What if GW had won the case against Chapterhouse Studios?

[ERJAK]

I think the name changes are more telling of a multinational company dealing with a variety of IP and copyright laws than the Chapterhouse lawsuit, though I am aware that from the lawsuit came a list of 'safe' words for 3rd party retailers to use in the USA at least.

 

I do agree with the thought we'd see more rules for unit that don't necessarily have official models though. We may also have less mono-pose characters too but on the other side of things we may not have the comprehensive content that kits are currently being produced with. I can well remember how hard it used to be to find combi-weapons or to get a set of four weapons for a Devastator squad with my BA years ago.

I will happily trade things being monopose for them actually including the correct equipment in every kit.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

If GW had won we’d still have Kasrkin and Krieg Grenadiers instead of Scions. We’d still have Inquisition. All the good names will now be replaced with Astra this and Aeldari Xenoteers and other horrifically awkward names.

I'm curious what makes you think any of this is true.

 

In your first example, those are both regiment-specific. When GW decided to make a codex for this unit, they were going to have to give it a regiment-neutral name. At most you can say that name would have been "Stormtroopers," but even that is a stretch imo - they would have changed it anyway to avoid the Star Wars reference.

 

I can't even begin to imagine how the lack of attention paid to Inq has anything to do with the case.

 

Your last bit is certainly possible - but frankly, I suspect that would have moved to sure themselves up even if they hadn't lost.

 

Overall, I think people are much too quick to ascribe literally everything that has happened in the past decade to one cause. There are plenty of creative and business forces within GW that aren't copyright-related.

You can’t copyright inquisition and Cadians are too generic. When Guard is rereleased it won’t be the cadian aesthetic that the generic kits go with. That’s my reasoning on it. I don’t claim to have any special knowledge, it’s just pretty clear the things I really enjoyed before Chapterhouse are not present after chapterhouse. I am skeptical they are not related.

[MegaVolt87]

 

I think the name changes are more telling of a multinational company dealing with a variety of IP and copyright laws than the Chapterhouse lawsuit, though I am aware that from the lawsuit came a list of 'safe' words for 3rd party retailers to use in the USA at least.

 

I do agree with the thought we'd see more rules for unit that don't necessarily have official models though. We may also have less mono-pose characters too but on the other side of things we may not have the comprehensive content that kits are currently being produced with. I can well remember how hard it used to be to find combi-weapons or to get a set of four weapons for a Devastator squad with my BA years ago.

I will happily trade things being monopose for them actually including the correct equipment in every kit.

 

 

Except they don't. Compare the old multi part SM captain to the mono pose one. Its cheaper $$$ and has more options. Only thing the mono pose/ ETB mini's have going for them is the detail over older kits. Seems we can't have both. 

[Shinespider]

It's extraordinarily common in scifi/fantasy for races to have a fancy name and a regular name. Sangheili are Elites, Kal'Dorei are Night Elves, etc. etc. That dynamic is so totally normal to me that I never really understood why people went so nuts over it.

[Biscuittzz]

Not really a good comparison though. Kal'Dorei is the name the night elves call themselves in there own language ( and of course the WoW writers made it so that they would have a reason to justify the copyright), Astra militarum and Imperial Guard a both technically the same in-universe language, so it's just a change for copyright reasons. GW's mistake was that they didn't try to give a reason in-universe for changing it.

 

Could've have a side piece in Dark Imperium explaining Guilliman reconstituting the Guard into the militarum or whatever. Just give the audience a semi-plausible reason and we'll lap it up.

[Ishagu]

It's the High Gothic version of the name. That is reason enough - The official title will always use the most fancy wording.

 

It's well done because your typical Guardsmen could still refer to the AM as the IG.

[Halandaar]

Not really a good comparison though. Kal'Dorei is the name the night elves call themselves in there own language ( and of course the WoW writers made it so that they would have a reason to justify the copyright), 

 

I don't see how that's any different from "Drukhari" being the in-setting Eldar-language word for Dark Eldar. It has similarities to "Druchii", which was the Elven-language name for the Dark Elves in Warhammer Fantasy, and that dates back far beyond the Chapterhouse thing. See also the High Elves ("Asur") and the Craftworld Eldar ("Asuryani")

 

Astra militarum and Imperial Guard a both technically the same in-universe language, so it's just a change for copyright reasons. GW's mistake was that they didn't try to give a reason in-universe for changing it.

