for clarity is a good thing (though it most likely will be a pyrrhic victory for CHS).

If this law can be cited as precedent, then any miniatures manufacturer could create models of the mythological bestiaries of any given culture and cite IP copyright to prevent others from making any models. 

I think this is one thing that the court will have to consider, since it will affect the miniatures manufacturers beyond GW and CHS.


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

I have nothing to to add to the debate as I'm in no way legal minded, however, with regards to Thunderwolves, I'd like to say 'bugger'.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Dicrel Seijin said:


> If this law can be cited as precedent, then any miniatures manufacturer could create models of the mythological bestiaries of any given culture and cite IP copyright to prevent others from making any models.


That is not quite the point they are trying to use. It's the combination of already known elements can combining them together and does that combination count as original. GW aren't claiming to have invented the Griffon but an Elf in space, robes, using runic symbols etc that might constitute an original work even though it's a composition of pre-existing ideas.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> That is not quite the point they are trying to use. It's the combination of already known elements can combining them together and does that combination count as original. GW aren't claiming to have invented the Griffon but an Elf in space, robes, using runic symbols etc that might constitute an original work even though it's a composition of pre-existing ideas.


This. It isn't that GW are trying to copyright a mythological creature, but that GW made up that specific design for the creature as a chapter, and then Chapter House used that identical symbol and claimed it as their own product.

Given my previous example... It would be like my building an identical ford mondeo and calling it a ford mondeo, when i've made it in my shed with stolen plans. In no way is it a real ford mondeo despite any claims I could make that it is. Thats what CH is doing... stealing ideas and concepts and claiming them as his own.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Why is it being done under US copyright law?


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Because Chapterhouse are based in the US.


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

> And it's also possible that Dark Eldar were too successful. Their sales beat expectation, but may be the reason another release has been put on hold (won't say which one but I think it's obvious). Having all your 40K sales in one year would then result in negative growth the following year unless GW had more products to release.


This, this right here is what really gets me.
If you have nothing to say then don't say anything.
This is one of the many reasons many rumour mongers get a lot of flack, they act as if everyone is at least partly 'in the know' so when they inevitably leave stuff out, acting like it was obvious to everyone they come off as being egotistical and elitist.

And NO, it isn't obvious at all. Sisters? Every rumour-monger when quiet right after the WDex which seems to mean they are a long way off, that their rumours only pertained to early development and the WDex itself whether knowingly or not, Tau? They have been stated to be next year for a long time now.
BT, DA, and CMs didn't even start to get whispered about till recently as is so it was a stupid comment to make.

Granted the subject at hand didn't really relate to who got held back but if your going to mention it, you mention it.

Meanwhile, What is CH trying to prove here? That they can shoot themselves in the foot for fun?
GW behaviour, though seemingly psychopathic at times, is pretty standard for a business. CH, a small time independent studio own behaviour is petty and childish with none of the justification that a Big Business like GW would have.

Nothing personal, but I hope they are dragged across coals for this.
I'm far from a GW supporter as of late, but CH's behaviour has no justification.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Why is it being done under US copyright law?


i can only fathom that if a company sued a different company, in a different country, the sued company gets the benefit of having the court case being done in their country's courts.

--------

i can both sides of the argument if GW releases fluff for a model that is a "child birthing" creature. some other company can create their own "child birthing" creature (could be spiders, could be something near Tyranid-light) and if GW then proceeds to release their own model the other company (company "B") could potentially sue GW for violating their IP & for damages.

--------

personally i think this is GW's fault for not just ignoring all these other companies & just release something. they could easily have a gentleman's agreement that until GW produces the "tervigon" model you can make substitutes, but they must be removed within 48 hours of GW's release.

this way GW doesnt have "money bubbles" and other companies dont have to worry about getting put out of business. seems like a win-win scenario to me.

CHS may be pushing the line on their own stuff, which is why GW is suing them in the 1st place, but CHS puts out things that are "compatible" with *insert GW army here* so i think that they are mini-skirting the fine line of IP infringement.


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

Fallen said:


> they could easily have a gentleman's agreement


The problem with a gentlemen agreements is, who gets the gentleman?

More to the point, two relatively unrelated companies making a verbal arrangement with no legal binding structure? Yeah, hows that gonna work out.
And any legal contracts they draw up would ultimately be more trouble then it's worth.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

From my recollection US copyright law isn't exactly strenuous. Heck Edison stole a number of patents


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

well in the case of the tervigon its a conversion kit for the carnifex so it would be impossible for anyone to claim they had the idea before GW. I dont for one second think anything in the OP is genuine, as usual some people have come together over a beer and come up with a conspiracy about which they truely know nothing about,even if GW loose this case, they will be watching everything CHS do from now on like a sqiug watches a grot and eventually they will get them one way or another, CHS wont be able to keep getting freebie legal aid forever, at some point the law firm will want cash money and GW are better placed to play the long game than CHS.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Kettu said:


> they act as if everyone is at least partly 'in the know' so when they inevitably leave stuff out, acting like it was obvious to everyone they come off as being egotistical and elitist.
> 
> And NO, it isn't obvious at all. Sisters? Every rumour-monger when quiet right after the WDex which seems to mean they are a long way off, that their rumours only pertained to early development and the WDex itself whether knowingly or not, Tau? They have been stated to be next year for a long time now.
> BT, DA, and CMs didn't even start to get whispered about till recently as is so it was a stupid comment to make.


WOW you managed to not mention the ONE thing that was 200% guaranteed, obviously what he meant: Necrons.

DUH


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't buy it.

If I write a book, and in it I describe a unique character, complete with concept art, name, back story and so on, copyright the book, and then someone reads it and starts producing models of exactly that character without my permission, I fail to see how I could possibly be sued for breach of copyright if I created and sold my own models of my own character. That's the biggest load of bullshit I've heard from the rumour mill yet.

Think about it - if I wrote a book about a guy called "Farseer", drew pictures of "Farseer" and the story about him, his world, his race, his fictional universe and so on, and copyrighted the book, there is no way any judge would find me guilty of copyright infringement if a company had been making models of "Farseer" without my acknowledgement, consent or approval and tried to launch a lawsuit against me for doing the same.

There is certainly no way in hell it's affecting the release of an entire army.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I find it to be an interesting thought, but it seems too much like someone throwing things against the wall to see what sticks. Could they be concerned about this? It's possible, but not likely.

Why? Well GW is most likely covered by International Copywrite agreements between the UK and other countries (fun fact: I did a quick little bit of searching and found that the US basis it's copywrite laws on international standards to prevent confusion and make transfer of protection easier (among other reasons I'm sure)) so there shouldn't be any major issues about protecting their IP.

On the other hand I would assume there is either a lack of model, or perhaps difficulty with the proposed mold, OR their trying to figure out how to have the Tervigon look sufficently good without looking like the orifice is rated "M".

Afterall, I'm sure GW doesn't want to be involved in "Tyranids: The Porno".


----------



## Kettu (Nov 20, 2007)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> WOW you managed to not mention the ONE thing that was 200% guaranteed, obviously what he meant: Necrons.
> 
> DUH


Hmm, I seem to have forgotten cleanly about the poor Egyptian T-800s. :headbutt:

Although, just to cast some dispersion on that, BL delayed one if not more books featuring Necrons because of new or changed information about them that needed to be altered within the book itself.

BL and GW don't even bother trying to time their releases with exception to the small novelettes tht follow the new editions, so I doubt they just made up the excuse. So Necrons were probably more delayed over last minute changes then because DE revamp did what it was supposed to do and sold.

*@Sethis*; Copyright law is a vast, complex and screwed up. And oddly enough, a product in one medium does not necessarily mean that it's protected across mediums. 

You could describe a fictional object in extremely vivid detail, to the point that if a picture was ever drawn of it, there could never be a mistake that it was what you wrote and yet, if someone else made a picture of it, they may very well not have broken the law. Yet, if you then followed within the same medium and drew your own picture, they may very well have grounds to tear you down instead, regardless of the fact you wrote about it first.

Law is a bitch that way.


----------



## Zer0 (Jan 13, 2009)

I actually hope this rumor is true as it means there is a reason for the Tervigon delay other than GW not caring about 'Nids. Now I'm no expert on patent law, but if anyone on here has some credentials in the field I'm sure we'd all love to hear you weigh in. 
Now speaking from experience, the company I work for makes industrial equipment but most of our profit (at least in my division) comes from service contracts. What our competitors do is design parts to work in our machines so they can beat us out of contracts, so what CHS is doing isn't unique. 
Couldn't GW just pull their own fast-one on CHS by having Forgeworld release their own Tervigon conversion kit. I'm sure that'd be a cost effective stop-gap until this whole legal thing is sorted out and then they can release a full plastic kit.


----------



## jimbo1701 (Apr 5, 2009)

OK, on the onehand I can see how GW are in a difficult position with this one and how a change of approach to releasing 80% of the new plastics/finecast alongside the codex would mean a peak and trough in there sales. For the fans it's also pretty annoying as this inevitable conflict has left us with delayed releases. 

One the other hand, there are several other things that come out of this:
1. 40K is what people want - give them more or someone else will. Make releases more regular and step up the operation in general.
2. Listen to what customers want - if they're crying out for thunderwolves and tervigons, give them to them or, as above, someone else will.
3. Use WD as more than a (progressively worsening) advertising rag. Release new non-codex models and add the rules in to WD. This way it won't matter if you release the majority of the models with the codex as 3rd party guys can't copy models which don't exist in the codex and as a result you can expand the range/sales plus sell more WDs. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

sadly l know nothing of US laws but they must be carful.

for example Afghanistan has no copyright laws so if they were doing it from there GW would be kind of fuck and can't do anything about it.

other countries only count work thats been published, (example Australia) so unpublished work won't count ect, ect. 

l think US does have it for unpublished or l hope so if not CH might roll them.


----------



## Adramalech (Nov 10, 2009)

The Design elements alone are not enough, but the combination thereof unique to the eldar could be copyrighted or considered IP. real question is then "are there enough design elements shared between the two products to constitute copyright/IP infringement?"


----------



## Chimaera (Feb 1, 2010)

Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW. If CHS have caused a slow down/halt in GW product release because they want to be bloody minded and not play the game like other 3rd parties. They deserve all the hate that will be heading their way. CHS are scoring a massive own goal ultimately and I hope they pay the price for their stupidity. No love for CHS from this callsign at this point in time.


