Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[Psychosplodge]

I'm no expert, but surely British copyright law works on the same principle as all civil cases which is 'on the balance of probability'?

English law, Wildey, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own...
You're probably right if that's how the rest of our civil law works.

[Wildeybeast]

Good point. English law. Yeah, the burden of proof in all civil cases is less than that in criminal cases, merely 'on the balance of probability'. Though the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove their case, it's a lesser standard.

[Psychosplodge]

If only TDA didn't delete threads I could reference the person who sounded knowledgeable...

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Shush.

[Sean_OBrien]

They've already decided it was being fought under English law.
It's in the early papers.

US Law will decide the case, however - before they get to that point, the court first has to decide whether or not there is an actual claim to be made under English Law. In that regard, CHS contends that GW deals with designs and not art. GW contends that they deal in art and not manufactured goods. The judge may or may not weigh the issue to determine whether or not GW products even carry copyright protection.

If the judge rules they do - then the US court will ignore all other English law and simply try the case under US copyright and trademark laws.

If I wasn't already aware of how ludicrous and corrupt the legal system is, I would be amazed the judge didn't instantly rule in favour of Games Workshop

Again - read the referenced and linked to LucasFilm cases for English Law regarding a parallel case as well as the FASA v Playmate Toys for a US parallel. If anything, the IP laws are waited excessively in favor of the big company as opposed to the little company.

Burden of Proof Stuff...

In the US, in order to prove copyright infringement the plaintiff must prove copying. While generally speaking, their exists some level of wiggle room in proof for civil trials, that particular court which this case was filed in has their own local rules regarding the level of evidence which is required in order to prove copyright violations.

In particular, the sitting judge in this case was actually a member of the committee who wrote the local rules:

...and there's a comment, which is comment number four,
which basically says that the burden of proving copying is
always on the party who is claiming infringement and that
evidence of independent creation is relevant on that, but
there is no real shifting burden of proof.

[url]http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.173.0.pdf[/url]

Because there is some overlap between civil and criminal law regarding copyright infringment, the laws are actually written in order to favor the defendant in terms of willful infringement which is what GW is alleging (and so - they have a greater burden to overcome).

[Mr Mystery]

If only TDA didn't delete threads I could reference the person who sounded knowledgeable...

Shockingly that may have been me. If it involved a car insurance then I was that man!

[Psychosplodge]

US Law will decide the case, however - before they get to that point, the court first has to decide whether or not there is an actual claim to be made under English Law. In that regard, CHS contends that GW deals with designs and not art. GW contends that they deal in art and not manufactured goods. The judge may or may not weigh the issue to determine whether or not GW products even carry copyright protection.

I thought they were using English law in a US court under some international treaty or some such?
And this was pretty much established?
If they're using US law it's already lost, the US company wins.

Shockingly that may have been me. If it involved a car insurance then I was that man!

dunno was it the bonnets and treaties and some such?

[Kirsten]

Again - read the referenced and linked to LucasFilm cases for English Law regarding a parallel case as well as the FASA v Playmate Toys for a US parallel. If anything, the IP laws are waited excessively in favor of the big company as opposed to the little company.

I do not need to read any referenced links, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that CHS have stolen GWs intellectual proeprty, they copy the name, the look, there is no case for their defence at all. It is just a question of how moronic the judge is and how corrupt the lawyers are

[Sean_OBrien]

I thought they were using English law in a US court under some international treaty or some such?
And this was pretty much established?
If they're using US law it's already lost, the US company wins.

Primarily based on the Berne Convention - though other treaties come into play as well. Basically what that says is that all the countries who sign on will have to have some laws and manner in which to enforce those laws with regards to Copyrights and other IP. It doesn't specify the nature of the law. A few clauses are required to be in the various country's laws (fair use for example) but it doesn't specify much beyond that.

Further it states that any country which is a signatory can have citizens from their country heard in other countries who are also signatories. In addition, creators who are citizens of signatory countries have the effective rights conferred to them without registering in each country individually. Other less important bits deal with copyright term minimums and what not.

However, none of the portions of the treaty dictate that the trial will be dealt with under English law. However, the first part of getting to the point where you decide copyright under the host country's version of IP laws you have to determine if the home country grants a right. That is the issue of design rights under English law.

I do not need to read any referenced links, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain that CHS have stolen GWs intellectual proeprty, they copy the name, the look, there is no case for their defence at all. It is just a question of how moronic the judge is and how corrupt the lawyers are

OK... In that case, under English Law, manufactured "toys" were deemed to have no copyright protection and only design protection. Design protections are greatly limited in duration compared to copyrights. The question isn't whether or not CHS is inspired (or even stealing as you say) rather is it a design or is it art? Art exists for its own purpose. GW makes toys to play games with - so most people (especially moronic judges) would tend to call them designs and not art.

As designs, the design right on a plurality of GW items has long since expired. That being the case, it is a free for all on their designs. These laws are in place to encourage innovation by manufacturers and to ensure that in the event a manufacturer stops making something, a third party company can come in and provide products if a demand exists for them.

[Psychosplodge]

GW products specifically say on them, this is not a toy.