Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[Bigred]

Hundreds of pages dropped into the public record this week from the ongoing case.

Both sides submitted 25 page motions for summary judgement to the Illinois District court with their strongest arguments. The discovery proccess is over, and high ranking Games Workshop and Chapterhouse staff, as well as expert witnesses testimony is now on the public record.

Here's a brief guided tour:

Partial Index of Recent Exhibits (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.2.pdf)

Games Workshop Motion for Summary Judgement (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.213.1.pdf)
Chapterhouse Motion for Summary Judgement (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.0.pdf)

Expert Witnesses Testimony
- British Copyright Law Experts (supporting GW) (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.19.pdf) Exhibit 8
- British Copyright Law Expert (Supporting CHS) (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.19.pdf) Exhibit 9
- Military Symbology Expert (supporting CHS) (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.21.pdf) Exhibit 12-13

Staff Testimony
Andrew Jones - GW Head of Legal, Licensing (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.32.pdf) Exhibit 15
Alan Merrett - GW Head of IP (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.34.pdf) Exhibit 17-19
Gillian Stevenson - GW Chief Counsel (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.34.pdf) Exhibit 22-23
John Blanche - GW Art Director (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.35.pdf) Exhibit 27

Master Case Archives (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/)
There are hundreds of pages of unlabeled supporting documents from both sides from document 204.0 on downward.

UPDATE 9-7-2012
Both sides have issused opposition documents to each other's requests for summary judgement and points of contention to each other's "Undisputed Facts" documents.

Games Workshop Opposition to CHS Motion for Summary Judgement (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.230.0.pdf)
Chapterhouse Opposition to GW Motion for Summary Judgement (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.229.0.pdf)

Chapterhouse Opposition to GW Undisputed Facts Document (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.234.0.pdf)

UPDATE 10-25-2012
Pretrial documents are going up with proposed juror screening questions, and lists of expected witnesses to call.
Proposed Pre-trial Order (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.249.0.pdf)
Trial date is currently set for December 3rd.

UPDATE 2-13-2013
Latest wrinkle in the case is working its way out.

CHS presented emails Games Workshop failed to disclose to the court between GW and the US Copyright Office. In these email the CO rejected the copyrightability of shoulderpads. This email would have been pertinent to the court in making its own summary judgement decision on copyrightability in the case of certain GW product claims. In almost all cases, judges will defer to the US Copyright Office's decisions on copyright (that is their specialty after all).

In this document (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.275.1.pdf)GW's attorney tells the US Copyright Office that he is more than happy to let the court make a copyrightability decision for them with some interesting choice of words...

There are now some back and forth motions (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.272.0.pdf)from both sides around this issue based on whether the Copyright Office has "formally issued a rejection" of GW's shouldperpad claim.

The judge has not commented on whether the court will take this new evidence into account and possibly update or reverse their own summary judgement on the case so far.

The jury-trial date is currently set for April.

The case is onging.

Special Request: All the recent documents start at 204.0 and downwards. There are literally hundreds, upon hundreds of pages of testimony in here. If you find any gems or morsels, please throw them into the comments with a description of what document they are from. Lets crowd-source this thing!

[Chris*ta]

Twenty-five years ago, Games Workshop created a vast fictional universe set in the 41st Millennium (“Warhammer 40,000” or “Warhammer 40K”) where Mankind must battle for survival in a galaxy riven by bloodshed and destruction. (Undisputed Fact #3).

It's not just a fact, it's an Undisputed Fact!

[lattd]

Heres something interesting "The Plaintiff is a United Kingdom corporation with numerous stores in the United States, including in and around Chicago, Illinois, which is its single largest selling market in the United States (Complaint, para 1)."

Something VERY interesting this case seems to be playing out under english law!

[MarneusCalgar]

Great work of compilation, Bigred!

[DrLove42]

Ive always come down hard on GWs side here. CHS are selling products using GWs intellectual property. Unlike other after market suppliers CHS have a certain arrogance above everyone else. If they used other names and tried to be a bit different in sculpts there wouldnt be a problem

My worry is American Underdog vs British company in a US court, that the judge will just come down on CHS side cos of nationality.

[RGilbert26]

While attempting to read some of the GW pdf on the main news article i liked the bit where GW pointed out that CHS at one point boasted about copying GW, and how CHS has stopped mentioning it. Clearly the guy was told to stop by his 'Lawyers' (seeing that he's had to get it pro-bono, sp?) to stop pointing it out clearly for everyone to see that he's cheating/copying GW stuff on purpose.

[Scripts]

Ive always come down hard on GWs side here. CHS are selling products using GWs intellectual property. Unlike other after market suppliers CHS have a certain arrogance above everyone else. If they used other names and tried to be a bit different in sculpts there wouldnt be a problem

My worry is American Underdog vs British company in a US court, that the judge will just come down on CHS side cos of nationality.

Case is being tried in the Chicago area, right? If GW is smart about it (and I'm sure they are) there are probably some good Chicago lawyers working on this case, so I'm sure it'll go GW's way. Chicago lawyers know how things work....;)

[RGilbert26]

Well i hope GW win but this is America where a group of Fat Americans won against McDonalds, blaming them for being fat.

[Mr Mystery]

I do hope CH get done over on this. As previously said, they have a certain arrogance about them I find distasteful.

It's not just the pinching of images for 'inspiration' either, it's the temerity to then use GW's own names for them dodgy knock offs. Now alternate sculpts are kind of ok, like the random bits other third parties produce. However CH's efforts do seem distinctly arse to my eyes. Lopsided, lacking detail.

Yeah. Not a CH fan. I hope they fall hard over this.

[Mr Mystery]

It's not just a fact, it's an Undisputed Fact!

Translating from Legalese, that would mean information one side presented as fact, which the other side either did not contest and agreed with.

So for instance, if you beat me at a game, and then punched you, when you inevitably drag my butt to court, that we played the game would be an Undisputed Fact. The others would likely be Undisputed as well, as I'm an honest kind of guy :)

[Renegade]

I may go in to business making dollars that are compatible to devices that use US dollars if this cases goes CHS way. The name 'dollar' is not unique to the US in any way, nor are coins and paper money. The imagery on the US dollar is not original in any way.

The court will have to be careful, as this will open a whole can of worms.

[Verilance]

you can do that now but convincing people that they are worth something is an entirely different matter, money only has the value we assign it.

your money would be worthless...

[Sainhann]

The Chapterhouse brief is far better than GW's.

I would love to see GW finally be taken to task for all the years that they have bullied individuals and small companies like Chapterhouse.

The GW brief is not good at all.

[RGilbert26]

I take it you want GW to go out of buisness then?

[Wolfshade]

I may go in to business making dollars that are compatible to devices that use US dollars if this cases goes CHS way. The name 'dollar' is not unique to the US in any way, nor are coins and paper money. The imagery on the US dollar is not original in any way.

The court will have to be careful, as this will open a whole can of worms.

But the $ is copyright of KISS, in certain curcumstances as it is the name of the label they created.

I do not have a problem with making unique scultps that are compatable with GW stuff, my issue is that some of these are arguably not unique.
Remember the Verve's Bittersweet Symphony, Rolling Stones argued that the main riff was plagarised from them and the court case awarded all royalties and songwriting credits to them.

[Lukas The Trickster]

The Chapterhouse brief is far better than GW's.

I would love to see GW finally be taken to task for all the years that they have bullied individuals and small companies like Chapterhouse.

The GW brief is not good at all.

What, taking other companies to task for using their intellectual copyright without permission? How dare they! No one has a problem with other companies selling after market bits that are compatible with GW products, there are loads of small design studios that do it. CHS just did it in a way that flagrantly breached intellectual copyright law, when it would have been perfectly easy for them to market their products in a way that did not.

[Psychosplodge]

Wading through the pages of bumf, yes my evening was that exciting, the GW case cites more convincing examples or at least explains their position better, the CHS one seems more vague...

[RGilbert26]

In the beginning i believe GW just wanted CHS to change the names, now that it's gotten this far i would not be surprised if they want CHS to pay legal fees and then shutdown.

[Psychosplodge]

Did you see the charges listed on their expert witnesses? they're paying more than a grand an hour for them, so what do you think they're paying their actual barrister?

[MarneusCalgar]

The real matter onto this is that Chapterhouse DIDN´T USE another names for their bits and miniatures!!

Instead of calling them: space marine shoulderpads, or so, just call them another name... and the problem should have been solved long ago!

But no, they wanted to have their greed and provoked GW also releasing a Tervigon, and with the copyrighted name...

[RGilbert26]

With the fact that the guy in charge of CHS was blatently boasting about copying GW and not caring i fail to see how CHS could win the case. That's proof enough as it is.

[Wolfshade]

The documenation makes some very interesting reading.
A couple of things that I found interesting was that in order to be classified as an infingrement it didn't need to be an exact copy of any single minature, just that it had to be recognisable and similiar enough.
The independant insignia witness statement is strange, it argues that the individual components of the GW symbolism are not distinct (ie cannot be copyrighted),eg up arrow and VII. Which is the exact same position that GWS themselves put forward, but go onto say that it is the unique combination of these, that make it copyrightable, and cite examples of this.
The other thing that was interesting was that works derived from existing imagry both pictures and words are covered.

[Psychosplodge]

I think the military expert is redundant, I don't think there was ever any question that real world modern and ancient equipment has influenced anything, surely the issue is how they're combined.

[Wolfshade]

Exactly.

[Scripts]

Heres something interesting "The Plaintiff is a United Kingdom corporation with numerous stores in the United States, including in and around Chicago, Illinois, which is its single largest selling market in the United States (Complaint, para 1)."

The fact that they call out Chicago as their biggest selling market is interesting. The store locator, to a certain extent, does lend some truth to this. There are 11 stores in the Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin area. I've been to 3 (Bunker in Downers Grove, Geneva Commons, RiverPointe) and have at least 3 others within an hour's drive of where I live (Rockford/WoodField/Naperville). This must be why they have Games Day here instead of near their US HQ or somewhere else in the US.

[StraightSilver]

I also like the fact that CHS refer to "28mm" as the standard scale, when in fact GW actually created the "28mm" scale by setting that precedent with its miniatures.

Before GW settled on 28mm all miniature manufacturers actually used 25mm as the standard scale. It is only since GW changed to "Heroic" scale which is essentially 28mm did other miniature manufacturers follow suit.

I know it's not possible to copyright a scale, but let's be honest, other figure companies made the change to allow players to use their figures in GW games.

If you look at minis from Ral Partha in the eighties / early nineties they are tiny! :)

[Sainhann]

I take it you want GW to go out of buisness then?

No but be taken down a peg or two, yes.

I got most of my 40k & WFB stuff back in the early to mid 1990's. So I really do not need them.

Plus there are more companies that are producing miniatures far cheaper and not made out of Finecast Resin.

Mantic Games is one and one of their lead designers is a ex-GW employee.

GW has been using their big Empire might and have for years bullied others with the threat of legal action.

Well now they actually found someone who is fighting back.

I have looked at both briefs and the Chapterhouse one is better than the GW one which was putting me to sleep.

So yes I am on the side of Chapterhouse.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Chapterhouse is very out of their depth, hopefully it'll work out for them. As per my understanding of using pre-existing copyright to advertise accessories, what they did was okay. It was okay, but not enough to prevent a company magnitudes larger than them taking them to court :/

[Mr Mystery]

No but be taken down a peg or two, yes.

I got most of my 40k & WFB stuff back in the early to mid 1990's. So I really do not need them.

Plus there are more companies that are producing miniatures far cheaper and not made out of Finecast Resin.

Mantic Games is one and one of their lead designers is a ex-GW employee.

GW has been using their big Empire might and have for years bullied others with the threat of legal action.

Well now they actually found someone who is fighting back.

I have looked at both briefs and the Chapterhouse one is better than the GW one which was putting me to sleep.

So yes I am on the side of Chapterhouse.

You are aware IP and Copyright are both subject to compulsory defence yes? Let infringement fly, and you risk losing your rights yes?

Now then. Which other companies have GW bullied that weren't producing knock offs, or otherwise attempting to trade off of GW's efforts?

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I'm gonna raise Blizzard again here (another company which had was employing a major former GW designer for a while there!). Their own games are based on very similar material, designs, concepts. I believe Warcraft was originally designed as a Warhammer game back in the day.

But that fell through, and they CHANGED THEIR STUFF so that it was "theirs", and both parties went away happy. And manage to coexist to today! Those guys even have Terran Marines! But they worked up their own IP from familiar and similar concepts, so there's absolutely no problem.

It's really not that hard. But Chapterhouse decided to explicitly play parasite, and GW have to - have to! By law! - act to protect their own IP rights.

(As it is, I really don't like IP or copyright law, but in this case it seems pretty cut and dried).

[DoctorEvil]

Wow....I just browsed through the two motions for summary judgement and my initial impression is that CH has a really weak arguement.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30508

This is an interesting article that goes through copyright and trademark. Interesting read especially in light of the two motions

[Psychosplodge]

I also like the fact that CHS refer to "28mm" as the standard scale, when in fact GW actually created the "28mm" scale by setting that precedent with its miniatures.

Before GW settled on 28mm all miniature manufacturers actually used 25mm as the standard scale. It is only since GW changed to "Heroic" scale which is essentially 28mm did other miniature manufacturers follow suit.

I know it's not possible to copyright a scale, but let's be honest, other figure companies made the change to allow players to use their figures in GW games.

If you look at minis from Ral Partha in the eighties / early nineties they are tiny! :)

Weren't they generally posted as a ratio?

[Mr Mystery]

For those of us who cannot be arsed, can someone post up the salient points of both sides arguments?

[Bigred]

Rabscutle on the frontpage summarized both motions as follows:


GW's case reads like "C'mon judge, look at their stuff. It is too much like ours. They totally infringed on stuff we sell."

CHS's case reads like "GW doesn't own any of the things it is suing us over because they can't back anything up with actual proof."

[Mr Mystery]

Rabscutle on the frontpage summarized both motions as follows:

Even though there are numerous instances of CH bragging online he's infringing GW Copyright etc?

[Lerra]

It doesn't matter if the owner of CH travels to children's orphanages and pees in their cheerios. The lawsuit is between businesses, not individuals. Either the product is infringing or it's not, and his personal statements don't change that.

[lattd]

It doesn't matter if the owner of CH travels to children's orphanages and pees in their cheerios. The lawsuit is between businesses, not individuals. Either the product is infringing or it's not, and his personal statements don't change that.

Actually it does, if he was the sole owner of the company his conduct in advertising the business is the conduct of the business and if they actively admitted to crossing the line a copy of times then they have admitted guilt.

[Bigred]

Latest responses by both sides have been posted in OP.

Now they are getting down to the nitty gritty.

[DrLove42]

Latest responses by both sides have been posted in OP.

Now they are getting down to the nitty gritty.



Only skimmed, but GW are making serious. points abiut CHS and CHS' statements just seem to be splitting haors about wording of the specifics.

For instance CHS complain that "NY book list" entrants dont count because theyre not defined

[gcsmith]

CHS are an arrogant child about to lose their toys.

The government needs to snatch them and say no.

[Chris Copeland]

CHS are an arrogant child about to lose their toys.

The government needs to snatch them and say no.

If we knew each other personally and were standing in the same room I'd say, "Wanna bet?" From my perspective CHS has the stronger case. Of course, it's not up to all of us armchair lawyers... it's up to the real lawyers and judges. We'll see which way it goes. Go Chapterhouse! :) Cope

[gcsmith]

If we knew each other personally and were standing in the same room I'd say, "Wanna bet?" From my perspective CHS has the stronger case. Of course, it's not up to all of us armchair lawyers... it's up to the real lawyers and judges. We'll see which way it goes. Go Chapterhouse! :) Cope

Stronger case? They openly gloat about using GW copyright. They try and make money only of GW and act like arrogant gits. They deserve to be run into the ground.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Stronger case? They openly gloat about using GW copyright. They try and make money only of GW and act like arrogant gits. They deserve to be run into the ground.Devil's advocate: They're proud of the fact that while other third-party manufacturers are too intimated by GW to legally label their accessories for what they are, but CH was not.

If CH wins this, every damn site can finally stop saying "Oooo this is a non-40k related Super-soldier head" and just come out and call it for what it is.

[Chris Copeland]

It's not about "deserved." It's about the law. All of the huffing and puffing is coming from non-lawyers (including myself). I suspect what actually happens will be far more nuanced than all of us in the masses think it will be.

PS See my previous arguments about folks making money off of Ford Motor Company by making after market bonnets ("hoods" to us Americans). Lots of companies make money off of stuff made by other companies... and it's all perfectly legal... Cheers!



Stronger case? They openly gloat about using GW copyright. They try and make money only of GW and act like arrogant gits. They deserve to be run into the ground.

[gendoikari87]

CHS are an arrogant child about to lose their toys.

The government needs to snatch them and say no.

And GW is an arrogant incompetent parent in that analogy, GW had really screwed the pooch on this one. Possibly not to the point of a loss (because lets face it they have a lot of money and influence) but they did really screw up in the fact discovery period.

[gcsmith]

To bad this thread is so filled up with armchairing and haters. Bols is usually a nice site but the mods ought to keep threads like this clear from all the crap.

A far better moderated thread with tons of more information:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2580/355433.page

Personally, I love how people are assuming that the back of the shoulder pad is a picture of GW. No lawyer would let that onto the evidence and ruin their own reputation...

[lattd]

But when people with understanding of the relevant English law actually post the relevant law in these discussions arm chair lawyers tell them they are wrong :(

Chapterhouse has breached copyright, if this case is decided any other way the law will be changed imho.

[Mr Mystery]

What lattd said.

Under UK law, ALL rights are reserved. If I do a doodle, and then market said doodle, all rights relating to that doodle, like book, movie, toys etc belong to me, automatically.

CH paid $2,000 to a Lawyer (I keep imagining Lionel Hutz) to see if they were breaking the law. Said Lawyer seemingly only checked US law. Whoops.

[lattd]

Thats very very bad lawyering, and could possible allow the suing of a lawyer, i will check the handbook later to confirm that, but if memory serves a lawyer in England who gives bad legal advice and then the client suffers due to that legal advice would be liable.

[Mr Mystery]

Though to be fair, kind of depends on the question. I've worked with Solicitors and Lawyers before (I'm not impressed. Most don't know arse from elbow) and some of them want you to ask very specific questions. I guess it's a power trip...