----------



## jaysen (Jul 7, 2011)

The Tervigon that chapterhouse makes is only a few extra bits to add to a carnifex model. Who wants to pay $25 in addition to paying for the base model? Plus, the result looks sorta rediculous.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Whether i am right or wrong on this i see that GW to some extent has itself to blame, i mean look at what they do, release Codexes with particular fluff and then drag their collective arses for years to bring out Codex stuff.

I mean has anyone seen a GW manufactured Hydra Flak Tank, that ordinary punters can walk in off the street and buy one, no you have to order it from FW.

I have always believed if it appears in the Codex then GW should sell it through their shelves.

That is my harsh opinion on the matter.

For too long GW has been a very lazy company in supplying product that appears in it's codexes or army books.

Example

40K Orks

The new codex was brought out in January 2009 and so far GW has never brought out a Wazdakka Gutsmek, Old Zogwort or Flash Gitz.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

sybarite said:


> sadly l know nothing of US laws but they must be carful.
> 
> for example Afghanistan has no copyright laws so if they were doing it from there GW would be kind of fuck and can't do anything about it.
> 
> ...


Secondary Patents such as in medicine can apply to different countries, some pharmcutical companies will not allow generics to be sold or manufactured, especially in poor countries such as on the African Continent, they will prohibit such generic manufature, while in rich countries like Australia the Government actually encourages the use of generics to lower the health budget cost and so the Pharma will allow the manufacture of generics.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Achaylus72 said:


> Whether i am right or wrong on this i see that GW to some extent has itself to blame, i mean look at what they do, release Codexes with particular fluff and then drag their collective arses for years to bring out Codex stuff.
> 
> I mean has anyone seen a GW manufactured Hydra Flak Tank, that ordinary punters can walk in off the street and buy one, no you have to order it from FW.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to GW to finish what they start now that other companies are nipping at their heels. I can understand their rationale to stagger a release to keep some excitment going, but GW need to look around and realise they are no longer alone in the wargame industry, and if they don't make it, someone esle will - Mantic's 'Squats' are a good example of this practice, as well as Chapter Houses efforts.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I have to correct something i previously wrote and that the current Ork Codex came out in 2007 and not 2009 as stated.


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

Looking at the Chapterhouse website, and from my experiences with IP Laws... This all sounds very credible, IP is a very murky subject.. add in that most of the GW products are made in the UK, someone in the USA may be able to defend them better. 

Its quite common in all industys to put things on hold if they have even the slightest chance of makeing a IP issue any more confusing. So yes sounds like it could be credible.. with luck the issues will be resolved the court will make a nice ruleing and GW's "Worse Case" will not come about and they will start to relise models again.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

If I were GW and this was all true I would be looking at how I could seriously thin down Codecies to avoid giving any ground on my IP.

I would add much fewer units and lean towards wargear options for those units.
I would limit the number of special characters to a minimum and move all that over to FW and its IA series.

This way I could release a wave with the codex including all the units.

I think if this IP case holds true, and its now in the realms of lawyers at which we all become laymen, then it will have two end effects - a much stripped down approach by GW with some fairly bland and certainly poorly balanced armies on the near horizon and the death of companies like CH as there won't be any un-released options.
It would be sad to see the hobby go this way, at the moment I like to convert my models for un-made weapon options, for those that want them there are "space knight" and "techno-orc" etc kits which are easily useable. To fight for picking rights over another companies created universe is to miss a point which all the other independant conversion bits manufacturers seem to grasp.

If the court rules in favour of CH then it is really doing a dirty on GW, it's a shame this has escalated to this level to be honest.

The thing that all have to remember in this case is that GW's product is it's IP, it has allowed GW to market a product which nobody else can use the brand of, it allowed them to flesh out the setting, write BL books, produce games and hone their product - which is pretty fine stuff imho, run stores and self promote.
If the IP protections and rights are reduced in scope or there are signs that GW creating new stuff in print but not in production does not grant them exclusive rights to it then they will simply stop producing new IP as its a zero return investment, this can only be a bad thing.

I for one would not touch a CH product after this case, not because I don't like them, not because I don't want the weapon options, not pricing, not range - but because what they are attempting is damaging to the hobby and I cannot forgive them for that. When you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar, take the cookie then take the punishment like a man but don't insist you should have owned it in the first place.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

GW's main problem is that their products, particularly 40k, have been such runaway wargaming successes that they've ended up with lots of companies hitching a ride on their bandwagon to cash in on it, though only Chapterhouse have been stupid or brazen enough to actually come out and admit it. Personally I would argue that in Chapterhouse's case such an admission alone is enough to constitute a clear breach of intellectual property and copyright. 

The fact that Chapterhouse are making money from it and intended to do so from the start denies them even the 'fair use' defence that I see so many times on Youtube. That said Chapterhouse have found someone willing to argue their case, pro bono if I recall correctly, so GW's lawyers obviously need to make sure they've got a winning case before going to court proceedings. Personally I hope that GW win, not only to help preserve intellectual property but also because it'll force a lot of companies (notably Mantic) to come up with an original Sci-fi model range rather than leeching off or copying GW.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I know nothing specific about IP law myself, but I am calling major bs on this. I have a good friend who literally wrote his Ph.D. thesis on US IP law, and is the course convenor of IP law at a good university. Documented ideas are protected just as heavily as physical designs.

This is why I am calling bs.

It may well be that there is some reason why a model produced by a 3rd party cannot be reasonably linked to GW IP (which I suspect is the likely case), which then causes a legal argument to begin (because, obviously, GW are likely to feel that a 3rd party shouldn't be able to sculpt models based on their IP). However, to suggest that ideas and concepts, when they are documented in literature, are not protected, is simply wrong.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

This is going to cost GW more then if they had just left it alone. They made CHS famous by doing this. A majority of their original stuff is ok, but GW is by far better. Their Add On kits make me want to buy more GW stuff to work on certain armies.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

djinn24 said:


> This is going to cost GW more then if they had just left it alone..


I think the (right or wrong) "dont defend it, dont own it" clause (ho ho ho) is the problem here, the blatantism of CH meant that GW felt threatened.


----------



## LordOfAbsolution (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't know much about IP yet, still getting my head around it. I also don't know who's at fault in this, whether GW are just being silly or what not.

but what I do know of IP is that you can never copyright any rule systems... artwork, names, stories, etc. however you can, so I guess it all depends on how close to the artwork everything is maybe. 

at the end of the day I know GW are bitchin' because they won't get the money for CH selling their products but at least Chapterhouse could of been more subtle in their shop listings, instead of saying 'yes, this is for tyranids, this is for Eldar, etc.' they could of done it like scribor... clearly scribor are sat there whrisping into your ear stating 'look at this cool 28mm sci-fi templar model, its not black templars, but we're not going to stop you using it as a marshal' and that's what's kept scribor safe really they don't openly say that their products are to be used with GW stuff.

it's like its a fine line with normal gamers and modellers converting their own stuff, if you convert 'x' thing to make 'y' thing to use as 'z' units GW don't mind infact they incourage it, but if you EVER try and sell that thing as 'z' unit, thats a bit no, no.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i think GW could work their way around this (and keep a multiple wave format that they desire) would be to put a picture of all models that were not released in the painted minis section of the codexs; this also will sell more copies of codexs when they are released, and it will set IP copyrights on the model themselves.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I agree. I predict that the real legal issue here is that GW may have no way to establish an irrefutable link between the models sculpted by CH and GW IP. However, if they started to publish detailed images and artwork to accompany every model in a codex, I suspect it would be much more difficult to circumvent GW's wishes with regard to third party sculpting.

And, what's more, it'd make the codices bloody awesome. I actually think that there *should* be a detailed picture of all units (I know most come with images, but many don't).


----------



## Thornin (Dec 9, 2011)

The Sullen One said:


> force a lot of companies (notably Mantic) to come up with an original Sci-fi model range rather than leeching off or copying GW.


I would disagree with that statement. I'm no mantic fanboy but they have come up with many alternatives to gw products using different ideas and even pushed their own ideas forward. I wouldn't say leeching I would call it war gamers in harder financial times looking elsewhere for there models and spending differently.

That said it never bothered gw before stealing other peoples concepts and chucking out models or fluff to fit the world of war hammer or 40k if they really could get their asses into gear unlike in the past figure ranges wouldn't have had huge holes where regiments or characters should go


----------



## LordOfAbsolution (Jul 22, 2009)

Baltar said:


> And, what's more, it'd make the codices bloody awesome. I actually think that there *should* be a detailed picture of all units (I know most come with images, but many don't).


indeed, take the stormraven for example (off the top of my head I'm sure their wasn't art in the BA book) for months people were converting stuff to what they thought the stormraven looked like unless the actual model was released, if someone was to publish it as the stormraven GW would of been in the same boat as they are now.

tbh, the best thing that can happen for GW is that they win and force the company to close (bad for CH), but in all fairness best thing for the players would be for them to make an agreement with chapterhouse that they can still make conversion kits for some things but give GW some of the profit, a lot like forgeworld.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Is anyone aware of the status on this case?
Have they started it up?
Is it close to done?


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

The basic problem would that a model company that also publishes rules cannot create important voids in the model range and not expect someone to step in. The only reason a model company would do that is that the were cocky enough to expect that no one would dare. They'd take their customer base for granted, possibly. Or they'd expect that they could bully any other company into backing off.

Not that any sanely manged company would do that.

Phil


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

boreas said:


> The basic problem would that a model company that also publishes rules cannot create important voids in the model range and not expect someone to step in. The only reason a model company would do that is that the were cocky enough to expect that no one would dare.


but this here is the problem that we have ran into now. How does GW claim IP, successfully, for a model that they have not released to the public? (Im assuming that GW has made renders of the sprue and whatnot already)

at the same time CHS has gone around with an attitude like "well, you (GW) havent made it, produced a picture (of a model), or anything of importance other than to write rules and fluff for a game that you promote. Now YOUR customers have been wanting this/these products for a while now and you did not supply to the demand. we did."

which is a semi-arrogant viewpoint but realistically there is very little that makes this case fall lopsidedly in either direction; for instance "does IP cover/protect a model making company that did not release a model, that has turned out to become very popular within that company's game system?"


