GW and Blight Wheel - The Legal Loxatl Controversy

[Bigred]

And we're at it again...

Blight Wheel Miniatures receives a C&D from the GW head of legal over its SALUTE special mini - "The Mutant Komodo"

People's Exhibits A - B:

Blight Wheel Post on the subject - w/ "Mutant Komodo" mini (http://blightwheelminiatures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/something-bad.html)

GW Loxatl Artwork (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/File:Loxatldetails.jpg#.UW8WbLW-2uK)

Have fun out there kids...

[jgebi]

ok this one is fair enough, they are really close so I would be mad over this one to

[Denzark]

I must admit GW appear to have something wrapped up here this time.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Hah, the French...

[Wolfshade]

Very similiar, and again I would observe the peculiarity of English & Welsh IP law that a 2D image can be protected both in direct copies, same medium derivaties and 3D representations

[TheBitzBarn]

AS much as it Pains me to Say this They Have a VALID point this is a rip off not sure intentional or accidental But VERY close

[GrauGeist]

Strip away the things which are generic to monster / mutant reptiles, and generic bandolier items, and there's precious little there. Plus, the proportions are all wrong. I see no infringement.

[jgebi]

you can't "Strip away the things which are generic to monster / mutant reptiles, and generic bandolier items" as thats the whole thing

[OrksOrksOrks]

Strip away the things which are generic to monster / mutant reptiles, and generic bandolier items, and there's precious little there. Plus, the proportions are all wrong. I see no infringement.


Strip away things that are music / song writing, generic notes and words, and there's precious little there. Plus the tempo is slightly different. I see no infringement

[OrksOrksOrks]

Strip away the things which are generic to monster / mutant reptiles, and generic bandolier items, and there's precious little there. Plus, the proportions are all wrong. I see no infringement.

You have to look at these things as a whole, as it is, all these details, and the pose, are very very simialr to this model, the extra things, like the odd canister bandolier and the chest gun, the elbow spikes and chin spikes, the oval bionic part behind the eyes, when its all added together, that is the infringement.

You need to go back to internet lawyer school.

[DrLove42]

It amuses me greatly that every one jumps on GW's side for this, a case where they appear to have designed something similar to a piece of artwork, but deny copying it (so maybe accidental? Too many similarities to judge)

But the same peope throw GW under the bus when they sue CHS a studio that openly admits stealing GW artwork, designs and names....

[OrksOrksOrks]

It amuses me greatly that every one jumps on GW's side for this, a case where they appear to have designed something similar to a piece of artwork, but deny copying it (so maybe accidental? Too many similarities to judge)

But the same peope throw GW under the bus when they sue CHS a studio that openly admits stealing GW artwork, designs and names....

Don't look at me, I have openly defended GW in the CHS case before, they'rein the right in both cases.

Spots the Space Marine is a different story however.

[archimbald]

IMO the email concerning the Da Vinci art piece was the most interesting part. GW do seem to have a strong case for this, as the figure is ridiculously close to the artwork that i don't believe it to be an accident

[Mr Mystery]

There is a striking resemblance.

Unfortunately for Blight Wheel, motive is immaterial. Whether intentional or not, it is very close to GW's concept art.

[Psychosplodge]

The Da Vinci reply in the comments, well that's probably out of copyright...

@archimbald, I've seen enough hentai to know where your signature is going...

[Caitsidhe]

We are talking about a humanoid lizard. Of course they look somewhat alike. You can go to any Dungeon's & Dragon's Monster Manual and find several reptilian guys that look like it too, some even moreso. Hell, the Gorn in Star Trek Enterprise spinoff looks almost identical. They should get their lawyer and tell GW to go sit and spin. They don't get to lay claim to humanoid lizards with guns anymore than they do armored soliders in space.

[Mr Mystery]

They do when it's a quadraped with a chest mounted weapon..... Gorn was bipedal, therefore humaonid.

Loxatl and Mutant Komodo are by no means humanoid or otherwise anthropromorphic.... (think I spelt that correctly)

[gcsmith]

They do when it's a quadraped with a chest mounted weapon..... Gorn was bipedal, therefore humaonid.

Loxatl and Mutant Komodo are by no means humanoid or otherwise anthropromorphic.... (think I spelt that correctly)

Yeh, the lizard was a Quad not a Bi. And they do look similar. Thing is, giving the book the drawing was in. It's entirely possible they didn't copy it.

[archimbald]

The Da Vinci reply in the comments, well that's probably out of copyright...

@archimbald, I've seen enough hentai to know where your signature is going...

;)

[Caitsidhe]

In the United States they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I have no idea about the laws in France. Let's consider something:

1. Lizards are (unless you are dinosaur) quadrapeds.
2. Lizards all have their ears placed in pretty much the same general area to the side of the head further back than the eye.
3. If you mounted a gun on a quadraped it would be on the back or on the chest.
4. Extra ammunition in a belt is traditionally worn around the chest or waist.
5. Komodo dragons exist in nature. They like several monitor lizards all look like this.

The figure does look a bit like the art. It does not, however, look EXACTLY like the art. In the United States you can make similar things all you want. You can have Space Troopers that look a lot like Storm Troopers just as long as they are different enough. Games Workshop doesn't get to claim all quadraped lizards with bandoliers and chest guns. :) They seem very intent on flushing more money down the drain.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet the similarity is there. Nobody is saying they categorically have copied it.

However. As with CH, and Spots......can you guess what is coming next? GW have to call them on it. That's how IP law works. Any infringement, perceived or actual, coincidental or deliberate (CH), has to be challenged, win or lose.

[Caitsidhe]

Yet the similarity is there. Nobody is saying they categorically have copied it.

However. As with CH, and Spots......can you guess what is coming next? GW have to call them on it. That's how IP law works. Any infringement, perceived or actual, coincidental or deliberate (CH), has to be challenged, win or lose.