[gendoikari87]

But when people with understanding of the relevant English law actually post the relevant law in these discussions arm chair lawyers tell them they are wrong :(

Chapterhouse has breached copyright, if this case is decided any other way the law will be changed imho.

Only under UK law and GW screwed the pooch in the fact discovery period, so anything is possible.

and quite frankly chapterhouse is an american company so **** UK law, I give not one **** what any treaty says, you shouldn't be able to hold Americans to any law other than US law, with the exception of war crimes. Human rights? we have our own laws for that.

[gcsmith]

Only under UK law and GW screwed the pooch in the fact discovery period, so anything is possible.

and quite frankly chapterhouse is an american company so **** UK law, I give not one **** what any treaty says, you shouldn't be able to hold Americans to any law other than US law, with the exception of war crimes. Human rights? we have our own laws for that.

Then you shouldn't be able to sell on any other market than the US market.

[gendoikari87]

Then you shouldn't be able to sell on any other market than the US market.

No you should be able to sell in any market but no other country has the right to impose laws on another, treaty's are fine but this US V UK copyright bull**** is just that bull****. And the reverse should also be true, the US should not be able to impose US copyright law on the UK and it's companies. unfortunately we and more importantly Julian Assange know how the US likes to impose it's laws on other people and nations. Which it should have no right to do.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Personally, I love how people are assuming that the back of the shoulder pad is a picture of GW. No lawyer would let that onto the evidence and ruin their own reputation...The problem is the reverse picture of the shoulderpad is obviously plastic, and all of the Chapterhouse's shoulderpad's are cast in pewter.

That combined with the Carnifex leg slip-up gives the impression that the legal team preparing the evidence has little to no input from a source that knows their way around 40k miniatures, which seems... problematic.

[gcsmith]

That is no assumption, read the rest of the documents and you´ll discover that for yourself. that is a miss by gw. Just the way gw accused chs of "copying" carnifex legs showing pictures of their own carnifex legs. That is if not blatant, then very close to perjury but I guess it doesnt matter to a hater.

Doesn't matter to a hater? Nice jab. Very grown up response.

Of course I have a problem with CHS, they are breaking the laws of a country they are selling in. If you sell there, you obey the law. Simple. Not only that, but the arrogance of the people behind the company. GW only license Forgeworld to produce accessories to their hobby. CHS are doing that without paying for the license. They are trying to make money from another companies work.

I understand producing products compatible with other things. But to openly behave as if they are 'replacement' when they are not, and keep trying to use someone else's IP sorry but I have no respect for a company like that.

[lattd]

Only under UK law and GW screwed the pooch in the fact discovery period, so anything is possible.

and quite frankly chapterhouse is an american company so **** UK law, I give not one **** what any treaty says, you shouldn't be able to hold Americans to any law other than US law, with the exception of war crimes. Human rights? we have our own laws for that.

Firstly it's English Law not UK, secondly America signed a trade agreement that allows this thing and it works both ways, thirdly you can set up contracts that allow for trial by south African law in London, most importantly this would be questionable under american law any way.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't know about you,but reading through the GW witness testimonies the CHS lawyer seems to have pissed off most of them, beyond the fact that's he's defending the opposition.

[Mr Mystery]

I don't know about you,but reading through the GW witness testimonies the CHS lawyer seems to have pissed off most of them, beyond the fact that's he's defending the opposition.

Explain, for I am much too lazy to look it up myself!

[Psychosplodge]

there's at least two maybe three outbursts about timekeeping, waiting games, wasting time asking apparently unrelated questions, asking for large amounts of information that would be time consuming/costly to produce.

I'd have to trawl through it again to find it, which I can't be arsed to do, but basicly it surprised me with it been an official document and such.

[Wolfshade]

There are good examples in the Head of Licensing testomony.

Like being asked for sales figures, which isn't his area.

In that testomony he spends nearly half the time asking the same questions, When was product X originally released, when did it go on sale, do you have proof that it was actually sold in the US etc.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, think that's the first one I read, I mean US market is of a size that it's ridiculous to suggest most individual models haven't sold at somepoint in that market.

Unless of course everyone in the US only buys tactical marines and all those Eldar jet bikes vanished...

[Wolfshade]

One of my favourite quotes.

... not to mention its new Tru-Scale products not yet at issue that are based on a presumptuous notion it knows better than Games Workshop the dimensions to make model figurines from Games Workshop’s own artwork).

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, I thought it was the guard that were oversized, not the marines that were undersized?

I like the reference to the "28mm industry standard" When it was an arbitrary size chosen by GW...

[Wolfshade]

Having just read all of the documents, my head now hurts.
I get the distinct impression that CHS and GW are both arguing different cases. GW are arguing the infringement of its stuff, and CHS are arguing that GW cannot prove that they own the original rights to copyright.
Certainly it seems to me CHS have issues with English Law or at least its application.
Also, in terms of style I prefer the GW documents, though that is personal preferance and it has been a good couple of years since I worked for the Law Society and was used to reading legalese.

[Psychosplodge]

I think you've summed it up nicely, certainly the GW ones are better written in terms of readability.

I did think it was a ridiculous point where the CHS lawyer was arguing over the Anglicised spelling of armour, it's written in English by an English QC or his staff what does he expect?

[DrLove42]

As I siad towards the beginning, it seems that GW are provinding counter arguments to CHS and CHS seem to just be almost name calling and jeering and not providding much substance

I like the bit where CHS say GW's irrefutable statement of "several BL books in the NY time top sellers" isn't valid as they don't name specfici books in the legal documents

[gcsmith]

As I siad towards the beginning, it seems that GW are provinding counter arguments to CHS and CHS seem to just be almost name calling and jeering and not providding much substance

I like the bit where CHS say GW's irrefutable statement of "several BL books in the NY time top sellers" isn't valid as they don't name specfici books in the legal documents

I know. Games Workshop are suing because they have to under british law. And they are doing it properally.

It seems to me CHS are behaving like those kids that try to ally Salamanders with guard and make all the Guard's melta weapons twin linked.

[Psychosplodge]

It seems to me CHS are behaving like those kids that try to ally Salamanders with guard and make all the Guard's melta weapons twin linked.

You mean you can't do that? But they're Salamander Guard!

[Wolfshade]

It seems to me CHS are behaving like those kids that try to ally Salamanders with guard and make all the Guard's melta weapons twin linked.

Brilliant!

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

(doesn't work with current ally FAQ rules)

[Adra]

(doesn't work with current ally FAQ rules)

If thats what the judge says then I'm sending him some flowers.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

It is what they say, Chapter Tactics only apply to units chosen from Codex: Space Marines, which makes all the sense.

[Adra]

It is what they say, Chapter Tactics only apply to units chosen from Codex: Space Marines, which makes all the sense.

Ok, was kind of a joke, but ok :P

[Psychosplodge]

How was it damaging?
keeping it under seal just keeps it out the public forum not the case...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Could we keep this civil please?

Cheers.

-Agent

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

it seems that GW are provinding counter arguments to CHS and CHS seem to just be almost name calling and jeering and not providding much substanceWhat about the part where GW is calling GW models CH models, and attempting to use them as evidence that CH makes a direct copy? Like when they called a picture of a GW shoulderpad a pic of a CH shoulderpad, or when they acted like the Carnifex parts that needed to be added to the Tervigon kit were CH-made, and therefore copying the Carnifex?

That's either pretty scummy or pretty stupid.

[Psychosplodge]

That could equally be poor internal communication, If you read all the the documents, it's quite clear that several of the office staff type people have less product knowledge than your average fan, so people compiling reports etc might be expected to have less especially if they're employees of the legal team rather than GW, Though I will happily agree it's definitely a failure in proof reading, and unprofessional.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

That could equally be poor internal communication,That's what I meant by "pretty stupid." :P Not having someone from the design studio working with the team on a case specifically about similar products is asking for problems. No small wonder that the case is taking so long, if the prosecution's doc.s need to be regularly revised, previous problems explained away etc. Isn't that a tortuously long process in court, having to resubmit the revised evidence for reevaluation, etc?

And on the note of CH picking at every small bit of GW's case - they're kinda fighting for their livelihoods here, of course they're going to try and erode every small chip they can find. If GW loses, they'd've wasted legal fees and maybe lose a minuscule fragment of sales to 3rd part bits, if CH loses these guys are crushed, bankrupt, lives wrecked etc.

[Caitsidhe]

I've no idea how/why Games Workshop ended up so pitifully unprepared. As another person commented, it is dreadfully unprofessional and is very likely to cost them. The legal system turns on the arcane and individual cases are made or broken on the details and specifics. Whether or not you are for Games Workshop or against them, has no bearing on how poorly they have performed so far.

[Psychosplodge]

That's what I meant by "pretty stupid." :P Not having someone from the design studio working with the team on a case specifically about similar products is asking for problems. No small wonder that the case is taking so long, if the prosecution's doc.s need to be regularly revised, previous problems explained away etc. Isn't that a tortuously long process in court, having to resubmit the revised evidence for reevaluation, etc?

And on the note of CH picking at every small bit of GW's case - they're kinda fighting for their livelihoods here, of course they're going to try and erode every small chip they can find. If GW loses, they'd've wasted legal fees and maybe lose a minuscule fragment of sales to 3rd part bits, if CH loses these guys are crushed, bankrupt, lives wrecked etc.

To be fair though reading through it all, the CHS representative really does appear way out of his depth clutching at straws.
The Eldar jetbike sales question were an exercise in the ridiculous.

[DrLove42]

. If GW loses, they'd've wasted legal fees and maybe lose a minuscule fragment of sales to 3rd part bits, if CH loses these guys are crushed, bankrupt, lives wrecked etc.

I think you're underestimating the effect of GW losing.

If GW loses it sets a precedant that you can use GW designs and call them whatever you like. We have people gladly defending chinese companies who are making cheap FW copies (not even new, just recasts) becuase they're cheaper than FW, how is it going to be when every bits company can gladly sell "Space Marines" at less cost than GW?

The rumour mill will be even more tightly shut, as any leaks could let small companies steal their ideas. Artwork and the like that can be copied from will be reduced, so as to stop them.

If GW wins, CHS, a small poor quallity sculpting house will shut and a few people will lose their jobs.
If CHS win the effect on GW will not be huge, it will only be a small blow. But it will open the door to hundreds of more little blows that can have a pronounced effect

Also...as for CHS's staff as lives wrecked thats a bit of an understatement. If you're a decent sculptor you can find work elsewhere....they could even open a new studio under a different name and produce 3rd party bits, as long as they don't infringe on copyrights again.

Thats the mistake a lot of CHS fans seem to be making from my perspective. They're saying GW is trying to stop all 3rd party bits sites. They're not. They're trying to stop bits sites using their ideas.

P.S "guys are crushed, bankrupt, lives wrecked etc". They're arrogant and rude and have compltly diregarded common sense and the law. I don't really care what happens to them

[gcsmith]

What did you expect of me...when in Rome do as the Romans.

Expect you not to brand people blindly when you don't know them?



Here, you already "know" who is guilty and who is not despite two years in court not producing an outcome and a judge to still to be deciding on it...but YOU self righteously calling me out just to be immature yourself in your very next line. You should work as a lawyer somewhere since you already "know" everything I mean.

I should add hypocrites to the hater line after reading your response. Very grown up of you.

Care to comment on GW trying their utmost to keep Jes deposition under seal and not be shown (because it is so damaging to them) or perhaps or are you to much of a hater to even try anything other then "knowing" CHS are wrong...peroid!
?

Wait, you're saying I know who is guilty and come with that Jes deposition is damaging... Firstly it still applies to the case, so would still be damaging.
Seems you're doing a lot of 'knowing'

Secondly of course it's against UK law. CHS have directly infringed on Copyright and/or IP laws. Which has forced GW to start the case in the first place.

Also I never claimed to know everything, I simply stated it was against UK law. IF it wasn't GW wouldn't even be doing this case as it probably costs them more in Money and reputation than CHS cost them.

I had a problem with you being childish. Saying I know it's against UK law isn't childish.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I think you're underestimating the effect of GW losing.I know what precedent is, but setting that precedent isn't going to significantly injure GW, hundred little blows or not. Little companies should be able to sell stuff labeled Space Marine, the only one who should have any claim on that term is E. E. Smith (author of Lensman, which introduced "Space Marines"), and he died in the 60s.

The 3rd party companies providing the hundred little blows (competition) primarily provide accessories, anyways, selling minis at army-building levels isn't cost-effective for most of them. Plastic injection is becoming more common though, and many armies (Imp. Guard, Orks etc) are fairly generic, so GW might have to rethink pricing structure on these, or introduce more definably unique/defendable product. In GD Australia it was noted that part of the reason newer boxes have most of the options present is to prevent 3rd party groups jumping on it and providing parts for them.

There's a tradeoff in there GW's starting to experience - if you rely on generic styles/tropes in design, you have the advantage of making a more comfortable, recognizable product, but there's also the disadvantage that you can't control the generic stuff as well, so others can ride your coattails.

Recasts are completely outside of this discussion, since they're definitely outside of the law, wouldn't be affected by the precedent.

[DrLove42]

Frankly I don't really have too much of a problem with something saying "Compatable with Citadel Space Marine models".

My problem is "Replacement part for Space Marines" or just "Tyranid Wings". But the biggest problem is the design. Yes GW don't own the shoulder pad shape. But things like the Flesh Tearer designs and stuff from the artwork, that they do own.

Create what ever you want, just don't use someone elses ideas and artwork for their design. Create something original (Dragonforge, Armorcast, Scibor, Secret Miniature etc) and theres no problem. Rip something from GW....and theres your problem

[lattd]

I know what precedent is, but setting that precedent isn't going to significantly injure GW, hundred little blows or not. Little companies should be able to sell stuff labeled Space Marine, the only one who should have any claim on that term is E. E. Smith (author of Lensman, which introduced "Space Marines"), and he died in the 60s.

Recasts are completely outside of this discussion, since they're definitely outside of the law, wouldn't be affected by the precedent.

It would be crazy precedent to set, it would completely change the law on intellectual property which amounts to 5% of global GDP, if CHS win, then i can produce a case for an ipod call it an apple ipod case be extremely poor quality but it wouldn't damage my reputation it would damage apples because im implying its an apple branded product.

The issue of GW v CHS is quality its how language implies ownership, if i say im selling salamander chapter shoulder pads, it implies a sense of original GW parts, if i say chapter pads suitable for salamander chapter space marines, with a not at the bottom page saying these are GW's copyright then it lets you know they are third party.

[gendoikari87]

I've no idea how/why Games Workshop ended up so pitifully unprepared. As another person commented, it is dreadfully unprofessional and is very likely to cost them. The legal system turns on the arcane and individual cases are made or broken on the details and specifics. Whether or not you are for Games Workshop or against them, has no bearing on how poorly they have performed so far.

you'd think that as large a company as they are they'd have had their **** together, but no. All their bungles are likely to hurt them bad, and I suspect a draw or very minor victory on GW's part, simply because they have the money. But then again, CHS's lawyers are no joke, so anything can happen at this point.


P.S "guys are crushed, bankrupt, lives wrecked etc". They're arrogant and rude and have compltly diregarded common sense and the law. I don't really care what happens to them GW's become greedy, arrogant, and oblivious, I don't really care what happens to them. See how that can get turned around?

[Psychosplodge]

CHS's lawyers are no joke, so anything can happen at this point.

Despite arguing the toss over Anglicised spelling on a document compiled for an English company, in English, by an English law firm.

And they're quibbling over the correct use of u in armour?

[Kirsten]

It would be crazy precedent to set, it would completely change the law on intellectual property which amounts to 5% of global GDP, if CHS win, then i can produce a case for an ipod call it an apple ipod case be extremely poor quality but it wouldn't damage my reputation it would damage apples because im implying its an apple branded product.

The issue of GW v CHS is quality its how language implies ownership, if i say im selling salamander chapter shoulder pads, it implies a sense of original GW parts, if i say chapter pads suitable for salamander chapter space marines, with a not at the bottom page saying these are GW's copyright then it lets you know they are third party.

precisely, Chapter House Studios have stolen Games Workshop's intellectual property, quite clearly. They have created products that have been thought up by someone else, without their permission. Who will win is up in the air for the simple reason that the judicial system in britain or america no longer has anything to do with justice, if it ever did, but everything to do with a circus competition between lawyers. It will be a sad day if GW don't win, and other companies can be free to rip them off. Aside from anything else GW were pretty decent about it originally, asking for products to be renamed and nothing more, it is CHS' own fault and they deserve to be punished for it.

[Adra]

I've very interested to see how this turns out. I was pretty sure GW had blown it but now I'm not sure at all and it could go either way. I have a lot of respect for the small 3rd party bits builders out there, making cool stuff that we can all enjoy and use as an addition to our GW hobbies. CHS, however, just dumped in the other kids garden, smiled and sat there like nothing was going to happen. There is a smugness about there attitude which puts me off, and it seems a number of people, even people on this thread, lap that up. I hope they get destroyed, not because they are right or wrong, but because they produce a terrible product at almost the same cost as GW's and have the cheek to associate themselves with the product line. If CHS is part of the 3rd part bits business community I feel sorry for the rest of them.

[lattd]

I don't see why CHS didn't just say ideal for or compatible with in the first place.

[gendoikari87]

Despite arguing the toss over Anglicised spelling on a document compiled for an English company, in English, by an English law firm.

And they're quibbling over the correct use of u in armour?

there's more to it than that, GW screwed the pooch in fact discovery, meaning they're going into this with very little evidence on their side.

for instance someone said:

I like the bit where CHS say GW's irrefutable statement of "several BL books in the NY time top sellers" isn't valid as they don't name specfici books in the legal documents this isn't just a childish argument, it's real, it's admissible, and a very valid argument legally. It may seem clear to us what that means, it might be clear to anyone subjectively looking at it, but it's not good a good legal argument to just say "Several Books", you need to cite them, you need to provide them. GW did very little of that and so they are going into this with very little evidence. Had they had their **** together and provided this, they might have a strong case. Not on individual models mind, you but on the collection as a whole, which is what they are having to prove and doing that without any real good evidence is going to be hard.

one thing is for sure, GW needs to clean house.

You have to remember, the brain plays tricks on us to see what isn't there, and in the law, you have to go beyond that and prove what you see is really there. Circumstantial evidence alone, rarely cuts mustard.

[Psychosplodge]

If you were arguing over ripping off the fiction I could see the point, but the line as written makes sense relavent to the case does it not?

However yes the lawyers compiling the case should know how much they need to put. As your example, I've only seen the CHS lawyer dismissing it's admissibility.
I wish they'd just get their arse in gear and get on with it though...

