Chapter House: Are American & English Perspectives That Different?

[Chris Copeland]

I've been looking through the various threads about Chapter House Studios and I've begun to wonder if Americans and Brits are coming from fairly different places on the whole matter. Is American law THAT different from British law?

It is my understanding that it is perfectly legal to make after-market products for pretty much ANYTHING here in America. Is that not true across the Pond? BTW, I am coming from a layman's perspective: I claim NO expertise at all.

For example: folks LOVE to customize cars. Anyone can make hoods (I believe the British call them "bonnets") for any cars that they want to here in America. If you are a hood manufacturer you can explicitly sell your products as going with whatever brand car your hoods fit. Click here (http://www.americanmuscle.com/mustang-hoods.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=hood%2Bfor%2Bford%2Bmustang&utm_campaign=S%2B-%2BExterior%2BHood%2BGeneral%2BNo%2BYears&pcrid=8275846497&mkwid=s453HrMNv&mkw=hood%20for%20ford%20mustang&pmt=e&placement=) for an example. Are things THAT different in England?

[plasticaddict]

Going with your hood analogy. It is fine to sell an aftermarket hood that fits a specific car, however it's not OK to sell an aftermarket hood that has the original makers logo inlaid into it. Also you do need to clearly label your parts as aftermarket and not O.E.M., something Chapter House wasn't doing until after they got called to the mat.

[Psychosplodge]

I'm not sure cars are the best example. (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/mercedes-destroys-300sl-gullwing-2012-03-22)

post edit

Also American law is only based on English law up till the point you had your tantrum and threw the toys out the pram. Which I think was pretty much pre copyright law...

[inquisitorsog]

I'm not sure cars are the best example. (http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/mercedes-destroys-300sl-gullwing-2012-03-22)

post edit

Also American law is only based on English law up till the point you had your tantrum and threw the toys out the pram. Which I think was pretty much pre copyright law...

The link is not relevant to aftermarket parts. They were copying a car, not making aftermarket parts.

There's been a great deal of harmonization of US law with the horror that is the rest of world standard. The fact that now US media companies are now wielding that law like a hammer is another topic. However, prior to 1975, copyright had a relatively short duration, required explicit registration and renewal. Now you keep it til you die and companies keep it for an absurd period of time.

As long as the parts aren't clearly copies or include trademarks, there's no real issue. Now, maybe GW will argue about elbow guards being similar and such and may have a case, but there's a limit to how far you can go. For instance, making turrets that fit the Rhino turret hole but are otherwise your own style would be legit.

Even if you said "fits the GW Space Marine Rhino", as long as you took pains to point out the fact that you aren't GW and this isn't a GW product, and it wasn't overly derivative, you would probably win any case brought against you. However if you named the product "Space Marine Rhino Multimelta Turret" it probably wouldn't pass the "moron walking by" test used for trademark infringement.

IANAL YMMV, yada yada

[Necron2.0]

I cannot speak to the differences in law between the US and the UK. My career is software engineering, specializing in avionics, flight control systems and UAV controls. I have worked with several Brits before. Presently the team leader of the project I'm on is an expatriate from the UK. From this I can tell you the Brits do have a radically different sense of things than I am used to.

In the US, our first priority is function, not form. We don't care so much about following process to the letter, so long as we have something that works by the end of the day. Rules are good, but they're really just guidelines - none of them are set in stone. And that goes for deadlines too. Come the promised deadline, if it doesn't work we'll break the promise and slip the deadline. We'll cut every corner we can (if we have to), but we won't release something that will fly people into the ground.

What I've noticed from my British counterparts is they get overly obsessive about following a design paradigm, even when the paradigm is wrong. They get bogged down in the form of something, and seem to sometimes disregard the underlying desired function. As example, recently I had to come up with three separate ways to enact a function, because my team lead couldn't decide which way was the "correct" way. I felt like throwing him a die and telling him, "roll for it!" I've also noticed Brits seem to be a bit more fidgety about deadlines.

