# Chapterhouse - helmets (styled towards the pre heresy and Death Guard)



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

Pyriel @ Dakka Dakka said:


> Sorry for the bad pic quality, I´m not good at taking pics.
> These are going into the mail today.
> 
> I put them up on SM torsos for stability and angles when taking pics and for scale. They are slightly more lowered in reality since I used a blob of greenstuff to hold them in place in the torso so it raised the helmets a little bit.
> ...


These look quite good,and as he said they would be good for PreHeresy stuff or Death Guard, or here's an idea, PreHeresy Death Guard.


----------



## fett14622 (Apr 29, 2008)

they look awesome:victory:

you could even use them for Death Company or Legion of the Dammed


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm liking a lot of what Chapterhouse are doing - some really nice touches to add to models (although I can imagine it adding up pretty quickly if you wanted to replace every marine in your army's helmet, but that's the same for any headswaps you do).

Now if only they'd hurry up with their tervigon and spore pod kits for the 'nids.....


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

I'm going to laugh when Games Workshop finally sues the bejesus out of them. Decent products, to be sure, but they're making stuff that's explicitly intended for use on GW models without a license (and how, you ask, do I know they don't have a license? Because GW doesn't hand out licenses for that sort of thing! It'd be allowing competition with their own miniatures range!)


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

The reckon they're on the right side legally, though:

http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/news/22-release-of-alien-heads-

It's an interesting one, and not sure how it really works legally... if they're not casting from GW parts (and there's no reason to believe they are), then is there actually anything that can stop them making and selling parts that fit onto GW models?

An example from another industry - could Ford put a cease and desist order on a company making after market spares for their engines? How about body kits that are marketed as fitting their cars? As far as I know, you don't need a license for either of those, despite the fact that they obviously need to be designed to fit exactly into Ford's designs.

Unfortunately, what it would really come down to would be whether they could afford to defend themselves in court if they did get an order through from GW's solicitors.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

from what i know chapter house is one of the few companies to actually call GW out when they got sent the usual cease and desist letters GW like to throw out now and again.

To be honest im yet to see chapterhouse produce anything i would want on any of my minis, though in terms of sculpt quality these helmets are better than most of the rest of the range.

But in terms of usage i think they are poor, the whole "pre heresy style" does not really wash,these heads would need to be mounted on GW plastic torsos/legs and arms so you would in effect have a standard marine with some mismatched poor quality helmets that were not usable outside your own bedroom, FW already produce a very good death guard conversion set in resin and as far as i know the helmets are "genuine pre heresy style". also once again there are far too many helmets, marines are a uniform fighting force, if they genuinely want to sell me a a helmet to convert GW marines then give me 1 great looking helmet and give me a pack of 10 of it with only minor variations 

Im happy chapterhouse continues to produce despite the obvious copy right infringement, I think other companies should be able to produce compatible lines and fill the gaps as long as its legal to do so,it might make gw sit up and realize they need to up there game and possibly work with the community rather than in spite of it, but i think chapter house so far havent had its day in court yet because of two reasons , 1. they are in the states and GW is in the UK, and we all know the US legal system is expensive and not 100% reliable,realistically how much revenue is GW losing because of chapter house?everything they sell requires you to own GW products to use it so if anything it could be argued that they are generating sales for GW.
second reason, GW dont see them as any kind of threat, they may just see them as a complete non entity, some small company, obviously very amateur, poor products,small turn over and not worth the effort and more importantly the back lash from the community, plus its there prerogative, they could just be biding their time or gathering evidence or waiting for chapter to get over confident and cock up so they can bury them.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

Meh, debate the law all you like but if GW seriously decide they don't like how these guys are playing it then money will matter a heck of a lot more. Sadly under the [especially US] legal system, you have to have the money to win the case as well as the legal basis.

I do disagree with blatantly trying to trade off of the GW product though, smacks of cheapness... Trade off your own merit and if customers see the possibility of conversions then that's up to them.

Plus most of their products are butt ugly and really poor sculpts. A couple of these helmets look ok though but nothing amazing.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

The shoulderpads are iffy. Geiger might have an IP charge on those alien heads, though.