[Wolfshade]

It is not that straightforward. They say that their designs have been inspired by GW, but rather than being developed by a number of sources, it has been alleged that these are sculpts are 3D representations of original GW works

[lattd]

there's more to it than that, GW screwed the pooch in fact discovery, meaning they're going into this with very little evidence on their side.

for instance someone said:
this isn't just a childish argument, it's real, it's admissible, and a very valid argument legally. It may seem clear to us what that means, it might be clear to anyone subjectively looking at it, but it's not good a good legal argument to just say "Several Books", you need to cite them, you need to provide them. GW did very little of that and so they are going into this with very little evidence. Had they had their **** together and provided this, they might have a strong case. Not on individual models mind, you but on the collection as a whole, which is what they are having to prove and doing that without any real good evidence is going to be hard.

one thing is for sure, GW needs to clean house.

You have to remember, the brain plays tricks on us to see what isn't there, and in the law, you have to go beyond that and prove what you see is really there. Circumstantial evidence alone, rarely cuts mustard.

CHS have been terrible with evidence gathering as well, i hate the legality of stall tactics in America, so much for "fair" trial when you can just drag someone into bankruptcy.

[gcsmith]

You stated that they have in fact broken the law, how talk crap "knowing things" when the court itself hasnt even decided yet if according to UK law GWs toy soldiers are "art" or not art and thus define what legal boundaries they fall under as well as what legal protection they are entitled to.
On top of this you call me childish, wow, that´s rich coming from a biased hater that takes gigantic leaps overtaking court procedures in order to "know" he is right.

Under UK law, copying someone else's work of Art is IP theft. You know like how they are making Flesh Tearers shoulder pads based off GW artwork??

I am not a 'biased hater'. It's not bias when you see a company try and make money off the hard work of another and gloat about it.

Whereas you talk about what I 'know'. So apparently you 'know' what I know.
I see you name calling me. But not talking about the case, with any reasoning at all.

The fact the case isn't finished doesn't mean a law wasn't broken. Ever heard of fair trial. You still get one if breaking the law is a fact.

[Uncle Nutsy]

whatever happens, I think the verdict will be quite suprising.

[gendoikari87]

CHS have been terrible with evidence gathering as well, i hate the legality of stall tactics in America, so much for "fair" trial when you can just drag someone into bankruptcy.

To be fair the burden of proof is on GW, not chapterhouse.

[Sean_OBrien]

Under UK law, copying someone else's work of Art is IP theft. You know like how they are making Flesh Tearers shoulder pads based off GW artwork??

The first question though before you get to that point is is what they are copying Art?

The UK and Europe have specific laws which differentiate art from design. Designs are decorative elements to functional products whereas Art exists for its own purpose. So, what is the purpose of a GW miniature? Does it exist on its own as art or is it a decorative product that has some other function? The Supreme Court in the UK has recently found that toy soldiers in general are not art but rather designs.

Designs have much more limited protective guarantees than art. The period of time which an unregistered design can be protected ranges from 15 years from creation to 10 years from first sale. If the design is registered, the period can be extended to 25 years, however it must be renewed every 5 years.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/d-designright.htm

One of the CHS expert witnesses goes into the case law in some depth and during the deposition that the GW lawyers performed on him, they seemed to be looking to argue that GW figures are primarily sold to collectors and not as toy soldiers to be played with.

The next issue to be addressed after you establish whether or not something is a copyrightable object is whether or not it is novel enough to be protected. Some things (Disney's Cinderella for example) are not novel and are only protected against exact duplication. They are based on items which are historical, mythological or otherwise in the public domain. Here, the exact configuration of constituent parts is a factor which will be looked at - however the nature of those parts is also relevant. For example, the claim made by GW (and those who support them) is that the Chevron on the Shoulder pad is unique. This may be true, however a chevron is not unique. Shoulder pads are also not unique. Having a chevron on a shoulder pad would not normally be considered as unique as it is taking two common items and putting them together.

Since the originality of the work is not considered strong from a copyright standpoint (See FASA v Playmates) any measure of difference is acceptable to differentiate between the two works is suitable to avoid being found as infringing. Since almost all of the claims made by GW are regarding drawings or similar works and the items created by CHS differentiate both in subtle (and not so subtle) aspects they will not likely be found to be infringing.

More unique creations by GW like the Eldar Farseers, Striking Scorpions and related xenos may well have more protection - though that will be a matter that the court will decide regarding the transformative nature between the idea presented by GW and the execution of the idea by CHS.

Of course, all of that is only relevant if GW even owns the copyrighted work in question. If they were made by people who were not actually staff artists at the time - the actual copyright may well not belong to GW but rather the artist who created the concept in the first place. That is why much time was spent addressing who drew what and when (and why much hay is made regarding claims of two people in one section of a deposition and a third person coming into the picture later on in the deposition).

The other big thing which seems to confuse people is the nature of the Trademark claims. While it might seem as though the CHS legal team is grasping as straws, it really isn't. At this point in the game, they are looking to get as many of the GW claims thrown out. When it comes to trademarks, the easiest way to do this is to invalidate the mark. If a mark has never been used in commerce, it isn't a valid mark. So - the burden of proof falls to GW to prove that it has been used in commerce. For example, the Exorcists chapter. While the term has been used within the written words and illustrated pictures of GW - I don't recall ever seeing a product sold as "Exorcist Shoulder Pads" or any other specifically called out item. As such, GW's claim of fact regarding the use in commerce is refuted and it is not a valid mark. This is why much time was spent asking for sales documentation pertaining to various things (those things were entered into evidence as to the claims made by GW).

Further, since GW will likely be seeking damages on anything which they happen to win on - they have to establish some level of value to the mark. You are not looking at recovering the sales which CHS makes - trademarks are dealt with differently. Each item will have a value placed on it and the court (or jury) will have to determine how much damage was done to that mark. This is why the licensing manager was grilled as much as he was as he should be in the best position to provide testimony regarding the value of a given mark.

Following that, is the question of whether or not the mark would be valid due to its specific nature. In GW's statement of facts, they claim "Plasma" as being one of their marks. Now, we all know that that mark isn't valid. Plasma torpedoes predate GW by several decades. The term "Plasma" isn't unique on its own and it isn't claimed as part of a larger term.

Finally, there is the question of nominative use. It is actually allowable to use any trademark to identify any item as long as you are not attempting to trade on the value of that mark. The courts have set a standard for confusing regarding nominative use (KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression). This is why when the CHS lawyers were questioning the in house counsel and others they asked if they had received any complaints regarding actual confusion. If there is no confusion which is shown by the plaintiff - then the worst that would happen to a defendant is that they would be counseled regarding proper identification of Trademarks in nominative use scenarios and they would be sent on their merry way.

Anywho, perhaps that will help a bit. Chances are better than not though that everyone has made up their minds already and will be in their respective camps till the ruling happens (and then half will scream of the miscarriage of justice while the other half rejoices).

[gendoikari87]

Tip: on the internet nobody reads posts that long, no matter how well written and thought out they are. We live in the world of reality TV induced ADD after all.


trademarks are dealt with differently. Each item will have a value placed on it and the court (or jury) will have to determine how much damage was done to that mark.

ooooh seeing as 99% of chapterhouses stuff is done to market to the holes in GW's line, that's going to sting for GW.

[Wolfshade]

Non distinct elements can be composed together to form a distinct mark.
For example:
the five interlinked rings of the olympics,
the four interlinked rings of audi,
the three interlinked rings of toyota
the two simple shapes, a square and a parallelogram

[Psychosplodge]

whatever happens, I think the verdict will be quite suprising.

Definitely to one side or another...

[DrLove42]

I can see that if GW win there will be lots of sly "I told you so" and not much else.

if CHS wins i see a lot more argument developing...

[Psychosplodge]

I'm not so sure there'll be anything sly about it...

[Kataklysm]

When is a verdict supposed to be given? Im close to starting a pool or something. @_@

[Sean_OBrien]

ooooh seeing as 99% of chapterhouses stuff is done to market to the holes in GW's line, that's going to sting for GW.

Quite true. It makes both their case more difficult to prove and their claims more difficult to substantiate. There is some there there - however, because many aspects arose out of a lack of something it is hard to prove how that would damage GW's Trademarks. It will be made more difficult as well once it gets in front of a jury, as certain abstract concepts like company goodwill are difficult for them to grasp...let alone specific values of intricate claimed marks within a company's catalog.

Should a GW claim be substantiated, I would be surprised if the specific award for each claim was more than a few thousand dollars. Legal fees would not likely be recouped at all - as the level for recouping those has been raised greatly since the Fogerty case. For specifically registered marks - GW can be awarded treble damages...but there are only a couple of those in question here.


Non distinct elements can be composed together to form a distinct mark.
For example:
the five interlinked rings of the olympics,
the four interlinked rings of audi,
the three interlinked rings of toyota
the two simple shapes, a square and a parallelogram

There you are talking about patterns. It is similar to music in a sense. A shoulder pad and a mark is difficult to generate a pattern with. Again, it is covered in the case law.


When is a verdict supposed to be given? Im close to starting a pool or something. @_@

The current court calender has the jury trial scheduled to start in early December. That isn't to say that they trial itself will start, but all the aspects which will be specific to that trial will begin then (jury selection, evidence which will be admissible will be argued...). The judge will make his rulings regarding the summary judgement between now and then of course - likely near the end of October or November based on past experience.

Assuming that GW doesn't off up a large settlement to make CHS to shut up and go away (the normal method which this sort of thing gets handled once it gets to this point) - the actual trial itself will probably start in February or March with a verdict a few weeks after that.

[DrLove42]

As a Jury trial we know CHS will win.

Will the average american side for a British company, or a US underdog....hmmmm.

Also how is a Chapter symbol not a Pattern? A shoulder pad by itself...maybe generic. But a pad, with a saw blade with a blood drop...how is that not a pattern?

[Psychosplodge]

As a Jury trial we know CHS will win.

Will the average american side for a British company, or a US underdog....hmmmm.

Also how is a Chapter symbol not a Pattern? A shoulder pad by itself...maybe generic. But a pad, with a saw blade with a blood drop...how is that not a pattern?

Ah yes Justice...

[Wolfshade]

This is what I thought, but ho hum, I'm off to create a sports team using a wheel, a wing and the colour red for my company logo

[Sean_OBrien]

As a Jury trial we know CHS will win.

Will the average american side for a British company, or a US underdog....hmmmm.

Also how is a Chapter symbol not a Pattern? A shoulder pad by itself...maybe generic. But a pad, with a saw blade with a blood drop...how is that not a pattern?

While I wouldn't be surprised if the country of origin factors into the backs of the minds of the jurors when we get to that point...a larger factor will be GW's use of superlatives in their claims. They make themselves out to be a huge corporation producing toy soldiers by the truck load (a true statement). Corporate backlash and the sentiment between them and the little guy will probably be a larger factor.

Regarding the more complex symbols - I was mainly speaking to the example which I gave (a chevron and a shoulder pad). The more complex and the more elements added to it...the more novelty a creation has. It ends up being something which the jury itself will make a determination on. In those cases, the judge will provide instructions to the jury on how to evaluate the marks based on the evidence presented and they may or may not determine that they are distinct. Other marks like the Salamander's shoulder pads are rather transformative (going from a 2D painted on symbol or decal to a 3D sculpted form).

The Flesh Tearers shoulder pads though is one which GW stands a better chance of winning on. They have used it in commerce, so the trademark will likely hold up. They should have some level of sales documentation to demonstrate how much it is worth. The big question will end up being where exactly the courts come down on things like the Design Right before hand and whether or not the evidence provided by GW is significant enough to prove their point in court.

[DrLove42]

While I wouldn't be surprised if the country of origin factors into the backs of the minds of the jurors when we get to that point...a larger factor will be GW's use of superlatives in their claims. They make themselves out to be a huge corporation producing toy soldiers by the truck load (a true statement). Corporate backlash and the sentiment between them and the little guy will probably be a larger factor.


Yeah I don't think this should be judged by Jury. As the comments in the various CHS vs GW threads show that 95% of the people even who those who KNOW the market are pretty useless in understanding things.

This should be judged by a judge, or even a panel of them who actually understand the deep complexity of the law.

Also if this is being tried under UK law, going to a US jury is going to be a bias as they won't believe that there is anything wrong by your laws

[gcsmith]

As a Jury trial we know CHS will win.

Will the average american side for a British company, or a US underdog....hmmmm.

Also how is a Chapter symbol not a Pattern? A shoulder pad by itself...maybe generic. But a pad, with a saw blade with a blood drop...how is that not a pattern?

Really? I'm not sure on that. If you were in china, sure. But it depends on how it runs. Personally I can see where you are coming from.

I just want CHS to lose on personal opinion. Although I guess if it goes in their favour i could just make my own Flesh tearer shoulder pads and run them into the ground :D lol not that I would do that, but seriously if CHS win and they ever try and start their own IP, good luck with that.

[Psychosplodge]

You only have to look at the comments in the various threads expressing outrage that it should be under English law, if this is anywhere near the average yanks views I would say it supports Docs point.

[Caitsidhe]

As a Jury trial we know CHS will win.

Will the average american side for a British company, or a US underdog....hmmmm.

Also how is a Chapter symbol not a Pattern? A shoulder pad by itself...maybe generic. But a pad, with a saw blade with a blood drop...how is that not a pattern?

I'd wager the average American jury is just as likely to vote for a foreign company as they are an American one. Believe it or not, most Americans don't give a lot of thought or energy to Jingoistic brand identity. That seems to be a more European thing, wherein countries play other countries sporting events on a regular basis and national pride is on the line. Americans (and I am one) are as arrogant as any nation but our national pride is more diffuse and only comes out for specific issues. Business isn't one of them. Most average Americans see all politicians and governments (foreign and domestic) as corrupt. They dislike jury duty unless it is something salacious and interesting (which this case is not). Juries in the United States at least (and I cannot comment on other countries) are swayed more by the personality, charm and theatrics of the lawyers involved. I think that Chapterhouse would do better wherein a Judge who is versed (and thus interested in) the minutia of copyright law sees the basis of their arguments. Legal experts care about minutia. A jury will just get caught up in emotion and if something sounds like injustice, they will vote merely to voice their anger. I know this sounds rather jaded, but in most cases it is true. In the United States, you want a Jury Trial in a criminal case and a Judge or panel in a Civil Case.

[DrLove42]

If American courts are anything like on TV then we (and by that i mean GW and their supporters) are worried :P

As I said, i think this thing is so complex, more so than anyone who posts on here can likely understand, what chance is there that a panel of 12 laymen (or women) are going to sufficiently comprehend it to pass a reasonable judgement?

I'm not making a "herp derp Americans are thick" comment, I'm just saying, pick 12 people at random off the street. Do you think they could handle this. The old joke of "Don't trust a juries intelligence. If they're their its cos they weren't smart enough to avoid it" is probably quite true. Especially when the laws being used (UK over US) are not those that they are familiar with, or believe in?

[gendoikari87]

I can see that if GW win there will be lots of sly "I told you so" and not much else.

if CHS wins i see a lot more argument developing...

of course the GW fanboys will all rush in like white bloodcells. Seriously they remind me of the uber patriotic americans who think that to love their country means to love everything it does.

[gendoikari87]

As a Jury trial we know CHS will win.

Will the average american side for a British company, or a US underdog....hmmmm.

Also how is a Chapter symbol not a Pattern? A shoulder pad by itself...maybe generic. But a pad, with a saw blade with a blood drop...how is that not a pattern?

Technically CHS's isn't a blood drop, it's a tear drop, they even painted it blue.

[Caitsidhe]

If American courts are anything like on TV then we (and by that i mean GW and their supporters) are worried :P

They aren't. Reality TV is nothing of the sort. One of my chief complaints is that the rest of the world watches our television and pseudo-news as a basis of what the average American believes and/or thinks. Television is fantasy and entertainment. We stopped having real journalism here at least fifteen years ago. The closest thing we have is called "infotainment." Court-TV are bizarre cases handpicked to be awful because awful is salacious. In the words of the long dead yellow journalists, "if it bleeds it leads." Actual courtrooms in the United States are very different and infinitely more banal.


As I said, i think this thing is so complex, more so than anyone who posts on here can likely understand, what chance is there that a panel of 12 laymen (or women) are going to sufficiently comprehend it to pass a reasonable judgement?

Zero. That is kind of the point. I personally think CH has a better legal case than you do and as such I would prefer it was decided by a Judge and/or panel. You would prefer the same thing although for the opposite reason that you think GW has a better case. In the end it will go to a jury and the outcome is ENTIRELY up in the air. The first thing GW better do is make sure it hires some American lawyers used to our courtrooms, jury selection, and so on because not doing so would be a very poor choice. Trial lawyers are a breed apart. The same would be true if the situation were reversed. If this case were going before a jury in England, I would expect CH to look for English representation.


I'm not making a "herp derp Americans are thick" comment, I'm just saying, pick 12 people at random off the street. Do you think they could handle this. The old joke of "Don't trust a juries intelligence. If they're their its cos they weren't smart enough to avoid it" is probably quite true. Especially when the laws being used (UK over US) are not those that they are familiar with, or believe in?

I'll make the comment but I'll up the ante. Most people are thick the world over. That is why I said that this was a LOSE-LOSE proposition for Games Workshop from the very start. They had other more effective (and cheaper) methods at their disposal to deal with this problem. Let me put it this way, if the vast power of the companies that run the American film and music scene couldn't deal with piracy, knockoffs, and people willing to undercut them, what made Games Workshop think that they could? :) Human nature, such as it is, means that there will always be people willing to make a buck and people willing to save one. The very instant the technology becomes affordable and accessible to break into a market, it is going to happen. You will never put that genie back in the bottle. The outcome of this trial will make no difference one way or the other to the bits market. People will continue to buy them. They will continue to get better and remain cheap. That is the nature of things. Games Workshop can spend all its time and money trying to fight it, and it will NEVER get back the cost of doing so. It is a money pit. They have the best tools to deal with the problem, just like the music and film industry does. They need to do what the music industry did, albeit dragged kicking and screaming, now while it is still early.

[gendoikari87]

Believe it or not, most Americans don't give a lot of thought or energy to Jingoistic brand identity Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and yemen, where killing innocent civillians is okay because they're foreign brown people. And i'm not even sure Americans are even racist in the broad aspect anymore, just extremely nationalistic. It's like the early 20th century is repeating itself over again.