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I think the IP question that's being missed by this - to borrow GrizBe's metaphor is if Ford makes a mondeo and I make aftermarket parts am I infringing their IP?

 My parts go on their car. I didn't make the car. 
 This is exactly what a lot of the add on retailers are doing. And it seems foolish to not market an add-on product as going with space marines or tyranids, as long as the manufacturer doesn't claim to have or own that which they don't - namely the source material.
 What they are doing is building and growing the aftermarket on GW products, which I would think should encourage growth for GW, since you can't use shoulder pads without marines to stick them on.

As far as I know (which with IP laws isn't very far) creating an automotive add-on part doesn't require licensing. If a company would get a license from Ford then all the better for both parties. The add-on is endorsed and Ford likely gets a licensing fee/royalty of some sort. But if some new party wants to make salamandar doors for my Ford Mondeo, awesome.

I'm also curious if Chapterhouse ever claimed to own the IP on the source material? Or how the precedent is set when creating those models and in what relation they actually are to the creative background.

And of course, there's a certain amount of beautiful irony in this. As its been pointed our earlier in this thread - GW have taken very liberally from other's IP in the past and mostly gotten away with it.


Cheers,
Kreuger


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Chapterhouse were naive but equally GW need to take some responsibility, GW released 4 new model when nids were redone which didn't include one of the most essential units in the book, with no ews whether they would ever be released they can't just leave players dangling like that 

Seer bikes have had rules for > 15 years but no models 

TT whole super heavy walker, tau WTF , other than the guns looking like railguns has nothing similar to tau in its function form or aestics

Yet despite the growth of community driven by the web, GW have decieded to shut themselves off like willy wonka. which eencouages people to try and fill te gaps, as is fair within a western free enerprise and capitalist market

When this started I thought fair enough CH have been stupid they deseave everything they get. now i honestly think GW need to wake up and smell the bacon, CH should still get a stern talking to, but maybe they should get taken in as franchised company. At the end of the day, as far as i can tell CH only make 1 decent kit the stormraven extension (my ordering of 2 has nothing to do with my change on this issue) and are merely providing what GW refuses to


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I dont think gw have a legal issue with people making aftermarket parts,thet have a problem when the people making the parts start using ip and trademarks and plastering the website with gw terminilogy which could be considered confusing for the consumer or in some cases blatant infringement,only chapter house is in court because only chapterhouse overstepped the mark


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Hang on.

CH are in court because GW *claim* they overstepped the mark. The court will decide whether or not they actually are over the line. They could well find that they aren't. IP law is a swamp of bullshit.


----------



## Karyudo-DS (Nov 7, 2009)

Barnster said:


> Seer bikes have had rules for > 15 years but no models


Or say, the Warp Spider Exarch's alternate weapons, Dark Angels Belial, etc. I can see holding some things for a later release but when you've upgraded through several editions of the game and the Dark Angels still don't have models for their HQ's? Seriously? So I blame GW for that, though if ay CH or anyone else decided to blatantly "fill the gap" they wouldn't be right either whether I agreed with them doing it or not.

On the other hand if I took the CH Farseer and Striking Scorpion, painted them up and put them in my army I guarantee that non-40K players wouldn't know they weren't related and I suspect some 40K players wouldn't either...


----------



## Cobby (Jan 30, 2012)

I do not fully understand legal issues so I cannot comment on that area although I would be disapointed if the thunderwolves were not released.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

I still pray to the wolf god every night before bed that one day we will see thunderwolves... I'm hoping they were just holding them back for 6th ed now...


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

technically thunder wolves already exist and can be purchased from GW, your problem lies in the fact they have not been released in a cheaper plastic multipart kit, but GW never said or indicated that they ever would.


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

My point won't be in regards to the actually legality and IP side. Just two points:

1. Thunderwolves, as stated. 

Surely if they made their TW look like this:








then NO ONE could claim that they did it first? Problem solved, everyone gets to have TW.

2. In regards to the whole thing about the release schedule and having no miniatures for units from the get go, there's a solution that protects GW's IP and means they can have wave releases. Design everything at a green or 3d level before release, and for the models that don't get made for release, put pictures of all the greens for them on the website on release day. Builds a bit of hype, let's us see what we'll be getting in the future, protects their IP. I would have thought that would stop anyone else making them then suing? 

GW, all your problems have been solved :wink:


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

So let me see if I can wrap my brain around this clusterfuck. CH are making kits that add directly onto GW kits because they havent (for whatever reason) released them yet themselves (alternate farseer, thunderwolf something or other, salamander accessories, tervigon conversion kit, etc) and as a result claiming they came up with the IP, sueing GW, thus preventing GW from releasing the real model? 

Really, CH? Really?


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

To be the Devil's advocate here: GW was sueing CH for using GW's IP and CH used that as a countermove. If GW was doing it's job properly as a model company, they'd release each in every model for which they make rules in a reasonnable amount of time.

GW's lazyness and "we don't give a crap 'cause we're so big" has come back to bite them in the ass. Hope there's a lesson learned, GW (haha, yeah, like if...).

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

boreas said:


> GW's lazyness and "we don't give a crap 'cause we're so big" has come back to bite them in the ass. Hope there's a lesson learned, GW (haha, yeah, like if...).
> 
> Phil


Do you actually have *any* concept of times involved and processes involved in getting sculpting projects done within a release timetable when dealing with codeces? 

I do. They aren't lazy, they do give a crap, and virtually every sculptor, write and painter works unpaid overtime on *every* project to keep projects coming out at a rate that keeps customers happy. It's not that they don't want to release more stuff, it's that they don't want to kill their employees. 

99% of ex-studio staff may complain about the employers, but you'll *never* find one that complains that the creative staff aren't working hard enough to bring stuff out.

And then places like CH pull this crap, which stops things that have been made from coming out, and it's really frustrating. If you don't know the other side of the production story, stop assuming things that simply aren't true.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Well, If it's very hard and they work hard and they still can't put out the miniatures, maybe they either:

-shouldn't include those in the codex.
-let other companies produce the minis and live with it.

But just creating rules and leaving the customers without models is a bad policy no matter how you look at it. I don't blame the staff. I blame the management. They don't give a crap about the customers because they have us trapped in their monopoly. Or so they think. 

Phil


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Actually phil i think if you spend 25 developing and nuturing a games system and the company into a global sucess you have every right to shove your corporate fist up a little indies backside if he wants to feed of your IP teat.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

boreas said:


> Well, If it's very hard and they work hard and they still can't put out the miniatures, maybe they either:
> 
> -shouldn't include those in the codex.
> -let other companies produce the minis and live with it.
> ...


A company holding IP rights and not letting others use it is not a monopoly. A monopoly would require GW to be the only minature wargaming company out there, giving them 100% of the industry's profit. They aren't and I'm sure they're aware of it. Protecting their IP is just smart buisness, or else you start letting other people rip you off (which could cause GW to go out of buisness, and costing us those games we enjoy playing).

I'd have to say I'm on GW's side on this. It's one thing to sell upgrade kits, or alternative parts (like alternate legs or the Stormraven extension kit) that require you to have the original models to use them and another to sell replacements or knock-offs, which hurt GW's bottom line since they're now dwelving into someone else's copywritten property for profit (since it doesn't fall under any sort of "Fair Use": it's not a work of parody, used for education, or with the copyright holder's express consent it violates US Copyright law as far as I understand it, which is written to match international copyright laws). 

Chapterhouse is honestly stealing from GW when they sell stuff that is made with the intent to replace standard GW figures, and in the end it hurts the hobby for everyone.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

boreas said:


> Well, If it's very hard and they work hard and they still can't put out the miniatures, maybe they either:
> 
> -shouldn't include those in the codex.
> -let other companies produce the minis and live with it.
> ...


Seriously? You'd rather have a cut-back, half-the-options codex than a few options you need to convert whilst waiting for a schedule break they can fit them into?

Somehow given the tone of most complaint threads here I really do doubt that. 

Also, many other companies *do* produce the minis and GW *do* live with it. They just aren't stupid enough to call what they make "tervigon conversion kits" or "Salamander Chapter shoulderpads". They call them "Alien birthing monsters" and the like. Chapterhouse were both that stupid, and then arrogant enough to try and justify it despite knowing they were wrong.

I do wish others would specify they blame management too. Too often people just say "GW" and imply everyone there is a dick...


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

@Zion: I know GW don't have a true monopoly. But still, they control enough of the miniature gaming that they act like they don't have any competition.

@Silver Tabby:



> Seriously? You'd rather have a cut-back, half-the-options codex than a few options you need to convert whilst waiting for a schedule break they can fit them into?


Yes. I'm tired of playing against blank cavalry bases that are supposed to be TW cavalry. But I'd rather GW put out realistic production times (3 years? When the life of a codex is supposed to be 5 years???). Maybe cut back a few options to have everything fit.

Another thing. Chapterhouse has put out a tervigon conversion kit with just a fraction of GW's ressources... HOW??? That's what I mean when I say GW, as a company (and that targets the managers, not the employee who usually have little to say in those administrative decisions) is lazy and doesn't give a crap.

I own a pharmacy. Competition is very high (18 pharmacies in this city of 90 000). So I bust my ass trying to make every customer is happy. I understand that GW can't please every of it's (tens of... hundreds of?)thousands of customers. But really, major kits that would please HUGE blocks of customers are left pending. Not for a few months (I understand that waves of products make sense). But a few years?

GW produces wonderful miniatures. The best kits IMO. They also have great games (despite some minor annoyances, WH40k and WFB are solid). Their products, like paints and hobby tools, are usually high quality (if a bit too expensive for similar quality ). I'll never hesitate to defend GW on that.

But when it come to releasing codexes and kits in a timely manner, they are really horrendous. JJ promised a 5-years turnaround in 2007, no? Where's my Tau codex? Black Templars? DA is probably coming with 6th ed. Let's not talk about the SoB debacle. Same goes for many kits. 


Phil


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

The core of the problem is that GW's business model is obsolete, and they're fighting a losing battle to try and maintain it. 

They're releasing rules with no model because they're clinging to their codex and rules release pattern, and throwing out a huge net over what they consider to be their IP. While claiming to be a modelling company first, they're actually being driven by the rules system.