Base on this, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the Brits are probably a bit more dogged in their adherence to law, and maybe a bit less compassionate toward the intent of those laws. As example, I've often seen it written here that UK businesses are required by law to make a profit. The intent was probably to guard against shenanigans related to price wars and driving stock prices down so companies could buy their stocks back cheaply. The law has been used, however, to justify the totally reasonable prices of GW's minis. Every time I hear that argument, I cannot help but thinking to myself, "Surely that's not what the authors of the law intended."

[Chris Copeland]

Here's the thing: if I go to http://www.americanmuscle.com/mustang-hoods.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=hood%2Bfor%2Bford%2Bmustang&utm_campaign=S%2B-%2BExterior%2BHood%2BGeneral%2BNo%2BYears&pcrid=8275846497&mkwid=s453HrMNv&mkw=hood%20for%20ford%20mustang&pmt=e&placement= I see that they are selling Ford Mustang Hoods... nobody thinks that these hoods are made by Ford... no one thinks this is a Ford product. Clearly, this is a website dedicated to selling third party products. Is this how it is in England? Would a website like this be legal or would it impinge on the car makers rights over there? I genuinely want to know.

[daboarder]

Here's the thing: if I go to http://www.americanmuscle.com/mustang-hoods.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=hood%2Bfor%2Bford%2Bmustang&utm_campaign=S%2B-%2BExterior%2BHood%2BGeneral%2BNo%2BYears&pcrid=8275846497&mkwid=s453HrMNv&mkw=hood%20for%20ford%20mustang&pmt=e&placement= I see that they are selling Ford Mustang Hoods... nobody thinks that these hoods are made by Ford... no one thinks this is a Ford product. Clearly, this is a website dedicated to selling third party products. Is this how it is in England? Would a website like this be legal or would it impinge on the car makers rights over there? I genuinely want to know.


How do you know about the legal agreements that exist between those two companies?
for all you know that website has the approval of Ford to use their name probably for a royalty fee of some kind.

What chapterhouse did is wrong plain and simple, unjustifiably WRONG! they stole someones idea without offering them a thing in return for their effort.

[Samules]

The only problem with Chapter House is really that they were a bit too brash about the whole thing. Most sites like scribd just avoid using the GW terms or copying them but CH really kinda plagarized GW and were just too cocky about it all. I am not personally familiar with IP laws but I heard once that if CH makes models of things GW hasn't (like mysetic spores or warlocks on bikes) then GW loses the IP to those things in model form. Again not entirely sure about that but would certainly explain why GW is so careful with their IP.

[eldargal]

It's interesting actually because I hear the exact same thing from British about Americans, more interested in following the guidlines and ending the work day as soon as they can so they can go home. I'm not questioning what you say either, I'm just not sure it is fair to make generalisations about American and British work culture based on a bit of personal experience.

Except in the case of British tradesmen where it is clear 90% of them are fat, lazy and incompetent.:rolleyes:

I cannot speak to the differences in law between the US and the UK. My career is software engineering, specializing in avionics, flight control systems and UAV controls. I have worked with several Brits before. Presently the team leader of the project I'm on is an expatriate from the UK. From this I can tell you the Brits do have a radically different sense of things than I am used to.

In the US, our first priority is function, not form. We don't care so much about following process to the letter, so long as we have something that works by the end of the day. Rules are good, but they're really just guidelines - none of them are set in stone. And that goes for deadlines too. Come the promised deadline, if it doesn't work we'll break the promise and slip the deadline. We'll cut every corner we can (if we have to), but we won't release something that will fly people into the ground.

What I've noticed from my British counterparts is they get overly obsessive about following a design paradigm, even when the paradigm is wrong. They get bogged down in the form of something, and seem to sometimes disregard the underlying desired function. As example, recently I had to come up with three separate ways to enact a function, because my team lead couldn't decide which way was the "correct" way. I felt like throwing him a die and telling him, "roll for it!" I've also noticed Brits seem to be a bit more fidgety about deadlines.