----------



## fett14622 (Apr 29, 2008)

do you know when these are getting released?


----------



## Brother Azeek (Mar 29, 2009)

On a note about Legalality about Chapterhouses bits, GW can't sue them on IP terms, atleast in american courts (though, in the end, it ultimantly depends on the judge/hury). The artical writen by Chapterhouse puts it in pretty good terms.



> No company can copyright the idea of a shoulder pad... or a U... or a arrow with numbers.. Many of our symbols are similiar to other companies, but there is much interpretation in our works, and nothing is a copy.


That being said, As long as Chapterhouse doesn't go making symbols of the Aquila, or blantly making GW casts, GW cannot sue on terms of IP, since, as said before, they can't put an Copyright on that Omega or Arrow.

And there is still the fact of the rest of the figure itself. As Bitsandkits said, you still have to buy the boxed set in order to use the sculpts produced by Chapterhouse. While they may not be producing revinue _for_ GW, but they certainly not _taking away_ revinue from GW, so companies like Chapterhouse only help GW, and not harm them, atleast as far as I can see. Weather they cross the fine line into sueland is another story.

Chapterhouse's policy also grants them a bit of protection from the Giant that is GW.



> Chapterhouse Studios LLC has no affiliation with the Games Workshop. Space Marines, Imperial Fist, Blood Ravens, Soul Drinkers, Deathwatch, Dark Angels, Iron Snakes, Luna Wolves and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2009, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners. Throughout our website and miniature catalog these terms are used for identification purposes only.


In my ending statement, I would like to say that I do not condone the blant reproduction of GW models, Chapterhouse, as far as I can see, are not breaking the bounderies of Copyright infringement, so all GW can do is ask them to cease and desist the production of their products. Also I would like to say that I personaly do not like Chapterhouse's sculpts or own any of their products, and that any form of biased is not present in my statement.

-BA


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

They are doing what a few, minor miniature companies have done in the past, which will end with the same result, them being shut down because they are infringing upon GW's ip rights. Their rights are not limited to sales, but also to reputation, if there becomes an association with games workshop, and the quality is low, as in the past, chapterhouse can be asked to stop. 

To be blunt, the "you can't copyright omega..." is a load of crap. It is obvious what chapterhouse is doing, and there is little stopping GW from asserting their rights, as there have been cases where the act of altering an Intellectual property to avoid making an outright knock-off has been the fuel for the lawsuit.


----------



## Horacus (Oct 5, 2009)

I hope they don'te get a sue...

Also, those heads are great for a Death Guard unit.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> They are doing what a few, minor miniature companies have done in the past, which will end with the same result, them being shut down because they are infringing upon GW's ip rights. Their rights are not limited to sales, but also to reputation, if there becomes an association with games workshop, and the quality is low, as in the past, chapterhouse can be asked to stop.
> 
> To be blunt, the "you can't copyright omega..." is a load of crap. It is obvious what chapterhouse is doing, and there is little stopping GW from asserting their rights, as there have been cases where the act of altering an Intellectual property to avoid making an outright knock-off has been the fuel for the lawsuit.


Your out of line with that. 

I can, for example, manufacture after market headlights to fit on my Mazda car. Just because they fit the car and work with it doesn't mean I am infringing on Mazda's copyrights. If you don't believe me, go look at the HUGE aftermarket business on any car modding webset. Now, if you made exact replicas and called them OEM Mazda headlights then you could get sued. Just the same, if I made an exact copy of a Space Marines and sold it as an actual GW Space Marine... I could expect legal action. 

Don't give into GW scare tactics. Chapterhouse is doing nothing illegal.


----------



## Sloan13 (Feb 16, 2009)

Arcane said:


> I can, for example, manufacture after market headlights to fit on my Mazda car. Just because they fit the car and work with it doesn't mean I am infringing on Mazda's copyrights. If you don't believe me, go look at the HUGE aftermarket business on any car modding webset. Now, if you made exact replicas and called them OEM Mazda headlights then you could get sued. Just the same, if I made an exact copy of a Space Marines and sold it as an actual GW Space Marine... I could expect legal action.
> 
> Don't give into GW scare tactics. Chapterhouse is doing nothing illegal.


