Online gaming discount store or counterfeiters making hay?

[BlackCatStudios]

[blind pig]

I guess GW may feel the same about their IP being used by other companies making add-on and other similar miniatures to what they produce. Theft. I guess we shall see if it is or not when Chapterhouse and Paulson get to have their say. I for one hope the little guys win.

I just had a quick look at the 1267 forgeworld items currently for sale on eBay. An amazing amount (perhaps 25%) are from Russia, Spain and China. There are also quite a lot from Australia, seemingly from the one person.

What does always amaze me about the FW items on eBay, are those that have not been made by FW for many years, yet people seem to have several a month for sale. Lucky buggers to have that many just lying around.....

[Anvils Hammer]

Blackcat,

Apologies for any misunderstanding, I hope Ive not caused offence, it was not my intention.

You are right its a bit sad for FW that a knock off company is out performing them, though I personally have never had any issues with them apart from the odd air bubble that would not have passed Anvil Industry QC!

I suspect GW is already moving as fast and hard as possible to shut these guys down, and good luck to them, it cant be easy for GW/FW to effectively target recasters in russia/china..


Blind Pig, you are certainly right in that GW consider any third party manufacturers to be "stealing" sales by relying on the GW universe..

But its very much a sliding scale, a PP miniature is most definatly not in any way reliant on GW ip for its "value".

Anything Chapterhouse produces is on the other end of the spectrum, totally reliant on GW ip and shameless about it.

But then there are 1001 examples which are in the middle.

Take MAS's Iron Brotherhood for example. very unique miniatures, totally different from anything GW produces, but clearly intended as Ad-Mech stand in's.

Its the middle ground thats legally and morally problematic.

My opinion is that if a product can ONLY be used in relation to another companies IP, for example the storm raven extension, then its not ok. If a product could be used as an add on part for another companies minis, but doesnt have to be, then its ok, assuming its an original sculpt and doesnt blatantly rip off another companies IP, though again, we are back in the grey area..

Whichever way the Chapterhouse case goes, it will have pretty serious effects on the wargames industry.

AH

[blind pig]

[mangozac]

Yeah I'm with Bec on that one. Not only do add-on/conversion kits enrich the hobby for the modeller, but they also aid in boosting sales of the original kit. How is that ripping off IP?

Note however that if you want to put Apple or Chevvy trademarked iconography on something (either the product or packaging) then it must be licensed from them. So certainly there is room to get into trouble if you used trademarked GW iconography on a conversion kit. But something tells me the list of icons (not words) that GW has trademarked is quite short. And this still doesn't stop you from stating that the conversion kits is "compatible with the GW supermegatrademarkedname kit" as you are not trying to confuse the customer.

Ripping off IP is when you're creating and selling your own versions of something that already exists. Like if I were to sculpt my own space marines based on the GW artwork and start selling casts. The grey area is things like the truescale stuff CH is doing and IMO that crosses the borderline. This also puts the MAS Iron Brotherhood stuff on the fringe of the grey area (the base concepts come from GW sketches of Admech, which they have expanded into a more generalised style).

Obviously the CH lawsuit will set the precedent for all of this and clarify what the law sees as acceptable practice. Everything I'm currently hearing says that the outcome is going to be positive for everyone but GW.

Edit: Oops I fell for it. Are we really going down this path of discussion again?

[paulson games]

I need to stop on this thread before I slam my head through my desktop.

[Lane]

[Anvils Hammer]

Fair points all..

The storm raven was a bad example, and yes the existance of that kit can only help GW sales of the base kit.

But take the Jet bike- horus heresy artwork aside, its nothing like a GW peice, but the legs they supply are indestinguishable from marine legs, even if they did sculpt them them selves, yes they are "generic armoured legs" and thus legally might be ok, but its quite obvious to any wargamer that the jet bike legs are space marine legs.

The new stand alone eldar model, yes its "generic space elf" but its obvious the designer/sculptor was given a brief "copy the eldar look exactly but make a few minor changes so we are legally in the clear".
The sculptor has great mechanical skill, but there is no imagination or originality. which I think is bad for the hobby.