Base on this, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the Brits are probably a bit more dogged in their adherence to law, and maybe a bit less compassionate toward the intent of those laws. As example, I've often seen it written here that UK businesses are required by law to make a profit. The intent was probably to guard against shenanigans related to price wars and driving stock prices down so companies could buy their stocks back cheaply. The law has been used, however, to justify the totally reasonable prices of GW's minis. Every time I hear that argument, I cannot help but thinking to myself, "Surely that's not what the authors of the law intended."

[Psychosplodge]

The link is not relevant to aftermarket parts. They were copying a car, not making aftermarket parts.


IANAL YMMV, yada yada

It's totally relevant, It's merely an aftermarket bodykit over a "donor" chasis.
I don't know about legality but I can walk in to halfords and buy "lexus style" lights that will fit my car if i wanted, so there's either some kind of licensing at work or there's a cut off point where it become's an infringement rather than an accessory...

[sneakyben]

I cannot speak to the differences in law between the US and the UK. My career is software engineering, specializing in avionics, flight control systems and UAV controls. I have worked with several Brits before. Presently the team leader of the project I'm on is an expatriate from the UK. From this I can tell you the Brits do have a radically different sense of things than I am used to.

In the US, our first priority is function, not form. We don't care so much about following process to the letter, so long as we have something that works by the end of the day. Rules are good, but they're really just guidelines - none of them are set in stone. And that goes for deadlines too. Come the promised deadline, if it doesn't work we'll break the promise and slip the deadline. We'll cut every corner we can (if we have to), but we won't release something that will fly people into the ground.

What I've noticed from my British counterparts is they get overly obsessive about following a design paradigm, even when the paradigm is wrong. They get bogged down in the form of something, and seem to sometimes disregard the underlying desired function. As example, recently I had to come up with three separate ways to enact a function, because my team lead couldn't decide which way was the "correct" way. I felt like throwing him a die and telling him, "roll for it!" I've also noticed Brits seem to be a bit more fidgety about deadlines.

Base on this, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the Brits are probably a bit more dogged in their adherence to law, and maybe a bit less compassionate toward the intent of those laws. As example, I've often seen it written here that UK businesses are required by law to make a profit. The intent was probably to guard against shenanigans related to price wars and driving stock prices down so companies could buy their stocks back cheaply. The law has been used, however, to justify the totally reasonable prices of GW's minis. Every time I hear that argument, I cannot help but thinking to myself, "Surely that's not what the authors of the law intended."



I really wouldn't base a national stereotype on a project manager...
I'm an engineer also and my experience of US project managers is the same, if not worse...

For an interesting comparason of British/American prospectives, read some Bill Bryson

[Psychosplodge]

Or "watching the English" (I think) which is by an American author and quite funny(If a bit skewed towards her husbands middle class southerness)

[Aldramelech]

My take on the whole thing is quite straight forward, GW are arrogant DB's who thought they could bully anyone they liked and this time it has backfired in a spectacular way.

[Denzark]

I cannot speak to the differences in law between the US and the UK. My career is software engineering, specializing in avionics, flight control systems and UAV controls. I have worked with several Brits before. Presently the team leader of the project I'm on is an expatriate from the UK. From this I can tell you the Brits do have a radically different sense of things than I am used to.

In the US, our first priority is function, not form. We don't care so much about following process to the letter, so long as we have something that works by the end of the day. Rules are good, but they're really just guidelines - none of them are set in stone. And that goes for deadlines too. Come the promised deadline, if it doesn't work we'll break the promise and slip the deadline. We'll cut every corner we can (if we have to), but we won't release something that will fly people into the ground.

What I've noticed from my British counterparts is they get overly obsessive about following a design paradigm, even when the paradigm is wrong. They get bogged down in the form of something, and seem to sometimes disregard the underlying desired function. As example, recently I had to come up with three separate ways to enact a function, because my team lead couldn't decide which way was the "correct" way. I felt like throwing him a die and telling him, "roll for it!" I've also noticed Brits seem to be a bit more fidgety about deadlines.