No, they really don't. :) No law requires you to throw your money away on endless legal battles that you know you will lose. You can selectively ignore or pay attention to whatever you want. I can post links here (as can you) to 5-10 more well-known sites that clearly are making their figures for use with Games Workshop products which have funny names which are clearly indicative of what they are to be used for, and whose figures are a lot closer than this one. Why aren't those people getting cease and desist letters? If they are REQUIRED to do it I would assume that we would be seeing ALL of these places getting them.

They are picking unimportant, poor little sites wherein they think they can steamroll the people. That's it. That is all there is to it. They are selectively picking whom they want to fight.

[Mr Mystery]

CH are hardly a small site. This model in particular, if I've read things correctly, is for release at Salute, a major UK (and I assume European in general) expo.

IP law means stuff that you feel actively infringes your copyright (CH, and brazenly so) or you feel is a derivative work (this one) has to be challenged.

Granted my knowledge of non-GW models is limited, but I'm not aware of a similar model to this one on the market. GW's bigwigs, who lets face it know far more about this sort of thing than anyone on here, feel there is a case to be answered. Thus case being identified has to be fought.

[Caitsidhe]

It is no skin off my nose. I'm all for them continuing to garner bad press, throwing stockholder money away on legal fees, and generally trying to claim anything making themselves look ridiculous. I don't think these guys will have any harder time getting Pro Bono than the others did. I also don't expect any different outcome. This is an entirely new step too, wherein they are claiming all armed quadreped monitor lizards. :) I can't wait to hear about this in court.

"Your Honor... you can clearly see that their lizard and our lizard has this flat ear thing to the side of the head, further back than the eyes."

"Don't all lizards have that?"

"Yes but look their lizard is on four legs and so is ours."

"Don't all lizards do that?"

"Yes but this one has a gun and a bandolier of bullets and so does ours."

"So you are saying all armed lizards that look like an existing real life lizard are your IP property?"

"Yes."

"You want me to grant you exclusive creative rights to all future armed lizards on four legs? You don't think that is broad and somewhat stifling? I mean I can easily tell the difference between these two pictures."


And so it goes...

[Denzark]

Caitsidhe you are a looney. At first look, the bandolieris exactly the same - cross slung with what looks like spare paintball tubes. the boney bit on the chin, the ear placing, the same number of fingers. It is clearly NOT exactly the same but is similar enough for many reasonable people to consider GW have a massive case here.

Please please please don't start harping on about after market parts etc, anybody.

[Caitsidhe]

Caitsidhe you are a looney. At first look, the bandolieris exactly the same - cross slung with what looks like spare paintball tubes. the boney bit on the chin, the ear placing, the same number of fingers. It is clearly NOT exactly the same but is similar enough for many reasonable people to consider GW have a massive case here.

Please please please don't start harping on about after market parts etc, anybody.

Actually there are LOTS of different things about the two, but let's play Devil's Advocate. They do look like similiar ideas; so what? :) You cannot copyright an idea. Their bit of art is a picture. This thing is a model. They don't look exactly alike. You can make things that look similar just not exactly alike. It is perfectly legal and no amount of wishing otherwise is going to change that for Games Workshop. I can make my own version of giant robots that disguise themselves as mundane machines or animals and as long as I dont' exactly copy a Transformer model, I get to do that. Like I said before, it is no skin off my nose. I'm not a stockholder and I don't care how much money they spend on legal fees. Shovel that cash out the window or light cigars with rolled up wads of cash!

[Kirsten]

Caitsidhe you pop up in every thread doing everything you can to slag off GW without having the faintest idea what you are talking about, it is really quite tiresome. I suggest you go and actually learn about copyright law first, and actually look into what is going on before continuing to talk nonsense.

[Caitsidhe]

Caitsidhe you pop up in every thread doing everything you can to slag off GW without having the faintest idea what you are talking about, it is really quite tiresome. I suggest you go and actually learn about copyright law first, and actually look into what is going on before continuing to talk nonsense.

I am actually quite well versed with copyright and patent law. My predictions as to what would happen (and not happen) in regards to Spots the Space Marine were dead on. So far my predictions about Chapterhouse appear to be moving along fairly accurately too. Just color me nonsense, for now, and we can revist this one later you and I when we see the result of this GW adventure. The long and the short of it is that legal action costs money, a lot of it. A public company has to weigh whether or not engaging in legal ventures hurts or helps the company's bottom line. Thus far Games Workshop has nothing to show but bad press from such things in the last year. Fortunately the Chapterhouse thing will be finishing up fairly soon, so I will either eat crow on that one our be two out of three... and I'm willing to bet three out of three whent his one comes to an end too.

[lattd]

If they look similar thats enough, and yes you can infringe the copyright in a picture by making a 3D model, and it would be hard to argue these are not works of artistic creation as they would not sell models if they did not look good.

[Mr Mystery]

Again, you don't know EU law. Why do you think J K Rowling made mega bucks from the Harry Potter films? According to you, she has no right to it, or indeed any non-book interpretation of her books because they aren't books. And you'd be wrong.

Here in the EU, I automatically own all possible versions of my work. Anything I create belongs to me, unless under contract to another at the time I create it. Whether model, sketch, movie, doodle, as soon as I bag it and tag it as mine, its all mine. Where do you think the term 'all rights reserved' comes from?

[Caitsidhe]

Again, you don't know EU law. Why do you think J K Rowling made mega bucks from the Harry Potter films? According to you, she has no right to it, or indeed any non-book interpretation of her books because they aren't books. And you'd be wrong.

Here in the EU, I automatically own all possible versions of my work. Anything I create belongs to me, unless under contract to another at the time I create it. Whether model, sketch, movie, doodle, as soon as I bag it and tag it as mine, its all mine. Where do you think the term 'all rights reserved' comes from?