Right on Arcane, I own an Outdoor power equipment shop (chainsaws, tractors, and so on) and there is a ton of aftermarket parts there too. Some of these parts match every last spec, and the only difference is the OEM’s logo on part is missing. So as long as they are not being sold a GW originals I say no harm no foul. Just wait until the Chinese starting making space marines they will break every copyright law there is. The GW will have some to go after.


----------



## chapterhousestudios (Jun 24, 2009)

Hi guys,

Besides the blatant "these are crap and poor quality sculpts" (our sales say differently) I listen to everyones opinion out there.

Even though I do know IP law (since I have the attorney to explain it to me) it still angers me when regular hobbyist insist we are breaking laws and such.

I guess alot of that blame goes on GW for their pretty fallible IP Policy page, but I also think people need to get their heads on straight and actually do research before accusing people or companies of wrongdoing.

In any case, we will continue to do the sculpts and bits that many people want and if you dont like what we do, sure by all means make your opinion heard, but really, cut it off when it comes to insults or blatant accusations that you have no real facts about.

I hope you guys who do like our products get good use out of them.

Oh, heres some more "poor quality"  bits coming out at the same time..






























*Here some pics to show how it looks with the air brakes in the open position:*





















Nick - CHS.com


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

I don't think the bits I've seen are poor quality. I'd like to see more on the website about how they're "on the sprue", since I've had shatter problems with resin before, trying to nip them off bad castings. 

The Alien Heads are interesting, considering buying some of them. 

If the company is comfortable with the IP issue, and has consulted legal representation, then who are we, the hoi-poloi to disagree. After all, having more bits is better for US.


----------



## smfanboy (Apr 1, 2009)

oh very poor quality :grin: 

noh it looks good might be a big for my taste also will you be doing pre heresy heavy weapons (shouldermounted)


----------



## chapterhousestudios (Jun 24, 2009)

Hmmm thats an idea, I have never thought of the heavy weapons.. My only concern is the Rogue Trader era weapons are shoulder mounts for the most part. That could be to close to IP confort.

Most of the resin sprues are cast in a good way, nothing a good pair of flush-cutters or knives will solve (I prefer cutters).

Nick


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

I prefer cutters too. 

Have you considered Dark Eldar style weapons platforms? I would like to be able to swap out disintegrators and dark lances, without particularly buying two figures. If that's dodging IP issues, of course


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

They're not a shit quality :laugh:. I really like the look of those. I would love a few on my marines. I might get a few for my Khorne Berzerkers, and take them as raptors!


----------



## smfanboy (Apr 1, 2009)

chapterhousestudios said:


> Hmmm thats an idea, I have never thought of the heavy weapons.. My only concern is the Rogue Trader era weapons are shoulder mounts for the most part. That could be to close to IP confort.
> 
> Most of the resin sprues are cast in a good way, nothing a good pair of flush-cutters or knives will solve (I prefer cutters).
> 
> Nick


not closer than most shit (good shit that is) you have done k: anyway its your company if you dont feel safe dont do it I wouldnt let your company getting in danger because an arse like me if I can(!) get my sculpting skills better than I might actualy try to do it for you! problably would make me the first 14 year old sculpter


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

chapterhousestudios said:


> I also think people need to get their heads on straight and actually do research before accusing people or companies of wrongdoing.