I guess my point is that

"heres an awesome an original conversion kit/bit, or a unique model which fits with the astetic, which you can use to enhance your purchases of GW kits"

is great for the hobby but

"we created this almost exact replica of a GW part/model and you can buy it from us for cheaper than the real thing because legally its an "original work"

is very very bad.

But not much point discussing further as we are likely to go round in circles and no one really knows whats going on untill the court case concludes!!

And even then.. UK law is different.. :p

AH

[blind pig]

[Anvils Hammer]

For the purposes of IP, im not sure China even has laws..

GW will have a far easier time of it targeting the payment gateways..

AH

[Lane]

China has some very strict IP laws.

Thou shalt not honor any foreign registered patents/ copyrights/ trademarks or IP.

[mangozac]

[blind pig]

[mangozac]

[paulson games]

Legally there's a major differance between items like cars which are covered by design patents and trademarks. Artistic works, are determined by protected elements and deriviative works.

When you make a car for example it's legal for a person to come in and make an aftermarket part, provide there is not a unique system of mounting said part. Certain cars might for instance have a special type mounting bracket of bolt head design they use that they own a patented design to. In that case you have to obtain rights to make a part that can interfacce with that design.

Lexus and Saturn both make parts like that, lexus has special engine covers and custom oil filters that don't fit on any other car, so their oil filters can only be bought from their dealers or a offical supplier. They own a patent on the design and there are no generic alternatives. (which is why we couldn't service them at the shop I used to work at)

Legally however there's little they can do if you open up a company that makes a bolt on light for example that you drill a hole in the bumper and srew in it place as there's no propriatary design invovled.

A grey area would be making a adapter device that attaches to the engine and allows you to use a standard generic oil filter on a lexus. Since it needs a special threading and plug in it's design that might mean it's infringing on a protected design.

The laws patent regarding mechicanical and chemical designs are pretty straight forward as there are technical diagrams, measurements, formulas etc that all determine if something is compatible or the same.


The law set for Itellectual Properties and Artistic works are a completely differant ball game though, very complicated and not particuarly clear. The reason for this is that they are often not physical object but ideas and specific expressions of those ideas. You can't claim ownership of the general idea of a robot with a gun, but you can own a particular design of that robot with a gun.

What makes an item unique or how it expresses the idea is entirely subjective, which is why IP stuff is so hard to define in a hard legal code like patents. A painting for instance can be viewed by a hundred people and every person can have a differant opinion of what it means of the artist was trying to say.

Computer code and books are another major IP area, you can't own the numbers that make up code, and you can't own words or letters the only thing you can try and claim is the specific order and combinations of those words/numbers. If it's contested in court the jury has to figure out if those patterns and phrasings are unique or if it's something commonplace that anyone could do, etc.

Comparing aftermarket cars parts in a super simplistic way makes logical sense, but is worlds apart legally.

The problem is that IP issues are covered by subjective law and very tough to have a solid yes or no on.

One of the famous art examples is a french artist who made a copy of the Mona lisa and drew a goatee on her with pencil, grade school style. (added an abreviation in french for: she has a hot ass) He then printed that image on tons of stuff citing that he owned the rights to that piece of "art" because his modifications made it an entirely new work.



The Mona Lisa is still clearly a visable and is the central element in the piece so to some people it's merely a work derived from the original source, but it can also be argued that the piece has been substancially transformed and given a completely new meaning.

You can ask that question to a hundred differant people and you'd be surprised at the variety of answers you'll get, even the people that have a hard yes or no answer from their gut can't really define why without a complex discussion and giving lots of thought as to why it is or isn't a unique work.

The Chapterhouse lawsuit won't provide a definitive answer like people are expecting, no matter how it resovles it's only going to be an answer for that question of the moment and that particular case. Somebody could be doing something in the exacct same manner as CH and get an entirely differant result because the jury sees the works differantly.

In a realistic view it'll help people to better figure out what extent they can push things to without GW raising hell, but unfortunately legally it doens't settle much dispute as to where the hard black and white line is drawn as IP iconcerns are almost all grey. (and it comes down to which side spins it best)