GW sues Chapterhouse

[weeble1000]

The key point here is "as long as the artwork and expression is original." We agree on that, but your interpretation beyond this point is where we are disagreeing.

I'm interested in this dialog because I think it is important for people to understand the implications of the Chapterhouse lawsuit. Games-Workshop is claiming exclusive rights to very broad copyrights.

In order to determine how original the artistic expression is, it is necessary to consider it in the context of everything else out there. The less original it is, the narrower the copyright because you only own the new thing that you do. That is, whatever makes your artistic expression different from those of other artists.

The fact that your artistic expression is itself unique does not give you the right to everything upon which it is based, just the unique aspects of the design. If I draw a dragon, I can't say that I own exclusive rights to all dragons. I don't have a copyright to dragons. Games-Workshop does not have a copyright on round saw blades with teardrop shapes in the middle of them. It has a copyright to the specific artistic expression of that design.

Teardrop shapes are not unique. Round saw blades are not unique. Putting either of those symbols on a uniform is not unique. Putting a teardrop shape in the middle of a round saw blade might be unique enough to claim exclusive rights to something that significantly copies that design, as in similar placement, size, shape, etc. etc.

Given all of the aspects of the design that are not unique you may only consider those aspects of the design that make it a unique artistic expression when determining copyright protection. These things would include the specific size and shape of the overall design. Not every round saw blade is the same size. That is a unique aspect of the expression. It would also include the shape of the teeth. Round saw blades have many different tooth shapes. That is a unique aspect of the expression. It would include the number of teeth on the saw blade. Different saw blades have different numbers of teeth. That is a unique aspect of the expression. It includes the size and shape of the tear drop and its placement within the round saw blade.

When you narrow the copyright to these specific details of the artistic expression the Chapterhouse product does not copy them. This is the way that all of Games-Workshop's claimed copyrights would be assessed in court. Games-Workshop is very familiar with this process.

In the past, Games-Workshop has had overly broad copyright claims narrowed significantly, specifically regarding the design of the Imperial Aquila. The Imperial Aquila copyright was narrowed down to the number and angles of the feathers in the design. This by definition means that if a design does not copy those details it cannot infringe. Games-Workshop did not invent double-headed eagles even though it claimed to have. It was determined that what Games-Workshop had rights to was the specific artistic expression that is the Imperial Aquila. In order to describe precisely what the bounds of the copyright were it was necessary to describe the very specific details that made the Imperial Aquila a unique artistic expression.

Games-Workshop is well aware that this is how all of its claimed copyrights will be interpreted in a court of law. In spite of this knowledge and experience, it filed a complaint against Chapterhouse Studios claiming copyrights as broad as weapons and methods of waging war. It does not intend to go to court with these claims. Filing a lawsuit that you have no intention to pursue is a clear act of anti-competitive intimidation with a long line of precedent to back it up.