Research..RESEARCH!!!!, this is the internet we do not do "research", the internet is a place where posters know all, were all martial arts have been perfected, where legality is nothing more than a passing fart, no here people know all, we know more than anyone could possibly imagine because we can make bullshit up to sound smart and make it look like we are shining knights of legal justice, not just an idiot on a cardboard box with "horse" written on the side.

now create more guard stuff you law breaking evil ninja turtle, before I create my own bullshit to sound like I have a clue what I'm on about.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

chapterhousestudios said:


> Hmmm thats an idea, I have never thought of the heavy weapons.. My only concern is the Rogue Trader era weapons are shoulder mounts for the most part. That could be to close to IP confort.
> 
> 
> 
> Nick


Maybe you should consider doing something original that way you dont have to worry about skirting around the edge of GW's IP or better still produce something that genuinely fills a gap in the current range, a right handed marine lightning claw or a pair of them, a combi flamer would be a good start, i would order several hundred combi flamers right now if they were good quality and matched the range. 
As for the jump packs, they are another version of the very old rouge trader metal jump packs and have been done before by other indie companies http://eatersofworlds.blogspot.com/2009/07/product-review-maxmini-helmets-jump.html, sculpt wise i can see some areas im not happy with, some uneven areas on the barrels, few nobbly bits in the middle join i cant work out if they are excess green stuff or details, the ridges in between the engines at the top are un even in places and the circular intakes look a bit dinged up on one of the photos. But mainly the problem with them is they dont match the range , they need something to tie them into the space marine range,i cant put my finger on it exactly, but even if i didnt know the range inside out i would know that jump pack didnt come with the marine using it, but maybe thats deliberate to avoid getting your day in court,i dont know.
Maybe you should send me some samples of cast up bits and then i can better judge the work.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

Just checked my previous post for wording to ensure I didn't say poor quality since I cannot comment on that.

I maintain that your sculpts are poor though and sales don't mean I'm wrong... they simply mean that people are buying them which I suspect is more likely due to being unable to buy anything similar elsewhere. They don't stand side-by-side comparison with the majority of Citadel or Forgeworld stuff.

[Plus, people have bought minis by Gary Morley so that just goes to show what mini lovers will buy if they feel the need.]

That Jump pack is ok but is basically the same as the ones GW had back in the day. It also shares the 'that looks a bit rushed' look that is apparent accross your range. The venting appears to be simply scored into the green stuff and is uneven. The fans would have been better done with platicard to give sharper detailing.

Basically, your stuff could be a lot better than it is.

Plus, trying to sell your own stuff of of someone else's IP is still something which I feel is somewhat cheap but then that's just one opinion from the millions you'd find online.

An lawyers in the US [and elsewhere] who'll tell you more or less what you want to hear are pretty common, I don't think your situation is as clear cut as you like to make it... but on that score I guess only time will tell. If you're still doing what you're doing in five years I'll be prefectly prepared to say i was wrong.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I disagree Alleycat. 

Many of the things they make fill a niche which GW doesn't, such as the custome Salamander stuff. 

Also, your comparing a independant artist's sculpts who sells thousands of bits to a multi million dollar company's that sells millions, maybe billions of bits. Cmon, that's like little league to Major league here. 

I think they look good and if I was interested in Space Marines, which I am not, I would buy them. 

I would request some of the Inquisition stuff that GW never bothered to make, like Inquisitors with different wargear or GW made but did so terribly, like female Inq, retinue etc.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

Arcane said:


> I disagree Alleycat.
> 
> Many of the things they make fill a niche which GW doesn't, such as the custome Salamander stuff.
> 
> Also, your comparing a independant artist's sculpts who sells thousands of bits to a multi million dollar company's that sells millions, maybe billions of bits. Cmon, that's like little league to Major league here.


Well yes, they make bits that GW doesn't... but they'd have to or none of their stuff would sell 

And I do disagree with your second point, GW may be a big company but sculpting quality simply depends on the sculptor and teh quality control. Rackham had some awesome sculpts and they aren't a big company. Felix Ramos makes some fantastic stuff [I bought one of his Beaxtrice minis just becuse it was so good despite the cost and the fact that i'm currently niot sure where in my 'to-do' pile it currently sits  ], I like some of Scibor's stuff too. And those are just off the top of my head.

On the flip side, PP are a pretty big company now and the plastic Khador Jacks are a little lacking in my opinion [in case anyone cares, there is just something 'off' about the legs and front tabard bit... can't quite put my finger on it though]

Poor sculpts are poor sculpts, no excuses beyond lack of talent or lack of quality control.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Right, I am just a bystander, looking into the conversation you are all having, and this is what the GW site says:



Games Workshop said:


> *Casting*
> 
> Do not cast any materials that are based upon Games Workshop material. Games Workshop has to maintain a strict policy on this to fight counterfeiters. We would also remind you that reproduction for personal use is NOT an automatic exclusion in respect of copyright protection in many territories worldwide.
> 
> ...


