EA steals GWs IP?

[DadExtraordinaire]

See links for more news:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/12/oh-dear-cc-tiberium-alliances-may-have-borrowed/#more-103494

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-12-ea-accused-of-copying-warhammer-40k-tanks-for-command-and-conquer-tiberium-alliances

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc_mmo_is_a_baneblade_from_40k/

[Dalleron]

Seems like a blatant ripoff to me. I suppose GW it too busy with Chapterhouse to do much about it.

[MarneusCalgar]

I would sue them, if I were GW.

This is very clearly a rip off...

No excuses for me

[Inquiring M1nd]

This will be very interesting. Could someone with a law degree go over which model would be a stronger case?

The Ork Tank is an old design that hasn't been revived in more than a decade, but it's pretty much dead-on to the digital model.

The Baneblade has seen an upswing in the past few years, but the updated model isn't quite as good a comparison to the digital as the old models from the 90's. Will that drift have an impact on a potential legal issue?

[Defenestratus]

Its getting some gaming MSM coverage too:
http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-been-caught-stealing-designs-from-a-tabletop-game?utm_campaign=socialflow_kotaku_twitter&utm_source=kotaku_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[gendoikari87]

dude this is 10 times more of a knockoff ... but can gw sue if they dont use the same names ... at least chapterhouse was somewhat original.

[inquisitorsog]

dude this is 10 times more of a knockoff ... but can gw sue if they dont use the same names ... at least chapterhouse was somewhat original.

Yes, GW can sue, assuming EA didn't secure permission to use the models in some other fashion. You'd be surprised at what can happen to muddy the question of who has rights to what with long term contracts, acquisitions, etc. EA or one of its subs may have started working on game for GW, got as far as building the 3d models, then it fell through, but they may have had a clause allowing them to reuse those objects. Just as a for-example.

Anyway...
The names are about trademarks, this is about potential copyright infringement. If I make a hand drawn cartoon depicting every scene from Cars and use all different names and call the movie "Things with wheels", I'm still infringing.

[MarneusCalgar]

Well, GW can claim IP violation not only on the name of its products but also on their image... the Baneblade is obviously an original tank from GW. It´s not so original as it is based in real world tanks, but if someone uses the GW image for its own and seeking profits... it can be a matter of sue

[DrLove42]

Exactly. If I draw a comic mouse with big round black ears and try to use it, its infringement whether the character is called Mickey, Mackey or Reginald Tybalt Cheesenose

I don't know the law, so i'm going to largely keep out of this and let more knowledgable people (and bunch of folks from the INTERNET!!!!) comment on it.

But one similar model is convenient. 2 is decidedly dodgy. If theres a 3rd.....then **** gets real

[inquisitorsog]

One interesting factoid:
The new "How to paint" video includes a "Special thanks to EA/Mythic Entertainment" in the credits.

Which reminds me that Mythic was the one behind Warhammer Online. Which just adds to the distinct possibility that this is legit use via a complicated set of assignments.

But it also keeps the door wide open to "we started to build a game for 40k, that got shelved, then some time later we found these cool looking 3d models in a file share and used them without realizing we didn't actually have rights to do so".

[Wildeybeast]

I honestly don't see a multinational like EA being stupid/ballsy enough to think that they could make such blatant copies without someone noticing. So either they think GW doesn't have the guts to take them on (suing EA would be a whole different kettle of fish to Chapterhouse), which is risky, or they are using them legitimately.

Edit: Also, why would EA want to rip off GW designs? Is it really that hard to design their own original tank, or at least change them so they look less like the GW ones?

[gendoikari87]

The baneblade rip off is actually different enough to warrent free reign, but that ork one.... I'd have to look at it more closely, it's too close to tell just by glancing.

[Uncle Nutsy]

If such a lawsuit were to occur...

GW: a decently sized model company based out of the UK.

versus..

EA: the worlds' largest publishing conglomerate in the video games industry.


EA wins because they can simply dog-pile any opposition with lawyers.

[scadugenga]

It'll be interesting at any rate.

What I found particularly amusing (and poor reporting) is the kotaku article alleging that EA is ripping off GW IP, without the clear indication that GW has ripped off other IP in the first place.

Power armor marines? Heinlein did it first.

Alien bioforms? HR Geiger / Aliens

Orks? The Road Warrior with green skin.

Leman Russ tank? Looks very similar to WW I tanks used by the Brits.

The Imperium of Man and the anti-robot/computer backstory? *cough*Dune*cough*

Just about everything's a bit derivative of something else. But claiming that GW somehow is this wonderful treasure trove of new and unique IP creative ideas is just not true in any sense of the word.

The "Baneblade" analogue is just different enough that they can claim WWI design engineering as an inspiration.

The ork tank, however, will be too similar, I think, to make a decent defense.

But as Unc'a Nutsy just pointed out--EA has way more money than GW.

It's almost like GW would be the "Chaperhouse Studios" side of the equation, money-wise, this time around.

[Wildeybeast]

I spoke to my game designer friend for an industry view on this and here's what he said.

"I think what's happened here is that EA haven't gone and told people to copy 40K, some artist has gone off and done it himself without telling anyone, thinking no one will notice. It may have been done maliciously or he didn't think he'd get in trouble. Not to be racist but it was probably done by some poorly paid outsource artist in India or China who had a tight deadline so just copied something to save time.

As a side note, EA have only ever held the Warhammer rights, not the 40K rights."

That makes sense to me, like I mentioned previously I can't imagine anyone high up in EA knowingly sanctioning this, it is mostly a result of them doing things on the cheap.

Apparently the game is still in the beta stage, so EA won't have made any actual money on it yet and should be able to avoid a lawsuit by simply removing the models and pleading ignorance. As for the money beign an issue, I don't think it would affect GW's decision too much as this is a pretty open and shut case. There is no court in the world that is going to believe EA came up with these identical designs by pure coincidence, but they should be smart enough to simply change them. Chapterhouse got taken to court because they persistently refused to stop repeatedly using GW's IP and copyrighted terms, EA wouldn't let it get that far, especially considering the nerd rage they are already getting over the ME3 ending, the last thing they need is more bad publicity.

[pauljc]

Wow.. companies just aren't really trying any more are they? Need to whip out a cheap product in a timely fashion? Just steal someone else's ideas and IP (yeah Mantic, I'm lookin' at you too..).

Give me sad panda face.

[StraightSilver]

EA do actually own the rights to a fair bit of 40K stuff, or rather their Epic counterparts, and I think this is where this mistake may have cropped up.

It's a bit convoluted but:

In 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 in question.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

It is quite possible that an artist was trawling through some very old models that he assumed EA had the rights to and re-used them for this new Command and Conquer game.

Or it may be that EA do still actually own the rights to use these vehicles, although it seems odd that they would cross over two independant IPs.

I am sure this was just an honest mistake, although it could be somebody being very lazy, and because these models are in the early beta stages I suspect they will be removed from the game very quickly.

[Defenestratus]

Final Liberation was an awesome game!

[Wolfshade]

If I draw a comic mouse with big round black ears and try to use it, its infringement whether the character is called Mickey, Mackey or Reginald Tybalt Cheesenose
I would love to see the continuing adventures of Reginald Tybalt Cheesenose