[Sean_OBrien]

Yeah I don't think this should be judged by Jury. As the comments in the various CHS vs GW threads show that 95% of the people even who those who KNOW the market are pretty useless in understanding things.

This should be judged by a judge, or even a panel of them who actually understand the deep complexity of the law.

Also if this is being tried under UK law, going to a US jury is going to be a bias as they won't believe that there is anything wrong by your laws

Remember - GW demanded the jury trial first. It is more expensive to perform a jury trial than a bench trial...and it was part of their tactic to get CHS to go away. Once CHS received pro bono representation though, I would guess that GW is now regretting that demand.

Not sure about the remark regarding UK versus US law. Primarily that will be used in pretrial to determine whether or not copyrights apply to the case. The judge will make a determination based on existing case law both in the US and the UK and decide whether or not we are dealing with copyrightable art or non-copyrightable design. There is some level of precedence already in this regard - though how he will rule on the matter is unknown to me as I don't recall a specific case which is an exact mirror in that regard. In the US we don't have a specific design right, so it either is or is not copyrightable. It will be adjudicated based on laws here not there. The design test is simply to determine if it qualifies for consideration.

Even if things like the actual miniatures are thrown out, there will still be certain things that will move forward. The jetbikes for example have no existing miniatures, and exist only as images. Images are art. Once the image is translated into a 3D toy - it becomes a design.


You only have to look at the comments in the various threads expressing outrage that it should be under English law, if this is anywhere near the average yanks views I would say it supports Docs point.

Under UK law - the case would have already been kicked to the curb (for the most part).

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.208.20.pdf

That is the most recent ruling from the UK and almost an exact mirror of what happened here (though the cause for the case was different as LucasArts originally sued and won in the US and that win was overturned by the UK court). For those who don't want to read the whole case - I will quote the pertinent parts:

So far as UK law is concerned it is accepted that the two-dimensional works
produced (e.g. the scene paintings) are copyright works. Whether the models for
the hehllet are in themselves copyright works depends on whether they are
"sculptures" within the meaning of sA of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act
1988.

Drawings would have protection - as I stated already.

This issue is primarily relevant to the defences under ss.51 and 52 of the 1988
Act. It is also of great significance as to the term of protection. If the prototype
helmet is a "sculpture" Lucasfihl1 will get the full term of protection for an artistic
work, 70 years from the year of death of the author. If the helmet is not a work of
sculpture then there is a much shorter period of protection (under the copyright in
the painting and drawings)---broadly 15 years from first marketing of
reproductions---a period which has now expired.

That addresses the concern of the difference between art and design.

"Our attention has also been directed to the position of works of sculpture.
Prior to 1919, these works had always been excluded from the defrnition of
'design' in the design provisions of the Acts. The Act of 1919 abolished this
exclusion, and the decision in the case of Pytram Ltd v Models (Leicestel~
Ltd [1930] 1 Ch. Div., p. 639) makes it clear that a work of sculpture intended
to be reproduced more than 50 times enjoys no protection unless it is registered
under the design provisions. Although questions of artistic copyright do not
come within our terms of reference, we wish to express the opinion that there
seems to be no sufficient reason to draw a distinction between the sculptor
and the painter, writer or composer, and that accordingly works of sculpture
should be excluded from the defmition of designs registrable under the design
provisions."

That is one of the earliest references in UK law regarding the difference between sculpture and design.

Next, it is necessary to consider the toy Stonntroopers, and other
characters, which are taken as being reproductions of the armour and helmets
for the purposes of section 52. These are, as ah'eady described, mticulated
models which are sold as toys and which are intended for the purposes of
play. Play is their primary, if not sole, purpose. While their appearance is
obviously highly impOltant (if they did not look like the original, the child
would not be so interested) they are not made for the purposes of their visual
appearance as such. While there is no accounting for taste, it is highly unlikely
that they would be placed on display and periodically admired as such. The
child is intended to use them in a (literally) hands-on way, in a form of
delegated role play, and that is doubtless how they are actually used. That
means, in my view, they are not sculptures. They can be distinguished from
the model in Britain which apparently had a significant element of being
admirable for its own visual sake. That does not apply to the Stormtrooper,
whose only real purpose is play. In reaching this conclusion I am not saying
that the Britain model is better at what it portrays than the Stormtrooper model.
That would be to make judgments about artistic quality, which the statute
understandably forbids. It is making a judgment about whether there is
anything in the model which has an artistic essence, in the sense identified
above. I conclude that there is not.

That is the opinion rendered by the UK judge and upheld by the UK supreme court as the basis for determining what is a sculpture and what is a design under current law.

Games Workshop sells toy soldiers primarily meant to be played with in the rules which they also sell. Case dismissed without much further exercise.

There would be lesser examples to be dealt with. I am not familiar with UK rules regarding nominative use of trademarks...though I know they have them. They would also need to rule on the things like the Tervigon which translate 2D artwork into a 3D design - though that would likely fall back to the design right instead of actual copyrights.

[gcsmith]

Technically CHS's isn't a blood drop, it's a tear drop, they even painted it blue.

Really Blue means tear not blood? In a wargame where blood is blue as well as red? The shape is the defining feature. To have the same shape and argue it's a different compound, Water/blood/oil etc is desperate.

[gendoikari87]

Really Blue means tear not blood? In a wargame where blood is blue as well as red? The shape is the defining feature. To have the same shape and argue it's a different compound, Water/blood/oil etc is desperate.

It's not the same shape, CHS's has a different number of teeth on the saw and is in the opposite direction. Also the teeth on GW's is much longer.


ooooh oil. I could get some paint the drop black, and call them the yankee's, or the Jingoes.

[DrLove42]

Don't worry my comment about American courts vs TV was Sarcastic, I know they're nothing of the sort. No one would watch if it was realistic.

It interests me that you think a jury is good for GW, and I think it'd be bad. Both sides don't want random people judging them, just shows both sides are afraid to lose i think.


if the vast power of the companies that run the American film and music scene couldn't deal with piracy, knockoffs, and people willing to undercut them, what made Games Workshop think that they could?

There is a slight difference here though. The film and music copyrighters can be anyone. All they need is a copy of the original and a computer to copy. The internet just exacerbates the problem. The "pirate" version in the GW case is that chinese company (who will never be stopped cos China don't just not give a sh** but actively encourage it i'm sure).

In this case the casual back room pirate copying music can't exist, as this requires skill and very specialist equipment to cast in metal and resin in the quantity and scope that CHS does.

As I've said many times I have no problems with the bits market. Hell i've used a couple of them for stuff over time And i don't think this case will touch them, nor should it. My problem with CHS is the arrogance and the fact they are using copyrighted materials. If they'd made their Flesh Tearer pads different and called them "Bloody Chainsaw Pads" then i wouldn't have a problem with them.

I see it as Bits companies work with GW models. Without one, the other wouldn't really exist. But CHS crossed the line and GW is just trying to mark that line clearly


Also thanks Gendo, we were on the verge of a sensible balenced grownup discussion for a while there, thanks for saving us from that

[Wolfshade]

In the original power armour version it was painted red.
In the terminator variant, the examples are painted red and blue, and the tear/blood drop is more angluar to try and seperate it from a drop of liquid.
After all, blood and tears are mostly water...

[Caitsidhe]

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and yemen, where killing innocent civillians is okay because they're foreign brown people. And i'm not even sure Americans are even racist in the broad aspect anymore, just extremely nationalistic. It's like the early 20th century is repeating itself over again.

Again, you should read all that I wrote. I stated that most Americans don't give a lot of thought to those things. Most Americans are actually isolationists and could care less about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or any other place really. Most Americans couldn't have found those places on the map nor even knew some of them existed prior to being TOLD they should care. Americans are very diffuse in their notions of National Pride and it only comes out when they are attacked or someone has gone through the trouble of SELLING it to them. On any given day, Americans spend far more time hating their own government than they do even THINKING about people outside their own country.

[gendoikari87]

Again, you should read all that I wrote. I stated that most Americans don't give a lot of thought to those things. Most Americans are actually isolationists and could care less about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or any other place really. Most Americans couldn't have found those places on the map nor even knew some of them existed prior to being TOLD they should care. Americans are very diffuse in their notions of National Pride and it only comes out when they are attacked or someone has gone through the trouble of SELLING it to them. On any given day, Americans spend far more time hating their own government than they do even THINKING about people outside their own country.
No, see ignoring the killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people simply because they aren't americans, IS extreme nationalism and jingoism. it's like saying they're somehow less human or not human, imagine if that was happening here in america, drug dealers being bombed from the sky with hellfire missiles and the first responders that arrive on scene get bombed and then anyone that goes to those funerals is bombed. Imagine if that happened on american soil, **** would get serious real quick, but it doesn't happen to americans so americans don't care. I'd call that extreme jingoeism.

[DrLove42]

Technically CHS's isn't a blood drop, it's a tear drop, they even painted it blue.

http://chapterhousestudios.com/image/cache/data/main%20grey%20redux-224x224.jpg

Looks pretty f***ing red to me

[gendoikari87]

http://chapterhousestudios.com/image/cache/data/main%20grey%20redux-224x224.jpg

Looks pretty f***ing red to me

was blue the last time I checked it.

[Caitsidhe]

There is a slight difference here though. The film and music copyrighters can be anyone. All they need is a copy of the original and a computer to copy. The internet just exacerbates the problem. The "pirate" version in the GW case is that chinese company (who will never be stopped cos China don't just not give a sh** but actively encourage it i'm sure).

Herein lies the problem. This is ONLY the beginning. The technology for you and I to scan and print our own models is already here. It is cost-prohibitive this year, but we both know that within three years there will be a huge number of people "ripping" their own models. The fact that these mom & pop businesses are springing up and able to take a bite simply illustrates where the high tide has reached as well as indicating just how high it is GOING to reach. Games Workshop has a unique opportunity here. They can learn from the mistakes of the big industries and get ahead of the curve. Or they can draw a line in the sand and watch the ocean wipe it away when the waves reach them.

[Caitsidhe]

No, see ignoring the killing of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people simply because they aren't americans, IS extreme nationalism and jingoism. it's like saying they're somehow less human or not human, imagine if that was happening here in america, drug dealers being bombed from the sky with hellfire missiles and the first responders that arrive on scene get bombed and then anyone that goes to those funerals is bombed. Imagine if that happened on american soil, **** would get serious real quick, but it doesn't happen to americans so americans don't care. I'd call that extreme jingoeism.

You would be right if most Americans were even really aware (they are not) of the scope or the meaning. Most nations engage (or have engaged) in this behavior. That doesn't make it right. It is just a statement of fact. Most Americans are entirely ignorant beyond a few glittering generalities of what we do anywhere outside our own borders. Those that are aware tend to protest against it, vote against it, and so on but in the United States as in the rest of the world, money talks. The conflicts we see around the globe don't serve any "national" interests. They serve the specific interests of particular, powerful people and/or companies that intend to make a buck off of them. Those potent people have greater say in how foreign policy is utilized. Different countries, same story. Feel free to bash American and generalize everyone in it all you want. I am not proud of everything my country does and do my part to try and change it. Do not pretend that we are the only ones with blood on our hands or that every American is cheering it on like some ancient arena where innocents are fed to lions. The vast majority of Americans are not cheering and are just as horrified as anyone else. Horror isn't uniquely American. It belongs to the human race.

[Psychosplodge]

@S O'brian not really sure that's the same, you don't generally collect stormtroopers to paint, there specifically is an art aspect to the GW product that there isn't with the star wars toys.

[gcsmith]

Herein lies the problem. This is ONLY the beginning. The technology for you and I to scan and print our own models is already here. It is cost-prohibitive this year, but we both know that within three years there will be a huge number of people "ripping" their own models. The fact that these mom & pop businesses are springing up and able to take a bite simply illustrates where the high tide has reached as well as indicating just how high it is GOING to reach. Games Workshop has a unique opportunity here. They can learn from the mistakes of the big industries and get ahead of the curve. Or they can draw a line in the sand and watch the ocean wipe it away when the waves reach them.

As someone who has experience with 3D printers as part of my course, This won't be the case. 3D printers will be cost prohibitive and time prohibitive. The plastic they use is inferior to the stuff you use for injection molding.

Sorry but if you want to produce an army from a 3d printer, enjoy spending ages per model waiting for it to be made with an inferior material... Also the plastic and printer will make it too expensive.

[Caitsidhe]

As someone who has experience with 3D printers as part of my course, This won't be the case. 3D printers will be cost prohibitive and time prohibitive. The plastic they use is inferior to the stuff you use for injection molding.

Sorry but if you want to produce an army from a 3d printer, enjoy spending ages per model waiting for it to be made with an inferior material... Also the plastic and printer will make it too expensive.

This year, yes. To think the technology isn't going to go forward is wishful thinking. I remember when I used to have to dial up a BBS system for what passed as the internet. I would spend a couple of hours sending/getting mail and reading a few posts. Now I can walk into my living room and talk to my game console which brings up my favorite program on demand. There was a time that ripping a song took a long time and you just didn't have the space to keep that many. Now people measure their music collections in Gigabytes. There is an industrial 3D printer where I work. I could use it if I believed it were ethical. It can produce detail you wouldn't believe. Right now the average person doesn't have access to one and couldn't afford one. Four years ago the average person didn't have a flatscreen in their house either. Give it three years, tops.

[Sean_OBrien]

@S O'brian not really sure that's the same, you don't generally collect stormtroopers to paint, there specifically is an art aspect to this product that their isn't with the star wars toys.

The issue there, of course is that that is regarding art after the fact. I can't think of a single GW figure which isn't intended to be copied at least 50 times. That alone removes it from the scope of sculpture. The intent is also the deciding factor. GW is Games Workshop. It is sort of in them name of things.

As already indicated, we think the judge was right to point to the existence of
what can loosely be described as a work of art as the key to the identification of
sculpture. On this basis, artistic and accurate reproductions of soldiers could qualify
notwithstanding that some children might wish to play with them. But in most
modern cases toy soldiers, whether real or fictional, will not be works of art and
will not differ materially in artistic terms from the plastic Frisbee in the Whalll-O
case. They will be playthings registrable for their design qualities but nothing else.
This distinction may be difficult to draw in some cases but we suspect that the
cases which will qualify for protection under the Copyright Act will be relatively
rare. The judge recognised the need not to make qualitative judgments about the
artistic merits of the toy soldiers in Britain compared to the StOl'l11troopers and
therefore emphasised the real purpose of the latter being one of play. But the true
distinction between the two cases can be expressed in more fundamental terms.
We are not dealing here with highly crafted models designed to appeal to the
collector but which might be played with by his children. These are mass produced
plastic toys. They are no more works of sculpture than the helmet and armour
which they reproduce.

A company like Statuesque Miniatures would likely have a different standing under the law. They do not market their products as items to be used for games (though they could be). They are not mass produced (on the same level as GW plastics). Other companies - Hasslefree for example would fall somewhere in between the two.

In the same way, there certainly are collectors of Star Wars figures and other materials. They don't collect them to play with them - and quite often won't even open the packaging. However, the existence of that subset doesn't make the primary purpose any different. GW is quite clear both with the manner of production, their own name and the existence of their gaming rules what they intend people to do with their products.

[Wolfshade]

Right now the average person doesn't have access to one and couldn't afford one. Four years ago the average person didn't have a flatscreen in their house either. Give it three years, tops.

Four years, try four weeks!

[gcsmith]

This year, yes. To think the technology isn't going to go forward is wishful thinking. I remember when I used to have to dial up a BBS system for what passed as the internet. I would spend a couple of hours sending/getting mail and reading a few posts. Now I can walk into my living room and talk to my game console which brings up my favorite program on demand. There was a time that ripping a song took a long time and you just didn't have the space to keep that many. Now people measure their music collections in Gigabytes. There is an industrial 3D printer where I work. I could use it if I believed it were ethical. It can produce detail you wouldn't believe. Right now the average person doesn't have access to one and couldn't afford one. Four years ago the average person didn't have a flatscreen in their house either. Give it three years, tops.

Right... TV and 3D printers are not the same thing. Technology doesn't just improve like that, if it did we would already have renewable energy supplying the planet.

Also the raw material won't get any cheaper, and 3D printers do not produce much detail from personal experience. And the material is still inferior.

And the average family still don't have flatscreens.

[Caitsidhe]

Right... TV and 3D printers are not the same thing. Technology doesn't just improve like that, if it did we would already have renewable energy supplying the planet.

Also the raw material won't get any cheaper, and 3D printers do not produce much detail from personal experience. And the material is still inferior.

And the average family still don't have flatscreens.

The best part about an disagreement like ours is we can agree to disagree and just wait to see who is right. :) I have set three years "tops" and I expect we will both still be around then. I actually think it will be resolved much sooner than that.

[DrLove42]

3D Printing is going to be an ugly one when it comes out, and if it comes out on a high enough quality and is peasable for a lay person to own one.

And I don't think it'll change things too much though. Most people will continue to buy GW products, it'll be the unscrupulous ones who copy the real things (cos that requires either a digital format (high security at GW) or scanning it in to a computer (high accuracy laser scanners - much more $£$)), the same ones who buy pirate parts now.

And yes If you download illegal music or buy pirate properties i'm calling you unscrupulous.



The best part about an disagreement like ours is we can agree to disagree

Yay for grown up discussions!

[Psychosplodge]

Yay for grown up discussions!

On the internet? where? :confused:

[DrLove42]

On the internet? where? :confused:

You have to look hard, and ignore some things that some people in particular ever post, but its there.

Its nearly as hard as finding a girl on the internet

[Psychosplodge]

Nothings that hard.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

This year, yes. To think the technology isn't going to go forward is wishful thinking.Keep in mind that plastic injection moulding tech is also increasing at a fast pace (just look at GW sprues over the years). Right now, I doubt that a generalist piece of tech can surpass tech designed specifically for mass-production; then again, electronic printing surpassed typesetting.

Of course, 3d printing will revolutionize customized miniatures, rather than mass-produced ones, and will likely streamline the design stage (although I believe that's already happened, here and there).

[gendoikari87]

This year, yes. To think the technology isn't going to go forward is wishful thinking. I remember when I used to have to dial up a BBS system for what passed as the internet. I would spend a couple of hours sending/getting mail and reading a few posts. Now I can walk into my living room and talk to my game console which brings up my favorite program on demand. There was a time that ripping a song took a long time and you just didn't have the space to keep that many. Now people measure their music collections in Gigabytes. There is an industrial 3D printer where I work. I could use it if I believed it were ethical. It can produce detail you wouldn't believe. Right now the average person doesn't have access to one and couldn't afford one. Four years ago the average person didn't have a flatscreen in their house either. Give it three years, tops.
not sure on 3 years, maybe 10, but yeah, GCsmith is highly underestimating the advancement of technology.