I don't know how valid that is in this "argument" that has been going on...

But I would like to say I do like the sculpts, and considering its like 6 people doing the sculpting, and lets be honest, they aren't going to be professionals that GW have, they say on their website, they are showing their passion for the hobby..

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/c...tId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

Opinions are always like an arse, split.


I really like the look of those Turbine Jump Packs! Now if Raptors actually were usable then that would be a good base for them


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

Here's the thing. These -are- good sculpts. And that's why Games Workshop is going to come down hard on this sooner or later. You can argue all day that the sky is green, when everyone is well aware that it's blue. Similarly, you can argue that this stuff isn't intended to be used specifically with Games Workshop models. But it clearly is. No reasonable person (which is the legal standard) would go along with the statement that, for example, the salamanders vehicle components are not intended to be used on vehicles in a Salamanders Space Marines army. While Games Workshop cannot copyright the mythical salamander, they can set a policy which makes it a violation of their intellectual property to create components with a similar device or sold under the same name (i.e., 'salamanders'). In the case of the vehicle bits, they're explicitly labelled as "for" Games Workshop products. By Games Workshop's own policy, they don't allow third party companies to sell conversion parts or packs for use with their products. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> I don't know how valid that is in this "argument" that has been going on...


The fact is that GW aren't law, so they can write what they like in their IP statement and that doesnt make it legally valid.

The misinterpretation which I think lots of people make, and GW's IP policy page is designed to mislead in this case and give an over inflated impression of what IP covers.

I am no lawyer, but my experience in law (engineering design perspective) and seeing who in the world doesnt get sued to the floor - i.e. the cases cited above as parts compatible with other companies products and obviously created for that purpose. It is fairly easy to see that the bit where GW say you cant make conversion kits is full on bullshit, to further re-inforce this, we see that several companies have been doing it for months with little more than an angry letter. If GW truly thought they could win and had something to defend they would have acted by now.

On the other hand, there are the aspects which GW do hold the rights to and chapterhousestudios seems very clued up on where to draw the line. The "look", "imagery" and "feel" of the GW models and setting cannot be infringed. This is what the IP covers. So making pads, doors, and conversion bits is not actually covered by the IP (as far as I can see and am sure this is the advice given to chapterhousestudios by their lawyers).
In essence the setting of 40K and WFB are owned by GW, and all the fluffy stuff in it to boot THAT is the IP you should not infringe, this does not stop you making compatible parts which include abstract imagery which will fit in with the GW settings. However all GW iconery (real word?) and story content is covered - hence them having much more clout to stop fan fiction, fan art, fan films etc as they actually use their IP to exist.

To further complicate the situation the space fantasy genre has certain setting cliches, the "space night" look which is effectively GW power armour is so prolific that I thing GW would not even try to claim it any more (whether it was ever theres is an interesting history subject). This is why other model manufacturers can easily make stand ins for space marines with little chance of getting asked to stop.

The key here is where the company draws the line, if they say "compatible with" "for use with" etc they are fine, its the actual claim that it IS say "Salamanders Rhino Conversion Kit" would be where GW might have a mild foothold (still not much), and use of more specific and better covered chapters such as Ultramarines, Blood Angels and their specific imagery etc would be likely greeted with a lawhammer.

I beleive that one of the bits sculptors (might be chapterhousestudios, not sure though) was making a jetseer model, this would of course be cutting it fine.. however a space elf witch rider .. would be much more stable - so long as it didnt have an Eldar helm, then it is very much harder to argue that it is based upon anything in the GW IP domain however specifically created it is.

Off my soapbox now, but hopefully this will clear a little confusion on where the line is drawn and how I feel GW have tried to exaggerate their IP's extent. :good:


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Bubble hit the nail on the head. GW can make it's little policy but that doesn't make it law. 