Base on this, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the Brits are probably a bit more dogged in their adherence to law, and maybe a bit less compassionate toward the intent of those laws. As example, I've often seen it written here that UK businesses are required by law to make a profit. The intent was probably to guard against shenanigans related to price wars and driving stock prices down so companies could buy their stocks back cheaply. The law has been used, however, to justify the totally reasonable prices of GW's minis. Every time I hear that argument, I cannot help but thinking to myself, "Surely that's not what the authors of the law intended."



Thats funny. I work with US military, being Brit, and find they are far more about process and rules are less a guide, more an absolute crutch. NCOs seem to get less initiative (US Army - Section Commander = Sgt, Brit Army - Sect Commander = Cpl). I blame a lot of this on Hollywood cliches - the grizzled insubordinate NCO is the hero, the junior officer is inept, and the senior officer is corrupt, a coward or someone who is going to get all his men killed to achieve the objective.

However you are correct about Brit adherence to law - this is why we get stuffed by Europe by the EU. For example say mad cow disease - we obey quarantine, pay fines etc. When we get a clean bill of health the perfidious french refuse to take our beef, and rack up a load of fines for doing so, which they refuse to pay.

However one piece where I think you have missed the nuance, is the sarcasm about reasonable prices. The reason being, is that a responsibility to the shareholders is not what GW use to justify the prices. The responsibility to shreholders justifies the company policies overall. They are not saying prices are reasonable whilst laughing in their sleeves about how they aren't really and how gullible the customers are. The CUSTOMERS are justifying the prices as reasonable as they keep buying in sufficient quality to make company policy succeed. Were pricing or any other part of company policy (ie the lockdown on new releases, WD being an advert etc) failing to support a policy which makes profit, the law would then require them to change company policy to return to profit making.

As they have turned around a profit warning into healthy enough showing for a Brit company in our current climate, they are discharging their duties.

PS everyone please don't come back saying it is based on a false economy with the wage cuts from US 1-man stores and a chnage to finecast etc etc, because you have a 2:2 in economics with basket weaving from the University of Podunk Alabama. The only economic balls I would like someone to flash on here to be cogent and relevant would be 'I am the CEO of a blue chip floated company in the gaming industry'.

[Psychosplodge]

The only economic balls I would like someone to flash on here to be cogent and relevant would be 'I am the CEO of a blue chip floated company in the gaming industry'.

I was a ceo at a blue chip gaming company but then we turned into a second hand store and comet bought us so what do i know?:D

[isotope99]

I don't think you can treat Chapterhouse's products all together with one answer that is either yes or no, there is a range of different things that they make IMHO some of which the designs fall into the clearly OK category because they are sufficiently generic or similar to real items in the public domain, through to whole models that copy too much (the NOT eldar models being I think the worst offenders).

My suspicion is that this will all eventually be settled in a compromise where chapterhouse are more careful about their products and don't use as many GW trademarks, and GW back off and go after the next company they feel is overstepping their bounds.

Example:

The recent puppetswar cyber arthropods. We all know they are designed to be necron wraiths but they don't use the word necron or any other GW symbols/trademarks etc and the design is sufficiently different to the artwork that GW would have very little chance of shutting them down even if they wanted to.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ut6jeXry8Ag/T3SHylPY2II/AAAAAAAAJm4/Tt6LSg8J0fA/s1600/96-302-thickbox.jpg

[scadugenga]

I don't think you can safely say that the US are more lax about laws, etc.

We're perhaps the most litigious country in the world.

Chicago alone has tens of thousands of lawyers.

That makes my brain hurt. Or my soul. Perhaps both.

Indiana's governor just signed a law into effect that allows people to use deadly force against police officers if they believe the police officers are illegally entering their home.

So...it's legal to kill cops in Indiana. But only under specific conditions.

Man, just another reason I don't want to live in Indiana...

[Psychosplodge]

As opposed to here where they lock you up if you consider taking any action to stop a burglar entering your house...