Look at the Thunderwolf. Wolf-riders have been a staple of fantasy gaming forever, and there's no way GW can claim it as an IP unless the competitor uses copyrighted material like Space Marine armor or symbols in producing their wolf miniature. Same with the Tyranid Harpy. GW can't claim the entire concept of a flying bug as proprietary. 

I think they have two potential solutions. 

1. Play nice with others and license certain models. The models are available sooner, and GW would still have control over who makes what. Both sides make (somewhat less) money and players are happy, but it intrudes on GW's core modelling business.

2. Release rules only when models are available. This forces a shift to more of a "living codex" arrangement, likely in electronic format, where armies are given constant periodic updates instead of a big party every five years. Really, with the codex creep and constant FAQing, we're headed there already. GW just doesn't seem to want to admit it and take the plunge. You already can't play competitively without folders full of FAQ printouts. 

What they can't keep doing is what they are now: releasing rules without models, then trying to sue everybody that produces a wolf or flying bug miniature in the meantime. It's disingenuous, not likely to hold up in court, and bad for the industry as a whole.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

ohiocat110 said:


> 2. Release rules only when models are available. This forces a shift to more of a "living codex" arrangement, likely in electronic format, where armies are given constant periodic updates instead of a big party every five years. Really, with the codex creep and constant FAQing, we're headed there already. GW just doesn't seem to want to admit it and take the plunge. You already can't play competitively without folders full of FAQ printouts.
> 
> What they can't keep doing is what they are now: releasing rules without models, then trying to sue everybody that produces a wolf or flying bug miniature in the meantime. It's disingenuous, not likely to hold up in court, and bad for the industry as a whole.


This is already the case, it was confirmed to me months ago...I didn't think it wasn't common knowledge tbh.

Things like the Terrorgheist are the future of Codex releases, and we simply have to suck it up and deal with it, because CHS have changed the way GW do business forever ,whether that's good or bad.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> This is already the case, it was confirmed to me months ago...I didn't think it wasn't common knowledge tbh.
> 
> Things like the Terrorgheist are the future of Codex releases, and we simply have to suck it up and deal with it, because CHS have changed the way GW do business forever ,whether that's good or bad.


I don't have any inside information. It's kind of obvious though, especially after last year's mega-FAQ update of the BT and DA, and general trends in the gaming industry. The status quo is just becoming unsustainable.

It's probably good overall. There will always be the group that argues that everything was better in the past, but they're not the ones trying to stay in business. A healthy gaming industry that gets new product into the hands of gamers faster is hard to argue with.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Er, I actually mistyped - I meant I thought it WAS common knowledge, which is why I never mentioned it until a couple weeks ago when I realised most didn't know.

Anyway, I think it's a bad thing, as it leads to less thorough playtesting (which is hardly up to my standards as is) and less versatile and interesting Codexes.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

boreas said:


> Another thing. Chapterhouse has put out a tervigon conversion kit with just a fraction of GW's ressources... HOW??? That's what I mean when I say GW, as a company (and that targets the managers, not the employee who usually have little to say in those administrative decisions) is lazy and doesn't give a crap.


Easy. Chapterhouse does what, a few dozen kits, without rules, to fill gaps?
GW does a dozen+ codeces, for each of three different systems, with dozens of model options for each book. 

I don't think the scale of GW's Studio operation has quite been grasped here. Each sculpting project takes weeks, even single figures. How many sculptors do you think they have? (It's less than 20, btw)


----------



## jams (Sep 19, 2009)

just out of curiosity, has anyone had a look at the "scorpion priestess" on CHS lately?

http://chapterhousestudios.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=118&product_id=194

if i'm not mistaken, that sculpt comes with a 2-handed chainsword and a powerclaw with a wrist mounted pistol which look like exact, if poorly executed (like most of their stuff), copies of the biting blade and the scorpion's claw. weapons which have been supplied with official GW sculpts for many, many years. secondly, the bloody thing has mandiblasters!

how CHS can blatently rip off established, pre-existing components without censure is beyond me and the sooner they're put out of business the better IMO.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

SilverTabby said:


> Easy. Chapterhouse does what, a few dozen kits, without rules, to fill gaps?
> GW does a dozen+ codeces, for each of three different systems, with dozens of model options for each book.
> 
> I don't think the scale of GW's Studio operation has quite been grasped here. Each sculpting project takes weeks, even single figures. How many sculptors do you think they have? (It's less than 20, btw)


Either way (staff too smal or number of projects too big), the plain, final, simple point is the GW produces more rules than it can handle. Hence, customer displeasure.

Now, a company can only accept customer displease in a few restricted cases: it's monopoly (which GW is not, but it does control a large enough portion of the market to act as if it was) OR it a badly managed company (on that particular aspect, or in all aspects).

My personal opinion it that GW takes it's customer base for granted because it has dominated their niche market for too long. This has resulted in third party companies producing more and more models that interface with GW game (I wonder how Mantic's sales have fares this last month?). And that, for the customers is a good thing. I find that a lot of people here act like they own part of GW and defend the company no matter what GW does. For my part, more competition means I'll be able to get more for my money, either because GW will have to give me more for my money or because I'll be able to buy from different companies. No different from most products, actually.

All in all, I'm not defending CHS. Never bought anything from them and I find that for most models the quality is pretty low. What I'm defending is my customer's right to buy the products I want in a free market. GW produces nice rules for Thunderwolf Cavalry but cannot deliver the merchandise in time(and I mean months here- a year even - not halfa decade)? Well too bad, let a more motivated company produce it for me. IP is nice and everything, as long as a company actually acts on it.

To take a ludicrous example: if I have a patent for a cancer medecine but no doctors to give it, should I leave the patients to die?

Phil


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

boreas said:


> To take a ludicrous example: if I have a patent for a cancer medecine but no doctors to give it, should I leave the patients to die?


If you wish to survive as a business with the law the way it is? Yes Phil, you should.

Is that morally reprehensible?

Well, then tell that to the dozens of companies doing it every day.

You think AIDS in Africa isn't preventable, almost entirely? You think thousands of children in the Third World dying of things like smallpox, ricketts, cholera, whatever, isn't preventable?

It's the way of the world - if you own the rights to something, then you sell that something, or you keep it to yourself - otherwise someone else will legally 'steal' the idea, and sell it for themselves.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I don't see this going entirely GW's way.

If GW never published any images or made any Tervigon (for example) models or any concept designs, then I don't see how they could ever make a successful claim that they own the IP behind CH's design. At all.

Okay, so CH actually called it a Tervigon conversion kit for a Carnifex model.

Y'know what, this does NOT infringe IP law in ANY way whatsoever. Nowhere do CH claim that these terms are owned by them. All they have claimed is that they have designed a kit that fits to a GW Carnifex model, and that it's a Tervigon by their definition (where no previous depiction existed).

I'm for CH on this one.

If James Cameron had ever made an Aliens board game, the same thing could have been happening to GW.

This is just GW throwing its weight around, even though CH are just doing what GW have successfully been doing for years. Plain. And. Simple.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Except, that isn't true - they produced things, for instance Salamander shoulder pads, that GW already sold. That is very much illegal.

They don't need (as I understand it) to directly claim something is their IP, merely to make it questionable to a consumer.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

"They don't need (as I understand it) to directly claim something is their IP, merely to make it questionable to a consumer."

Yet their website clearly states that all trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.

And yes, things like the Salamanders shoulder pads are unquestionably an infringement. However, it's not quite so clear cut as that. If it's decided that their own design is suitably different to GW's, then it won't matter. It will just be like any other 3rd party product. It will entirely depend upon whether or not its been decided that GW's own product has been copied. The fact it's called a Salamanders should pad will have nothing to do with it.

I haven't seen CH's shoulder pads, but I do imagine that they are not a copy. That, however, is for a court to decide.

If they aren't seen as a copy, then they would just be treated as 'their take' on a product that already exists.

3rd party products are not exactly uncommon...... You get them easily enough for pretty much anything else... Cars, ipods, phones, whatever...

And yet everyone is frothing at the mouth and shouting for blood when CH do exactly the same thing. Seems moronic.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Just because other companies in other industries dont feel the need to take IP infringer's to court does not mean GW shouldnt, Ipod covers and such dont effect the over all sales of the hardware, but you can bet your sweet ass if a company produced a "chapterhouse Ipod" they would be in court faster than a scotsman on free booze at tesco day, you only have to look at the on going tech war between Samsung and Apple over the Ipad (go Samsung!).

If chapterhouse had started out producing after market parts without making reference to GW IP/copyright/trademarks in there titles and descriptions they would have been left alone and they would have been allowed to carry on just like scibor and loads of other mini producers who make good compatible models that are clearly produced to be used with or instead of GW models.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Except there is an image for a tervigon. It's in the codex, and it's what the CH one is based off. And like I said before, if they'd called it an Alien Birthing Monster, and not specified it was for use with a carnifex kit but hinted it instead, GW would have been unable to do *anything* about it.

Say you were to sculpt a model, cast and sell it and call it and call it "Baltar's model", and it was your only source of income. Now say someone else bought one, added a hat to it and called it "Baltars model with a hat" and stole your idea and income. You'd be pissed, right?

What this boils down to is Chapterhouse were stupid. All of this could have been easily avoided, but they didn't obey the rules and are suffering for it now. Just look at all the other companies out there quite happily selling add-on kits and conversion kits, and GW not doing a thing about it. Chapterhouse could have been doing the same, but they crossed the line and are in court as a result. I'm all for other companies making models GW don't. Never said I wasn't. But if they're stupid about it, they deserve all they get.
I have no doubt that if this hadn't happened, that "scorpion priestess" would have been marketed as a Striking Scorpion Exarch, and it's that level of stupidity that got them into this situation.
Oh, and there is an Aliens board game. I own it, it's awesome, and GW does nothing that's even vaguely like it. No, not even Space Hulk, which i've owned several versions of...


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

is it the aliens board game with the card board marines ? if so i played that to death back in the day, really good game !