Kellogs can write up a policy that no one can make another sugar coated corn flake but that doesn't mean that no one else can. 

Where I think ChapterHouse might be strandling the line is that they say their stuff is "for" a drop pod or a rhino, which references to GW IP. If they took that off and just said that it was a door for a Salamander tank, which any idiot can tell is for a Rhino, then they would be completely clear. 

As far as I can see, the only thing GW could sue them for is marketing their products to be used in Warhammer, to which they could just change the wording.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

just say suitable for sci-fi soldier marines, then have a pic of a blurred out space marine, other companies do that, and its obvious what it is to us, but it just gives you more of a shield if GW decide to throw there rattle out the pram.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

Pretty much it, if you look at chapter house's website you will notice all the trademarks of GW are correctly noted and attributed. At no point do they claim officialdom and in all the cases I can see their wording gives clear indication what it is for use with, but never do they claim them to be anything more.

Its the subtle legal difference between "Honda Civic breaklight housing" and "Breaklight housing for Honda Civic"


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Bubblematrix said:


> Pretty much it, if you look at chapter house's website you will notice all the trademarks of GW are correctly noted and attributed. At no point do they claim officialdom and in all the cases I can see their wording gives clear indication what it is for use with, but never do they claim them to be anything more.
> 
> Its the subtle legal difference between "Honda Civic breaklight housing" and "Breaklight housing for Honda Civic"


Just wanted to point out that you can rubbish GW's IP policy page all day long if you want while bearing in mind GW have in house lawyers in the UK ,but can you not do exactly the same for Chapter houses legal disclaimers statements?

Personally i would like to see how this pans out because im a sucker for an under dog and i have no love for the GW legal team and like it when indie companies tell them to "cease and desist" there crazy antics.

bubble you are correct about subtle legal differences, one of your statements means i would be happy with my purchase, the other statement will means i am disappointed and feel mislead, i will leave it to you to work out which.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

I'm starting to get a bit fucked off with the IP bitching in this thread. Chapterhouse Studios provide an exceptional product, thats all that matters.

This thread is about the Chapterhouse guys helmets not the long cock of GW legal  ... Let them sort out their own IP.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

Jezlad said:


> I'm starting to get a bit fucked off with the IP bitching in this thread. Chapterhouse Studios provide an exceptional product, thats all that matters.


Yes... exceptionally poor. Heyoooooo.

Thankyou, i'll be here all night, don't forget to tip your waitress.

[Please to note, I don't think their product is exceptionally poor, just poor. However, I cannot resist jokes based on the meaning of language because i'm a smartass like that.]


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Jezlad said:


> I'm starting to get a bit fucked off with the IP bitching in this thread. Chapterhouse Studios provide an exceptional product, thats all that matters.
> 
> This thread is about the Chapterhouse guys helmets not the long cock of GW legal  ... Let them sort out their own IP.


Sorry Jez but if chapter house were producing products unrelated to GW's IP then there would be no IP bitching, but because of the products they have chosen to produce and there intended use to fill the apparent gaps in GW's range and the fact they unashamedly use GW terms & trademarks on the site ,the IP arguments will always rage on, The helmets in question in my opinion do not infringe on GW IP, infact the suggestion that they could be used as pre heresy deathguard is a joke anyway and i personally believe GW have not taken Chapterhouse to court before now because they simply dont see them as a threat to the reputation of GW or because the products and the company are not significantly good enough/big enough to be confused as GW, But mostly i think it has to do with anti competition laws that GW have fallen foul of in the past,GW have been investigated by the monopolies commission as it was back in the day and lead to the granting of quite a few licences to non GW companies and the creation of GW sub companies such as black libary and Forgeworld, GW would risk serious fines if they were caught maliciously trying to corner the market by running companies out of business in the courts, IP law is designed mainly to deal with counterfeiters and in recent times to stop file sharing and piracy its not really ideal as a big stick for beating smaller indie companies with.


