# GW's legal team at it again!



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

News read from DakkaDakka and originally taken from Raging Heroes. Apparently their manticore head is too similar to some GW model I've never seen before. Here's the quote from the Raging Heroes website.



> It is with our deepest regret that we have to announce that the Lamassu head is no more part of our Manticore kit We recently received an email from a Games Workshop attorney claiming that our Lamassu head was too similar to their Chaos Dwarves' Lamasu and asking us to stop selling this head. At this point in time we don’t have the time to further investigate this mater and so we've decided to currently withdraw the Lamassu head from sale, either online or in shop. We are sorry if you were planning to get one. So please note that at this point in time THERE IS NO MORE LAMASSU HEAD available with our Manticore kit.


http://www.ragingheroes.com/blogs/news/3241852-no-more-lamassu

I've already spoken my part on all of the recent news so I won't add any additional comments unless I feel they are warranted.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

GW









RH









Kinda iffy. Very close.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

It is too close to the original and GW has a point.


----------



## Drannith (Sep 18, 2010)

I actually have to side with GW on this one as well... they do look a lot alike.


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Fair enough, thry are simililar

but GW hasn't produced a lamassu head for about 15yrs

Also wasn't a lamassu an ancient persian mythical creature that GW just copied first?

Starting to worry that GW is just trying to kill off smaller potential competitors with legal battles, which will stagnate the market and be bad for hobby in general IMO


----------



## Hurricane (Feb 27, 2010)

Yup, the Lamassu is already a creature that exists in mythology.


----------



## aberson126 (Sep 12, 2009)

they are similar, but look at the beard, it has a center piece, skulls, the mouth is also closed, the gw one is more open. also the horns are very different, and the other one has a crest.

in a broad sense yes they are both heads of Lamasu

but they are different heads.


----------



## BearingTheWord (Feb 8, 2010)

I have always been told (whether right or wrong) that if there are at leasts three points of difference or more then it's considered unique.....So I personally think GW is outta line on this one.....Especially considering that it's originally a mythical creature to begin with....

My two coppers....


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

Dont forget Gw opens a copyright on every mythical creature they can find in an artbook that someone came up with.


----------



## increaso (Jun 5, 2010)

The heads are both very similar and are both far removed from the traditional image of the lamassu.

I suspect this is a move to protect the new Chaos Dwarf range that is being made.

On a separate note, the manticore head (that ragingheroes sell) is way cooler than the lamassu one.


----------



## GhostDog (Apr 16, 2010)

Since when has the fact that the myth was around before GW ever stopped them before. I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue the Tolkien estate.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

You know what sums this up? In Jezlads own words.




Jezlad said:


> CUNTS I SAY.
> 
> CUNTS.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

aberson126 said:


> they are similar, but look at the beard, it has a center piece, skulls, the mouth is also closed, the gw one is more open. also the horns are very different, and the other one has a crest.
> 
> in a broad sense yes they are both heads of Lamasu
> 
> but they are different heads.


You can't use the pose (open/closed mouth) to say it's different because otherwise you could just produce a like for like copy of something but change it's pose and everything would be ok.

The face, style of beard, teeth, nose ring, eyebrows Etc are all identical, the edges are different.

As for saying than lamasus are a mythical creature, well you are quite correct, however the visual description of a lamasu is very different from the GW one, not to mention the 'personality' differences between the chaos dwarf one and the mythical one.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

The main point here is can the non GW head be mistaken for a GW head? and is it likely that GW will release a resin lammasu ? and as GW are embarking on a switch to resin i recon alot of indie producers are going to find them selves in the same place.

Also the company who produced that head were clearly trying to encroach on GW's business , it may have some different elements but the head is clearly "inspired" by GW established IP and was trying to cash in on the lack of support(at the time) for chaos dwarves, its that old filling the gap argument again, and once again FW and GW have decided to fill there own gaps and looking at the chaos dwarf models so far the gaps are filling up quite nicely.
but on another note, its a very nicely sculpted head.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

I think they are quite similar, if you look at the second head then the first it is pretty clear where the inspiration came from. Yup looks pretty clean cut, and I would imagine it is motivated by the FW chaos dwarf releases which will in all probability have a lamasu - which will need a head


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

Two points to make:

1. Like others have said...they haven't made this range in like forever!

2. If the mythical representation looks similar to both renderings then both companies should be allowed to make it. GW is just mad because this other one is much nicer.

3. alright I lied,,,a third point....If GW spent less money on Lawyers maybe they could lower prices??

Doc


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

docgeo said:


> 3. alright I lied,,,a third point....If GW spent less money on Lawyers maybe they could lower prices??
> 
> Doc


Or if indie companies didnt keep infringing on GW IP they wouldnt need to spend the money on lawyers and we wouldnnt have to pay more for models?