I believe I stated further back up that I don't know the laws in France. I made statements based on how our laws work in the United States. Since this seems to be entirely within the European Union, I do defer that I haven't the slightest notion of all your ins and outs. I know how it would come out in the United States. I also think the company in question should get legal advice and see where they stand, pro bono being best. For all we know (and we don't) they have dated conceptual art going back ten years.

[pgarfunkle]

"You want me to grant you exclusive creative rights to all future armed lizards on four legs? You don't think that is broad and somewhat stifling? I mean I can easily tell the difference between these two pictures."


And so it goes...

Hey if it's works for apple, Samsung and the rest of the IT industry.....

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Probably the most attention a minor xeno race in 40k has ever gotten. I am both amused and saddened by that.

[gendoikari87]

Oh come on, even I can't defend you when you literally photocopy GW's work.

[acb16]

tongue in cheek time
right i have no interest in either side on this but to say this on the subject
ok GW and blight wheel have similar imagery which infringes mother natures creation so does someone on her behalf issue C&D to both parties

[Kawauso]

Honestly, it's a freaking lizard with a bandolier and a gun.

Nobody has the right to a design so generic.

That's like GW trying to take up Bethesda on the Elder Scrolls' Argonians, claiming they're in copyright violation of GW's Lizardmen on the grounds that they're both humanoid lizard-people in traditional high fantasy settings. You can't 'own' ideas like that.

[TheBitzBarn]

I have to disagree with ou this is pretty much infringement and we ahve the tightest rules on this I think. As for throwing GW under the Bus VS CHS I have to say GW is right there too

[AaronMint]

I would like to congratulate the games workshop legal team. Finally they have made a claim that doesn't make them look like tools...

[OrksOrksOrks]

Actually there are LOTS of different things about the two, but let's play Devil's Advocate. They do look like similiar ideas; so what? :) You cannot copyright an idea. Their bit of art is a picture. This thing is a model. They don't look exactly alike. You can make things that look similar just not exactly alike. It is perfectly legal and no amount of wishing otherwise is going to change that for Games Workshop. I can make my own version of giant robots that disguise themselves as mundane machines or animals and as long as I dont' exactly copy a Transformer model, I get to do that. Like I said before, it is no skin off my nose. I'm not a stockholder and I don't care how much money they spend on legal fees. Shovel that cash out the window or light cigars with rolled up wads of cash!

This model is a copy of their artwork, all those little details you keep mentioning prove that rather than disprove it, can you name these ways in which its different, other than the number of dimensions it occupies, its a straight copy, thats what derivative means, this work is derivative of something created and paid for by Games Workshop, they have every right to protect it and they have totally done the right thing here, they've made the person they believe is infrigning aware of the problem and asked them to stop selling it, explained exactly how and why they're taking this action and provided examples to show what they mean, no sensible person could be in any doubt. You'd have to be some sort of GW hating reactionary to side against them in this matter, oh wait

[Nabterayl]

Again, you don't know EU law. Why do you think J K Rowling made mega bucks from the Harry Potter films? According to you, she has no right to it, or indeed any non-book interpretation of her books because they aren't books. And you'd be wrong.

Here in the EU, I automatically own all possible versions of my work. Anything I create belongs to me, unless under contract to another at the time I create it. Whether model, sketch, movie, doodle, as soon as I bag it and tag it as mine, its all mine. Where do you think the term 'all rights reserved' comes from?
I don't think you're reading Caitsidhe correctly. Naturally, in the United States, the default is for anybody who creates a "writing" (in the technical sense - including drawings, movies, audio recordings, sculpture, etc.) to be able to stop anybody from copying that work or producing any versions derivative of it. Caitsidhe's main point seems to be that the mutant komando isn't similar enough to the original parts of the loxatl to give rise to an inference of infringement.


Yet the similarity is there. Nobody is saying they categorically have copied it.
Well ... GW is. That's what a claim of copyright infringement is. There's nothing wrong with coincidentally coming up with something very similar to somebody else's work, or even coincidentally coming up with something identical to it in every respect. Copyright doesn't protect against similarity. It protects against copying. By suing for copyright infringement you are accusing the defendant of copying.


However. As with CH, and Spots......can you guess what is coming next? GW have to call them on it. That's how IP law works.
Are you quite sure about that? That isn't how it works in the United States. A copyright owner's copyright is not weakened or in danger of being lost if it isn't vigorously defended. I don't know about the UK or EU, but I'd be very surprised if it were different in this regard. European copyright is generally notable for being more creator-friendly than American, so if we don't require you to defend a copyright ...

[pauljc]

Caitsidhe you pop up in every thread doing everything you can to slag off GW without having the faintest idea what you are talking about, it is really quite tiresome. I suggest you go and actually learn about copyright law first, and actually look into what is going on before continuing to talk nonsense.

Agreed. It's really tiresome. How's the weather up on that "Games Workshop is the devil" cloud?
Maybe for once, it would be nice to stop hating on GW, and wishing them ill, and actuall consider what they have done for the wargaming industry, and just say bloody 'thank you'?

With regards to copyrights, it does seem to me (with only cursory experience or knowledge in the matter) that EU and US work like this:

US - as long as it's not a direct re-mold of the original, you're free to get rich off of the backs of others.

EU - You cannot produce something that, despite a few minor changes, looks overall similar or indentical to an existing product.

One's a bit draconian, one's a bit capitalistic.

I think GW are right on the money in this case. The Mutant Kommodo copies every major detail of a copyrighted image, and just happens to be a lizardy thing.

GW are right on the money with CHS as well.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Well ... GW is. That's what a claim of copyright infringement is. There's nothing wrong with coincidentally coming up with something very similar to somebody else's work, or even coincidentally coming up with something identical to it in every respect. Copyright doesn't protect against similarity. It protects against copying. By suing for copyright infringement you are accusing the defendant of copying.