----------



## chapterhousestudios (Jun 24, 2009)

Marneus Calgar said:


> Right, I am just a bystander, looking into the conversation you are all having, and this is what the GW site says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The Son of Horus said:


> Here's the thing. These -are- good sculpts. And that's why Games Workshop is going to come down hard on this sooner or later. You can argue all day that the sky is green, when everyone is well aware that it's blue. Similarly, you can argue that this stuff isn't intended to be used specifically with Games Workshop models. But it clearly is. No reasonable person (which is the legal standard) would go along with the statement that, for example, the salamanders vehicle components are not intended to be used on vehicles in a Salamanders Space Marines army. While Games Workshop cannot copyright the mythical salamander, they can set a policy which makes it a violation of their intellectual property to create components with a similar device or sold under the same name (i.e., 'salamanders'). In the case of the vehicle bits, they're explicitly labelled as "for" Games Workshop products. By Games Workshop's own policy, they don't allow third party companies to sell conversion parts or packs for use with their products. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


GW can say what it does not like people to do all it wants, till the cows come home, on the "IP Policy" page.

This is not legal law in any way. They dont want someone making conversion kits that fit on the models they make. They cannot stop anyone legally doing that as long as they are not recasting.

Also I can say "Salamander Land Raider kit", none of those words are trademarked or copyrighted to GW.

People need to realize that the GW Policy page is a weak attempt to scare off uneducated consumers, those that do not want to pay for the legal education that will stear you in the correct direction.

Also, the last time I checked there is not any law for making components for a particular companies products or even mentioning and saying they are made to fit or be used on that product.

Nick

P.S. Thanks Jez for the moral support


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

chapterhousestudios said:


> GW can say what it does not like people to do all it wants, till the cows come home, on the "IP Policy" page.
> 
> This is not legal law in any way. They dont want someone making conversion kits that fit on the models they make. They cannot stop anyone legally doing that as long as they are not recasting.
> 
> ...


Very much what I was suggesting, and its interesting that your lawyers have advised you similarly.

GW imho actually takes a risk by making their IP page misleading as to its extent as it serves to alienate otherwise constructive business the like of which chapterhouse undertakes.

The IP is intended to do exactly as you state - stop knock off copies - well thats not what chapterhouse are doing, there may be no law against making compatible components or substitutes but the issue comes if the perception is put across that the components are somehow official, which again chapterhouse seems very careful not to.

Jez, can we get a thread stickied somewhere to house the inevitable IP debate? we can then have these discussions removed from every new conversion bits thread and still give a place for constructiver discussion, maybe even some independant sculptors might feel more inclined to seek legal advice from professionals when they realise that GW's IP policy is only policy and not law?

Chapterhouse, keep doing the good work - your bone swords WIP on your website look excellent, I am sure you will take the constructive half of the criticism from here and take some action - but either way its nice to see someone making a range of custom parts for those who want them! (I myself tend to make my own, but thats not a solution for all)


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

im fairly sure a sticky about how GWs IP law is bullshit is the last thing this site needs, maybe we should also ask Jez go drop trouser and curl one out on Jervis's car bonnet and a note saying "from all at Heresy online".


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> im fairly sure a sticky about how GWs IP law is bullshit is the last thing this site needs, maybe we should also ask Jez go drop trouser and curl one out on Jervis's car bonnet and a note saying "from all at Heresy online".


lol, "IP law"

Its either that or some rule to stop discussion or every new thread of this kind will end up off the rails, it would fence it in at least, and get it out of "news" and I think having it tagged on to discussions of products is actually worse

Anyway, just my opinion


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

O.K. guys I'm going to have to step in and end any further discussion of GWs IP statement, as well as whether Chapterhouse are breaking copyright law or not, as this thread was not started to discuss such matters and has gone off topic quite a bit already. So can we please limit further conversation to the helmets and what people think of them.





bitsandkits said:


> maybe we should also ask Jez go drop trouser and curl one out on Jervis's car bonnet and a note saying "from all at Heresy online".


After the job he did did on the Dark Angels Codex it's not as if he is undeserving of a big fat, greasy crap as a hood ornament.


----------



## tu_shan82 (Mar 7, 2008)

Thread closed.


----------