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Yep, that's the one. The one I never survive to reach the air ducts part. It's lethal! And never ever use the grenades - you kill more humans than aliens... :wink:


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> Just because other companies in other industries dont feel the need to take IP infringer's to court does not mean GW shouldnt, Ipod covers and such dont effect the over all sales of the hardware, but you can bet your sweet ass if a company produced a "chapterhouse Ipod" they would be in court faster than a scotsman on free booze at tesco day, you only have to look at the on going tech war between Samsung and Apple over the Ipad (go Samsung!).
> 
> If chapterhouse had started out producing after market parts without making reference to GW IP/copyright/trademarks in there titles and descriptions they would have been left alone and they would have been allowed to carry on just like scibor and loads of other mini producers who make good compatible models that are clearly produced to be used with or instead of GW models.


All of that is inaccurate.

Firstly, it doesn't matter *at all* if GW lose sales due to CH's 3rd party product. What matters legally is whether or not CH's product is an alternate that is not offered by GW (i.e., is it different?) or if it's just a copy. Whether or not something is a copy is debatable, and the court will decide.

As for the trademarks - GW can just get them to remove them and get CH to rebrand their products. There is *no* IP infringement in saying that something you make fits onto a product someone else makes. At all.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

SilverTabby said:


> Except there is an image for a tervigon. It's in the codex, and it's what the CH one is based off. And like I said before, if they'd called it an Alien Birthing Monster, and not specified it was for use with a carnifex kit but hinted it instead, GW would have been unable to do *anything* about it.
> 
> Say you were to sculpt a model, cast and sell it and call it and call it "Baltar's model", and it was your only source of income. Now say someone else bought one, added a hat to it and called it "Baltars model with a hat" and stole your idea and income. You'd be pissed, right?
> 
> ...


You've never seen the original hormagaunt, then...............

Or the Zoanthrope.....


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

TheKingElessar said:


> If you wish to survive as a business with the law the way it is? Yes Phil, you should.
> 
> Is that morally reprehensible?
> 
> ...


But, the thing is I won't accept that. We're talking about a game, here, of course. But to expend the idea, should people have said "it's the way of the world" when black people had to sit in the back of the bus and women couldn't vote?

I can't change big things like smallpox or malaria. But I can vote with my money and encourage other people to so in order to have companies change the way they do business. And that doesn't only target GW. Locally, as a pharmacist, I encourage patient not to accept and doctor not to prescribe "pseudo new drugs". Those "pseudo new drugs" that are actually older drug re marketed with a false improvement (like a long acting capsule for a medication that stays in the body for more than 24 hours anyways). Those "pseudo new drugs" are put on the market to prevent patients from using generic drugs. Those generic drugs save people, public plans and private plans millions of dollars every year. 

I see GW like a "innovator" drug maker, albeit in the miniature gaming market. Thus, I'll always apply the same moral principles as I do with any company: If you produce something new and good and it's more costly because it's new and good, I'll happily encourage it. But if you use your patents/IPs/whatever to restrict competition and thus prevent me and other customers access to a different product (that might be unique because GW wouldn't produce it in a timely manner, or that might be cheaper, or that might be an alternative but just as good), I'll denounce the situation.

All in all: make a good product and lots of money, I'll cheer you. Try to use legal ways to control the market and I wont. Idealist and useless, possibly. 

Phil

ps When I did my management degree, the only class I failed (actually dropped out) was marketing. I told the teacher that companies should sack the marketing department and re-invest in R&D. Thus, they'd get better products, more sales and the customers would get more for their money. :laugh:


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Baltar said:


> You've never seen the original hormagaunt, then...............
> 
> Or the Zoanthrope.....


Yes I have. I owned them too. And they were different enough that they could be called something else. The Alien doesn't have 6 limbs, nor eyes. The original zoanthrope looks nothing like anything from the films. 

Chapterhouse took an image created and copyrighted by GW, made a kit of it, and called it by GWs name for it. It is slightly different enough from the picture that if they hadn't used the name "Tervigon" they could (like others) have gotten away with it. But they didn't, so yes it is IP infringement. 

They were stupid. 

And it's not about "is it an alternative or is it a copy". It's about "is it something we created the story, name and imagery for, then copyrighted and you blatantly stole that imagery and name". And the answer to that is "yes they did".


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

@Boreas:

your line of thinking is fine, were Warhammer an open commodity. But it's not. It's a game system made by one company, it's not open source. Warhammer's competition comes in the form of other systems, not other things within the warhammer brand. GW has sole control of Warhammer, and there is no reason why they have to let anyone else make models for it. It's _theirs_. 

They can do nothing (and why would they?) to stop other model companies making models. What they can and will stop, is other companies making _their_ models. Warhammer is *all* GW do that is uniquely theirs. They are under no obligation for any reason to let anyone else use their brand, and they'd go under if they did.

Competition comes from other companies without their own game system making Space Knights that look *just* different enough to be legally another thing than a space marine, yet close enough that people who play warhammer will want them. Which is absolutely fine. But call them the Salamanders Chapter and use GWs iconography, and you're infringing and *that* is what GW can and will come down on. 

Whether people like it or not, GW has been doing this a *long* time, and within the tabletop wargaming and miniatures niche market hold about 90% of the market. There are other companies out there, but none as huge and well-established, and none so truly multi-national. In order to stay that successful, it *must* maintain control over it's product. GW is, effectively, a one trick pony. If that pony runs under a train, GW has nothing.


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

Its worth adding that is in the early days of 40K when Nids were new... Should Fox (the owners of Aliens) said they were an IP chlange then there may have been a case. 

25 years later fox has not defended there IP at all, and the aliens found within are common ideas in many forms across many forms of media. 

Now chapter house have not been doing this for long at all, so GW can stop them, the Ip they are using is clearly identifiable as GW's own...


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

boreas said:


> I told the teacher that companies should sack the marketing department and re-invest in R&D. Thus, they'd get better products
> 
> possibly
> 
> ...


Product centric business is a business philosophy that has been dead for almost 100 years, and with good reason. My problem with games workshop is that they seem to be more focused on sales alone rather than establishing and maintaining the customer relationship, which is ultimately what they need.


----------



## jams (Sep 19, 2009)

Baltar said:


> If James Cameron had ever made an Aliens board game, the same thing could have been happening to GW.


fyi, cameron didn't come up with the alien concept, it was h.r. giger, dan o'bannon and ron schusset


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Has anyone seen the lastest CHS releases? 

A heresy era land rader set and turrets for the razorback, I'm sorry the land raider set is just a steal of forgeworlds kit, and the turrets are nothing creative 

Now I'm not against CHS releasing kits which GW or FW don't make or show no sign of making per sae, or genuine original upgrade parts (ala stormraven) but these are rip off of kits that are already availble. This moves from IP copyright issues to standard physical copyright, an issue with a highly established precedent. A bad move from CHS IMO


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Eleven said:


> Product centric business is a business philosophy that has been dead for almost 100 years, and with good reason. My problem with games workshop is that they seem to be more focused on sales alone rather than establishing and maintaining the customer relationship, which is ultimately what they need.


I know it is. It's one of those sad things about society. The takeover of marketer has brought consumerism at it worse, as far as I'm concerned. They're also, I'd say, behind planned obsolescence and other destructive company policies. Yet another thing to fight as consumers. Refuse to upgrade, repair what you own...

A small precision, though. I'll readily agree that CHS where stupid to actually use the terms protected by GW's IP. Scibor manages to skate around that. Also, Downright copying models is pretty daft. As long as GW (and FW) produces good models for which they have rules, I'll refuse to buy copies. Take that chinese site that was on BOLS a few weeks ago. I'd found that site last summer and used it to buy terrain bits (non-GW stuff, barrels, sandbags, bricks, etc) when making a trench-themed table. Well, most of my friends jumped on the occasion to buy FW stuff (obviously faked, still the models have better quality than FW I'd ordered from FW!!!). So, I'll gripe against GW. I'll refuse to buy their stuff if their policies don't agree with my opinions. But I'll not condone stealing/cheating against them either...

Phil


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

SilverTabby said:


> Yes I have. I owned them too. And they were different enough that they could be called something else. The Alien doesn't have 6 limbs, nor eyes. The original zoanthrope looks nothing like anything from the films.
> 
> Chapterhouse took an image created and copyrighted by GW, made a kit of it, and called it by GWs name for it. It is slightly different enough from the picture that if they hadn't used the name "Tervigon" they could (like others) have gotten away with it. But they didn't, so yes it is IP infringement.
> 
> ...


No, clearly that is not the case, otherwise the court process wouldn't be so lengthy. It is NOT a clear case of IP theft.

I do not at all see where CH have claimed that they own the term 'Tervigon' or anything else owned by GW.

Clarification: It is not even remotely illegal to use someone elses trademarks so long as you do not claim they are yours. The only time that becomes sketchy is if someone else can claim you are making a profit *directly* from that trademark.

It is not at all clear that CH only manages to sell conversion kits because they are using GW trademarks, and where they do use tradmarks they add disclaimers to credit the proper ownership. I imagine CH would sell just as many conversion kits if they had different names, and thus are not ridding GW of any of their profits or belongings at all.

However, that's for a court to decide.

My personal opinion is that it's better to use caution and not to bother using someone elses trademark at all. That way, they can't even make a claim (successful or otherwise).


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Fair Use [pretty much] NEVER applies to commercial enterprises.

In addition, the disclaimers that were posted on the CHS webstore at the time of the court case opening only appeared hidden at the bottom of the main page, not throughout the site, and were a year out of date (ie, they failed to acknowledge that GW was STILL the trademark owner, by attributing incorrectly.)

However, I cannot agree the case of Tervigon was CLEAR IP infringement, as sadly that isn't the case in the US - a picture and concept cannot be trademarked like that, and the Doom of Malantai and Tervigon basically belong to CHS now.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Barnster said:


> Has anyone seen the lastest CHS releases?
> 
> A heresy era land rader set and turrets for the razorback, I'm sorry the land raider set is just a steal of forgeworlds kit, and the turrets are nothing creative
> 
> Now I'm not against CHS releasing kits which GW or FW don't make or show no sign of making per sae, or genuine original upgrade parts (ala stormraven) but these are rip off of kits that are already availble. This moves from IP copyright issues to standard physical copyright, an issue with a highly established precedent. A bad move from CHS IMO




Just seen those... they are pretty much exact copies of the Forge World kits. CH really isn't helping his case at all here. They are 100% rip offs of GW designs.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Baltar said:


> Clarification: It is not even remotely illegal to use someone elses trademarks so long as you do not claim they are yours. The only time that becomes sketchy is if someone else can claim you are making a profit *directly* from that trademark.
> .


