Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[Nabterayl]

Given that under the International Treaty quoted often in this case (can't remember the name) that states this is being looked at under UK IP law, how is this relevant?

You're probably thinking of the Berne Convention? Issue summed up in two quotes from the order. Emphasis mine.

Page 6:

United States law permits suit only by “[t]he legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 501(b). The parties agree that because GW’s products were created in England, its ownership of copyrights with respect to those products is governed by that country’s law. Saregama India Ltd. v. Mosley, 635 F.3d 1284, 1290 (11th Cir. 2011); see also Rudnicki v. WPNA 1490 AM, No. 04 C 5719, 2009 WL 4800030, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2009) (“Under the [Berne] Convention, the law of the signatory country with the closest relationship to the international work at issue governs determination of copyright ownership.”).

Page 15:

Chapterhouse contends that GW’s miniature figurines are ineligible for protection under English law and that as a result all of GW’s copyright claims against Chapterhouse based on its figurines fail. Chapterhouse’s argument begins with an incorrect premise. Although disputes over copyright ownership must be resolved under the laws of a work’s country of origin, other issues regarding a claim of copyright infringement, including the question of copyrightability, are determined by the law of the country where the alleged infringement occurred.

In other words, whether GW owns the copyright is a matter of English law. The consequences of owning the copyright is a matter of United States law.

And, as already explained, with the exception of Adrian Smith's stuff, the issue of whether GW owns the copyrights (the English law question) is settled in the summary judgment order. Going forward, the issue is consequences (i.e., did CHS infringe, and if so, what are they liable for?). That's a matter of US law. We're essentially done with the international law portion of the case.

EDIT:

Monopolies and Mergers commission would beg to differ on that one.

UK IP law essentially means if I create something, I automatically own all possible representations of it.

That's not really different from US law. In the US, if you create something, you also own all "derivative works" of it. If I draw a character in my sketch pad, I also own the rights to that character as a videogame character, as a 3D miniature, as a cell-shaded animated character in a movie, as a cosplay, as a character in an erotic slashfic fan novel, etc. However, as Caitsidhe is correct in pointing out, there's a difference between copying my character and designing a set of paper doll clothes that could go with my character. Owning all possible representations of something is not the same as owning all possible objects that can be tacked onto it :P

[Mr Mystery]

So the jetbike and Nid beast are problematic for CH?

[templarboy]

Just an aside here but how cool would it be to be on the jury for this case? Being (probably) the only gamer on the jury would be amazing. Getting to see all the internal GW IP presentations would be epic.

[Mr Mystery]

Interesting point. Would an established gamer be allowed on the Jury? I know it's not volunteers, but say someone from BoLs got called up, would their prior knowledge mean they can't be considered impartial?

[Caitsidhe]

So the jetbike and Nid beast are problematic for CH?

Which Nid beast? The Jetbike doesn't look like an issue for them at all. It looks nothing (not even remotely) like any Games Workshop bike. It doesn't have a Games Workshop name. It is clearly an original model that people could "use" if they wanted in a 40K game, but someone could use the little dog from Monopoly to represent things in a 40K game too. Or are we talking about a Nid beast and bike that was on the site originally and is no longer up?

[Caitsidhe]

Interesting point. Would an established gamer be allowed on the Jury? I know it's not volunteers, but say someone from BoLs got called up, would their prior knowledge mean they can't be considered impartial?

An actual gamer (who was honest about it) has about as much chance of getting on that jury as winning the Powerball Lotto. Neither side would want him/her there unless they could already discern bias in which case the other side would say "nope."

[Nabterayl]

So the jetbike and Nid beast are problematic for CH?

In my opinion (at least as far as I remember those issues), yes (EDIT: the nid beast because it was, at least as I recall, a version of the tervigon, which existed as 2D artwork; the jet bike because, at least allegedly, somebody showed the sculptor a GW drawing of a jetbike - which did not exist, and does not exist, in model form - and said, "Make this"). On the other hand, things like their Ymgarl heads are probably much less so. Similarly, their lash whips are probably fairly kosher - I think those are a good example of an alternative approach to an alien whip-like appendage, not so much a version of the existing GW alien whip-like appendage.

[inquisitorsog]

Monopolies and Mergers commission would beg to differ on that one.

UK IP law essentially means if I create something, I automatically own all possible representations of it.

What are you differing on?
I was discussing purpose. The interpreation in this case happens to neatly align with the stated purpose of US IP law. That the law in question is UK law isn't what I was really commenting on one way or the other.

However, I was indeed commenting that the attitudes expressed on who should get cremated at the end of this seem to fall on national lines. This likely has as much to do with the history of each nation as anything. The US shed the notion that IP law had the purpose of granting monopolies, but rather that any such monopoly was a means of realizing the purpose. Prior to the 1970s, it was hard for copyrights to fall into legal limbo in the US. They had to be renewed every so often, thus if the creator died and it wasn't clear who their heirs were, it took less than a human lifetime for it to fall into public domain (And I'm not exaggerating "human lifetime", it's 75 years for personally owned copyrights). We also have very strong notions of fair use as a result of our notion that IP law is there to promote progress. That's strongly coming through in the debate here even if not impacting the case itself.

[Denzark]

However, I was indeed commenting that the attitudes expressed on who should get cremated at the end of this seem to fall on national lines. This likely has as much to do with the history of each nation as anything.

I think you are right but for the wrong reasons. GW - bolshy big business, picking on the little guy, resorting to the courts and sueing like hell? That sort of behaviour is from the west side of the Atlantic, where you can sue MacDonalds for making you obese, Samsung for not putting instructions not to microwave your dog in the oven, and not mentioning cruise control doesn't let you go into the baack of your motor home and make coffee. Litigation is an import, maybe thats why some Brits find a staunch defence of CHS a bit rich.

[Nabterayl]

What are you differing on?
However, I was indeed commenting that the attitudes expressed on who should get cremated at the end of this seem to fall on national lines. This likely has as much to do with the history of each nation as anything.

I do think there's an implicit understanding of what copyright and trademark law is for, which does differ along national lines. I think stating it in terms of "royal monopolies" may be confusing, though. The purpose of US copyright law is to incentivize the creation of written* works. The purpose of copyright law pretty much everywhere else in the world is to protect the moral rights of the creator vis a vis the creation. I don't know that it's fair to peg that to the idea of "royal monopolies," though. The non-US evolution of copyright law actually post-dates the US version. Historically speaking, it's the United States' copyright law that is stuck in the past.

* By "written," I mean tangible - a still life, a space marine miniature, and a novel are all equally "written" for the purposes of US copyright law.

EDIT: Example. In the United States (historically, at least), copyright was good for fourteen years. That has slowly been pushed back, but US copyright law still clings to the idea that copyright should eventually expire. The theory has always been that the author should enjoy the fruits of his or her labors for a set period of time - long enough to make it worth his or her while to "write" in the first place - but no longer than is necessary to incentivize the act of creation. In most of the rest of the world, this is not true - the point is that you created it. In fact, in most of the rest of the world, there are some rights that a creator has in his or her creations that cannot be sold at all, even if the creator wants to.

US law is slowly being dragged into line with the rest of the world, mostly through treaties, but it still fundamentally looks at copyrighted works as being produced for the good of the many. The rest of the world looks at copyrighted works as essentially an extension of their author.