----------



## docgeo (Jan 8, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> Or if indie companies didnt keep infringing on GW IP they wouldnt need to spend the money on lawyers and we wouldnnt have to pay more for models?




Touche:biggrin:

Doc


----------



## turel2 (Mar 2, 2009)

A lamasu


----------



## Uncle Nurgle (Jun 26, 2008)

I'm sorry as I normally find GW business practices far from fair or moral, but the decision on GW's part to put a stop to the Lamassu head is spot on correct.

A lot of you are saying that they're just taking credit for a creature design already existing in mythology, but take a look at the ancient depictions of Lamassu:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?um=1...=0CDcQBSgA&q=lamassu&spell=1&biw=1280&bih=852

They look nothing, nothing like the GW chaos dwarf depiction, their take on the Lamassu is clearly VERY unique and the raging heroes head is virtually identical to GW's version.

Seriously, you can't even attempt to say that it's not a clear breach on intellectual property. 

Also, making the point that GW haven't made a Lamassu model in 15 years, I don't think it takes a genius to assume that considering Warhammer Forge's current Chaos Dwarf range that a Lamassu model isn't on it's way in the near future.

Like I said before, normally I find GW's actions quite removed from reason or fairness, but to even attempt to argue that their actions in this case aren't completely just only weakens the communities credibility when it comes to complaining about other things.


----------



## Jormungandr (May 11, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> Or if indie companies didnt keep infringing on GW IP they wouldnt need to spend the money on lawyers and we wouldnnt have to pay more for models?


TRUE, TRUE.

If you have seen mythical/historical drawings of Lamassu, then you would understand that the GW model is pretty much their own visual interpretation, and as such, their own IP, and regardless of how long its been since they last cast the figure, they are still well within their rights to protect their own IP.

its (almost) like saying "Oh, they havent made any RT era marines, ill ebay up a set and cast hem to sell on". its just not on.


----------



## Irbian (Sep 2, 2010)

each time GW accuse of IP infringiment, God kills another mythological creature.


----------



## mahavira (Jan 10, 2010)

I actually own the Raging Heroes Manticore, and bought the Lamassu head extra (I had vague thoughts of seeing if it would fit on a giant model, or now that the Necrosphinx model is out, maybe there). The Lammasu head wasn't even part of the original design, it was added partway through (can't remember whether it was a fan request or their own thought). Based on the pic of the old GW Lammasu, looks like a fair cop, particularly if Forge World is going to be releasing a Lammasu, and GW doesn't appear to be trying to shut down the Manticore model (which is fairly different from the GW manticore, and looks 137 times better), so while I feel a little bad for Raging Heroes, I think GW is being pretty reasonable all told.


----------



## Cypher871 (Aug 2, 2009)

GhostDog said:


> Since when has the fact that the myth was around before GW ever stopped them before. I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue the Tolkien estate.


Actually I am surprised the Tolkien estate haven't sued GW over the use of the term 'Eldar' to denote a certain pointy eared race of bipeds. Eldar is actually a Hebrew name meaning 'God resides' but was first used in fictional literature by JRR Tolkien as a divison of the Elves. Years later along come GW and create the Eldar...space Elves...FOUL!!!


----------



## imm0rtal reaper (Jul 15, 2008)

Cypher871 said:


> Actually I am surprised the Tolkien estate haven't sued GW over the use of the term 'Eldar' to denote a certain pointy eared race of bipeds. Eldar is actually a Hebrew name meaning 'God resides' but was first used in fictional literature by JRR Tolkien as a divison of the Elves. Years later along come GW and create the Eldar...space Elves...FOUL!!!


That's how GW role. The lasgun is from dune, but they don't care about that. While in this case they are right to put out the law hammer, doesn't make them any more "right"


----------



## Uncle Nurgle (Jun 26, 2008)

Neither does it make them any more wrong.

Also, comparing GW use of the name Eldar to reference 'space elves' is not the same or using lasguns from Dune is not the same as what has occurred with the Lamassu. 

The Lamassu is a clear a blatant copy of a GW image and is being used in a directly relevant market. The previous examples are not. Remember that both the LOTR and Dune were first and foremost novels, not games or anything, but novels and warhammer and warhammer 40k are games. Two very different markets.

Also just because other companies have not been particularly on the ball when dealing with GW infringing on their IP doesn't mean that GW should be as incompetent.

Again, seriously, GW has and continues to make illogical douche like business decisions, but this just isn't one of them and to complain and whine about it makes every other legitimate complaint that much less believable. If someone whines and complains about everything, regardless of the actual validity of the decision, you would eventually ignore them completely regardless of that fact that perhaps some of the time they are spot on.


----------