[Wolfshade]

Once you can get 3D printing as quick as injection molding you could have almost a limitless range with "print on demand", you wouldn't need to necessarily worry about injection lines, or mould lines, no down time between as the moulds are replaced for a different run, just hit "print" and one run you can produce "Goff Rock Orks" the next Spider riders the next a titan the next tactical squad etc.
Plus creation of the pattern is going to be cheaper than producing the pattern and then having to produce it in steel or rubber

[gendoikari87]

Right... TV and 3D printers are not the same thing. Technology doesn't just improve like that, if it did we would already have renewable energy supplying the planet.

Also the raw material won't get any cheaper, and 3D printers do not produce much detail from personal experience. And the material is still inferior.

And the average family still don't have flatscreens.

I'm sorry but you are quite simply, wrong, not only are 3D printers advancing but with the advent of the Microprinter, the technology is already here, for about 10,000 USD it could be made commercially and has nano scale accuracy, which frankly is much more than GW can hope with casting technology. Another 10 years and that price will be down to the level that the average family can own one, for a myriad of uses beyond wargaming. Think replacement parts, common items, ect, ect, ect...

[lattd]

I would love to be able to print gaming boards....

[Psychosplodge]

Can't you vacuum form them with an old toaster, a hoover, and a bit of wood?

[wittdooley]

But is the average family going to buy one?

I'd argue no. The means to change your oil have been available for YEARS. I can go down to Lowes and buy everything I need to fix my toilet. However, there are no fewer than 7 different places to get my oil changed within a mile of my home and there is an entire page of plumbers listed in my area code.

Bread Makers are readily available. How many of you have and use one? Meat Slicers are readily available. How many of you have and use one?

Here's the point. There are plenty of pieces of technology like this that were once industrialized and are now available for the home. But if I buy a bread maker, I have to make the dough, which takes time. Then I have to knead the dough in the break maker, which takes time. Then I have to bake the bread, which takes time. And when It's all done, I have to hope I didn't eff up the amount of yeast required so that my loaf comes out correctly.

Or I can go to the local bakery and buy a loaf of bread in 3 minutes.

Sure, I can do it on my own, and over TIME it would perhaps save me money, but my time is valuable and I'm willing to pay for an out-of-the-box solution. It's the same reason people pay for Apple products.

I think some of you are vastly understimating that fact.

And oh yeah...Comparing at-home fabrication printers to a flat screen TV is silly. They're not even remotely the same. EDIT Clairifying this statement: Flat Screen TVs are merely an advancement of an already prevalent at-home technology. Fabrication printing is not. Yes, I realize most people already have Document Printers, but printing a document isn't nearly the same as printing a 'thing.'

[gcsmith]

But is the average family going to buy one?

I'd argue no. The means to change your oil have been available for YEARS. I can go down to Lowes and buy everything I need to fix my toilet. However, there are no fewer than 7 different places to get my oil changed within a mile of my home and there is an entire page of plumbers listed in my area code.

Bread Makers are readily available. How many of you have and use one? Meat Slicers are readily available. How many of you have and use one?

Here's the point. There are plenty of pieces of technology like this that were once industrialized and are now available for the home. But if I buy a bread maker, I have to make the dough, which takes time. Then I have to knead the dough in the break maker, which takes time. Then I have to bake the bread, which takes time. And when It's all done, I have to hope I didn't eff up the amount of yeast required so that my loaf comes out correctly.

Or I can go to the local bakery and buy a loaf of bread in 3 minutes.

Sure, I can do it on my own, and over TIME it would perhaps save me money, but my time is valuable and I'm willing to pay for an out-of-the-box solution. It's the same reason people pay for Apple products.

I think some of you are vastly understimating that fact.

And oh yeah...Comparing at-home fabrication printers to a flat screen TV is silly. They're not even remotely the same. EDIT Clairifying this statement: Flat Screen TVs are merely an advancement of an already prevalent at-home technology. Fabrication printing is not. Yes, I realize most people already have Document Printers, but printing a document isn't nearly the same as printing a 'thing.'

You make a good point, another example is computers. Super computers have existed for years, yet they still are not cheap enough for the home...

Also Caitsidhe, I hope no hard feelings. I just don't agree that 3d printers will have as big affect. I have no doubt they may become common enough for every house. Maybe in 10 years. But They won't replace the mass production of Games Workshop.

[Caitsidhe]

Also Caitsidhe, I hope no hard feelings. I just don't agree that 3d printers will have as big affect. I have no doubt they may become common enough for every house. Maybe in 10 years. But They won't replace the mass production of Games Workshop.

Why would I have hard feelings about a difference of opinion? As I said before, we will see what we see in the next few years. I saw a home 3D Printer (not the quality most would want for miniatures yet) advertised on the Today show and think the floodgates are literally open. I'll man up and eat crow if things don't hit my expected deadline though.

[wittdooley]

Why would I have hard feelings about a difference of opinion. As I said before, we will see what we see in the next few years. I saw a home 3D Printer (not the quality most would want for miniatures yet) advertised on the Today show and think the floodgates are literally open. I'll man up and eat crow if things don't hit my expected deadline though.

Do you really think there is going to become enough at-home demand for these for them to become "that" widespread?

While I realize there is other applicability for a home 3D printer, is there enough to warrant it becoming an at-home staple? I'm trying to think of things I'd use an at-home 3D printer for, and I'm just not seeing enough reasons personally to believe I'd invest in one. It seems like the printing material would have to be dirt cheap for me to be enticed. But then again, I loathe buying refills for my printer at home.

[Caitsidhe]

Do you really think there is going to become enough at-home demand for these for them to become "that" widespread?

Yes, as in widespread enough for the people that will want them. As pointed out, most people don't bother cutting their own bread and yet we can buy a bread cutter dirt cheap. We can even buy a device into which we pour the ingredients and it does everything for chump change. I have one in the garage. They have lots of uses besides miniature piracy, and that is what I think is being overlooked here. But there isn't any point in arguing in circles. We will just have to wait and see. I have the advantage of having seen the quality that a mid-range industrial one can do. It suffices to say there is nothing Games Workshop is making right now that it can't do. The personal ones aren't there yet but they will be.


While I realize there is other applicability for a home 3D printer, is there enough to warrant it becoming an at-home staple? I'm trying to think of things I'd use an at-home 3D printer for, and I'm just not seeing enough reasons personally to believe I'd invest in one. It seems like the printing material would have to be dirt cheap for me to be enticed. But then again, I loathe buying refills for my printer at home.

Most of the things we have in our home are not truly "staple" items, but we get them. We get them because they are neat and someone wants to sell them. Companies are starting to multiply to sell 3D Printers like crazy. Consider the fact that deskjet ink costs as much per ounce as Champagne. It has always been really expensive and most people don't print enough at home to warrant having one. And yet...? I think the 3D Printers cost very little to produce, use very cheap materials, and have a nice juicy sales price even when they come down to the 300-500 range where they will stabilize. And yes, I think they will sell like hot cakes.

[wittdooley]

But why. I mean, "widespread enough for the people that want them" is kind of an ambiguous statement. What is the average joe going to be printing? And where is he going to be getting these designs from? With a regular printer I can easily "design" what I need to print. It doesn't really take a ton of specialized training to type up some address labels in word.

Now, I know there are lots of artists out there that can design well in zBrush or CAD, but then you have to find a place to purchase, etc. I know some of these sites presently exist, but are enough people going to determine that its cost functional in terms of materials, etc?

Again, I just dont know that buying one would be worth the cost FOR ME because, like I said, I can't think of enough things I'd really want to print with it. I have trouble imagining at this point that enough people would have reason to buy one to make this a "Standard household item" like a TV.

But really, what other things are people going to want to print on these that they wouldn't rather just go purchase ready-to-go in a store?

[Caitsidhe]

But why. I mean, "widespread enough for the people that want them" is kind of an ambiguous statement. What is the average joe going to be printing? And where is he going to be getting these designs from? With a regular printer I can easily "design" what I need to print. It doesn't really take a ton of specialized training to type up some address labels in word.

If I could explain why the "consumer" does things in a few choice words, I'd be a rich man. I just know the companies that make them are exploding, the advertising is going up, the stocks are on the move. Clearly the people behind that think people will buy them. Are they necessary? No. That has never stopped anyone before. :) As to where he is going to get the designs, the internet of course. They will come from buddies, strangers, free uploads, and so on. That is the point. That is the problem that Games Workshop is going to have to face. These devices do not, in fact, take much in the way of specialized training. Worse still, the 3D Scanners are already dropping in price. All it takes is for one person to pop an object on the scanner, run it, and upload it and the genie is out of the bottle. It is a material version of an MP3.


Now, I know there are lots of artists out there that can design well in zBrush or CAD, but then you have to find a place to purchase, etc. I know some of these sites presently exist, but are enough people going to determine that its cost functional in terms of materials, etc?

Most people will just scan what they want to copy, or download a reasonable substitute. The people who can design will do so for money. Think of these future merchant as virtual Chapterhouses, except they don't have any overhead. They don't, in fact, have to do anything but create and wait for lazy people to pay them for the download. :) In America at least, we LOVE the convenience of clicking on the keyboard and something miraculously appearing. If Chapterhouse had a downloadable cad file for their jump packs (and me a 3D Printer) I would gladly have bought that instead and printed them as I needed them.


Again, I just dont know that buying one would be worth the cost FOR ME because, like I said, I can't think of enough things I'd really want to print with it. I have trouble imagining at this point that enough people would have reason to buy one to make this a "Standard household item" like a TV.

I agree, at 1200.00 or so it isn't a value yet. At 300-500 it will move. Even at the 1200 I have heard people discussing "splitting" one. You only need one after all.


But really, what other things are people going to want to print on these that they wouldn't rather just go purchase ready-to-go in a store?

Because most people want things on their own terms. They like power and control (or the illusion of it). Also, in a hobby that requires a LOT of models which are rather expensive, such a device could save one money. It could also make you extremely popular with others if you were unscrupulous. The long and the short of it is people like gadgets. They always have. You are talking to someone who comes from the nation that created the Pet Rock, the Slinky, and the automatic bread slicer. People bought them (still do). We sell/buy more computers, tablets, flatscreen televisions, and printers than anyone else on Earth. Do most people use all those things? No. We still buy them. I think we will but this thing too. And once people have it, well the people who want to make their own models will.

[gcsmith]

But why. I mean, "widespread enough for the people that want them" is kind of an ambiguous statement. What is the average joe going to be printing? And where is he going to be getting these designs from? With a regular printer I can easily "design" what I need to print. It doesn't really take a ton of specialized training to type up some address labels in word.

Now, I know there are lots of artists out there that can design well in zBrush or CAD, but then you have to find a place to purchase, etc. I know some of these sites presently exist, but are enough people going to determine that its cost functional in terms of materials, etc?

Again, I just dont know that buying one would be worth the cost FOR ME because, like I said, I can't think of enough things I'd really want to print with it. I have trouble imagining at this point that enough people would have reason to buy one to make this a "Standard household item" like a TV.

But really, what other things are people going to want to print on these that they wouldn't rather just go purchase ready-to-go in a store?

That's the point. Mass production on most products will mean that 3d printing will be too expensive comparatively. The fact that I could go into town, buy something and get back quicker than a 3d printer would make it as well defeats the 'accessibility' of it.

I could see it used in things like mechanics to reproduce oop car parts. But that's only because there is no other way to get it. And unless the car is vintage what's the point. The mechanic would charge you so much you might as well get a car where parts are available.

[gendoikari87]

Super computers have existed for years, yet they still are not cheap enough for the home... WTF are you talking about, todays top end gaming rigs are the super computers of 20 years ago.

[gendoikari87]

But is the average family going to buy one?

I'd argue no. The means to change your oil have been available for YEARS. I can go down to Lowes and buy everything I need to fix my toilet. However, there are no fewer than 7 different places to get my oil changed within a mile of my home and there is an entire page of plumbers listed in my area code.

Bread Makers are readily available. How many of you have and use one? Meat Slicers are readily available. How many of you have and use one?

Here's the point. There are plenty of pieces of technology like this that were once industrialized and are now available for the home. But if I buy a bread maker, I have to make the dough, which takes time. Then I have to knead the dough in the break maker, which takes time. Then I have to bake the bread, which takes time. And when It's all done, I have to hope I didn't eff up the amount of yeast required so that my loaf comes out correctly.

Or I can go to the local bakery and buy a loaf of bread in 3 minutes.

Sure, I can do it on my own, and over TIME it would perhaps save me money, but my time is valuable and I'm willing to pay for an out-of-the-box solution. It's the same reason people pay for Apple products.

I think some of you are vastly understimating that fact.

And oh yeah...Comparing at-home fabrication printers to a flat screen TV is silly. They're not even remotely the same. EDIT Clairifying this statement: Flat Screen TVs are merely an advancement of an already prevalent at-home technology. Fabrication printing is not. Yes, I realize most people already have Document Printers, but printing a document isn't nearly the same as printing a 'thing.'

Calculators.

also is it not easier to print out stuff you need at home rather than drive all the way to the store to get it?

[Mr Mystery]

And what would the average household use it for? They are limited in application, and going on current document printers, likely to have significant running costs.

Plus the overall quality so far leaves a lot to be desired. Me, I'll stick to shop buying ta.

[Caitsidhe]

I plan on getting one for several reasons. I like the notion of designing my own, original terrain and the 3D Printer (even the personal ones now) are gangbusters at doing it. I like the idea of being able to make a custom bit of something to repair cracks, support shelves, decorate my mantle, custom pendants for my wife, and so on. Until our Department got one, I didn't think it would have much use beyond making custom molecule models either. I know better now.

In regards to miniatures, here is a possible difference (I say possible but I don't know English law) between the United States and the United Kingdom. Over here we are allowed to make copies of anything we buy for fair, personal use. In other words, if I buy a model, I am completely within my legal rights to copy it for my own use. I'm just not allowed to sell it. This took years to hash out legally and began when the home video recorder (and all its descendants) became regular items in every household.

The same question exists already in regards to personal castings of bits and sometimes whole models. It isn't illegal in the United States. You can make and use as many of them as you want. It is only illegal to SELL them. Given that simple truth, I won't be able to disdain anyone who goes around and buys single models and bits they want and then uses their personal printer to make an army. He/she is completely within the law. It is a sticky widget isn't it?

*Bear in mind I am superficially glossing over an extremely large series of court precedents that ended up pointing toward one thing, the government doesn't go after people who copy things for their own use unless they try to sell them. :) Which things are really "fair use" or fall under audio visual copies within reason, and so on, are highly detailed and most people don't understand them (even the Judges). The long and short of it is that once the technology is out there it is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce so the government simply doesn't attempt to and the glittering generality of "fair use" ends up on top.

[gendoikari87]

And what would the average household use it for? They are limited in application, and going on current document printers, likely to have significant running costs.

Plus the overall quality so far leaves a lot to be desired. Me, I'll stick to shop buying ta.
take a look at anything you use in daily life that is plastic, anything that breaks? you can make a new one. anything that's not electronic, you can make, meaning there will be a lot of stuff in our daily lives that will just be able to be printed that we won't need to go to the store for anymore. Especially, if they make it recyclable.

[Psychosplodge]

Then they better roll out the hydrogen car quicker so we can use the oil for plastic...

[Wolfshade]

I would have thought that would have been permissable under fair use in English law, but apparently not.

i.Research and private study
Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:

•The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
•The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people.
ii.Instruction or examination
Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a sound recording, film or broadcast for the purpose of instruction or examination is allowed under the following conditions:

•The copying is done by the student or the person giving instruction.
•The copying is not done via a reprographic process.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The instruction is for a non-commercial purpose.
iii.Criticism or review
Quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review is permitted provided that:

•The work has been made available to the public.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.
iv.News reporting
Using material for the purpose of reporting current events is permitted provided that:

•The work is not a photograph.
•The source of the material is acknowledged.
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose.
v.Incidental inclusion
Incidental inclusion is where part of one work is unintentionally included in another. The incidental inclusion of a work in an artistic work, sound recording, film or broadcast is not an infringement.

A typical example of this would be a case where a news broadcast inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.

vi.Accessibility for someone with a visual impairment
It is considered fair dealing to make an accessible copy of a work for someone with an visual impairment if a suitable accessible version is not already available.

[Caitsidhe]

I would have thought that would have been permissable under fair use in English law, but apparently not.

Yep. Their laws are rather different. It doesn't really matter though because trying to enforce it would be just as impossible. Can you imagine the GW Police using warrants to invade people's homes to check the authenticity of their personal models? :D I'm sorry Tiny Tim, but this bolter seems a bit light. Clearly you made it; off to the work houses with you!

[Wolfshade]

off to the work houses with you!
If only we still had them...
I was genuinely surprised, I thought it would be fine as a fair use/ personel use thingy. Well you learn some new each day.

[Psychosplodge]

You'd be amazed what you can have enforced here if you have the money to push it through the system

[Caitsidhe]

You'd be amazed what you can have enforced here if you have the money to push it through the system

What is scary to me is your comment. Assuming there was enough money to try and enforce that kind of thing, you would be in favor of it? I suppose that is a disconnect between Americans and the people of Great Britain. The notion of a modern day Doomsday list wherein the government invades your home to take a detailed stock of all your possessions to make sure you aren't infringing on anyone's IP sounds terrifying. That solution doesn't sound like a cure that is worse than the disease to you?

[Psychosplodge]

I never said if I was or not, I'd have to have a think on that, but look up the 2012 banned word list.

[Caitsidhe]

I never said if I was or not, I'd have to have a think on that, but look up the 2012 banned word list.

I used a banned word?

[Psychosplodge]

No theres a massive list that LOCOG had trade marked/copyrighted and sold rights to the likes of cocacola/macdonalds etc for use with the olympics... and they could fine you some ridiculous amount like £25000 (about $1000000) for infringing it.

[Caitsidhe]

No theres a massive list that LOCOG had trade marked/copyrighted and sold rights to the likes of cocacola/macdonalds etc for use with the olympics... and the could fine you some ridiculous amount like £25000 (about $1000000) for infringing it.