Are you quite sure about that? That isn't how it works in the United States. A copyright owner's copyright is not weakened or in danger of being lost if it isn't vigorously defended. I don't know about the UK or EU, but I'd be very surprised if it were different in this regard. European copyright is generally notable for being more creator-friendly than American, so if we don't require you to defend a copyright ...


GW aren't saying its a direct copy, they're saying its a derivative work, they've taken the work GW owns and deriving something from that, as a model making company, GW have every right to defend thier art work from being used by other model making companies and yes in the UK, they have to act to defend it or it weakens thier position on the ownership.

And you're all talking about the generic parts of a lizard warrior based on a komodo dragon, which GW have stated in their letter is not something they own, they acknowledge that anyone could make a sci-fi lizard warrior, the issue here is the similarities, which are highlighted again in the letter, the oval bionic implant in the same place on the head, the design and position of the bandolier, the elbow spikes and chin spikes (which aren't on a komodo dragon) being on both, the similarity of pose and positioning, when you look at these parts, which both you and Cait are convinietly ignoring because it harms you argument, then its really obvious that this is a derivative work and GW are right and correct to send this letter.

[Necron2.0]

... it would be nice to stop hating on GW, and wishing them ill, and actually consider what they have done to the wargaming industry, and just say bloody 'thank you, may I please have another'?

Fixed that for you. ;)

Given all of GW's loving tenderness to the gaming community, I'm actually a little surprised they haven't sent their lawyers to gang-assault Victoria Lamb.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Fixed that for you. ;)

Given all of GW's loving tenderness to the gaming community, I'm actually a little surprised they haven't sent their lawyers to gang-assault Victoria Lamb.



Do you know how rubbish, disperate and complicated wargaming was before GW came along? They made the hobby accesible to thousands of people who would never have gotten involved before and they consistenly put out the most impressive mass produced miniatures in the world. Saying they're a heartless company thats trying to wreck the wargaming hobby is short sighted at best and wilfully ignorant at worst.

I know you've probably never been cool or popular, so you might not realise it, but hating on the biggest company in the market for imagined slights doesn't make you cool and popular, it makes you a knob

[Necron2.0]

Wow. That was childish and amusing. :)

And I've been playing wargames since before there even WAS a Games Workshop. I call BS on everything you've said.

[gcsmith]

Wow. That was childish and amusing. :)

And I've been playing wargames since before there even WAS a Games Workshop. I call BS on everything you've said.

I've got some of the rules from before GW existed, even got some of the early gw rules (rogue trader) and boy were they clunky pieces of crap.

[lattd]

Lets just clarify something here, if like GW you have a copyright, once you prove your copyright exists before the accused created their copyright product, the burden of proving who copied who shifts. Instead of GW saying you copied our artwork because of .... the defendant has to say we did not copy because ....

Given that one of the defences to a copyright claim is we didn't know you had this copyright which will be extremely hard to prove in this case as GW is one of the leading miniature companies. It will be very hard to disprove they copied.

[gcsmith]

Well the source of the image is obscure. A book I've never heard of. and quite possibly a lot of people haven't

[OrksOrksOrks]

Lets just clarify something here, if like GW you have a copyright, once you prove your copyright exists before the accused created their copyright product, the burden of proving who copied who shifts. Instead of GW saying you copied our artwork because of .... the defendant has to say we did not copy because ....

Given that one of the defences to a copyright claim is we didn't know you had this copyright which will be extremely hard to prove in this case as GW is one of the leading miniature companies. It will be very hard to disprove they copied.

But now they have been informed, if they CONTINUE to infringe, thats where they will get in to trouble

[OrksOrksOrks]

Wow. That was childish and amusing. :)

And I've been playing wargames since before there even WAS a Games Workshop. I call BS on everything you've said.

Really, so you're saying that without GW there would have been a majour player interested in streamlining and improving the rules rather than the tiny cottage industry of fat old nerds making games for other fat old nerds? Have you ever seen Napoleonics games? Complicated, convoluted crap with ****ty models played mostly by grognards. Thats what we'd have for fantasy and sci-fi without GW.

[Necron2.0]

I've got some of the rules from before GW existed, even got some of the early gw rules (rogue trader) and boy were they clunky pieces of crap.

And GW's rules are vague pieces of crap, hence all the FAQs. Besides, "some" is not "all." And finally, co-opting a common GW apology for GW's price hikes, "If someone couldn't <understand the rules> then they don't have to play. Simple."

Of course we could go around and around and around on this till the stars exploded into dust, but the simple fact of the matter is GW didn't invent wargaming, GW didn't perfect wargaming, GW didn't invent miniatures, GW didn't perfect miniatures, both wargames and miniatures would still exist if both GW and Citadel never did, and both wargames and miniatures will continue to exist long after GW ultimately ceases to.

Now, as to whether or not Blight Wheel, CHS, Victoria Miniatures or my next door neighbor's cat copied GW's IP ... maybe they did, and maybe they didn't. Either way, I don't care. I do not owe any loyalty to GW. Neither does anyone else reading this, whether they will admit it or not.

[gcsmith]

And GW's rules are vague pieces of crap, hence all the FAQs. Besides, "some" is not "all." And finally, co-opting a common GW apology for GW's price hikes, "If someone couldn't <understand the rules> then they don't have to play. Simple."

Of course we could go around and around and around on this till the stars exploded into dust, but the simple fact of the matter is GW didn't invent wargaming, GW didn't perfect wargaming, GW didn't invent miniatures, GW didn't perfect miniatures, both wargames and miniatures would still exist if both GW and Citadel never did, and both wargames and miniatures will continue to exist long after GW ultimately ceases to.

Now, as to whether or not Blight Wheel, CHS, Victoria Miniatures or my next door neighbor's cat copied GW's IP ... maybe they did, and maybe they didn't. Either way, I don't care. I do not owe any loyalty to GW. Neither does anyone else reading this, whether they will admit it or not.