This about sums it up...
I was at home last week when I spotted 2 burglars in my garden shed. I phoned the police and was told that no squad car could get to my house for at least 20 minutes, so I hung up.

Five minutes later I rang back saying, "There is no need for the squad car now, I've shot them both!"

Within two minutes there were four squad cars and an armed response unit outside and they caught the burglars red handed.

When the chief came up to me he said, "I thought you said you'd shot them?"

To which I replied, "And I thought you said there were no police in the area."

[Wolfshade]

Slightly off kilter here, but you can't put razor wire on fences lest a burgular hurts themselves tresspassing...
I think one of the things that makes some of them different is that the Puppets War wraiths although clearly look inspired by, but are different to the GW scultp, whereas Doomseer Iyanar-Duanna looks like a GW sculpt with the way the body armour mimics the standard gaurdian plates even to the helm detail and while not a copy of a single miniature it has elements and devices which are replicated throughout the GW eldar range. Clearly, some of their other coversion kits etc are quite different to GW such as the wheel coversion kit for the chimera.
I think where the clarification is needed is whether or not a model that uses different devices copied (derived) from a model range, but never collected together in that specific order, is a new model or is derivative work.

[inquisitorsog]

It's totally relevant, It's merely an aftermarket bodykit over a "donor" chasis.
I don't know about legality but I can walk in to halfords and buy "lexus style" lights that will fit my car if i wanted, so there's either some kind of licensing at work or there's a cut off point where it become's an infringement rather than an accessory...

But the aftermarket body kit was a _replica_ of the classic gullwing. Replica = largely a copy. Because it was made to look in its entirety like a specific other Mercedes car but wasn't, there's a problem. Replacing a single part is often ok under specific cases. Replicating the whole thing? No. Even if it's just a shell that looks like the whole thing.

Because puppets war makes its wraith stand ins but makes no claim that they are wraiths and it only follows the very broadest of outlines, it will almost certainly pass muster. Anyone having seen the GW wraith will not be confused with these. However, if they started calling them Necron Wraiths = problem. Or, if they were substantially a copy = problem. Even if they took all GW parts from other models and assembled them into something that looked substantially like a wraith, there's still probably a problem in purest legal sense. In the latter case, GW may decide they're getting their cut anyway and not pursue it. It's a copyright question at that point and you don't have to defend copyrights against all infringements. Trademark is different. If you knowingly allow trademark violations to persist, you lose your trademark.

[Psychosplodge]

At what point does it become a replica, then and not just a series of bolt on parts?

[=Angel=]

At what point does it become a replica, then and not just a series of bolt on parts?

Also, at what point do GW gain copyright for generic fantasy/SciFi ideas/styles?

Killer robots who look skeletal is as original idea as zombies, but GW create a market for both with their games.

Mantic produce zombies and scifi dwarves, which have a place in GW games. Scifi robots, space knights, scifi tank parts, they're all fair game really.

One of the things that great about the warhammer/40k universe is just how derivative and "homage" it is to so many sources. Makes it easy to relate to it in parts.
WW2 russians, germans, space monsters, english football fan orks, are great because we understand them.

Its not great for GW that they are uncopyright-able as concepts, only as individual models.

[Psychosplodge]

Also, at what point do GW gain copyright for generic fantasy/SciFi ideas/styles?

Killer robots who look skeletal is as original idea as zombies, but GW create a market for both with their games.

Mantic produce zombies and scifi dwarves, which have a place in GW games. Scifi robots, space knights, scifi tank parts, they're all fair game really.

One of the things that great about the warhammer/40k universe is just how derivative and "homage" it is to so many sources. Makes it easy to relate to it in parts.
WW2 russians, germans, space monsters, english football fan orks, are great because we understand them.

Its not great for GW that they are uncopyright-able as concepts, only as individual models.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly no GW zealot, while I love their universe, I think there is a place for custom parts.
But seriously where is the line between a knockoff or an add on?

[magickbk]

I'm in the US, and can offer some insight. I think it's important to draw a few comparisons with other products to set some precedent.

