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