Sure they didn't invent the wargaming industry, but they are the reason it's mainstream. Same way blizzard made MMORPG gaming mainstream. Lots of people don't owe loyalty to GW but we owe the current existence of the industry to them. In fact without GW, I doubt PP would exist.

[Necron2.0]

Conjecture.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Conjecture.

Not really, the market just wasn't there before GW, without them building it up, there wouldn't be room for a company like PP, if you think Games Workshops rules are vague have you even tried any other games? With that much variety? RPGs certainly aren't specific, I've never played an RPG where confusions about rule interactions didn't arise at some point. You're pretty much just parrotting the opinion of every other contrarian on the internet.

GW marketed the wargame properly, before them, no one had, we owe them that, we should be thankful that the company created these communities where people can play and paint miniatures. Now that the market is established, we don't have to only play their games or use their models but we shouldn't forget that without their influence, most of us wouldn't be here. Yes they're a big company, that doesn't make everything they do bad and everything the little companies do better, thats not really how the world works.

[Caitsidhe]

Not really, the market just wasn't there before GW, without them building it up, there wouldn't be room for a company like PP, if you think Games Workshops rules are vague have you even tried any other games? With that much variety? RPGs certainly aren't specific, I've never played an RPG where confusions about rule interactions didn't arise at some point. You're pretty much just parrotting the opinion of every other contrarian on the internet.

GW marketed the wargame properly, before them, no one had, we owe them that, we should be thankful that the company created these communities where people can play and paint miniatures. Now that the market is established, we don't have to only play their games or use their models but we shouldn't forget that without their influence, most of us wouldn't be here. Yes they're a big company, that doesn't make everything they do bad and everything the little companies do better, thats not really how the world works.

Actually, no. While the link below takes you to a page that is in no way complete, it does hit the highlights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming

Games Workshop is merely the biggest company "now." It came along after a bust period and had the virtue of starting up with little competition. Their rules are certainly no better and no worse than those that came before. Your arguments hold no water because in the context of time and duration, it would be like saying Justin Beiber invented pop music. Nobody is disputing that Games Workshop is the biggest player in their industry at the moment, although arguments can be made that they aren't adjusting well to the new environment wherein they actually have competition.

Wargaming has been around a long time and what we have today pales in comparison to the size of the hobby in the 1970s. Hell, most of modern roleplaying games were born of a "spinoff" from miniature wargaming when some guys wanted to have smaller scale battles. This lead to Chainmail, which in turn lead to the first games of Dungeons & Dragons. At the risk of dating myself (and my friend Kerstan) I can say that I played Chainmail and the first (and subsequent versions) of Dungeons & Dragons. What I find "tiresome" to borrow a word from another post is this notion that Games Workshop is the hobby rather than merely a merchant making a living off the hobby.

Returning to the original topic, it is quite possible that this model was created entirely independent of Games Workshop. I recall seeing an episode of Johnny Quest in the 70s in which giant monitor lizards had guns mounted to their torso and bandoliers of ammo (albeit less rounded than these). I suspect that the design has been done by others too. Why do we assume that every small business or independent artist is copying Games Workshop? Why is the assumption of guilt the standard? Isn't it entirely possible that in a broadening market with more people getting into it that similar ideas are going to come out? It is entirely possible (and I'm sure we will find out if it is so) that the artist who created the mutant komodo has pictures and sketches that are contemporary and/or predate the one Games Workshop has. Guess what? If so, it was copyrighted the moment it was created too.

My knowledge of American copyright, patent, and trademark is fairly solid, although I am by no means the expert a lawyer would be. My knowledge of European copyright, patetnt, and trademark law has been increasing over the last year as I took an interest in the Chapterhouse case. My understanding of infringement, layman that I am, does require there to be actualy copying. As of yet, I haven't seen any evidence of that. What I have seen is two very similar concepts. They look different enough to me that I can tell them apart. The proportions are very different. The Games Workshop sketch (for they have no model) is built more sleek and even throughout, while the model is built like a tank in front and has a position more like some of the Southwestern lizards in my country on the hunt. By this I mean it is laid out like a stiff board and standing at attention, rather than serpentine. The heads are actually very different. The ear on the model is highers and of a different shape (more like an actual lizard) and the mouth and head is more bullet like a Gilla Monster. To me God and the Devil is in the details.

[Caitsidhe]

For all we know they both could have gotten their ispiration from something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FiFXcGs-Co

:)

[Necron2.0]

<*cough*><*cough*>
Amarillo Design Bureau
Avalon Hill
FASA
Guidon Games
Hasbro
Judges Guild
Mayfair Games
Milton Bradly
Nova Games
Steve Jackson Games
TSR
WizKids
<*cough*><*cough*>

[GrauGeist]

I suggest you go and actually learn about copyright law first, and actually look into what is going on before continuing to talk nonsense.

Copyright law covers only those things that GW specifically created on top of the generic / public / historical / biologica element.

If you start with a lizard, then nothing fundamentally lizardlike can be protected. That means that the choice of a sprawl-legged lizard with an ear behind the eye is absolutely protected.

Then you look at basic "mutant" things, which is to simply add spikes in the obvious places - nothing protectable there, either.

Then you look at bandoliers. They are always worn cross-shoulder (which is why it's a bandolier), and at modeling scales, have oversized cartridges so that you can actually see them when the model is so tiny.

When you get down to it, there's just not that much for GW to legitimately whine about.

[GrauGeist]

@Necron2.0 - no mention of Little Wars? The granddaddy of them all?

[GrauGeist]

Have you ever seen Napoleonics games? Complicated, convoluted crap with ****ty models played mostly by grognards. Thats what we'd have for fantasy and sci-fi without GW.

No, we'd be playing VOR or VOID. *shudder*

[Necron2.0]

@Necron2.0 - no mention of Little Wars? The granddaddy of them all?

