News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?  (Read 7578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hanith

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Country: 00
  • Not on speaking terms with my dice.
  • Armies: Eldar
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2012, 02:52:37 PM »
I'm a have to side with bloodhawk in this argument.


And if GW sues me because I write a fandex, solely for the use of myself and my friends, and write a disclaimer at the start stating that I have no intent to profit from any of GW's copyrights, they are the wronged party?


But that is just it, this argument is about companies who intend to profit from material made in the likeness of GW's IP. You also need to be aware that just because you do not indent to profit from it, does not exclude you from IP laws. In most there is also some clause along the lines of ". . . to cause harm to the company image or sales by providing a work/service free of charge."

As far as chapterhouse is concerned, they broke no rules but are definitely causing some grief. Yet, the production of models that have yet to be released by GW is nothing short of a legal dick-move and an attempt to legally "steal" that which they have not finished.

Say you write a sequel to a well received book after you had advertised you were going to write said sequel. You even use snippets from your first draft as advertisement. You have just finished the final draft after many months of work; however, you find that someone has just released a book that is the same as yours but with different names for the characters. It is quite obvious it was based on your advertisement and the first book you had written. Unfortunately, they also get the book copyrighted. This means you cannot release the book you put the work into without infringing on their now protected work. Even if you can release it, you would be in direct competition with the other book and lose sales because of it (no need to buy the same book twice after all). Would you not try to defend your IP that you have painstakingly created and had "stolen" form you? Probably, as you claim is the right move, you would simply shrug and think (Oh well, better luck next time. Guess I'm out 8 months pay).
For me: 16.667% chance of failure equates to a 83.334% failure rate.

Offline Blood Hawk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Stuff
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2012, 03:22:44 PM »
I didn't ignore it, I simply pointed out that, at the end of a long wait, players of these two armies have come away with excellently written army books with great background, mostly balanced army lists with many options, and, most relevant to this discussion a strong range of models. And the fact that the DE codex isn't perfect proves nothing. Imperfect or not it is still a couple of light years better than the Tyranid Codex, as is the Necrons Codex, which also isn't perfect.
I honestly rather like the background presented in the nid codex (I own it myself), and I don't think it is any better or worse than the DE background.  Also taking 10+ years to revise rules for a codex is plain terrible on GWs part.

So your answer to my question is yes then? I wonder if we'll see a string of court cases from the groups I mentioned.
Actually the answer was no, you aren't allowed to copyright everything for good reason.  Certain techniques can't be copyrighted because they are very basic, like you can't copyright the use of chapters in a book to separate sections for example.

Edit: BTW the nid second wave is going out next month there are pics all over the web for next white dwarf link.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2012, 03:40:58 PM by Blood Hawk »

Offline Underhand

  • Captain : Godfather of the Hivegangers
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
  • Country: 00
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2012, 04:22:37 PM »
Anyone making miniatures designed to be used with GW games should pay GW a reasonable licensing fee.

GW would probably love this, the problem becomes of course that the models I'm making are not for Blood Bowl, they're for a fantasy football rpg I'm making etc. The models are simply too generic to actually give GW the opportunity to run such a licensing system. Not to mention the problems that such a system could also create in undercutting GW's own sales or even making some nicer looking models than what GW do.
The simple solution is to sell the models in GW stores and advertise them in White Dwarf as part of the range alongside Citadel miniatures.  They would sell more that way, and both parties would profit.  They used to do that with companies like Marauder Miniatures, which was subsequently absorbed by Citadel.

GW had a pretty hefty window between the Nids Codex release and the copycats appearing to release models of their own, so I'm not buying that argument.

If true though it is natural for GW to not want other companies to make money from their IP, money that they plan to harness in the future with a release of a second wave, of course they will try and see if the law can work for them or if the threat of lawyers can help them get what they consider is theirs.

They can consider it theirs if they like, but it isn't theirs unless they actually produce something. What GW have done in this case is essentially call "dibs" on models because they wrote a book about them, and then took it to court.
But they did produce something.  They invented the idea of those units and created rules for them.  The background, the rules and the models are all art of the property.  They had might well have already done some of the initial design work on the models before the codex was even released, they just ddn't get around to it until now.

When they release a codex, they have a plan for which models they are going to release and a schedule for when they are going to release them.  If another company jump in and releases their own version of that model prior to GW releasing theirs, then it cuts down on the potential number of sales left for GW, who are the ones who went to all the trouble of developing the rules, fluff etc for that unit.

But they didn't go to the trouble of actually making the model, and so while I have no problem with them clamping down on reproductions of the rules, fluff and etc for that unit, I don't see why that should give them a free pass at the model as well.
The models are where the money is.   It's unjust that some other company that didn't put all the work into the creation of the unit gets to jump in at the last second and release the model of the unit without having done the lead up work.

Quote
No they would not, nor would they have done so if GW had never devised Warhammer 40,000 in the first place. That doesn't really connect to why GW have a legal right to prevent chapterhouse from producing models which are not copies of anything GW have produced without their permission. Can the Méliès estate sue Dreamworks for producing animated films? Can Disney?
 
Bad analogy.  Disney can't sue people for simply making an animated film.  They could sue them for making an animated movie that had Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and Goofy as characters though.  And so they should.  And so should GW be able to sue people who use their IP without permission.

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2012, 04:56:37 PM »
Right, from the top.

But that is just it, this argument is about companies who intend to profit from material made in the likeness of GW's IP. You also need to be aware that just because you do not indent to profit from it, does not exclude you from IP laws. In most there is also some clause along the lines of ". . . to cause harm to the company image or sales by providing a work/service free of charge."

