EA steals GWs IP?

[DadExtraordinaire]

See links for more news:

[url]http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/04/12/oh-dear-cc-tiberium-alliances-may-have-borrowed/#more-103494[/url]

[url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-12-ea-accused-of-copying-warhammer-40k-tanks-for-command-and-conquer-tiberium-alliances[/url]

[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc_mmo_is_a_baneblade_from_40k/[/url]

[Dalleron]

Seems like a blatant ripoff to me. I suppose GW it too busy with Chapterhouse to do much about it.

[MarneusCalgar]

I would sue them, if I were GW.

This is very clearly a rip off...

No excuses for me

[Inquiring M1nd]

This will be very interesting. Could someone with a law degree go over which model would be a stronger case?

The Ork Tank is an old design that hasn't been revived in more than a decade, but it's pretty much dead-on to the digital model.

The Baneblade has seen an upswing in the past few years, but the updated model isn't quite as good a comparison to the digital as the old models from the 90's. Will that drift have an impact on a potential legal issue?

[Defenestratus]

Its getting some gaming MSM coverage too:
[url]http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-been-caught-stealing-designs-from-a-tabletop-game?utm_campaign=socialflow_kotaku_twitter&utm_so urce=kotaku_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow[/url]

[gendoikari87]

dude this is 10 times more of a knockoff ... but can gw sue if they dont use the same names ... at least chapterhouse was somewhat original.

[inquisitorsog]

dude this is 10 times more of a knockoff ... but can gw sue if they dont use the same names ... at least chapterhouse was somewhat original.

Yes, GW can sue, assuming EA didn't secure permission to use the models in some other fashion. You'd be surprised at what can happen to muddy the question of who has rights to what with long term contracts, acquisitions, etc. EA or one of its subs may have started working on game for GW, got as far as building the 3d models, then it fell through, but they may have had a clause allowing them to reuse those objects. Just as a for-example.

Anyway...
The names are about trademarks, this is about potential copyright infringement. If I make a hand drawn cartoon depicting every scene from Cars and use all different names and call the movie "Things with wheels", I'm still infringing.

[DrLove42]

Exactly. If I draw a comic mouse with big round black ears and try to use it, its infringement whether the character is called Mickey, Mackey or Reginald Tybalt Cheesenose

I don't know the law, so i'm going to largely keep out of this and let more knowledgable people (and bunch of folks from the INTERNET!!!!) comment on it.

But one similar model is convenient. 2 is decidedly dodgy. If theres a 3rd.....then **** gets real

[MarneusCalgar]

Well, GW can claim IP violation not only on the name of its products but also on their image... the Baneblade is obviously an original tank from GW. It´s not so original as it is based in real world tanks, but if someone uses the GW image for its own and seeking profits... it can be a matter of sue

[inquisitorsog]

One interesting factoid:
The new "How to paint" video includes a "Special thanks to EA/Mythic Entertainment" in the credits.

Which reminds me that Mythic was the one behind Warhammer Online. Which just adds to the distinct possibility that this is legit use via a complicated set of assignments.

But it also keeps the door wide open to "we started to build a game for 40k, that got shelved, then some time later we found these cool looking 3d models in a file share and used them without realizing we didn't actually have rights to do so".