I was limiting myself to post-WWII. Little Wars was pre-WWI.

[Nabterayl]

GW aren't saying its a direct copy, they're saying its a derivative work
If there's a philosophical difference in your mind between a "direct copy" and creating a derivative work, then consider my statement amended.

yes in the UK, they have to act to defend it or it weakens thier position on the ownership.
In the interests of actually raising the level of discussion in this thread, do you have a source for that, or a professional qualification? Are you a solicitor, for instance, or have you acted as an expert witness in a UK copyright dispute before? The proposition that the UK, of all places, should be harsher on copyright owners than the United States boggles my mind.

when you look at these parts, which both you and Cait are convinietly ignoring because it harms you argument
My dear fellow, I've made a statement of United States law, and speculated that the equivalent UK and EU laws are the same. I haven't expressed an argument, or taken a position on whether the model in question infringes Games Workshop's copyright.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Having just come back from Salute, I can confirm that Blight Wheel were not selling the Komodo miniature

[Cpt Codpiece]

Sure they didn't invent the wargaming industry, but they are the reason it's mainstream. Same way blizzard made MMORPG gaming mainstream. Lots of people don't owe loyalty to GW but we owe the current existence of the industry to them. In fact without GW, I doubt PP would exist.

while i dont give a rats left butt cheek about the model being stopped (its pretty much the design of the loxatl i gotta admit), nor do i care about the 'industry' or its beginnings. i play the occasional game (40k, or old necromunda if i can get a group together) and collect loads of plastic and resin crack.... usually from GW.

PP is mike mcveys brain child am i correct in that reasoning? you know the original head boy of the 'eavy metal team, the painter and converter of the most famous horus v the emperor diorama EVER (rumored to only be painted on the visible surfaces only).
avatars of war is felix paniagua (sp) another ex GW member.
andy chambers left GW to make the starship troopers game when GW went all kiddy friendly.
alessio cavatore, rick priestly and jake thornton have created new gaming systems.

anyone that tries to dismiss GW as just another wargaming company is either delusional or plain ignorant.
no GW did not create the genre, but they may well have created the scene. before the advent of white dwarf and WFB, wargaming was very much a closet industry, small companies running small printings of cobbled together rules based off various fantasy books and sci fi books/films.
even in the 90's with the likes of the cyberpunk PRPG the scene was pretty much dead despite the big boost the sci-fi and manga gave at the time.

and there was GW with its hey day 'red' period, the shops were like dog poo...... everywhere. but people got it, the kids at the time were softly introduced with hero quest and space crusade, which led to forays of trying to get the parents to buy the 'big' box game :)
GW made war-gaming accessible in the pre internet days. WD was available at most newsagents or easily via mail order, as were specific components and minis. they set the standard for the companies that followed and developed the industry from a few guys making dodgy metal RPG heroes for their DnD sessions to making full multi part kits and vehicles, which is now an industry standard.

[OrksOrksOrks]

If there's a philosophical difference in your mind between a "direct copy" and creating a derivative work, then consider my statement amended.

In the interests of actually raising the level of discussion in this thread, do you have a source for that, or a professional qualification? Are you a solicitor, for instance, or have you acted as an expert witness in a UK copyright dispute before? The proposition that the UK, of all places, should be harsher on copyright owners than the United States boggles my mind.

My dear fellow, I've made a statement of United States law, and speculated that the equivalent UK and EU laws are the same. I haven't expressed an argument, or taken a position on whether the model in question infringes Games Workshop's copyright.

This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous. You obviously don't understand the law and how it applies in this case. IP law in the UK being the way it is, if they knowingly let someone infringe on it, they set a legal precedent, meaning other companies have a right to do the same, taking GWs artwork and making models from it, its the whole Chapter House Studios case, because of that case, and difficulties they're having in it because of the odd nature of the hobby, mean that not doing this on BLATANT derivative works means they only prove that their artwork isn't the same as designs of future miniatues.

[Magpie]

Copyright law covers only those things that GW specifically created on top of the generic / public / historical / biologica element.

If you start with a lizard, then nothing fundamentally lizardlike can be protected. ...... When you get down to it, there's just not that much for GW to legitimately whine about.

Not true. GW have a copyright to the IMAGE that they presented as being copied. The subject of the image is more or less irrelevant.

For example, if I take a photo of the Eiffel Tower then I have a copyright over that image. Does that mean no one else can take a picture of the Eiffel tower? no but it does mean no one can copy my image of the Eiffel tower.

I don't think anyone here would disagree that if some one photocopied my image of the Eiffel Tower that they are infringing my copyright. Nor do I think that any one would disagree that if someone did a sketch or painting of my photo of the Eiffel Tower that they would be breaching my copyright nor do I think anyone would consider someone making a model using my image of the Eiffel Tower not to be a breach of my copyright.

Same goes for GW. It's not that the image is of a lizard or of a bandolier or anything like that it is the fact that the miniature is a substantive copy of an image that GW has produced that is important. If it looks substantially similar to the original image then GW have a case. They are compelled by the laws of copyright to issue a C&D to anyone they believe to be infringing their copyright at the risk of losing or at least diluting those rights.

GW enforcing their own copyright protects us as consumer as much as their own bottom line. Should it come to pass that anyone can make a "GW similar" product then we as consumers cannot buy with confidence that we are getting what we pay for.


If there's a philosophical difference in your mind between a "direct copy" and creating a derivative work, then consider my statement amended.

There is a tangible difference much more than philosophical. A direct copy is easily identifiable but if I use a copyright product as a start point and then add in my own changes then that is a derivative work. Both uses constitute a violation of copyright.

[kyfer]

Such a gut-wrenching case, I don't want GW to be right in this instance, but the mutant komodo miniature model looks considerably like the art of a loxotl :(

The best thing that could happen is GW takes this as a sign to actually make a 40k allies book, and make models and rules for the zany xenos species like loxotls, ambulls, etc. and just leave Blight Wheel to it's own devices.

