GW's IP and buying other peoples work

[Noserenda]

Yeah having used a bunch of Red warden alongside GW and FW ones in squads they typically look better most of the time.

[Marshal Mittens]

My Red Warden stuff is hands down much better than most forgeworld stuff, and on the models, the only ones you can tell are on the crudy shapeways prints. The Resin ones I got from Archies Forge have no 3D print lines once painted, not that I can see anyway. They look amazing and honestly I think they are fantastic sculpts. 

[WARMASTER_]

15 hours ago, sarabando said:

its not theft in any way shape or form. GW doesnt own the shape of a helmet this has been proven in court, its why they have started naming things so ...uniquely. And bashing Redwarden minis as low detail is laughable they are rightly regarded as one of the best quality 3d parts providers in the community. I have several of their pieces and even on my 1st generation printer you would be hard pushed to ID them unless getting very close. 

The thing is though… GW invented it didn’t they, so from GW’s point of view, it is stealing! which was the OP’s question and saying theses aren’t GW knockoff’s legal or not is laughable 

 

If you re read my previous post it wasn’t if you like the style of either helmet better it was on quality of the sculpt and these are obviously lower poly than the than GW helmets so even if GW didn’t think it was theft they'll still rightly believe they’re work was of a better quality [If not better to your personal tastes]

 

Im not getting into the murky waters of morality or legality when it comes to purchasing 3D printed GW copies, you clearly have your own opinions, I was answering the the OP’s question on why wouldn’t GW buy from a seller who’s copying from their IP 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by WARMASTER_
Spelling

[Brother Captain Arkley]

15 hours ago, WARMASTER_ said:

Not only is it because they’d be buying what they rightly see as theft I also honestly just think it’s because these are low poly count copies, and while you might prefer the design they’re nowhere near the quality it terms of detail compared to the GW ones 

 

Thats not a knock on your taste by the way I'm just saying in terms of model quality not looks/style 

 

I will take this quality over FW's hit and miss quality.

[WARMASTER_]

2 hours ago, Brother Captain Arkley said:

 

I will take this quality over FW's hit and miss quality.

Ok?… This has no bearing to what I was answering regarding the question as to why won’t GW buy the rights to a blatant copy of their own design and a lower poly copy of a helmet… Sure this is a “good” quality blatant copy of another GW design, they’re still never going to licence a copy of their own IP, Why would they? 

 

I really have zero stake in this debate beyond the answering of the question the OP asked and if you want to buy 3D printed bits then all power to you it really doesn’t bother me at all GW will thrive and people get the bits they want, but when people try to take the high ground on the debate and say it’s not theft of IP and a knockoff I find it laughable honestly 

Edited October 30, 2022 by WARMASTER_

[Noserenda]

You do seem to be replying an awful lot for someone who isnt bothered or invested :D Thinking of this kind of thing as theft is bloody ridiculous too, especially if you are saying its lower quality, GW only loses here when their own offerings arent as interesting after all. 

[Brother Captain Arkley]

29 minutes ago, WARMASTER_ said:

Ok?… This has no bearing to what I was answering regarding the question as to why won’t GW buy the rights to a blatant copy of their own design and a lower poly copy of a helmet… Sure this is a “good” quality blatant copy of another GW design, they’re still never going to licence a copy of their own IP, Why would they? 

 

I really have zero stake in this debate beyond the answering of the question the OP asked and if you want to buy 3D printed bits then all power to you it really doesn’t bother me at all GW will thrive and people get the bits they want, but when people try to take the high ground on the debate and say it’s not theft of IP and a knockoff I find it laughable honestly 

You said about Quality... And my point was the quality is not as bad as you say.

[Bryan Blaire]

Unless you have some insider knowledge you want to fess up to, you’ve got no way to support your “lower poly count” point about the helmets - the rendered sculpts don’t appear to be any lower poly count than the renders we were shown of things like the Sisters of Battle -curves are smooth, just like on all GW’s sculpts, and the detailing on the small skulls is finely delineated like GW’s sculpts are.

 

Are they derivative of GW’s material - sure.  But they are not copies of GW designs - GW doesn’t produce things that look like this specifically.

 

That said, I never see GW licensing derivative material from others to produce themselves in-house.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[WARMASTER_]

23 minutes ago, Brother Captain Arkley said:

You said about Quality... And my point was the quality is not as bad as you say.

My point wasn't that the quality is inherently bad it’s just these in no way rival or surpass GW’s sculpting team so why in the world would they buy the rights to something they themselves could create and will also see as blatant copies of their own IP

[Brother Captain Arkley]

2 minutes ago, WARMASTER_ said:

My point wasn't that the quality is inherently bad it’s just these in no way rival or surpass GW’s sculpting team so why in the world would they buy the rights to something they themselves could create and will also see as blatant copies of their own IP

You make it sound like GW's sculpting team are some paragons.

