Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[Herzlos]

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

But they sell them as part of a game. The word "Game" is used all over the place, it's in their title, their print media mentions playing. The run demo games, showing customers how to play.

Whilst the this is not a toy exists, I think it's only justification is as defence for injury suits caused by young children, and that they'd need to implement the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense"]Chewbacca[/URL] defence to get anyone to accept that they are art and not toys.

[Sean_OBrien]

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

Toy does not always mean a toy.

In the case of the GW disclaimer, "This is not a toy" generally means it isn't fit for small children. However, toy in terms of the legal question go towards what are they used for? For play - playing a game. That utility has a greater impact than the disclaimer may carry.

[Herzlos]

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

Why?

GW has a sketchy case at best. I'd assume corruption if the judge instantly ruled in favour of GW.

[Psychosplodge]

Why?

GW has a sketchy case at best. I'd assume corruption if the judge instantly ruled in favour of GW.

Because CHS serves no purpose but to trade off GW existing work? but worse were completely blatant about it?

[Mr Mystery]

On the toy/art thing....remember folks, it's not so much about CH creating knock offs of existing GW models, but using GW owned artworks to create 3D representations.

Under UK law, if I create something, I automatically own ALL associated rights. If I doodle right now on a post-it note, any representation of that doodle belongs to me, whether 2d, 3d, movie, book. If someone creates a model based on my doodle, and has the stupidity to call it 'Mr Mystery's Doodle' then they have infringed my copyright.

Ergo, CH, having ripped off GW concept/artwork, and then gone on to use GW terminology to flog said product are pretty much boned. Hence my 'grab yer ankle and think of England' comment a few pages back.

[Herzlos]

Because CHS serves no purpose but to trade off GW existing work? but worse were completely blatant about it?

By filling a gap GW left in the market? Namely conversion kits for models GW don't actually produce, or providing conversions that customers want.

They weren't providing cheap knock-off GW figures (as some companies do), but introducing an added value to the hobby. Yes they were pretty bold about it being for GW stuff though (instead of the usual "door for sci-fi supersoldier APC" descriptions) , and that might be an issue, but not the kits they were actually producing.

There are thousands of companies that "serve no purpose but to trade on _____'s existing work". Such as those that make 3rd party car wheel, phone covers, screen protectors, generic power adapters, and so on. Those that are providing something useful survive whilst those that don't, don't, but there's nothing wrong in providing X to use with Y.

[Psychosplodge]

Yes they were pretty bold about it being for GW stuff though (instead of the usual "door for sci-fi supersoldier APC" descriptions) , and that might be an issue, but not the kits they were actually producing.

But that's the entire point, there's plenty of companies doing the same in a generic manner. It's how CHS did it that's the issue.

[Sean_OBrien]

On the toy/art thing....remember folks, it's not so much about CH creating knock offs of existing GW models, but using GW owned artworks to create 3D representations.

Under UK law, if I create something, I automatically own ALL associated rights. If I doodle right now on a post-it note, any representation of that doodle belongs to me, whether 2d, 3d, movie, book. If someone creates a model based on my doodle, and has the stupidity to call it 'Mr Mystery's Doodle' then they have infringed my copyright.

Ergo, CH, having ripped off GW concept/artwork, and then gone on to use GW terminology to flog said product are pretty much boned. Hence my 'grab yer ankle and think of England' comment a few pages back.

The issue there goes towards the purpose of the art - again, addressed in the LucasFilm case.

The lawyers for Lucas argued that even if the armor and toys themselves were not sculptural they were created from drawings which would be artwork. The court held that the purpose of the artwork was in fact to facilitate the design of physical goods. The artwork is not created simply for the sake of being artwork, rather it is created as part of a process to make and sell products...which makes them not "art". As a result, the courts further held that the physical objects were not derivative works of a copyrightable item rather they were the natural progression of design documents.

The same would likely hold with regard to GW products and artwork. Because the artwork is part of the path to create a miniature or to sell a product and the freedom of the artist to express themselves is limited by the rules set forth by the product - it isn't artwork for the sake of artwork, it is a design document for the sake of manufacturing and marketing.

Further within that case, the products were sold as "Storm Trooper Armor" made by the official prop maker for "Star Wars". The trademarks were used specifically and without any attempt to alter them. The court did not find that to be a violation - which means a product which is sold as a "Space Marine Should Pad" would likely also not be held in violation as long as there is no confusion as to the nature of the product.

[Mr Mystery]

[QUOTE=Herzlos;261061]
They weren't providing cheap knock-off GW figures QUOTE]

That's right, they weren't cheap. But they are apparently of poor quality. And again, you can make all the after-market bits and pieces you want, but you still cannot use branding, trademarks etc in your own promotion. To call a Tervigon a Tervigon is not on, unless you're GW.

[Sean_OBrien]

To call a Tervigon a Tervigon is not on, unless you're GW.

That is actually an interesting example. Trademarks apply to products used in trade. It has to be applied to a specific product, not as a word within a different product. Because CHS beat GW to the market with the actual Tervigon product - CHS is the legal owner of the trademark.