Interesting. Over here you could be sued, but we don't have modern day Brownshirts (or in this case purple caps) wandering the streets to enforce the law. Who knows, perhaps I'm wrong about enforcement in the U.K. because the area is smaller as is the population. Perhaps it is logistically possible for those reasons and perhaps the population will stand for it over there.

[Psychosplodge]

Well you have to remember the founding fathers were a bunch of rich guys who wanted to "do what we want" so your post rebellion laws will reflect this, and obviously it will have become embedded in the national psyche.

[gendoikari87]

What is scary to me is your comment. Assuming there was enough money to try and enforce that kind of thing, you would be in favor of it? I suppose that is a disconnect between Americans and the people of Great Britain. The notion of a modern day Doomsday list wherein the government invades your home to take a detailed stock of all your possessions to make sure you aren't infringing on anyone's IP sounds terrifying. That solution doesn't sound like a cure that is worse than the disease to you?

what do you expect self defense is basically outlawed in england. They have universal healthcare though so when you get mugged and can't fight back if you're still alive you can get free treatment.

[Psychosplodge]

Muggers don't need to shoot you though cause if they catch you for the first 100 times they "give you another chance" if you tell them you really needed to do it because you're a victim of state failures. If you fight back the courts don't like the idea of you "taking the law into your own hands" and give you a "make an example" length sentence.

[Caitsidhe]

As interesting as this is, we are probably getting a bit too far afield to still be considered on topic. We should probably start a different thread dealing with the notions of governmental power and the lengths it can go, if it would work (and where), and so on. It would clearly go in another area too. We are very remotely touching base only because the legal battle between Chapterhouse and Games Workshop is on one level about the differences in both law and mindset of the respective countries. Of course, as another poster pointed out, if this had been in the British Courts it might have been thrown out already since the toy soldiers might not even have risen to the standard of art required in the first place.

Americans did have a rather odd collection of Founding Fathers, but I think there are other sociological factors at work which are more universal to the human condition. Around the world, law and order (and the lengths to which it goes and people allow it to go) seems largely based on how densely a population is packed into a small area. Population density (as well as the availability of resources) seems to weigh in on the type (and power) of a government far more than philosophical ideas. Good old "Mad Marvin Harris" probably addresses these sociological concepts best in his work based on India's Sacred Cow. Anecdotal evidence in the United States would demonstrate that densely populated cities tend to be more restrictive on weapons, have higher fines, more regulations, and more invasive law enforcement. Lower population areas, or at least those populations with more breathing room, are usually the exact opposite. The forces at work here are:

1. Logistics. If logistical considerations prevent enforcement of a law, it is moot.
2. Necessity. Densely packed people need more order just to function.
3. Sociological and Psychological reality. Human beings (like rats in a cage) tend to lash out for all sorts of reasons.

While I would love to claim it was our Founding Fathers and the Constitution that breeds that particular mindset that is common in Americans, I think it is far more likely that is the least important factor.

[wittdooley]

take a look at anything you use in daily life that is plastic, anything that breaks? you can make a new one. anything that's not electronic, you can make, meaning there will be a lot of stuff in our daily lives that will just be able to be printed that we won't need to go to the store for anymore. Especially, if they make it recyclable.

But the question remains as to whether its actually going to be cheaper.... I'm not convinced it is.

Example: I can print business cards on my home computer. I need software to design them. I need the correct paper to print them on. I need the correct printer & ink to print them out. A "printable" package of Avery Business Cards is $17 for 200 Cards from Amazon. I'll assume I'm going to need a brand new print cartridge for that. In my printer, a pack with all of the colors and black is around $50 at best buy. So, for me to print 200 business cards I'll need to spend at least $67 in materials. I can go to vistaprint.com and get 250 business cards delivered to my house for $10.

I really am trying to think of things that would "break" that I'd really want to use a 3D printer for, but I'm just not seeing them....yet. I completely get the miniatures application (especially with terrain, as Caits stated above) but again, I'm just not getting other practical uses for me.... yet. Remember that having a 3D printer is going to produce a very 'vanilla' copy. You're still going to have to decorate it, etc. I think it's going to appeal to a very small niche (much like a Cricut diCut machine does for scrapbookers) but I just don't see it being a huge market, which I worry will prohibit costs from being driven down.

[gcsmith]

what do you expect self defense is basically outlawed in england. They have universal healthcare though so when you get mugged and can't fight back if you're still alive you can get free treatment.

You realize self defense isn't banned right? We just don't class murder as self defense in most cases.

Case in point: A student was abusing various teachers for a whole part of his school life. One of his teachers eventually snaps after the student mocks and hits him. He beats the student senseless with a chair and gets found it was self defense.

[Caitsidhe]

But the question remains as to whether its actually going to be cheaper.... I'm not convinced it is.

This is a fair consideration and I would submit that to the true bargain shopper, it is the break point. However, I don't think most people are the bargain shopper, nor do they crunch the numbers. Consider the RV. Many people buy them ostensibly to travel around American on vacation in style and not have to pay for hotels, planes, and so on. Of course, if you crunch the numbers like the cost in gas, the RV itself, rental fees, and all that jazz, you find that you could have gone first class all the way and not had to drive yourself. :) Most people buy gadgets because they are cool and they think there is potential for savings even if there are none. In the end, the devices are cool and the potential for them is great. I think they will sell fine when the price of the machine goes down.

[Psychosplodge]

You realize self defense isn't banned right? We just don't class murder as self defence in most cases.

Case in point: A student was abusing various teachers for a whole part of his school life. One of his teachers eventually snaps after the student mocks and hits him. He beats the student senseless with a chair and gets found it was self defense.

But the problem is you've got probably a 50/50 chance of been arrested, then a 50/50 chance of going court, then you've got to convince the flawed jury system you used reasonable force.


As interesting as this is, we are probably getting a bit too far afield to still be considered on topic.

No more so than an indepth analysis of 3d printing, I think they'll never be cheaper than mass production, because of economies of scale, and will be a niche product some people will get to have a go with, but most will ignore.

[Sean_OBrien]

There was a big document update yesterday - though they are not available on the Recap website yet:

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/20/2012 243 REPLY by Games Workshop Limited to MOTION by Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited for summary judgment 213 (Attachments: # 1 GW Reply to Additional Material Facts, # 2 List of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit Ex 150, # 4 Exhibit Ex 151, # 5 Exhibit Ex 152, # 6 Exhibit Ex 153, # 7 Exhibit Ex 154, # 8 Exhibit Ex 155, # 9 Exhibit Ex 156, # 10 Exhibit Ex 157, # 11 Exhibit Ex 158 - part 1, # 12 Exhibit Ex 158 - part 2, # 13 Exhibit Ex 159 - part 1, # 14 Exhibit Ex 159 - part 2, # 15 Exhibit Ex 159 - part 3, # 16 Exhibit Ex 160 - part 1, # 17 Exhibit Ex 160 - part 2, # 18 Exhibit Ex 161 - part 1, # 19 Exhibit Ex 161 - part 2, # 20 Exhibit Ex 162 - part 1, # 21 Exhibit Ex 162 - part 2, # 22 Exhibit Ex 162 - part 3, # 23 Exhibit Ex 163 - part 1, # 24 Exhibit Ex 163 - part 2, # 25 Exhibit Ex 163 - part 3, # 26 Exhibit Ex 164 - part 1, # 27 Exhibit Ex 164 - part 2, # 28 Exhibit Ex 165 - part 1, # 29 Exhibit Ex 165 - part 2)(Keener, Jason) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 244 REPLY by Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC to motion for summary judgment,,,,,,,,,, 208 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 7 Exhibit 6 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 8 Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 9 Exhibit 8 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 10 Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 11 Exhibit 10 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 12 Exhibit 11 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 13 Exhibit 12 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 14 Exhibit 13 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney)(Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 245 REPLY by Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC to motion for summary judgment,,,,,,,,,, 208 to Plaintiff Games Workshop's Responses to Chapterhouse's Statement of Material Facts and Chapterhouse's Response to Games Workshop's Additional Facts (Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 246 DECLARATION of Gary Chalk regarding motion for summary judgment,,,,,,,,,, 208 (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Gary Chalk, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Gary Chalk, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Gary Chalk)(Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

I need to go through and figure out how the Recap website works before I go ahead and download the new files...unless of course someone else does first that is. Only want to do that once though, since at 10 cents a page - a few thousand pages of new documents adds up fast, and I would rather make them freely available for all as opposed to just something to read through for myself.

[Sean_OBrien]

Had a busy weekend, so I wasn't able to pour over the various new documents - however, there were some good ones in this last batch:

The first up for consideration is the Chalk Declaration:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.0.pdf

Remember how CHS asked GW to prove that they had rights to everything that they claimed they had rights to? Then GW said - of course we do...why would you even question that. Then the judge said prove it? Well - they didn't actually have contracts for many of the free lance artists who worked for GW doing illustrations back in the days that 40K was being created. After the fact, they sent out letters trying to get the various artists to sign away those rights after the fact...and one of them was Gary Chalk. He said no. For those who are not familiar with Chalk, he did several of the Rogue Trader era illustrations relating to the various Space Marine chapters - the most notable one can be found in this document:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.2.pdf

Many others were done by him as well.

Next on the list of interesting things is the CHS response to the GW response to the CHS response to the material facts of the case. Lots of back and forth referencing this and that.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.245.0.pdf

Some of it is sort of silly (GW contesting that a 28 mm standard exists...it is irrelevant whether or not the industry moved with GW or if it existed prior to GW - it is an excepted standard within the industry) on page 42.

Following GW's response to CHS's request for summary judgement, CHS again reiterates its points and provides supporting evidence in this document:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.244.0.pdf

GW offers up about the same in their document here:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.243.0.pdf

The problem of course is that at varying points throughout the case, GW did claim items which were created by Chalk as mentioned above and only now provided evidence from other freelance artists in support of their claim to ownership (after close of discovery - and after they filed the case to begin with). They also insist that the principle market for GW products is collectors and not gamers (in order to avoid classification as a design). Likely you will see more of that speak through White Dwarf and quite possibly a shift back to the Citadel Miniatures branding versus the Games Workshop branding in order to try to enforce that position.

This document is an index of the GW exhibits so far in support of their case:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.243.2.pdf

It includes the new assignments of copyrights from some of the freelance artists which they didn't present earlier in the case.

[Caitsidhe]

Funny stuff. I hope the freelances that did sell now (years after the fact) made them pay through the nose.

[Psychosplodge]

If you look on a lot of the packaging it does say "This is not a toy"

[Sean_OBrien]

Funny stuff. I hope the freelances that did sell now (years after the fact) made them pay through the nose.

If you actually read the letter that was sent out to them, I would guess most of them (being generally good people) didn't make GW pay anything at all.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.3.pdf

It was basically a form letter that they sent out to all the past free lance artists which they could think of (including ones not referenced in this case) that makes it sound like...whoops, we realized that we lost the contract you did years ago which signed away your rights as an artist. However, generally that isn't the way it is done and in the few cases which it has become public how GW was working at the time - that wasn't the way it was done then.

http://russnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-horror-of-it-all.html - This is another artist who received a letter...however they also were not on a "work for hire" contract.


If you look on a lot of the packaging it does say "This is not a toy"

CYA statement to keep from getting sued by parents who don't pay attention to their yard monkeys who stick a Terminator up their nose...

[Psychosplodge]

lol
are they enforcible?

Also have you just published Alan Merritt's direct line on an internet forum?

[Caitsidhe]

If you actually read the letter that was sent out to them, I would guess most of them (being generally good people) didn't make GW pay anything at all.

Why would that make them generally good people? This entire legal argument is that this is a business and all these IP are about money and who has the right to it. If Games Workshop didn't have a contract with those people, then they own the IP and not GW. I would think since Games Workshop wants to sue other people for use an IP they didn't own because it is worth money, the people who actually did the drawings are entitled to get as much money for them as possible. Or if that isn't the case, and them handing the rights over for next to nothing makes them good people. What kind of people does that make GW who aren't asking "next to nothing" for the product of their labor? :)


It was basically a form letter that they sent out to all the past free lance artists which they could think of (including ones not referenced in this case) that makes it sound like...whoops, we realized that we lost the contract you did years ago which signed away your rights as an artist. However, generally that isn't the way it is done and in the few cases which it has become public how GW was working at the time - that wasn't the way it was done then.

Lost the contract or never had one. :D This is a business. I think they should make them pay through the nose. One good turn deserves another. :D

[Sean_OBrien]

Why would that make them generally good people?

If you read the letter, GW makes it sound like they are not asking for anything new. In fact, they specifically say in the letter that they are just looking to replace some paperwork which was lost and would like to have the new paperwork signed. No additional rights would be granted to GW:

Just for clarity, we are not asking for any new assignment of rights from you...

Now, generally nice people would assume that if a previous employer sent you a message along those lines...the old employer would not be trying to pull something over on you. They would assume that the old employer would be being truthful and force coming with all the details.

Also, many artists are not lawyers - so certain legal mumbo jumbo (like "work for hire") is lost on them. The phrase sound innocuous enough, lets just go ahead and sign this for them...

I wasn't meaning to imply that those who did not sign were bad people...rather that the ones who did sign were naive in their general goodness.


lol
are they enforcible?

Also have you just published Alan Merritt's direct line on an internet forum?

If you read through the documents you get more than that. I have home addresses and what not for a lot of people. Personal contact information for the various informants who GW used. Accounts information for eBay and Paypal... Whole mess of stuff.

But...no, I didn't publish it. Someone else did, I just happened to link to the document which had it in it.

[Psychosplodge]

Interesting most of the last lot had better redaction.

[Renegade]

It is funny that CHS lawyers don't seem to realise that the Berne Convention means that GW does not have to register a trade mark in the US for it to be covered by US law, so long as it comes from another Berne signatory, the work is covered. The work was first covered by UK law, which means that Copyright in IP are automatic, and the US as a signatory has to uphold GW's rights to this being the case.

The undisputed facts that CHS claim are otherwise, can only be otherwise in many cases if the Berne Convention is ignored, from my understanding of the convention.

The next time CHS lawyers try this on, GW should remind the judge of the convention requiring the US to recognise UK copyright law, and (imo) the ridiculous stance that the defendant lawyers keep taking is requiring US registration.

[Mr Mystery]

My brain is leaking out my nose.

[the jeske]

It is funny that CHS lawyers don't seem to realise that the Berne Convention means that GW does not have to register a trade mark in the US for it to be covered by US law, so long as it comes from another Berne signatory, the work is covered. The work was first covered by UK law, which means that Copyright in IP are automatic, and the US as a signatory has to uphold GW's rights to this being the case.

The undisputed facts that CHS claim are otherwise, can only be otherwise in many cases if the Berne Convention is ignored, from my understanding of the convention.

The next time CHS lawyers try this on, GW should remind the judge of the convention requiring the US to recognise UK copyright law, and (imo) the ridiculous stance that the defendant lawyers keep taking is requiring US registration.

yeah and that is why in the US apple can IP their laptops and in the UK or rest of the world they cant :D.

[gendoikari87]

It is funny that CHS lawyers don't seem to realise that the Berne Convention means that GW does not have to register a trade mark in the US for it to be covered by US law, so long as it comes from another Berne signatory, the work is covered. The work was first covered by UK law, which means that Copyright in IP are automatic, and the US as a signatory has to uphold GW's rights to this being the case.

The undisputed facts that CHS claim are otherwise, can only be otherwise in many cases if the Berne Convention is ignored, from my understanding of the convention.

The next time CHS lawyers try this on, GW should remind the judge of the convention requiring the US to recognise UK copyright law, and (imo) the ridiculous stance that the defendant lawyers keep taking is requiring US registration.

Doesn't matter much when you fail to actually bring them to court. Maybe GW can enter them during the oral arguments though? not sure.

[Sean_OBrien]

It is funny that CHS lawyers don't seem to realise that the Berne Convention means that GW does not have to register a trade mark in the US for it to be covered by US law, so long as it comes from another Berne signatory, the work is covered. The work was first covered by UK law, which means that Copyright in IP are automatic, and the US as a signatory has to uphold GW's rights to this being the case.

The undisputed facts that CHS claim are otherwise, can only be otherwise in many cases if the Berne Convention is ignored, from my understanding of the convention.

The next time CHS lawyers try this on, GW should remind the judge of the convention requiring the US to recognise UK copyright law, and (imo) the ridiculous stance that the defendant lawyers keep taking is requiring US registration.

1) A Trademark must be used in trade. GW had to sell a product called "Exorcists" Something or Other for Exorcists to be a valid mark. A paragraph and a picture in a book do not constitute trade.

2) A Trademark is limited in scope. Even though GW sold a book called Soul Drinker - that does not automatically extend trademark protections to everything...especially when it is not a registered mark.

3) Sales and registration become jurisdictional issues. In order for this particular court to rule on the matter, GW must demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction on the issue at hand. If it is a registered mark, then the court does as a matter of course due to federal law. However, for unregistered marks - GW must demonstrate that sales occurred within the courts jurisdiction.

4) Registration dictates penalties. A registered mark has greater protection than an unregistered mark, and it has greater protection. CHS is bracing for impact, should the court find in GW's favor on certain issues.

5) Design Rights. CHS contends that in the UK, products sold by GW would not be protected under basic copyright laws as per the recent LucasFilm finding, rather it would be design rights. If the UK doesn't grant a copyright, then neither should the US courts based on the Berne Convention.

CHS is doing an excellent job both in attacking the case which GW has provided and citing applicable case law.

[Renegade]

1) A Trademark must be used in trade. GW had to sell a product called "Exorcists" Something or Other for Exorcists to be a valid mark. A paragraph and a picture in a book do not constitute trade.

2) A Trademark is limited in scope. Even though GW sold a book called Soul Drinker - that does not automatically extend trademark protections to everything...especially when it is not a registered mark.

3) Sales and registration become jurisdictional issues. In order for this particular court to rule on the matter, GW must demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction on the issue at hand. If it is a registered mark, then the court does as a matter of course due to federal law. However, for unregistered marks - GW must demonstrate that sales occurred within the courts jurisdiction.

4) Registration dictates penalties. A registered mark has greater protection than an unregistered mark, and it has greater protection. CHS is bracing for impact, should the court find in GW's favor on certain issues.

5) Design Rights. CHS contends that in the UK, products sold by GW would not be protected under basic copyright laws as per the recent LucasFilm finding, rather it would be design rights. If the UK doesn't grant a copyright, then neither should the US courts based on the Berne Convention.

CHS is doing an excellent job both in attacking the case which GW has provided and citing applicable case law.