Guess what won't happen though :( unlike Chapterhouse, I think GW have a legit case here and they'll take it court if they want to, the costs will hurt BW much, much more than it will GW.

[OrksOrksOrks]

Such a gut-wrenching case, I don't want GW to be right in this instance, but the mutant komodo miniature model looks considerably like the art of a loxotl :(

The best thing that could happen is GW takes this as a sign to actually make a 40k allies book, and make models and rules for the zany xenos species like loxotls, ambulls, etc. and just leave Blight Wheel to it's own devices.

Guess what won't happen though :( unlike Chapterhouse, I think GW have a legit case here and they'll take it court if they want to, the costs will hurt BW much, much more than it will GW.

It won't go to court, Blight Wheel has decided not the sell or distribute this model now, and comply with the C&D, it was a nice model, I would have picked one up while I was at Salute myself, almost bought one of their Knight Titan rip-offs but I think the plastic Leviathan is nicer

[Caitsidhe]

It may go to Court. I get the impression that Blight is reviewing their legal options. The fact it wasn't at Salute is simply them playing it safe until they know the terrain.

[gcsmith]

It may go to Court. I get the impression that Blight is reviewing their legal options. The fact it wasn't at Salute is simply them playing it safe until they know the terrain.

It's of no benefit to fight the C&D, unlike the CHS case, GW have a proper image to prove, because of this, the chances of winning are slim and besides, the cost would be extreme. CHS could only fight due to getting a lawyer (And someone I think plays WH40k but not with GW models and doesn't care that CHS blatently abused GW's copyright for everyone to see) pro bono.

[Caitsidhe]

It's of no benefit to fight the C&D, unlike the CHS case, GW have a proper image to prove, because of this, the chances of winning are slim and besides, the cost would be extreme. CHS could only fight due to getting a lawyer (And someone I think plays WH40k but not with GW models and doesn't care that CHS blatently abused GW's copyright for everyone to see) pro bono.

It depends entirely on whether or not they actually are guilty of what Games Workshop accused them. The fact that they both came up with a similar concept does not mean they actually copied Games Workshop. If their artists designed that thing on their own, have the sketches and paper work to prove it, and get legal reprensentation, they are certainly capable of defending themselves. Unlike most of the people here, I do not assume they did copy. If they did copy it, have no design specs to show otherwise, then they would be well advised to just move on. If they didn't copy it, but just happen to come up with their own similar design (and they do not look exactly alike), they should fight it.

[gcsmith]

It depends entirely on whether or not they actually are guilty of what Games Workshop accused them. The fact that they both came up with a similar concept does not mean they actually copied Games Workshop. If their artists designed that thing on their own, have the sketches and paper work to prove it, and get legal reprensentation, they are certainly capable of defending themselves. Unlike most of the people here, I do not assume they did copy. If they did copy it, have no design specs to show otherwise, then they would be well advised to just move on. If they didn't copy it, but just happen to come up with their own similar design (and they do not look exactly alike), they should fight it.

Chapter House studio's Doom of Malantai is clearly Tyranid and was released called the "Doom of Malantai" and said this model is suitable for games of warhammer 40k. It was clearly using GW's IP.

[Caitsidhe]

Chapter House studio's Doom of Malantai is clearly Tyranid and was released called the "Doom of Malantai" and said this model is suitable for games of warhammer 40k. It was clearly using GW's IP.

That doesn't matter at all. Chapterhouse is in the United States and is perfectly entitled to do that legally as long as they change the name a bit.... that is. :) Blight is in Europe and probably can't do that.

[gcsmith]

That doesn't matter at all. Chapterhouse is in the United States and is perfectly entitled to do that legally as long as they change the name a bit.... that is. :) Blight is in Europe and probably can't do that.

You cannot call something on another IP, they didn't change the name, it was DOOM OF MALANTAI

[Caitsidhe]

You cannot call something on another IP, they didn't change the name, it was DOOM OF MALANTAI

Actually you can under the right circumstances. For example, the Mycetic Spore Pod is still up on Chapterhouse (looks good too). There is no point in us going round and round about it here. It is already in court. :) The issue is going to settle pretty soon.

[Magpie]

It depends entirely on whether or not they actually are guilty of what Games Workshop accused them. The fact that they both came up with a similar concept does not mean they actually copied Games Workshop. If their artists designed that thing on their own, have the sketches and paper work to prove it, and get legal reprensentation, they are certainly capable of defending themselves. Unlike most of the people here, I do not assume they did copy. If they did copy it, have no design specs to show otherwise, then they would be well advised to just move on. If they didn't copy it, but just happen to come up with their own similar design (and they do not look exactly alike), they should fight it.

That may be the case but what will the cost be? Is it worth all that cost ? How will "Yes your honour I did this sketch ...... promise and my mate saw me do it" stand up against "This is the book your honour, published and distributed world wide and here is the date of publication"

[MarneusCalgar]

So... they finally didn´t sell it on Salute?

[Caitsidhe]

That may be the case but what will the cost be? Is it worth all that cost ? How will "Yes your honour I did this sketch ...... promise and my mate saw me do it" stand up against "This is the book your honour, published and distributed world wide and here is the date of publication"

That is irrelevant. A copyright exists from the moment of creation and it protects the little guy just as much as the big Corporation. That is the entire point.

[Magpie]

That is irrelevant. A copyright exists from the moment of creation and it protects the little guy just as much as the big Corporation. That is the entire point.

It's not irrelevant at all.

Proving it is the trick. A published work in general circulation has an easily established date of creation, an uncirculated artists sketch, not so.

[lattd]

Especially as it will be hard for the little man to argue that they never saw this book by one of the biggest model companies in the world.