Your completely wrong there. If your using it for a comercial venture, which CH are, its 100% illegal. 

Take Apple, If I was to use their Apple icon for the i-baconsandwich and sell said product for money, Apple are completely within their right sto sue my ass off as I'm using their logos and IP to make money off of their popularity.

This is exactly what CH are doing, stealing GW icons and Ip to make money for themselves.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

What Baltar meant, I think, and he might be right, is that you can sell different products using a name, but maybe not a logo. You can, at least in Canada, sell an aftermarket part for a car using the name of the product it fits (eg "Rear spoiler for Honda Civics", "Plastic case for Ipods"). That could legally allow a company to sell "conversion kits for Tervigons" quite legally.

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Thing is, car companies *allow* other people to do that. GW don't. You have to buy licenses for that kind of thing...


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

thing is the motor industry has seen plenty of cases of manufactures trying to stop the aftermarket parts, but the industry is simply too vast and has far too many patents and such to compare it to GW case not to mention millions of employees all over the world and multiple companies. Within the motor industry it has become second nature and they begrudgingly accept that aftermarket parts exist, but thats as much to do with the size of the industry as it is to do with allowing motorists the ability to make sure a car is on the road, dont forget cars are a huge source of revenue for governments so they are treated differently to other consumer items.

This is different altogether, it is possible for GW to say these people have infringed our IP, here are our concept sketches, here are our greens (if they have them) here are our models in production and sold in the US , here is our 25 year history and all the iconogrphy, artwork and text descriptions,technical drawings etc etc etc 
We are talking about Toys, If people were able to knock out kits based on established IP just because a company havent released something we would be adrfit in a sea of knock offs for every popular thing ever released.
I think its not that they have produced something but its the production and the marketing combined that is the real issue, IF GW could bury indies for creating compatibles then they would have taken scibor and maximini etc already but they avoid GW terms and trade marks/copyright and obvious copying, so they are left alone.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

GrizBe said:


> Your completely wrong there. If your using it for a comercial venture, which CH are, its 100% illegal.
> 
> Take Apple, If I was to use their Apple icon for the i-baconsandwich and sell said product for money, Apple are completely within their right sto sue my ass off as I'm using their logos and IP to make money off of their popularity.
> 
> This is exactly what CH are doing, stealing GW icons and Ip to make money for themselves.


I did actually state that it was different in the case where a profit is being made.

However, I also argued that it isn't clear to me that CH is making a *direct* profit from GW's trademarks. At all.

They would still sell miniatures (presumably) if they had different names.

I do guess that this is why the whole affair is taking so long.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

SilverTabby said:


> Thing is, car companies *allow* other people to do that. GW don't. You have to buy licenses for that kind of thing...


No. Licensing is not needed. Car companies will void some warranties depending on the part type, though.

I wouldn't mind if GW voided warranties on my models 



> We are talking about Toys, If people were able to knock out kits based on established IP just because a company havent released something we would be adrfit in a sea of knock offs for every popular thing ever released.


Actually, there are lots of precedents in the toy companies. The whole Lego vs Megablock thing is one. Megablock are basically the same things as legos. They fit with legos. They just don't use the name "lego", just as CHS shouldn't have used GW terms. They still won in court the right to make their products.

But I do hope that other companies will keep pushing alternative models, conversion kits and "missing" models. First because GW deserves some competition because of it's cocky attitude and second because gamers should have access to models for the rules they play with. Hopefully that will result in GW readjusting it's policy and finally fill the gaps in a timely manner. Once again, I understand that producing high-quality models like GW does is hard. Also, 2-3 waves makes better sense sales-wise. But over a year is just too long (as demonstrated by the fact that it gives time to other companies to jump in).

Phil


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

boreas said:


> Actually, there are lots of precedents in the toy companies. The whole Lego vs Megablock thing is one. Megablock are basically the same things as legos. They fit with legos. They just don't use the name "lego", just as CHS shouldn't have used GW terms. They still won in court the right to make their products.


they only lost the case because it was ruled that you cant trade mark a function and the lego brick was patented originally but that expires after so many years, so lego fought to trade mark the brick (when you think of lego you think of bricks) but the EU court ruled it couldnt be trademarked.

But that said mega blocks are not producing add on kits for Lego kits and calling them compatible, they exist under there own steam and there own product range (as poor as it is) and the same can be said for KREO who have got the transformer licence ( both hasbro products) and we dont see lego producing add on kits to make Optimus prime have a shoulder pad that looks alot like the ones KREO have given him but with some slight tweeks.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

While Megablock now have a separate line of kits, they started as simply colored block in a box (not kits). They were completely meant as alternative legos. Sure, they never actually said "alternative to lego", just as CHS shouldn't have said that. But they made sur they were compatible with Legos, which is exactly the same as producing a "birthing Alien" kit or "futuristic giant wolf mount" or "Alien Skydropping egg" and selling it.

Phil


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

boreas said:


> While Megablock now have a separate line of kits, they started as simply colored block in a box (not kits). They were completely meant as alternative legos. Sure, they never actually said "alternative to lego", just as CHS shouldn't have said that. But they made sur they were compatible with Legos, which is exactly the same as producing a "birthing Alien" kit or "futuristic giant wolf mount" or "Alien Skydropping egg" and selling it.
> 
> Phil


Unless you market it as for use in 40k then it gets shitty


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

bitsandkits said:


> Unless you market it as for use in 40k then it gets shitty


A smart company would market it as "compatible with most futuristic miniture wargames" and be legally-proof. Even saying "compatible with Games Workshop" miniatures might pass, I think, if there was a disclaimer like this one:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/c...ndex=6&aId=3900002&start=7&multiPageMode=true

Phil


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

It's illegal, it would be like a car company making and market parts for Ford as if they here legal but without Fords consent.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

You are allowed to do that. People DO that.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Thought it was illegal to duplicate parts without a license?


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Duplicating, maybe, but different "add-on" (spoilers, Cold air intakes, exhaust systems, spoilers, etc) are perfectly legal. Same as CHS conversion kits, in a way.

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Please stop comparing the car market with tabletop wargames companies. We've already established that they are not a valid comparison.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Why, laws make a difference between toys and car? While the marketing and such can be different, while one is a niche market and the other a mass market, I'd think that IP laws might apply in the same way. Anyways, it's not "established " that the comparison is invalid. In both cases, we're talking about "add-on" part that fit a specific brand.

If you prefer a different comparison, go ahead. Is there a market where producing add-ons or alternative parts is illegal?


Phil


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

It's the same concept, if a car company announce a car and give a description, show some concert art, etc etc but don't release the finished product and another car company copies everything about it and then rolls it out under the same name, then I'm pretty sure that illegal. If I made a coat called it the adidas pro edition gold and tried to sell it off as being an equal of anything adidas makes, pretty sure I'll be screwed.

Anyway if they need a judge for this, I highly doubt any of us really know the full picture or have the legal experience to properly come to a conclusion, so it's pointless


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> However, I cannot agree the case of Tervigon was CLEAR IP infringement, as sadly that isn't the case in the US - a picture and concept cannot be trademarked like that, and the Doom of Malantai and Tervigon basically belong to CHS now.


Sorry, missed this one before now. I don't have my 'nid Codex to hand, but in every book there is a huge list of what names and words are trademarked. If either of those words are, then they belong to GW.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

SilverTabby said:


> Sorry, missed this one before now. I don't have my 'nid Codex to hand, but in every book there is a huge list of what names and words are trademarked. If either of those words are, then they belong to GW.


Yes, but US Law means that you can't trademark a concept, you need a physical representation - and since these were made by CHS first, they now own the modelling rights to them - this is why GW would get counter-sued if they tried to produce these models, and why they will be forced to write them our of the Codex.
In the case of Mycetic Spores, I believe there was an Epic one, which while a different scale still counts.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

Or they could just rename the kits for the US boxes, yes it would cost a bit more, but if they made a tyrranofex kit then they could title it like this "tyrranofex kit, contains parts to build 1 tyrranofex(can also be used to build 1 tervigon.)" boom, world peace.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

The problem is, that because they challenged CHS, an entirely US-based company, it requires US law to win, they can't be protected by UK law, and that *IF* CHS win,even in part, that these designs belong to them, GW can't release it anywhere in the world, because of 'free trade' agreements designed to protect corporations from foreign undercutting.

So a Tervigon kit in the UK that has been judged illegal under previous US law is indeed grounds for a case, and a massive financial hit to GW.

Remember - despite paying out stupid dividends, GW doesn't make much profit overall - the company could even be crippled by a proper hit like that.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

But it isnt a tervigon kit, it is a tyrranofex kit, it just happens that it is possible to build a tervigon kit from it. Or else they could release the tyrranofex and have a tervigon upgrade kit like the deffrolla kit. Fucking chapterhouse retards, why couldnt they be normal and call it a "space insect progenitor kit" like everyone else. Fuckers.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

If by some ungodly reason GW loose, all they need to do is write the creatures out, and release a quick and dirty update to the codex, rename the offending creatures and release plastic kits as they would have but change the name, leave the stats and points etc the same but rename them. The screamer killer for example became the Fex. If they really wanted to they could include a plastic upgrade sprue that match the parts CHS have produced in resin in with the fex model, meaning no need for CHS purchase as its in the box. 
Thing is this is the start GW are not gonna let this go, even if they lost this round, CHS will at some point cock up and over step the mark(if they havent already) and will be back in court and the next time i cant see them getting pro bono ( _but i still can not find what im looking for!_) as legal councils are gonna want them to pay the piper at some point.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

If GW loose this creature will cease to exist in the next codex. There is no way GW would allow chapter house to have the rights to something in a codex they cant produce. Renaming it would mean chapter house can still sell the same model as a stand in. This is a loose/loose for GW.

To be honest I would be surprised if CH win. GW do not need a physical tervigon to say the idea is theirs, as long as there is pictorial representation of the creature. Remeber this is an argument about ideas, hence IP.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I was under the impression things have changed and stuff trademarked/copywrited/patented in the UK are accounted for across the developed world, this is to stop people who try to do a Thomas Edison and simply nick ideas from Europe and then patent it in the US.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

But this case must be prosecuted under US law, as it's a US company who're being challenged (even though a British IP is being challenged by them...)