1. The Car Analogy - Aftermarket car parts are made to fit production cars, and are rarely licensed with the original manufacturer. It is important to note two things about the way these products are marketed. First, they have their own names, for example, VIS Carbon Fiber Hood - Invader Style (fits Dodge Neon 00-02): Not 00-02 Dodge Neon Invader Hood. And second, they *usually* clearly demarcate the product they are selling from the manufacturer product in all photographs by using a different paint color, or having a picture of just their parts.

2. Video Game Accessories - The fight over cheap video game accessories goes back to the beginning of time. A good example in stores today are Power A Nintendo 3DS accessories. These are officially licensed by Nintendo, carrying an officially licensed product seal, and prominently displaying the Nintendo 3DS logo on the front of the box, and frequently on the accessory itself. A non-licensed product will have some other name, for example: Power Smash Mega Case for Portable Game Systems! Somewhere on the box will be some text claiming it fits Nintendo 3DS with a footnote, and as small as they can hide the text on the bottom of the box it will state that Nintendo 3DS is a registered trademark of Nintendo and is used without authorization or some other legalese to ward off the lawsuits.

In both of the cases above, care is taken to avoid use of the original manufacturers logos either on product or packaging unless licensed for use.

ChapterHouse Studios doesn't follow these examples. Their products use the name of Games Workshop property (example - Salamander Skull Power Armor Shoulder Pad), and also use existing art/IP to include logos, etc, on the parts (example - Flesh Tearers Shoulder Pads). If ChapterHouse had come up with their own concepts: say, an octagonal pauldron with runes around the border, and gave it a unique name such as "Runic Warrior Pauldrons" and it said somewhere that the ChapterHouse "Runic Warrior Pauldrons" have a ball and socket assembly that also fits Games Workshop Space Marine models, then I think they could win that fight. The tricky part for them will come in arguing what can and cannot be claimed as a trademark/IP by Games Workshop, which is what they are going to have to do. They do have a blurb on their website saying that a bunch of things are a trademark of GW and used without permission, but that only works for fan websites, etc, not for a company making products.

In the long run, a company like GW can just drag out litigation until any pro-bono support ChapterHouse has falls away, and they can no longer afford to fight.

[wittdooley]

Mantic produce zombies and scifi dwarves, which have a place in GW games.

Not if you want your models to look good.... ;)

You know, there's a big difference b/w Chapterhouse's approach to marketing their stuff than how outfits like Puppet's War, Max Mini, or Microart Studio have done it; Chapterhouse's use of blantant GW trademarks is, to me as a layman, either an extreme case of arrogance (which, having spoken to their folks, I'm not sure that it is) or, as someone pointed out earlier, a concious decision to push some of the Trademark/IP policies to help make the waters surrounding them less murky.

[Psychosplodge]

so if you just make heads and shoulder pads, it's clearly just accesories.
But if you make basicly alternatives for every part of a space marine you could effectively make a "faux space marine" out of accessories?

[gwensdad]

Indiana's governor just signed a law into effect that allows people to use deadly force against police officers if they believe the police officers are illegally entering their home.

So...it's legal to kill cops in Indiana. But only under specific conditions.

Man, just another reason I don't want to live in Indiana...

You're still invited to come over and play sometime.
(and one of our gaming group could have moved to Naperville, but didn't because of the insane cost of living)

And I think that bill was more of an "F-YOU" to the policeman's unions than anything else.

Anyway-let's get back on topic...

[Chris Copeland]

I'm pretty sure that here in America it is perfectly legal to make after market products that fit onto or go with other products without anyone's permission. I could make VW doors and I don't need VW's permission to make them. I don't need a license from them. I could manufacture aftermarket controllers that are compatible with the PS3 without Sony's permission. There was a famous case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade) involving Sega that even determined that it is legal to reverse engineer things just so that you can make sure your unlicensed aftermarket stuff works. Is it the same there in England?

[Necron2.0]

In response to ...

It's interesting actually because I hear the exact same thing from British about Americans...
... and ...

I really wouldn't base a national stereotype on a project manager...