 

But it hasn't changed; they still go by the name "Imperial Guard", even in today's lore. It's just that the formal name for the organisation in High Gothic has subsequently been decided to be "Astra Militarum". It's absolutely no different from the fact that most people use the term Space Marines, despite Adeptus Astartes being their formal designation. 

 

The lore is littered with these examples (Adeptus Minstorum aka The Ecclesiarchy, Adepta Sororitas aka Sisters of Battle, Ordo Malleus aka Witchhunters and so on)

 

GW hasn't presented a reason for changing the name to Astra Militarum because as far as they are concerned, in universe, it hasn't changed. This is just a new detail that's been revealed to us over time and is in line with 40k naming conventions that go back decades. 

Edited May 23, 2019 by Halandaar

[Marshal Rohr]

In the specific case of Astra Militarum, it’s that astra militarum was the weakest option they could’ve gone with. Militarum Imperialis, Cohors Militarum, Adeptus Militarum. The Departmento Munitorum is already over the Imperial Guard, so it did have a high gothic name. It’s like the argument over names like Intercessors and Inceptors. Those exist to protect GW IP, no one in universe would call them that unless the writer is brain dead. It would be Squad X or 1st Squad. In formal documentation it would be weapons squads, rifle squads, reconnaissance teams. Edited May 23, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Panzer]

In the specific case of Astra Militarum, it’s that astra militarum was the weakest option they could’ve gone with. Militarum Imperialis, Cohors Militarum, Adeptus Militarum. The Departmento Munitorum is already over the Imperial Guard, so it did have a high gothic name.

 

So your problem is not the fact that they gave it a fancy name, but rather what exactly the fancy name is. Well that's a completely different complain and reeks of shifting goalposts.

[Marshal Rohr]

Ok well how’s this, I think after chapterhouse the way they’ve tried to brand Xenos armies is bad and reeks of corporate IP protection. Separately as an entirely different issue, I’m also not happy with the specific choice of name they picked for the High Gothic formulation of Imperial Guard. This way you can choose to respond to the fact I don’t like astra Militarum OR you can choose to respond to the fact I feel like corporatization of alien names is a result of chapterhouse. Just so everyone is on the same page here. Pick your poison.

 

 

How’s that?

Edited May 23, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Halandaar]

In the specific case of Astra Militarum, it’s that astra militarum was the weakest option they could’ve gone with. Militarum Imperialis, Cohors Militarum, Adeptus Militarum. The Departmento Munitorum is already over the Imperial Guard, so it did have a high gothic name. It’s like the argument over names like Intercessors and Inceptors. Those exist to protect GW IP, no one in universe would call them that unless the writer is brain dead. It would be Squad X or 1st Squad. In formal documentation it would be weapons squads, rifle squads, reconnaissance teams.

 

To clarify, I'm not disputing that some of these new "in-universe" faction names or unit designations have arisen for IP reasons, I totally agree that this is the case.

 

My point is more specifically directed at Biscuittzz; that the "new" names themselves are a logical extension of what already existed in the background of both 40k and Fantasy, and don't require an in-universe justification for change, because the in-universe situation is that they've always been called that.

[Marshal Rohr]

 

 

In the specific case of Astra Militarum, it’s that astra militarum was the weakest option they could’ve gone with. Militarum Imperialis, Cohors Militarum, Adeptus Militarum. The Departmento Munitorum is already over the Imperial Guard, so it did have a high gothic name. It’s like the argument over names like Intercessors and Inceptors. Those exist to protect GW IP, no one in universe would call them that unless the writer is brain dead. It would be Squad X or 1st Squad. In formal documentation it would be weapons squads, rifle squads, reconnaissance teams.

To clarify, I'm not disputing that some of these new "in-universe" faction names or unit designations have arisen for IP reasons, I totally agree that this is the case.