As far as chapterhouse is concerned, they broke no rules but are definitely causing some grief. Yet, the production of models that have yet to be released by GW is nothing short of a legal dick-move and an attempt to legally "steal" that which they have not finished.

Except that I had to include the no intent to profit disclaimer to my example because if I do attempt to profit from it, then I am breaking IP law. What chapterhouse has been doing does not. That's really the crux of the argument. That they intend to profit from what they are doing does not, in their case, make it an IP breach, whereas in the example I provided it would.

I honestly rather like the background presented in the nid codex (I own it myself), and I don't think it is any better or worse than the DE background.  Also taking 10+ years to revise rules for a codex is plain terrible on GWs part.

Edit: BTW the nid second wave is going out next month there are pics all over the web for next white dwarf link.

The background is fine, great even. The rest of it is not worth the paper it is printed on. But that's neither here nor there. Oh, and as for the "second wave", if that's it I'm hardly impressed. They still haven't plugged the biggest gap, and 2 years to produce 3 new models and call it a "wave" is pretty insulting. Of course, we don't yet know that that's all they're doing, but having no evidence that they're releasing any other models... anyway, back to the topic.

But they did produce something.  They invented the idea of those units and created rules for them.  The background, the rules and the models are all art of the property.  They had might well have already done some of the initial design work on the models before the codex was even released, they just ddn't get around to it until now.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of the material in the Warhammer 40,000 universe is, and I use this term generously, "borrowed" from other sources. Strangely enough GW don't seem to mind stealing from Michael Moorcock, Frank Herbert, Dan O'Bannon...

But in any case, that is irrelevant. GW produced a book called the Tyranid Codex, and they have the rights to the intellectual material therein. They do not have the rights to material which they haven't made, but honestly cross-my-heart promise to one day make, maybe. "They might even have already done some of the work" doesn't cut it here either.

Bad analogy.  Disney can't sue people for simply making an animated film.  They could sue them for making an animated movie that had Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and Goofy as characters though.  And so they should.  And so should GW be able to sue people who use their IP without permission.

You are correct, they can't. What you and the other I address in this post are arguing though, is essentially that they should be able to.

One final note: the argument I am countering here can essentially be boiled down to the suggestion that GW should be able to use intimidation techniques to aggressively maintain a monopoly on things they don't have any rights to. Is this something you guys are fine with? Cause personally if that were reality I would find it extremely disturbing.
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline IainC

  • Mad prophet of the Whalepocalypse
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Country: de
  • Not Safe For Work
    • Antipwn
  • Armies: Grey Knights
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2012, 05:08:26 PM »
And I have no problem with them enforcing their IP in cases where they actually have legal grounds. But that's not what I said

You did though, you argued that they should not be able to claim copyright for units in their range for which they haven't yet produced models. That's not the problem though as I pointed out, . You say it again with a slightly different tack here:

What rules have chapterhouse broken? What copyright laws have they infringed?

Chapterhouse were particularly foolish. Not because they were making unlicenced bits for GW games but because they covered their stuff with trademarked symbols and advertised them as Warhammer 40k miniatures and accessories. Like it or not there's only one company that is allowed to advertise its product as Warhammer 40k miniatures and that's GW. If Chapterhouse were making generic parts that just so happened to fit with a certain well-known range of gothic sci-fi wargaming miniatures then that would be ok. Saying 'Hey here's a Blood Angeltm shoulderpad covered in Space Marinetm  and Blood Angeltm  icons for Warhammer 40,000tm is simply asking for trouble.

I gave you examples of companies that did this the right (legal) way and, although they were clearly making stuff intended for use in Warhammer/Warhammer 40k, they are still in business untroubled by GW's legal department which doesn't sit well with your claim that simply making a miniature GW haven't got around to yet is going to get you a nastygram from Nottingham. You can produce a thing that looks right at home in the current GW Tyranid Range and say "Here's a science fiction chitinoid alien for use in your futuristic battles games". You can't create the same miniature and say "Here's a Tervignon for Warhammer 40k" without fully deserving to get sued into oblivion.
World's first ever Dark Eldar player... Don't be hatin' now.

My wargaming and painting blog

My games industry blog

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2012, 08:02:07 PM »
Well in that case Chapterhouse broke the rules and I don't have any beef with GW taking legal action against them. I was unaware that they had plastered trademarked symbols over them, making me almost as dumb a Chapterhouse, apparently  :P


you argued that they should not be able to claim copyright for units in their range for which they haven't yet produced models.

I still argue this, and I argue this because I know for a fact that GW can't claim copyright in this manner.

The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline IainC

  • Mad prophet of the Whalepocalypse
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Country: de
  • Not Safe For Work
    • Antipwn
  • Armies: Grey Knights
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2012, 03:43:51 AM »
you argued that they should not be able to claim copyright for units in their range for which they haven't yet produced models.

I still argue this, and I argue this because I know for a fact that GW can't claim copyright in this manner.

But that's not what is happening. Making a thing that stands in for a model GW have or haven't made yet isn't a problem (otherwise Gamezone, Avatars of War and others would be constantly in hot water with GW). Making a thing and advertising it as a Warhammer figure or as a part of a GW range with a trademarked name is what is getting people sued. Here's an example, there are a few companies making fantasy football miniatures that are veryclearly intended to be for Blood Bowl. Some are for teams that GW never produced official figures for. This is OK and GW have not complained because the figures are sold as generic fantasy football miniatures, not as Saurus Warriors for Blood Bowl.
World's first ever Dark Eldar player... Don't be hatin' now.

My wargaming and painting blog

My games industry blog

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Does Games Workshop Bring Down The Legal Hammer Too Often?
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2012, 03:47:07 AM »
Well then I've wasted everybody's time here. Sorry.  :-[
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

 


Powered by EzPortal