In the UK a registered and unregistered trademark have similar protection, and the court has to take that into account as per treaties. With designs the law in the UK states that if there is a drawing of the item and detail, it is protected IP.

CHS is doing a very poor job from what I have read, maybe English is interpreted differently in the US, but there main argument stems from running round the edges instead of actually dealing with the meat. We all know that none of the Warhammer ranges are not true 28mm, yet they state that all their range is compatible with 28 mm models. Their lawyer could come in to some difficulty stating that the B&C is not just a 40k community, as they state that anything not 40K and in power armour is not allowed, so that is a plain faced lie.

I am yet to find anything from CHS that does not sound (read) like wheedling to me. A UK court would not put up with much of that, as civil cases tend to be at Magistrate level when they start they tend to take a more black and white view.

[Sean_OBrien]

In the UK a registered and unregistered trademark have similar protection, and the court has to take that into account as per treaties. With designs the law in the UK states that if there is a drawing of the item and detail, it is protected IP.

Actually, the way the treaty is written - if you have protection in your country (for the trademark) than when your IP is contested in another country...you are treated as the other country treats that particular type of IP. In the US, that would mean unregistered trademarks for the vast majority of the contested marks.

Regarding the drawings - also wrong, and dealt with by your High Court in the LucasFilm case. A drawing, for the sake of being a drawing or a painting for the sake of being a painting - is a work of art and is treated by copyright law. Drawings which are intended to be used to create a manufactured good (which is what the majority of GW artwork is) are considered design documents and do not receive the same level of protection as a drawing which is created to hang on a wall (Section 51, Part I, Chapter III of the 1988 Designs and Patents Act).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/51

This point was affirmed regarding a similar claim made by LucasFilm that although the Storm Trooper items in that case might be designs, they were based on artwork and drawings which would be copyrighted - therefore the physical items created from those drawings should have a copyright protection as well. The court ruled that not to be the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0015_Judgment.pdf

Regarding running around the edges...that is exactly what this portion of the case is actually about. Find a technicality to get a portion, or all of the GW case dismissed upon. The actual meat wouldn't happen until the case actually went to court.

[Caitsidhe]

I think the whole thing is fascinating, which is impressive considering the banal nature of the situation. We keep getting a window the how/why things work. Of particular interest is the absolutely awful business management of Games Workshop. How on Earth do you lose your paperwork? If we assume for a moment that they ever had this supposed paperwork (I don't think they actually did) they managed to misplace, lose, or destroy the legal documentation on the rights they bought from various artists. That is not how you run a railroad. I'm not going into the case more right now because I think that it will most certainly go to trial. That is when the real fun will begin. It will be a laugh riot. GW should never have started this in the first place:

1. It airs their dirty laundry.
2. It is costing them more money than they could ever get back even with a complete victory (which they won't get).
3. It isn't costing CH much of anything and probably gave them lots of free publicity. All press is good press.
4. If CH shuts down after the case it will just open up under another name and do it all again.
5. A legal case shows the dog's teeth aren't as bad as thought AND the length of the leash. It was better when people didn't know.
6. It will (at trial) show all the costs to produce and distribute as well as the profits. This is better kept to the chest.
7. It will be a "how to" manual for other companies looking to horn in on said profits.
8. They will end up branded either a toy company or a hobby company legally, forever losing that gray area they hide in.
9. If they win they get to personify the bad guy big company to many. If they lose the floodgates open.
10. The results are going to be so specific they will affect nobody but CH whose paltry profits aren't actually a threat to them.

I could go on and on. It doesn't really matter how rude or arrogant CH may have behaved. It doesn't even really matter who is right or wrong. Whoever is running the railroad at Games Workshop should have counted the costs. It is a business and there were lots of ways to deal with the issue that were cheaper and far more effective. Someone made a boneheaded call and crossed the Rubicon. Doesn't anyone over there do a cost analysis?

[Psychosplodge]

It's not like they have a choice, They have to attempt to defend their IP under English law, in order to retain rights to it.

[DrLove42]

2) Its not about making money. Its about setting a standard of protecting their products
4) They can't. If GW win, thats a legal precedant. No one will be able to do the same

Yes if GW lose its going to hurt them. Frankly given how many people seem to have an irrational hatred of GW, and would deliberalt ybuy pirated stuff so as to hurt them, it could spell an end to them

[Caitsidhe]

2) Its not about making money.

Ummmm... I'm betting stockholders would feel different. It is about making money. It is about getting the same results at lower costs. All that is going to matter to people at the end is whether it ended up making them money or costing them money.


Its about setting a standard of protecting their products

And we have seen over the past twenty years that in this day and age you can't accomplish it through these means. It isn't effective. Moreover, the standard that is likely to be set is going to be done in a way that simply allows people to get around it easier rather than harder.


4) They can't. If GW win, thats a legal precedant. No one will be able to do the same

Actually they can. They will start right back up under another name and probably organized under someone else who just works at the company or is a friend of the owner. They will now have a road map to bypassing the Games Workshop entirely. They won't be constrained. They will be freed of all doubt and worry. The case will constrain Games Workshop's options more than the descendants of CH.


Yes if GW lose its going to hurt them. Frankly given how many people seem to have an irrational hatred of GW, and would deliberalt ybuy pirated stuff so as to hurt them, it could spell an end to them

Let's think about what you just said. Since there isn't a PR company out there running negative advertisements about Games Workshop, we must assume this "irrational" hatred of GW is springing up all on its own. The numbers of people who seem to develop it is an indication that Games Workshop is doing something wrong. To put it another way, the sheer numbers alone indicate it is NOT irrational. It has a source and cause. That is what will end up spelling the end. People will always go to the better deal. If Games Workshop is getting killed slowly by a thousand cuts, it needs to staunch the bleeding. Court cases NEVER accomplish that. Games Workshop has all the tools it requires to out-compete all the small fish. It chooses not to do it. It is unrealistic.

[Sean_OBrien]

It's not like they have a choice, They have to attempt to defend their IP under English law, in order to retain rights to it.

The problem ends up being a bit of the other though...

As I have said, I do not believe it is in fact GW's IP at all...at least not to the extent that they seem to believe it is. What GW has claimed as trademarks, do not in fact meet the burden of being trademarks (used in commerce and used to mark actual products). I also believe that what GW makes falls under Design Rights...not Copyrights.

As it was before, my theory ends up being an untested theory. GW could continue doing what they have been doing (issuing C&D letters, sending out DMCA takedown orders when a 3D model shows up on a print site, generally huffing about). However, should the court look at the evidence as I have looked at it and as CHS has presented in their case - then GW ends up being in a different camp. They may well loose a significant ability to do what they have done (courts don't like false copyright and trademark claims).

If a specific thing, like the Space Marine or Eldar designs is found to be public domain - anyone who had the inkling would be able to sculpt and cast up their own stuff. If the nominative use of GW marks is upheld, then you can even go through and describe the new sculpts "Compare to Games Workshop Space Marines".

If CHS demonstrates that GW wrongly pursued the claims - GW may well be on the hook for paying legal fees which are on the order of several million dollars (haven't seen the billables yet - but I wouldn't be surprised at all if you would be looking at $5 million or so already for the CHS defense so far) not to mention paying their own legal fees...all of which will probably add up to a 5-10% hit to their revenue in a single year. Should CHS loose, it is unlikely that legal fees would be awarded (the way the law is interpreted in the US makes that unlikely) and actual damages would be relatively low because the way damages are calculated (can only go after actual profit - treble for registered marks - and damages to trademarks are only applicable if deemed to be famous...a status which is generally not allowed for niche goods, especially when GW has stated they do not advertise).

The only time that GW would have "had to" take CHS to court is in an explicit use of GW trademarks - a level which I do not believe that they have actually done and which GW hasn't actually even made a claim to. There is little chance of the trademarks which GW uses becoming generic - it just isn't famous enough to rise to that level.


Yes if GW lose its going to hurt them. Frankly given how many people seem to have an irrational hatred of GW, and would deliberalt ybuy pirated stuff so as to hurt them, it could spell an end to them

Only if GW management are completely daft. They have the ability to sell products at fractions of the prices they currently do, and doing as much would likely result in a great increase in actual volume. Even if everyone who wanted to sell a space marine knock off started doing so tomorrow the impact to GW's bottom line would likely be less than a million dollars per year.

If they were to drop prices and even better - issue a statement which says "Hey, we lost our way - but now we want to make you, our customers happy" they would repair their reputation overnight and garner more goodwill than what they have managed to loose incrementally over the past 10 years or so.

BTW - for many of us...this case isn't about a hatred towards GW. It is more like Weird Al Yankovic trying to sue someone who did a parody of one of his songs. GW has built the 40K line off from snatching stuff from everything. They are now attempting to squash attempts by other companies who happen to be snagging stuff from them. That aint cool.
_________________

One more thing.

Does anyone think it is a coincidence that GW is now selling things like the Night Lords Conversion Pack, Iron Warriors Upgrade Pack, the various shoulder pads and weapons? Yes, they sold them in the past - but in order to maintain the mark - they have to sell them now. They also have to sell them broadly, so those items should be available in game stores as well. All of that is a direct result of this case, and what the GW legal team is telling GW regarding the various issues at hand. It also means that you are more likely to actually see models released with the Codex as opposed to the stupid multiple waves (where you may or may not actually see the model ever...).

[gendoikari87]

Let's think about what you just said. Since there isn't a PR company out there running negative advertisements about Games Workshop, we must assume this "irrational" hatred of GW is springing up all on its own. The numbers of people who seem to develop it is an indication that Games Workshop is doing something wrong. To put it another way, the sheer numbers alone indicate it is NOT irrational. It has a source and cause. That is what will end up spelling the end. People will always go to the better deal. If Games Workshop is getting killed slowly by a thousand cuts, it needs to staunch the bleeding. Court cases NEVER accomplish that. Games Workshop has all the tools it requires to out-compete all the small fish. It chooses not to do it. It is unrealistic.
What you said, GW is slowly pricing themselves out to, likely to pay for the retirement of the creators still at the company. It's very clear that they have a short term profits plan and have either stopped expanding the player base or more than likely have started loosing people based on the latest sales figures. But they keep staying profitable by increaseing their price beyond the dip in sales to mask that and look profitable. and for the time being, they are. But if they don't stop, GW itself will put itself out of business in a decade or two tops.

[Deadlift]

I don't know guys, I am more inclined to believe GW knows exactly what it's doing in its market, I just don't think the Internet experts really have much to offer. For years posters have claimed GW is doing things all wrong and will ultimately fail. Posters on forums when i took the hobby up in 2008 were saying GW is doomed to failure. Seems to me they are still producing new and exciting products month after month and people still keep buying them.

The Internet analysis's on forums is mostly just people venting. It's all well constructed arguments, with somewhat some justification, especially with prices. But I suggest in 5 years we will still be having this same old debate on GW, it's prices and its place in the market.

Obviously there are far more educated people debating in this thread, who are using words I have to look up on google, but I think I just maybe right :)

[DF3CT]

They did gut their company across the globe around that 2008 mark so they could report a profit and stop the bleeding somehow.

A necessary move to close so many stores and slash positions, but that's hardly the behaviour of a healthy company safe from danger. More like a survival move, entering survival mode. Tightening the belt.

[Sean_OBrien]

They did gut their company across the globe around that 2008 mark so they could report a profit and stop the bleeding somehow.

A necessary move to close so many stores and slash positions, but that's hardly the behaviour of a healthy company safe from danger. More like a survival move, entering survival mode. Tightening the belt.

And more now with the cuts in hours across the board for game stores as well as continual price increases above the cost of inflation (without corresponding revenue increases...). That all is a topic for a different thread though, pretty sure there are five or six around here which deal with that.

Regarding GW's knowledge of their own market though, read the depositions by GW staffers. They have no knowledge of their market outside the sales which they make. They don't even claim to know how large the total market is and how the CHS activities may have impacted their sales figures. I think a lot of people give GW more credit then they are due in that regard. The best argument that they have come up with is that they control the market because THQ was willing to pay them a lot of money in order to license the 40K setting.

[Deadlift]

I think GW are successful because they are pro-active in giving the product exposure to customers at a greater level than their competition. They are clearly the most popular table top war gaming brand at the moment. If this were not the case then CHS would not copying its IP ?

I just don't see that changing in the near future. As for GW not having knowledge of their market outside of their sales, maybe they don't feel they need to because their so confident with the product ? Or just arrogant :)

As for cutting store opening times, as far as I know most GW stores close 2 days a week and have done since I started playing the game. Maybe the other global stores are just being brought inline with that policy.

Anyhow, I guess its a case of watch this space and we will all see what happens

[Renegade]

Actually, the way the treaty is written - if you have protection in your country (for the trademark) than when your IP is contested in another country...you are treated as the other country treats that particular type of IP. In the US, that would mean unregistered trademarks for the vast majority of the contested marks

I would suggest you look that up again. Remember that as GW start 40K in 1986, the Trade Marks Act 1938 also applies.



Regarding the drawings - also wrong, and dealt with by your High Court in the LucasFilm case. A drawing, for the sake of being a drawing or a painting for the sake of being a painting - is a work of art and is treated by copyright law. Drawings which are intended to be used to create a manufactured good (which is what the majority of GW artwork is) are considered design documents and do not receive the same level of protection as a drawing which is created to hang on a wall (Section 51, Part I, Chapter III of the 1988 Designs and Patents Act).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/51

This point was affirmed regarding a similar claim made by LucasFilm that although the Storm Trooper items in that case might be designs, they were based on artwork and drawings which would be copyrighted - therefore the physical items created from those drawings should have a copyright protection as well. The court ruled that not to be the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2010_0015_Judgment.pdf

Unusable, as each case has to be judged on its own merits if English law is being applied as is actually stated in the 1988 act. You will also need to reed up on the act as it stood pre-1988 as that will cover the original release and subsequent Trade mark laws of both 1938 and 1994.


Regarding running around the edges...that is exactly what this portion of the case is actually about. Find a technicality to get a portion, or all of the GW case dismissed upon. The actual meat wouldn't happen until the case actually went to court.

Any infringement would result in the prosecution of CHS, and any doubt has to be ruled in GW's favour if the 1988 act is being used. This means that running around the edges gets CHS nowhere, it has to actual prove that it has not crossed the line in anyway shape of form.

[Sean_OBrien]

I would suggest you look that up again. Remember that as GW start 40K in 1986, the Trade Marks Act 1938 also applies.

And Star Wars was filmed in 1977...so what is your point?




Unusable, as each case has to be judged on its own merits if English law is being applied as is actually stated in the 1988 act. You will also need to reed up on the act as it stood pre-1988 as that will cover the original release and subsequent Trade mark laws of both 1938 and 1994.

The UK Supreme Court affirmed the "test" which was implemented by the appellate judge to determine if something would be a sculpture (and copyrighted) or a design and not. In the actual appeal case, where the original Justice Mann laid out his test (which was affirmed) he sets out a number of different criteria to use as guidelines. In the US - those criteria would become part of the legal precedence when evaluating future cases...I assume the same would hold true over there.

Further, Justice Mann actually said this:

Next, it is necessary to consider the toy Stormtroopers, and other characters, which are taken as being reproductions of the armour and helmets for the purposes of section 52. These are, as already described, articulated models which are sold as toys and which are intended for the purposes of play. Play is their primary, if not sole, purpose. While their appearance is obviously highly important (if they did not look like the original, the child would not be so interested) they are not made for the purposes of their visual appearance as such. While there is no accounting for taste, it is highly unlikely that they would be placed on display and periodically admired as such. The child is intended to use them in a (literally) hands-on way, in a form of delegated role play, and that is doubtless how they are actually used. That means, in my view, they are not sculptures. They can be distinguished from the model in Britain which apparently had a significant element of being admirable for its own visual sake. That does not apply to the Stormtrooper, whose only real purpose is play. In reaching this conclusion I am not saying that the Britain model is better at what it portrays than the Stormtrooper model. That would be to make judgments about artistic quality, which the statute understandably forbids. It is making a judgment about whether there is anything in the model which has an artistic essence, in the sense identified above. I conclude that there is not.

That statement in and of itself would hold significant weight in future cases, especially in regards to products designed and sold by GW...Games Workshop.

Link to the Appellate court case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1878.html


Any infringement would result in the prosecution of CHS, and any doubt has to be ruled in GW's favour if the 1988 act is being used. This means that running around the edges gets CHS nowhere, it has to actual prove that it has not crossed the line in anyway shape of form.

Which is why it is nice to be in a country where the burden of proof lies on the accuser and not the accused (thought fairly well the same applied over there...and readings of court cases and legal code would seem to indicate as much).

[lattd]

May be Games workshop, but its Citadel miniatures and they class themselves as a miniature company not a toy or game company.

[Adra]

We already see the effects of this case on the product line. does anyone think its a coincidence that every new entry in the chaos space marine codex has a model ready to buy on release? nope. its so GW can protect whats new and re-release whats already out at their own pace.

I just want this case over and done with now. its dragging on.

[gendoikari87]

We already see the effects of this case on the product line. does anyone think its a coincidence that every new entry in the chaos space marine codex has a model ready to buy on release? nope. its so GW can protect whats new and re-release whats already out at their own pace.

I just want this case over and done with now. its dragging on.

I see that as a good thing. The whole waves of releases was nucking futs anyway.

[Sean_OBrien]

Another week - another set of documents.

http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/

249 Series of documents - primarily dealing with the pretrial proceedings. Each side lists out their particular claims which they will be making (more or less) as well as provides the list of witnesses who they will call or who they might call.

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.249.0.pdf

Beyond just the witness lists, you can also find the list of questions which are proposed for jury selection (reprinted here for convenience as I assume that will be of more interest than other large chunks):

1. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever played any miniature war-games?
2. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever collected and/or painted figurines?
3. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever attended any gaming conventions?
4. Have you ever heard of Games Workshop, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, or Warhammer 40K?
5. Have you ever read a book published under the “Black Library” label?
6. Have you ever heard of Chapterhouse Studios?
7. Do you have any knowledge about or experience with copyrights or trademarks, including applying for a copyright registration or a trademark registration?
8. Have you ever been involved in the creation or selection of a trademark?
9. Have you ever been involved in the creation of an artistic work (book, painting, sculptor, etc) that was sold to others?
10. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever made a claim of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or patent infringement?
11. Have you ever considered filing for a copyright, trademark registration, or patent registration but decided not to?
12. Have you, or a relative or close friend, ever been accused of infringing another's copyright, trademark, or patent?
13. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever worked in sales or marketing?
14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?
15. Have you, a relative or close friend worked for commission, either currently or as part of a previous job?