 

My point is more specifically directed at Biscuittzz; that the "new" names themselves are a logical extension of what already existed in the background of both 40k and Fantasy, and don't require an in-universe justification for change, because the in-universe situation is that they've always been called that.

Gotcha, that’s fair and I agree.

[Panzer]

Not liking the name Astra Militarum is perfectly fine.

Whether the additional names are for IP protection or not and whether it is directly connected with chapterhouse is to be debated though. I for one haven't heard of a single case GW used those names for IP protection and there are still plenty 3rd party products out there clearly designed for 40k which use slightly different names without any problems. I'd rather say the fancy names serve to give 40k factions a better identity instead of just "future humans", "space elves", "space dark elves" and such. So basically marketing reasons.

[Halandaar]

So basically marketing reasons.

 

Also this. I think the designation of units as "Hellblasters" or Inceptors" is as much to do with easy identification of product as anything else.

 

"Primaris Space Marines in Tacticus Armour with Plasma Incinerators" and "Primaris Space Marines in Gravis Armour with Jump Packs and Assault Bolters" don't quite have the same snappy ring to them!

[Marshal Rohr]

The most blatant examples come from Age of Sigmar, which is why I’ve avoided adding them here, lest they get the melta. 40k hasn’t had a Xenos army revamped yet. Only Death Guard, Primaris, and Chaos have seen major model releases, and all three are on the soft end of the corporatese spectrum. I do find it telling that Ork Trukks and Trakks went away to be replaced with their new versions. Edited May 23, 2019 by Marshal Rohr

[Halandaar]

The most blatant examples come from Age of Sigmar, which is why I’ve avoided adding them here, lest they get the melta. 40k hasn’t had a Xenos army revamped yet. Only Death Guard, Primaris, and Chaos have seen major model releases, and all three are on the soft end of the corporatese spectrum. I do find it telling that Ork Trukks and Trakks went away to be replaced with their new versions.

 

There's a lack of a pattern really, which makes it hard to predict what might happen or not. Orks is an interesting example in that they are one of the most recent Codexes, and while the more generic sounding Trukks and Trakks did give way to Wazboom Dakkablaster or whatever, GW didn't take the opportunity to give them a new "IP proof" faction name like they did with the Orruks (eww) in AoS. 

 

On the one hand, that makes me think that it's not an IP thing, because if it was, surely they'd want to take that step in both systems. On the other, if there wasn't a corporate reasoning to change Orcs to something else, then why would you feel the need to change it to something obviously worse?

[Marshal Rohr]

I think Orks with a K was copyrightable, since Tolkien And DnD creatures are largely orcs, right?

[Brother Casman]

Ork Trukks are still available - the old buggies were the models that got replaced and expanded on.

[Marshal Rohr]

Is the trukk the generic transport?

[Brother Casman]

Yep, as seen here.

[Panzer]

I think Orks with a K was copyrightable, since Tolkien And DnD creatures are largely orcs, right?

 

Doubt it. Any kind of orks have always been written with a K in german and I don't think writing something in a different language is enough to copyright it.

Edited May 23, 2019 by sfPanzer

[PeteySödes]

 

I think Orks with a K was copyrightable, since Tolkien And DnD creatures are largely orcs, right?

 

Doubt it. Any kind of orks have always been written with a K in german and I don't think writing something in a different language is enough to copyright it.

 

 

They swapped it for AoS (Orruks/Ironjaws) and im kinda surprised they didn't at least test the waters in the new dex. I sort of think that would be a real tough pill to swallow for 40k players.

[Ishagu]

lol imagine Orks are changed to "Astra Orkorum"

 

I think I could get over it?

 

 

 

I like the new names, generally. Astra Militarum is better than the Imperial Guard imo

Of all the almost-trolling you do around here, this has to be a ban worthy offence.

Lol

Edited May 23, 2019 by Ishagu

[Robbienw]

Call them Krork like the Necrons do!

[Bryan Blaire]

I think the fact that “copyright” keeps getting tossed around for the names instead of “trademark” is quite telling of the difficulties companies and organizations have when dealing with IP law, especially in multiple country jurisdictions. Copyright is (as I understand it) recognized only in limited media forms in most Western law and the WTO also provides for some international IP case issues and settlements, and it is my understanding that copyright is defined similarly by the court/venue that oversees IP claims for the WTO.