And, as I understand it, in the US you cannot own an idea without some sort of real world representation.

For instance, you can't own 'TKE's Business Emporium' as a concept, but if you have a brick and mortar building with that name above the door, then (and only then) can you prevent others opening somewhere with that name.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Art work is considered a real world representation isn't it?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm not sure. Even if it is, CSH may yet win the modelling right to the unit, in which case GW will rush out a Codex to replace the existing one, with a whole new unit instead of the Tervigon.


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

TheKingElessar said:


> I'm not sure. Even if it is, CSH may yet win the modelling right to the unit, in which case GW will rush out a Codex to replace the existing one, with a whole new unit instead of the Tervigon.


I know this is an odd question, but are they in court yet? If so which court are they at? 

Because I have the feeling GW will be hitting them for a whole pile of things, and I expect if GW win even part of the case, CSH will just stop existing... I mean how will they pay for fees/damages and the like


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Unsure - and apparently they are getting pro bono (free) lawyers, as there are plenty of people that hate GW and want them to fail.

Often because said former player sucks at GW's games and is an overgrown man-baby, but that's by no means ALWAYS the case.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Uveron said:


> Because I have the feeling GW will be hitting them for a whole pile of things, and I expect if GW win even part of the case, CSH will just stop existing... I mean how will they pay for fees/damages and the like


They can't. They had to get pro bono representation as they couldn't afford to retain a lawyer properly.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

from what i have read, they are back in court next week and we should see some movement, at the moment its in preparation (not sure of the legal term) but from what i have read its like preparing the case supervised by the judge, its a lot of hot air and name calling at the moment, the judge has asked for "inspiration" to be produced by both sides and GW have to prove what trade marks they actually own, GW have so far said you can go bollox because there trademarks are not filed in the US as they are a UK company so i think they have to prove what they produced when it was sold in the US as that constitutes a Trade mark.

Its not easy to get the full story as the full transcipts are not available without paying for them and the free transcripts are in legal talk and that has been translated by various people and then into lay terms. But the gist i get is that the judge has said show us what you do and where you got your ideas from, Chapterhouse lawyers i think said that the judge needed to narrow it down as GW cant claim to have invented some of its stuff (slapping skulls on stuff was quoted which chapterhouse can claim was in mad max which i think was relevant to the rhino door kit they produce)
I think the judge told chapterhouse to come to the table with what they feel was relevant, which i think means that hes not inclined to agree that chapterhouse is being upfront about what they are claiming as inspiration.
GW though has also been slapped because they have been a bit obtuse and not on the ball, i think GW expected chapterhouse to simply cave in and were taken a bit back when they got pro bono so were not prepared for the case enough to take on a huge legal company.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

TheKingElessar said:


> Unsure - and apparently they are getting pro bono (free) lawyers, as there are plenty of people that hate GW and want them to fail.
> 
> Often because said former player sucks at GW's games and is an overgrown man-baby, but that's by no means ALWAYS the case.


Maybe they just had lawyer friends... Some people have pet spiders or swim with sharks, after all 

Phil


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

TheKingElessar said:


> Yes, but US Law means that you can't trademark a concept, you need a physical representation - and since these were made by CHS first, they now own the modelling rights to them - this is why GW would get counter-sued if they tried to produce these models, and why they will be forced to write them our of the Codex.
> In the case of Mycetic Spores, I believe there was an Epic one, which while a different scale still counts.


Oh, they wouldn't write them out of the Codex, just come up with a different name, different look and make them straight away. Two can play at that game :wink: (Edit: damn, phone didn't show me there was another whole page of comments!)



> And, as I understand it, in the US you cannot own an idea without some sort of real world representation.
> 
> For instance, you can't own 'TKE's Business Emporium' as a concept, but if you have a brick and mortar building with that name above the door, then (and only then) can you prevent others opening somewhere with that name.


Then how on earth do artists copyright anything they do in the US? Or novellists? A Codex is a real-world representation, or else no-one in the States can copyright anything on paper...


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> I think GW expected chapterhouse to simply cave in and were taken a bit back when they got pro bono so were not prepared for the case enough to take on a huge legal company.


Thanks for the update Bits... Could be quite some time then before anything happens, I presume this is all going down in texas? (As it is where Chapterhouse is based). 

With that update, I can see GW dragging there heals see if they can make the Pro Bono legal team get to give up... (Charity only lasts so long)


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

SilverTabby said:


> Oh, they wouldn't write them out of the Codex, just come up with a different name, different look and make them straight away. Two can play at that game :wink:


As I said earlier I dont think this would be the case. GW would want to hurt CH by making the model CH produced unusable as a tyranid. Easyist way would be to drop the entry all together.

Bits where did you find the free legal docs? A link would be useful.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

humakt said:


> As I said earlier I dont think this would be the case. GW would want to hurt CH by making the model CH produced unusable as a tyranid. Easyist way would be to drop the entry all together.
> 
> Bits where did you find the free legal docs? A link would be useful.


they are apparently on the courts web page, but i read the translation from another cough cough forum cough cough that shall remain nameless as i am banned from it.....


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

> GW have so far said you can go bollox because there trademarks are not filed in the US as they are a UK company so i think they have to prove what they produced when it was sold in the US as that constitutes a Trade mark.


So pretty much all they have to do is point at the Codex and say 'Heres our artwork and ideas etc in physical form which he copied off of'.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

While I obviously can't state that they WILL drop the units with the certainty of a Design Team source, I *was* informed in no uncertain terms by a GW source I trust (and who has never previously volunteered information) that Thunderwolf Cavalry WILL be written out, and I extrapolate (logically, I feel) that Tervigons and the Doom are in the same category.

That said - some would say that my judgement of people has shown itself to be horribly flawed in the last 18 months. As ever, a anonymous guy on the internet paraphrasing an anonymous source is hardly gospel - but FWIW, I believe it unreservedly.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Who knows, maybe GW will have to accept other companies producing models from this and allowing them in their stores. You can never tell when it comes to one company suing a foreign company in their own land.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see them written out. If GW can't make money off of them, then no-one can. Afterall, people aren't gonna spend money buying something they can't use in game. 

Its a good and a bad thing though if that happens.... Good, in that GW could make sure they have models for ALL units in a codex before releasing it.... bad, in that it could mean less units and variety if they don't want to make models, they won't bother putting out rules for stuff.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

The fact that if GW decided to write them out of the book then CH would have no need to sell the model since it's directly for 40k should be proof enough that they are infringing on GW's IP and copyrights.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Who knows, maybe GW will have to accept other companies producing models from this and allowing them in their stores. You can never tell when it comes to one company suing a foreign company in their own land.


This, I can 100% guarantee will not happen. Even IF GW didn't write out TWC, DoM and T-Gons, they would never be compelled to have anything in their stores they didn't want, and would never freely advertise rival companies in that way.

Anyway - GW is a MODELS company. Rules are just a way to sell more models, and comparatively do not matter, just like fluff.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

i can see a third option, FW will be tasked with putting out some models because they have a much faster design to production turn around, we may have already seen the beginning of it with the scarabs, GW now have two sets of scarabs out , both very different but still very necron, anyone putting out something similar will need to be very careful.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Bollocks. B&K, your post made me go look, at which point I saw the new/old predator kit...now I need three.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

TheKingElessar said:


> Bollocks. B&K, your post made me go look, at which point I saw the new/old predator kit...now I need three.


LOL that will teach you


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

bitsandkits said:


> i can see a third option, FW will be tasked with putting out some models because they have a much faster design to production turn around, we may have already seen the beginning of it with the scarabs, GW now have two sets of scarabs out , both very different but still very necron, anyone putting out something similar will need to be very careful.


If the whole CHS story happens to result into this, they it's a net gain for both GW (because they get to sell more models) AND the players (because they gain timely access to models in order to play the rules they paid for). I'd be happy because I love to buy FW stuff anyways. I'm always surprised as how much FW is more customer-friendly than GW. They have had PDF updates for years now (the IA2 update had me playing my sisters with 35pts rhinos years before the crap-WD-codex). They have cool email updates (like those puzzles and teaser). They still ship to ROW. All in all, most of what I don't like about GW, I like about FW.

Plus they always have gorgeous models!

Phil


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> i can see a third option, FW will be tasked with putting out some models because they have a much faster design to production turn around, we may have already seen the beginning of it with the scarabs, GW now have two sets of scarabs out , both very different but still very necron, anyone putting out something similar will need to be very careful.


I can almost see GW codex's having more units that have started there life as FW units, turning FW into a proving ground for units they plan on second waving...


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I can't be fucked with this debate anymore. I've always speculated, but I'm tired of that.

My flatmate is literally an expert in IP law (inlcuding American IP law). Convenor of an IP module for Law at a top 30 university.

I'm just going to ask him some questions when he gets home and see what he has to say about it.

I'm pretty sure that having artwork in a codex would not be able to prevent people from making models, but I dunno.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

I think this link blows all of the 'aftermarket car kit' type arguements out of the water.... 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/copyright-to-the-batmobile/

lol.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

No it doesn't. That is totally different.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Its aftermarket parts, not produced by the company, that have been ruled violate copyright. I think it does...

Take CH... they produce aftermarket parts to make another product look different. If a judge can rule that doing it with car parts violates IP, they could be able to do it in this case too.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

"..reasonable inference that there may be non-functional artistic elements of the Batmobile that may possibly be separated from the utilitarian aspect of the automobile. As such, the court finds that the Batmobile and all of its relevant embodiments are not, as a matter of law, excluded from copyright protection.”

Could easily be applied to the artistic style of Games Workshops designs.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

They designed it to look like an existing vehicle - the batmobile. It's totally different.

The original car manufacturer, though, has no problem with the aftermarket parts - THAT is the point.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

That's a whole car replica, not and add-on case. I'd like to see a case where a car with "generic bat fins" added without having the whole thing copied to a batmobile. Also, the CHS kit does not copy and existing model (like that car reproduces an existing car model). It actually expands and existing kit (the carnifex) into a non-existent model (the tervigon).