Other interesting points is that GW expects the trial to take 7 days, while CHS is expecting 7-15 days. Not too big of a deal on either side, but it is indicative of how much testimony each side expects to take place. Page 9 starts the jury instructions (these are a fairly blanket set and may well be adjusted before the final trial to take into account the specifics of the case). In particular you can see how the instructions may well evolve starting on page 14 where you can see a proposed instruction by GW which is opposed by CHS. Ultimately, the judge will make a decision which instruction is included (either one of the two proposed or one of his own crafting).

The jury instructions (and the proposed instructions) continue through to the end of the document from page 9. It is a good (but very dry read) as it explains a lot of the legal points which have been discussed in this thread in some detail.

The other 4 documents in the 249 series are listings of the evidence and depositions which are to be used in the court case.

[Tynskel]

nucking futs

bwahhahaha!!

[White Tiger88]

Never thought i would say this.....

GO GAMES WORKSHOP GO CRUSH THOSE JUNK SELLING $#)(@(!S

[daboarder]

I see that as a good thing. The whole waves of releases was nucking futs anyway.

It may be a good thing long term but it was absolutely horrible for the CSM dex, instead of a swath of new units the book got stuck in between design philosophies again.

[Mr Mystery]

Dear Chapterhouse,

Bend over, grab your ankles and think of England.

At least that's how I think/hope it will turn out.

[Sean_OBrien]

Anywho...

More documents - bottom of the page, starting at 250:

http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/

Limine motions by GW and CHS - no huge surprises. GW wants to keep out everything that they objected to in the 249 documents - CHS wants to keep out the things they objected to. Have a quick read, fairly straight forward set of claims that don't need much explaining.

In document 253 - the Judge lets everyone know that he should be issuing his summary judgement ruling in the next 10-14 days and then the trial date will be set for after the first of the year (as opposed to December as was previously the goal).

Something which is important for the number crunchers can be found in this document:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.251.2.pdf

Starting on page 95 you can find a couple hundred pages of sales values for a whole host of 40K related products in the US (and other markets for the books and what not). The first section deals with 40K products and lists them as sales value (which would be retail sales prices - not wholesale or other prices...units x retail price). This is used to calculate the "value" of trademarks for the purposes of this case. Number crunchers can use it to look at units sold to see how prices might impact them. It is 7 full years of data (2004-2011 full years and an apparent partial year for 2012). It isn't a complete listing of all the SKUs GW offers - but it is a really good selection of items which are sold...many of which are core to various armies.

[Bigred]

Wow, that last pdf is the crown jewels. You can divide by MSRP to calculate unit sales year over year.

[Sean_OBrien]

Wow, that last pdf is the crown jewels. You can divide by MSRP to calculate unit sales year over year.

Yep - you will want to save a local copy of it though. Previously, those papers were filed under seal and I haven't seen any ruling by the judge to change that, so I am guessing the mistake will be corrected sooner rather than later.

Also, remember that there may be minor discrepancies in the actual numbers (sometimes you will not end up with a whole number of units sold). This is likely a factor of the constant currency accounting which GW uses. Depending on when the accounts are settled up and what the exchange rate is at any given point when the data is compiled it can cause the numbers to shift around a little bit.

Also, as an added benefit - pages 97-100 have the miniatures data in a selectable format which can be ripped into Excel (or similar program) and used to run comparisons quite quickly if you also get the price hikes for that year.

A quick example is from 2010 to 2011 the sales on Space Marine Assault Squads went from $245,035 to $203,422. There was also an 11% increase between those two years. So...roughly 8236 units sold in the 2010 FY and roughly 6164 units in 2011 FY.

FY2012 data only goes till March or April in the charts - so it isn't quite a full period of reporting.

[Mr Mystery]

Would that not bd a decrease, seeing as numbers went down?

[Sean_OBrien]

Would that not bd a decrease, seeing as numbers went down?

Increase in price year for year...HUGE decrease in volume year for year....

Reread what I wrote - year to year, the MSRP was increased by 11% on that item, I didn't make that clear that that was what the increase was that I was talking about.

Since much hay has been made over the years regarding us not having enough information regarding GW sales in order to actually determine whether or not the price increases which GW makes are counter productive to actual sales - this document provides a good insight into the sales and how they might be impacted by the price increases. Because of the long period of time which is covered, and a good sampling of core items for a number of armies (IG and Space Marines look to be the best candidates for analysis) - it provides a fair amount of data for analysis. Especially considering that both of those armies are more or less covered through more than one Codex release as well as having core units as well as important optional units in the list.

[Michael Adam Hockenbarger]

This had been a highly entertaining read. Thanks for that. There were a couple of points I thought got glossed over or ignored, or were flat misunderstood.

1) burden of proof means that chs has to prove nothing. The entire legal strategy of a defense team is to dance around the edges and poke holes in the case presented by the plaintiff. All proof must be presented by gws.

2) 3d printers are cool. I saw the same today show segment, and some are capable of working with metals. Is the system expensive? Yes. Very. However, given sufficient usage, it would pay itself off. It won't be cost effective any time soon, but if you field a hundred of the same unit, it would be.

3) The "mistake" mentioned early on concerning the pictures of their own products being presented as images of chs knock offs could have been deliberate. It would not be the first time unscrupulous lawyers have mispresented evidence as a way to stall out proceedings.

The devil is in the details. This is doubly true for law. Based on what I've read on this, gws has been doing nothing but pointing multi-meltas at their own feet the whole time. It has done a great job of highlighting the failings of the gws management and administration, validating many fan complaints.

[inquisitorsog]

Increase in price year for year...HUGE decrease in volume year for year....

Reread what I wrote - year to year, the MSRP was increased by 11% on that item, I didn't make that clear that that was what the increase was that I was talking about.


Color me "not surprised". I've been saying that's likely the case for quite a while by comparing just the price increases we know about against their public financials. They're masking declining volume by jacking up prices so their investors still see revenue. This will only work for so long before they pass the threshold where _any_ price increases will be met with more lost sales than the increases make up for. At some point, they will need to figure out how to increase volume or bring in a new product line that will let them sell at better prices. However, they seem to be trying to farm any of that out by licensing (E.g. to FFG) than doing it themselves. Their licensing income is substantial to their bottom line at little short term risk. However, long term, they may be making a very significant competitor in FFG.

[Psychosplodge]

1) burden of proof means that chs has to prove nothing. The entire legal strategy of a defense team is to dance around the edges and poke holes in the case presented by the plaintiff. All proof must be presented by gws.
I don't think English copyright laws work like normal cases in this regard, someone explained it better in a previous now vanished thread I believe.

[Mr Mystery]

Except the price increases are never 'across the board'.

Would have to take into account the overall sales, which I can't be bothered to do :p. also would have to consider the new kits released then. Example form earlier of Assault Marines. If figures include release of the BA plastics, that would have an impact on the one box, but no necessarily company sales. Particularly as the Death Company come with LOTS of wangy bits for chaptering up, without being left with half a kit.

[Michael Adam Hockenbarger]

I don't think English copyright laws work like normal cases in this regard, someone explained it better in a previous now vanished thread I believe.

Irrelevant. This is an American court, and American court rules will be used. Burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the plaintiff. You don't see the lawyers wearing those stupid powdered wigs.

[Psychosplodge]

Irrelevant. This is an American court, and American court rules will be used. Burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the plaintiff. You don't see the lawyers wearing those stupid powdered wigs.

They've already decided it was being fought under English law.
It's in the early papers.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup. To be concluded with CH being birched, and Tea and Scones for GW on the croquet lawn.

[Kirsten]

If I wasn't already aware of how ludicrous and corrupt the legal system is, I would be amazed the judge didn't instantly rule in favour of Games Workshop

[Michael Adam Hockenbarger]

English copyright law, not court rules. Hence no powdered wigs. Plus, burden rest on accuser in Britain too. That's where we took that rule, though I've seen it disregarded in some cases.

[Mr Mystery]

Burden of Proof swings both ways (giggedy) CH have to prove they didn't rip off original artwork. Which is about as likely to me as the Pope claiming to be a rabbi.

[Psychosplodge]

The wigs are irrelevant, that's merely tradition. Yes in criminal cases burden of proof is required, but this is a copyright case. I'm sure someone said something about if it creates doubt than the defendant has defend their products originality or something like that.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm no expert, but surely British copyright law works on the same principle as all civil cases which is 'on the balance of probability'?

[Psychosplodge]

I'm no expert, but surely British copyright law works on the same principle as all civil cases which is 'on the balance of probability'?

English law, Wildey, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own...
You're probably right if that's how the rest of our civil law works.

[Wildeybeast]

Good point. English law. Yeah, the burden of proof in all civil cases is less than that in criminal cases, merely 'on the balance of probability'. Though the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove their case, it's a lesser standard.

[Psychosplodge]

If only TDA didn't delete threads :rolleyes: I could reference the person who sounded knowledgeable...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Shush.

[Sean_OBrien]

They've already decided it was being fought under English law.
It's in the early papers.

US Law will decide the case, however - before they get to that point, the court first has to decide whether or not there is an actual claim to be made under English Law. In that regard, CHS contends that GW deals with designs and not art. GW contends that they deal in art and not manufactured goods. The judge may or may not weigh the issue to determine whether or not GW products even carry copyright protection.

If the judge rules they do - then the US court will ignore all other English law and simply try the case under US copyright and trademark laws.


If I wasn't already aware of how ludicrous and corrupt the legal system is, I would be amazed the judge didn't instantly rule in favour of Games Workshop

Again - read the referenced and linked to LucasFilm cases for English Law regarding a parallel case as well as the FASA v Playmate Toys for a US parallel. If anything, the IP laws are waited excessively in favor of the big company as opposed to the little company.

Burden of Proof Stuff...

In the US, in order to prove copyright infringement the plaintiff must prove copying. While generally speaking, their exists some level of wiggle room in proof for civil trials, that particular court which this case was filed in has their own local rules regarding the level of evidence which is required in order to prove copyright violations.

In particular, the sitting judge in this case was actually a member of the committee who wrote the local rules:

...and there's a comment, which is comment number four,
which basically says that the burden of proving copying is
always on the party who is claiming infringement and that
evidence of independent creation is relevant on that, but
there is no real shifting burden of proof.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.173.0.pdf

Because there is some overlap between civil and criminal law regarding copyright infringment, the laws are actually written in order to favor the defendant in terms of willful infringement which is what GW is alleging (and so - they have a greater burden to overcome).

[Mr Mystery]

If only TDA didn't delete threads :rolleyes: I could reference the person who sounded knowledgeable...

Shockingly that may have been me. If it involved a car insurance then I was that man!

[Psychosplodge]

US Law will decide the case, however - before they get to that point, the court first has to decide whether or not there is an actual claim to be made under English Law. In that regard, CHS contends that GW deals with designs and not art. GW contends that they deal in art and not manufactured goods. The judge may or may not weigh the issue to determine whether or not GW products even carry copyright protection.
I thought they were using English law in a US court under some international treaty or some such?
And this was pretty much established?
If they're using US law it's already lost, the US company wins.


Shockingly that may have been me. If it involved a car insurance then I was that man!
dunno was it the bonnets and treaties and some such?

[Kirsten]

Again - read the referenced and linked to LucasFilm cases for English Law regarding a parallel case as well as the FASA v Playmate Toys for a US parallel. If anything, the IP laws are waited excessively in favor of the big company as opposed to the little company.

I do not need to read any referenced links, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that CHS have stolen GWs intellectual proeprty, they copy the name, the look, there is no case for their defence at all. It is just a question of how moronic the judge is and how corrupt the lawyers are

[Sean_OBrien]

I thought they were using English law in a US court under some international treaty or some such?
And this was pretty much established?
If they're using US law it's already lost, the US company wins.

Primarily based on the Berne Convention - though other treaties come into play as well. Basically what that says is that all the countries who sign on will have to have some laws and manner in which to enforce those laws with regards to Copyrights and other IP. It doesn't specify the nature of the law. A few clauses are required to be in the various country's laws (fair use for example) but it doesn't specify much beyond that.

Further it states that any country which is a signatory can have citizens from their country heard in other countries who are also signatories. In addition, creators who are citizens of signatory countries have the effective rights conferred to them without registering in each country individually. Other less important bits deal with copyright term minimums and what not.

However, none of the portions of the treaty dictate that the trial will be dealt with under English law. However, the first part of getting to the point where you decide copyright under the host country's version of IP laws you have to determine if the home country grants a right. That is the issue of design rights under English law.


I do not need to read any referenced links, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that CHS have stolen GWs intellectual proeprty, they copy the name, the look, there is no case for their defence at all. It is just a question of how moronic the judge is and how corrupt the lawyers are

OK... In that case, under English Law, manufactured "toys" were deemed to have no copyright protection and only design protection. Design protections are greatly limited in duration compared to copyrights. The question isn't whether or not CHS is inspired (or even stealing as you say) rather is it a design or is it art? Art exists for its own purpose. GW makes toys to play games with - so most people (especially moronic judges) would tend to call them designs and not art.

As designs, the design right on a plurality of GW items has long since expired. That being the case, it is a free for all on their designs. These laws are in place to encourage innovation by manufacturers and to ensure that in the event a manufacturer stops making something, a third party company can come in and provide products if a demand exists for them.

[Psychosplodge]

GW products specifically say on them, this is not a toy.

[Herzlos]

GW products specifically say on them, this is not a toy.

But they sell them as part of a game. The word "Game" is used all over the place, it's in their title, their print media mentions playing. The run demo games, showing customers how to play.

Whilst the this is not a toy exists, I think it's only justification is as defence for injury suits caused by young children, and that they'd need to implement the Chewbacca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense) defence to get anyone to accept that they are art and not toys.

[Sean_OBrien]

GW products specifically say on them, this is not a toy.

Toy does not always mean a toy.

In the case of the GW disclaimer, "This is not a toy" generally means it isn't fit for small children. However, toy in terms of the legal question go towards what are they used for? For play - playing a game. That utility has a greater impact than the disclaimer may carry.

[Herzlos]

If I wasn't already aware of how ludicrous and corrupt the legal system is, I would be amazed the judge didn't instantly rule in favour of Games Workshop

Why?

GW has a sketchy case at best. I'd assume corruption if the judge instantly ruled in favour of GW.

[Psychosplodge]

Why?

GW has a sketchy case at best. I'd assume corruption if the judge instantly ruled in favour of GW.

Because CHS serves no purpose but to trade off GW existing work? but worse were completely blatant about it?

[Mr Mystery]

On the toy/art thing....remember folks, it's not so much about CH creating knock offs of existing GW models, but using GW owned artworks to create 3D representations.

Under UK law, if I create something, I automatically own ALL associated rights. If I doodle right now on a post-it note, any representation of that doodle belongs to me, whether 2d, 3d, movie, book. If someone creates a model based on my doodle, and has the stupidity to call it 'Mr Mystery's Doodle' then they have infringed my copyright.

Ergo, CH, having ripped off GW concept/artwork, and then gone on to use GW terminology to flog said product are pretty much boned. Hence my 'grab yer ankle and think of England' comment a few pages back.

[Herzlos]

Because CHS serves no purpose but to trade off GW existing work? but worse were completely blatant about it?

By filling a gap GW left in the market? Namely conversion kits for models GW don't actually produce, or providing conversions that customers want.

They weren't providing cheap knock-off GW figures (as some companies do), but introducing an added value to the hobby. Yes they were pretty bold about it being for GW stuff though (instead of the usual "door for sci-fi supersoldier APC" descriptions) , and that might be an issue, but not the kits they were actually producing.

There are thousands of companies that "serve no purpose but to trade on _____'s existing work". Such as those that make 3rd party car wheel, phone covers, screen protectors, generic power adapters, and so on. Those that are providing something useful survive whilst those that don't, don't, but there's nothing wrong in providing X to use with Y.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes they were pretty bold about it being for GW stuff though (instead of the usual "door for sci-fi supersoldier APC" descriptions) , and that might be an issue, but not the kits they were actually producing.

But that's the entire point, there's plenty of companies doing the same in a generic manner. It's how CHS did it that's the issue.

[Sean_OBrien]

On the toy/art thing....remember folks, it's not so much about CH creating knock offs of existing GW models, but using GW owned artworks to create 3D representations.

Under UK law, if I create something, I automatically own ALL associated rights. If I doodle right now on a post-it note, any representation of that doodle belongs to me, whether 2d, 3d, movie, book. If someone creates a model based on my doodle, and has the stupidity to call it 'Mr Mystery's Doodle' then they have infringed my copyright.

Ergo, CH, having ripped off GW concept/artwork, and then gone on to use GW terminology to flog said product are pretty much boned. Hence my 'grab yer ankle and think of England' comment a few pages back.

The issue there goes towards the purpose of the art - again, addressed in the LucasFilm case.

The lawyers for Lucas argued that even if the armor and toys themselves were not sculptural they were created from drawings which would be artwork. The court held that the purpose of the artwork was in fact to facilitate the design of physical goods. The artwork is not created simply for the sake of being artwork, rather it is created as part of a process to make and sell products...which makes them not "art". As a result, the courts further held that the physical objects were not derivative works of a copyrightable item rather they were the natural progression of design documents.

The same would likely hold with regard to GW products and artwork. Because the artwork is part of the path to create a miniature or to sell a product and the freedom of the artist to express themselves is limited by the rules set forth by the product - it isn't artwork for the sake of artwork, it is a design document for the sake of manufacturing and marketing.

Further within that case, the products were sold as "Storm Trooper Armor" made by the official prop maker for "Star Wars". The trademarks were used specifically and without any attempt to alter them. The court did not find that to be a violation - which means a product which is sold as a "Space Marine Should Pad" would likely also not be held in violation as long as there is no confusion as to the nature of the product.

[Mr Mystery]

[QUOTE=Herzlos;261061]
They weren't providing cheap knock-off GW figures QUOTE]

That's right, they weren't cheap. But they are apparently of poor quality. And again, you can make all the after-market bits and pieces you want, but you still cannot use branding, trademarks etc in your own promotion. To call a Tervigon a Tervigon is not on, unless you're GW.

[Sean_OBrien]

To call a Tervigon a Tervigon is not on, unless you're GW.

That is actually an interesting example. Trademarks apply to products used in trade. It has to be applied to a specific product, not as a word within a different product. Because CHS beat GW to the market with the actual Tervigon product - CHS is the legal owner of the trademark.