 

As I said here: http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/297250-kromlech-hive-fountain-shame-cages-and-ap-hatch/?p=5300964

Copyright also only applies to specific forms of media - print or visual depiction, music, sculpture, etc. Other forms of IP protections are necessary to lock things down across multiple media types, and the interactions amongst types of media can be complex and need lawyers and specific jurisdictional law to work out (yay patent defense legal briefings) - so a print copyright might protect against a movie depiction because the screenplay and print novel are considered similar media types and therefore one protection can be extended to the other. And there’s a lot of yada yada yada that the attorneys can get into.

 

It’s also incumbent upon the IP owner to mount the legal defense of the IP, it’s not a requirement of a media creator to necessarily ask, and asking (especially in the wrong jurisdiction) can actually be detrimental and subject a media creator to other types of IP coverage that wouldn’t necessarily have been extended in the same way or to the same extent if the asking didn’t happen.

Trademark is different from copyright, in that it is usually extended across all (or virtually all) types of media, but there are very specific requirements that must be met for something to be protected by trademark - such as having a unique name “recognizable as associated with an entity by a reasonable person not specifically affiliated with the material/item/company” or a “symbol recognizable by a reasonable person not specifically affiliated with the material/item/company” or a combination of these - this is how Apple™️ is able to have a common name with a less slightly common symbol as a very defensible IP trademark in most countries, or the specific orientation of three overlapping/interlocked filled black circles can be defensible as a trademark by Disney. Trademarks have to be something recognizable as being associated with a specific company, and that the misuse of such markings could permanently damage the reputation and monetary standing of said company. Companies have actually had the ability to enforce IP/trademark over even company names reduced due to expanded common usage of product names, symbols, etc., without direct activity to curtail such use. Some companies have actually clawed the defensibility back as well (though my understanding is that this is often due to clout from their parent corporations).

 

GW’s issues for the most part weren’t copyright claims (although some that they put forward were), they were GW’s trademark claims on things like “Space Marine”, “Eldar”, “Salamander”, “Black Templar”, etc. My understanding, not having read the actual court docs or being an attorney, was that most of these assertions were deemed untenable and unenforceable by the court (in the jurisdiction the case was brought in, but whose ruling may be recognized as precedent by other courts in other jurisdictions) because they involve common names used outside the medium/industry and many of the symbols used were also deemed too common or are, in fact, historical symbols GW can make no claim over. Other copyright claims they did make, such as over model forms of their drawings/paintings/other art, were shot down by attorneys and the court due to the misapplication of the IP defense they were seeking - models and drawings are different mediums, therefore copyright likely doesn’t apply. They also were told that you can’t trademark common shapes, such as curved surfaces that make up a pauldron - the shape is not unique on its own, but a Space Marine’s appearance overall may be defensible.

 

I’ll stop there, as I said, I’m not an IP attorney and there are too many jurisdictions for anyone to know everything about IP enforcement in 190+ countries. If you really want to delve into it, you’ll have to contact an IP attorney in the jurisdiction you are curious about.

 

Regarding the OP’s questions - I don’t know that anything in the Chapterhouse case had much to do with the shift to social media, nor do I think it had anything to do with the setting “advancement” (such as it really wasn’t) or the Primaris. Primaris are no more or less IP protectable than classic Space Marines were, and the parts that were explicitly part of the case - pauldrons - are interchangeable between the two types of Marines, meaning the case didn’t change that at all. The names get an additional “fancy sounding version” may have been a result of the Chapterhouse case, but as has been pointed out, a lot of the names do have a root in the history of the game or in the older sister, WHFB, vernacular from analogous fantasy model lines, so no real conclusive evidence there. As far as “conclusively winning so that there was no reason to further worry about the IP” - that can’t ever happen - an IP holder is always encumbered with defending infringement upon its IP, regardless of level of infringement, if it wants to protect that IP - no defense of the IP = no holding of the IP, it can become common use.