How would it go: Your honour i never saw this book that this big multinational company made its just a coincidence our model looks exactly like theirs and they have had this book out for a few years.

[OrksOrksOrks]

So... they finally didn´t sell it on Salute?

I visited them at Saltue and they didn't have any with them

[OrksOrksOrks]

Actually you can under the right circumstances. For example, the Mycetic Spore Pod is still up on Chapterhouse (looks good too). There is no point in us going round and round about it here. It is already in court. :) The issue is going to settle pretty soon.

Thats because CHS are blanantly flouting the law, which is why the law suit was bought in the first place, they're shameless in infringing on GWs copyright, this company also do that but have the sense not to use the same names.

The fact that chapterhouse are continuing to infringe on GWs copyright doesn't prove that its allowed to infringe on their copyright. Thats like saying that the fact a serial killer keeps murdering people is proof that he's within his rights to kill someone!

[MarneusCalgar]

I visited them at Saltue and they didn't have any with them


So that´s a win for GW, and a loss for everyone of us either the way this becomes...

[Magpie]

So that´s a win for GW, and a loss for everyone of us either the way this becomes...

Why?

I less rip off mini on the market, sounds good to me.

[Mr Mystery]

So that´s a win for GW, and a loss for everyone of us either the way this becomes...

How did anyone else lose out? It's not to say the model will never see light of day...unless of course Blight Wheel did in fact copy it, and decided discretion was the better part of valour?

[OrksOrksOrks]

How did anyone else lose out? It's not to say the model will never see light of day...unless of course Blight Wheel did in fact copy it, and decided discretion was the better part of valour?

having seen the rest of their range, I'd be shocked if they hadn't directly copied it to be honest, its almost just 40K knock off stuff, doubt its a a co-incidence, see the latest model http://www.blightwheelminiatures.com/mecha-prometheus and tell me it isn't a Paladin Knight Titan http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2126epicimperialknights-01.htm

[Caitsidhe]

having seen the rest of their range, I'd be shocked if they hadn't directly copied it to be honest, its almost just 40K knock off stuff, doubt its a a co-incidence, see the latest model http://www.blightwheelminiatures.com/mecha-prometheus and tell me it isn't a Paladin Knight Titan http://www.solegends.com/citcat911/c2126epicimperialknights-01.htm

Beside the obvious fact that it looks a lot better than a Paladin Knight Titan? :) Let's see, theirs is bigger and bulker in the shoulders, has twin turbines, the gun hands are vastly different looking weapons. Just how different do you expect two humanoid giant robots to look?

[OrksOrksOrks]

Beside the obvious fact that it looks a lot better than a Paladin Knight Titan? :) Let's see, theirs is bigger and bulker in the shoulders, has twin turbines, the gun hands are vastly different looking weapons. Just how different do you expect two humanoid giant robots to look?

Its on a totally different scale and made 25 years later, its going to look better, but again, you're ignoring the very obvious similarities, the hunched crouch, the gun and power first actually look very similar to the Paladin 1 model on the page I linked to, the heads size in relation to the body and its Knight style grille, the sloping shoulder pads, the hanging loin-cloth armour thing. Its not as obvious a copy as the Loaxatl, but that wasn't my point, i'm saying this company has a history of stepping ever so slightly on GWs IP but GW have allowed this because, well, as you say, its hard to judge, so GW only acted once the had blatanly infringed with the Loxatl

[Mr Mystery]

There are similarities, but you are allowed to draw inspiration. The world would be a very dull place if we weren't allowed to draw inspiration.

Their Knight Titan is safe, as the differences are there and immediately noticable.

The rest of their stuff is fine, though the tripod cannon.....yeah they didn't even try with that one. It's an autocannon by any other name....

And this is the issue. For instance, the reason GW don't go after companies like...who's that polish one? Did Primarchs and that? He drew inspiration without actually copying stuff. CH however went mad, using symbols, names etc, which is why they are currently being dragged through the courts.

[Lexington]

Such a gut-wrenching case, I don't want GW to be right in this instance, but the mutant komodo miniature model looks considerably like the art of a loxotl :(
Why don't you want GW to be right here? The miniature's clearly a rip-off of GW's concept, and GW is asking them to stop production of it. I'm happy to call GW on their various shenanigans, but they're completely in the right here. They have both the right and the responsibility to protect their IP, and that's exactly what's happening here.


PP is mike mcveys brain child am i correct in that reasoning?
Kinda off-topic, but this isn't correct - McVey was an early investor in PP, and did a number of the original Warmachine sculpts, but Privateer Press and the Iron Kingdoms originated with Matt Wilson and Brian Snoddy.

[OrksOrksOrks]

There are similarities, but you are allowed to draw inspiration. The world would be a very dull place if we weren't allowed to draw inspiration.

Their Knight Titan is safe, as the differences are there and immediately noticable.

The rest of their stuff is fine, though the tripod cannon.....yeah they didn't even try with that one. It's an autocannon by any other name....

And this is the issue. For instance, the reason GW don't go after companies like...who's that polish one? Did Primarchs and that? He drew inspiration without actually copying stuff. CH however went mad, using symbols, names etc, which is why they are currently being dragged through the courts.

Thats exactly what I mean, GW didn't pursue though, because although its obviously inspired by GW stuff and meant to be used to represent thier things, its slightly different, I am sure no one, except Caitsidhe because reasons, would argue that although its slightly different, the Mecha Prometheus is supposed to be a Knight Titan and the polish Not-Primarchs is supposed to be a Primarch and all the Exo-lords and Steam Knights and Sci-Fi Armoured Space Warrior parts are for Space Marines, GW lets all this happen beacuse they pretty much have to, its generic and different enough.

The Loxatl was different because its a very direct copy with almost no noticble difference
Chapter house is different because they used Games Workshops registered trademarks to sell thier own products which were based on Games Workshops IP