<*shrug*> What I wrote was just a personal observation, based on experiences with several expats (not just the one). Of course, the generalization I gave showed itself to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the individual. Additionally, these were observations of engineers working for US companies, having to deal with a bunch of unruly colonials, in a strange land that was decidedly NOT "Gods own Country," so the behavior I've observed may not be truly typical - they could have simply been overcompensating.


Thats funny. I work with US military

Whoa! Full stop, right there. All bets are off when you get to the "M" word. Those guys raise stupidity and anal retentiveness to high art (in triplicate, of course). I once had the unfortunate task of trying to convincing a US Air force Officer (either a Colonel or a Major, not sure which) why the UAV we were working on could not and should not be tested in a 105 knot wind. He'd read in some spec for the airframe that it could briefly achieve a speed of 100 knots, and per his testing guidelines, that meant the system needed to be tested in a 105 knot wind. I tried first off to relate to him that the project was a simple autopilot upgrade that had no impacts on the UAV's general flight performance. I then tried to explain to him how, at the altitude the UAV could physically reach, those winds were near impossible to get. I even tried to put it in layman's terms, mentioning that a 105 knot wind can only be achieved in a category 3 hurricane, which is well outside the launch parameters of the UAV. I even directed him to this graphic (http://www.howtoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/beaufortscale.png). His only response was, "'Hurricane' is a nautical term which we do not use in the Air Force! And you must test the system in a 105 knot wind." Eventually, my boss had to negotiate with this guy's superiors to have him removed from project management.

[=Angel=]

Not if you want your models to look good.... ;)



As always, beauty remains a beholder oriented phenomenon.
But I think the mantic skellies and ghouls are fantastic sculpts.

And the very fact that I have a choice whose miniatures I use to play with is a good thing.
Chapterhouse's tru scale marines are something I want to get for kill team games, and I'm happy I have that choice.
I bought Kabuki miniatures "Sci Fi napoleon" and he is an amazing model, oozing character and authority.
http://www.kabukimodels.com/upload/oryginal/185943775.jpg
He'll be my guard commander from now on.

[gendoikari87]

My Ruger 10/22 has no ruger parts in it. No idea if the companies that made the parts paid a royalty though.

[gcsmith]

I believe, though i may be wrong (Rather Likely) that american law is based more on physical tangible products like models, whereas England uses images, such as those printed in the tyranids book as basis for copy right, IE Gamesworkshop clearly showed in the Tyranid codex the look of the tyranid monstrous creatures not made, however in America thats not enough, hence the delay in certain minatures production.

Also CHS shot themselves in the foot, they unlike other companies have gone out of the way to do as much GW stuff as possible, not content on conversion pieces they not only used GW Trademarks but also produced models clearly intended to take GW business, *malantai Cough cough*. Had they only produced bits to produce Alien mind bugs and more than one sculpt and had it different to GW art, and never used malantai at all. Then they would get away.

The moment they produced the malantai model and called it that, they were out for a slice of cake from GW, and that is wrong and stupid.

[lattd]

Im glad the original poster got the legal differences right, I have seen a lot of people posting saying the "British" law, can i just clarify England and wales share the same law, Scotland and Ireland have different laws.

Now i've had my rant, heres the English law regarding copyrights and designs http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/1

and heres the English law on trade marks, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/contents both are a tad outdated.

[The Plumber]

It's interesting actually because I hear the exact same thing from British about Americans, more interested in following the guidlines and ending the work day as soon as they can so they can go home. I'm not questioning what you say either, I'm just not sure it is fair to make generalisations about American and British work culture based on a bit of personal experience.

Except in the case of British tradesmen where it is clear 90% of them are fat, lazy and incompetent.:rolleyes:

^ contradiction in its most raw form. 90% of all tradesmen in your experience are fat lazy and incompetent..;)

[gendoikari87]

^ contradiction in its most raw form. 90% of all tradesmen in your experience are fat lazy and incompetent..;)

I believe what eldergal did there was called sarcastic irony.