GW and Blight Wheel - The Legal Loxatl Controversy

[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 ...