Not so clear-cut, I think.

Phil


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

If it were clear cut, it would all be over by now. People seem to be arguing that CH have made some definite IP infringement, but that is obviously not the case.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Baltar said:


> If it were clear cut, it would all be over by now. People seem to be arguing that CH have made some definite IP infringement, but that is obviously not the case.


If it was in the UK, CH wouldn't exist anymore by now... but because its the US with there backwards IP and patent laws, thats why its still dragging on.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I'm not convinced at all that CHS will lose. By the looks of it, they also upgraded their website not so long ago. They can't be doing all that badly...

The way I see it, GW is trying to bash a small company for making aftermarket parts. Meh.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> If it was in the UK, CH wouldn't exist anymore by now... but because its the US with there backwards IP and patent laws, thats why its still dragging on.


Yes, well it isn't in the UK, so that is somewhat irrelevant. At this point, I think I am going to side with Baltar; this is apparently not as clear cut as most of you make it out to be.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Oh, and those chatting about how much CHS's stuff looks like GW stuff: Look at Scibor minis.

ANYONE claiming that some of those models are not pretty much EXACT copies of Custodians are talking directly out of their arse.

There is also a model that, if I were to put next to GW's own artwork of Constantine Valdor, then it would look identical.

These:










Are fucking Custodians. Simple as that.

This:



















Is Constantine Valdor. Do NOT even try to claim it looks much different, because it will be immediately identified as a load of balls.

And CHS are taking so much crap from GW fanboys?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Calm down man.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

I am totally calm. It's best not to assume anything about someone's emotional state from written text. It never translates well.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Well when you put a picture saying bitch please and saying anyone trying to counter your points is talking a load of balls, before anyone actually states anything, it appears a bit hyped.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

That's because it is hyped. I hyped the shit out of it.

I made it expressly clear that I have no interest in people detailing exactly why those models don't look identical to what I said they did; it's pretty obvious what they are; no need to elaborate.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Baltar said:


> I'm not convinced at all that CHS will lose. By the looks of it, they also upgraded their website not so long ago. They can't be doing all that badly...



You do realise that 9 year old kids in their bedrooms can make websites that look as good in just a few hours using various publishing programs? A website is no indication of how well a company is doing.


And as for the custodians... they have no rules, never had any models, and those items are at least 50% different from the artwork. Shoulder pads, shin guards, different halbard with no built in weapon etc. Plus, Scribor do not call them Custodians, or make any references to custodians, or claim they are to be used as custodians... Hence, appart from making an item that looks similar, they do not directly use any GW IP.... Unlike CH who directly posts pictures of GW items with their parts, calls them by GW terms, and says they are to be used as GW items.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Baltar I think you missed the point about after sales car parts. After reading the article it appears that parts that are utilitarian in nature (such as the panels on cars or air filters, or starter moters) are subject to different copyright laws than artistic non utilitarian parts. Minatures are certainl not utilitarian items.

Yes you are right the custodians do look very similar to the art work but there are enough differences to stop a case being brought, plus the fact the Sribor do not advertise them as Custodians, they are called SF Roman Legionaries. Its very clever of Scribor to use a lot of iconic devices on their minatures that GW has no copyright over.

You can bet your bottom dollar that GW legal keep a very close eye on scribor minatures.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

humakt said:


> Baltar I think you missed the point about after sales car parts. After reading the article it appears that parts that are utilitarian in nature (such as the panels on cars or air filters, or starter moters) are subject to different copyright laws than artistic non utilitarian parts. Minatures are certainl not utilitarian items.


But you can make and add-on non-utilitarian part (eg spoiler) and say "High-wing spoilers for Chevrolet Camaro 2010" and it's perfectly legal. Just as long as that spoiler isn't a copy of an existing Chevrolet Camaro spoiler made by GM, that is... That's from personal experience.

In the same sense, an "Alien birthing conversion part for the Tervigon" would be legal as long as it doesn't copy and existing models or artwork. Its that last part that isn't clear cut and why this case is going to court. If GW already had a model out, as they should have had in the 12 months following the publication (that's my personal opinion only), CHS would have had no case (and no reason to produce the model anyways.

Phil


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Models are utilitarian in so far as you need them to play the game. End.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Baltar said:


> Models are utilitarian in so far as you need them to play the game. End.


Well, they do have an artistic side that is undeniable, when say, compared to a cold air intake.

Phil


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

Yes, they do. However, many utilitarian parts of cars also have aesthetic consideration.

As soon as a game and rules were introduced, these models became more 'just' art. They also have a function.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Baltar said:


> Yes, they do. However, many utilitarian parts of cars also have aesthetic consideration.
> 
> As soon as a game and rules were introduced, these models became more 'just' art. They also have a function.


But all that add to the "not-so-clear" of that legal process. I'm eager to see how the judge will decide and why. Are models art? Are the functionnal pieces of a game? How does the IP apply? With a simple description, a picture, a 3d model, a green or a real marketed model?

How will that change the gaming industry? I personaly hope that it will force companies to respond more quickly to what I perceive as the customers needs. Or alternatively to allows other companies to respond to those needs. And yes, in a way, rules without models create a need, even if a non-essential one :laugh:

Phil


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Given that sculptures are art, you could argue that gaming minitures are mini-sculptures, that the owner has then customised with their own artistic flair of the paint job.... Hence, models are art.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Baltar said:


> Yes, they do. However, many utilitarian parts of cars also have aesthetic consideration.
> 
> As soon as a game and rules were introduced, these models became more 'just' art. They also have a function.


Yes and the game and everything that goes with the game is property of Games Workshop. It's not a free market game it's a game decided and controlled by Games Workshop.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

My flatmate just got home. Literally a course convenor for IP to a well-ranked law school at a top 30 university.

Said: The whole situation is totally ridiculous. Neither GW OR CHS seem to grasp the basics of IP law. EVEN if CHS used terms on their website owned by GW it wouldn't matter, because CHS never explicitely claimed they own those terms or the original models. 3rd party items that can be added to models - same again, no case at all. Just like car parts. As for CHS, EVEN if they made a part that THEY say is a Tervigon, and GW released a Tervigon, CHS would have absolutely NO case against GW.

The whole thing is a load of bs, basically. I imagine that's why the situation is taking so long. Two asshole companies are going head on at each other, and the court is probably trying it's best to put it right.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Ask him what happens when they use imagery that is copyrighted and known trademarks then see what he says  

The tervigon is only part of the case, GW are also suing him for using space wolf, dark angel and salamander iconography that GW has produced and used before too.


----------



## Baltar (Aug 16, 2008)

What do you mean by 'imagery'...?

DID they literally *copy* the icons/symbols, or do they just look similar?

He said there wouldn't be any trademark infringement, even if they used exact words owned by GW, so long as they did not claim to be selling anything GW sells or that those trademarks belong to them. Which sounds fair to me...

Then again, listening to that, the case of the shoulder pads seems more compelling. I think that would be the area of trouble. From my perspective, the issue of the Tervigon kit is over. No case from EITHER side.


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

GrizBe said:


> Ask him what happens when they use imagery that is copyrighted and known trademarks then see what he says
> 
> The tervigon is only part of the case, GW are also suing him for using space wolf, dark angel and salamander iconography that GW has produced and used before too.


I would even to go so far as to say the tervigon is a very small part of the case. Its the Space Marine parts that will be key to the whole case. Space marines are iconic and very 40K... other ranges are a bit more confused, and its that confusion that lets the other 3rd party groups exist. 

Given the quite mad nature of US IP law, and the fact that its a very complex beast, this will drag on and on.. costs will push up on CH (even if they have pro-bono legal team, other costs will still hit them) and a deal will have to be made at some point. (And thats prosuming the Pro-Bono team is any good)


----------



## Uveron (Jun 11, 2011)

Baltar said:


> What do you mean by 'imagery'...?
> 
> DID they literally *copy* the icons/symbols, or do they just look similar?
> 
> ...


Oh they Copied them and then said that's what they were... Which is kinda the problem, and then with the "Heresy Era" items they are very clear about what they are trying to make... Same with the weapons as well.

Also if you look around there facebook page, there is this  which quite clearly is CH trying to copyright ideas as well..


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Also, no legal company is going to give anyone pro-bono support indefiantely, especially in a case as complicated as this.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> Also, no legal company is going to give anyone pro-bono support indefiantely, especially in a case as complicated as this.


Unless it is not a company, it is possible that it is a friend or relative of the CHS owner. This seems to have been ratified, given the latest wave of rumours suggesting a tervigon/tyrranofex kit is is on the way inside the next month or 2.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

mcmuffin said:


> Unless it is not a company, it is possible that it is a friend or relative of the CHS owner. This seems to have been ratified, given the latest wave of rumours suggesting a tervigon/tyrranofex kit is is on the way inside the next month or 2.


Nah, its a company, Winston and Straw or something like that..


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

They will do it until the end of this though. All tax write off for them. If they were to quit midstroke then it would be suicide for the firm, as it would show they care nothing for the people... only money.


----------



## GM orkboy (Aug 26, 2012)

SilverTabby said:


> @Boreas:
> 
> your line of thinking is fine, were Warhammer an open commodity. But it's not. It's a game system made by one company, it's not open source. Warhammer's competition comes in the form of other systems, not other things within the warhammer brand. GW has sole control of Warhammer, and there is no reason why they have to let anyone else make models for it. It's _theirs_.
> 
> ...


by letting people build, customize, convert, and scratch-build models they have made it an open forum to play with none of their boxes come with agrements that say you can't use third party tools, paints, parts, or bases. because they sell the models unasmebled they give you options. now they're trying to take away options and they are making people not use their privatly owned molds(the old armorcast ones) witch is not GW's IP or anything like that they cut down on spare parts and extra bits so you have to buy more stuff, then raise the price's. take the stomps starts at $80 us then year after $99 us this year $115 us. what is next making boys cost a couple of bucks each? as things get older if they are still made then as a rules price goes down :angry: not with GW and smaller companys like again armorcast get ripped off just as much or more than big companys if it a 2 person operatoin there's no money to sue people over copying your stuff or even to find all the people that are ripping you off in models everythings game just ask GW over things like blood angels (owned by french army)


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Any chance we could get that again, in English, with proper grammar and stuff?


----------