 

 

[WARMASTER_]

15 minutes ago, Brother Captain Arkley said:

You make it sound like GW's sculpting team are some paragons.

 

 

lol… at what point 

[Brother Captain Arkley]

Just now, WARMASTER_ said:

lol… at what point 

Quote

No way rival or surpass GW’s sculpting team

 

As above...

[WARMASTER_]

@Brother Captain Arkley How are you surprised that GW are putting out better miniatures then what’s looks to be a solo 3D print sculptor? Yes they’re better then Red Warden Miniatures! That should be Painfully obvious… They not only have a vast wealth of resources [Money, Experience, Talent, Man Power and Technology] they’re also creating something unique where as Red Warden is making Copies [Slight Variations] of someone’s work and selling them for profit 

 

Now can Red Warden make things more aligned to your taste but of less quality? Of course they can of fact I’m sure they do which is why you’re debating the point 

[Bryan Blaire]

GW’s stuff is not so much unique in that it’s the only thing ever like it - there have been plenty of other examples of sculptors making similar things that fall into the same realm as GW’s work (after all, if they weren’t, GW wouldn’t have had to go to court over it and learn the limits of IP claim-ability) - GW’s stuff is the only official material for Warhammer 40K (it’s not even always the original stuff for it, others have beaten GW to the punch before - there are folks already putting out Dark Mech models that GW hasn’t even officially created faction rules for, but exist within the setting).  This doesn’t inherently make it better (which is a matter of taste as well as capabilities) - if GW simply stopped supporting any models for 40K tomorrow and just made rules and setting material, you would see many sculptors rush in to take up the model slack.  It’s 100% taste for official material that you are arguing, Warmaster, as there are plenty of sculptors out there making things that others find better than GW’s.  Yes, of course it’s the official original stuff - it’s hard for anyone else to make something they don’t have the concept for - which only GW can put officially into the game, however, if all you had was the concept of “Ork master warlord with multiple shootas and heavy exo-armor” then you could farm that for thousands of designs from different creative minds, but which one was “better” would be a matter of taste at that point.

 

The 40K setting itself isn’t inherently unique beyond their blending work - they’ve done a great thing blending several different types of mythos together to create it and done hard and heavy work to gel in all the cracks, but many of their setting features are reminiscent/derivative of other original works.

 

Speaking about the specific models referenced in the OP and comparing them to the FW offering for Night Lords helms, I would take the Red Warden sculpts for the concept over GW’s - they stylistically fit in my head better for Mk6 helms in the Night Lords styling, and while I might use one pack of the FW ones sprinkled throughout a 30K Night Lords force, I would definitely use more of the Red Warden ones.  That said - GW isn’t going to license the Red Warden designs (although it would be humorous if they started producing similar ones later on), so it’s good we can still get them if we want them and that GW/FW isn’t the only source in the world for the helms.

 

So no, it isn’t “painfully obvious” that GW’s work is inherently superior to all other sculptors.  It’s painfully obvious that Warmaster_ prefers it, but that’s about all there is that is inherent and obvious here…

Edited October 30, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[WARMASTER_]

48 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

 

So no, it isn’t “painfully obvious” that GW’s work is inherently superior to all other sculptors.  It’s painfully obvious that Warmaster_ prefers it, but that’s about all there is that is inherent and obvious here…

Sure just ignore everything I said about this being about quality of the sculpt and IP protection over the stylistic elements which to everyone are subject and say it must be because I prefer the official ones
 

I also never claimed GW were “Superior to all other sculptors” I said it’s obvious they’re better than this one given all of their advantages which I listed prior, the fact is though is GW do produce the best quality miniatures currently [Might not be to you in terms of your taste but in sheer quality] and I’ll die on that hill 

 

Edit: An example to make my concept of thought easier for you @Bryan Blaire as you keep misunderstanding me and making judgments to my thought process. I massively prefer First Born aesthetics over Primaris and Because if my bias I also prefer the older First Born MKVII sculpts over the new Primaris range! That being said I’d never argue that the First Born sculpts are superior quality, I’d be a fool too! 

Edited October 30, 2022 by WARMASTER_

[Bryan Blaire]

Sure, it is harder to sculpt full, coherent minis - I will agree to that.  But the best quality universally - nah - it really depends on personal taste and what you like in a style, as well as what miniatures you are comparing - for instance, I would say that hands down, right now, Artel W is making better Striking Scorpions and Swooping Hawks (and depending on the new sculpts from GW, will continue to be even after those are released) miniatures on sheer quality - both in terms of sculpts and material they are made out of.

 

And you have yet to objectively prove that somehow GW’s Night Lords helms are inherently better quality of sculpt than the Red Warden ones… just stating repeatedly a company line doesn’t mean that it’s true.  I refuted your claim that the GW helms are more high poly than the Red Warden ones with actual observations of the renders compared to the renders we have been shown by GW, such as the Sisters of Battle - both show smooth rendered curves and helms that are finely detailed to an observable equivalent level - there aren’t low poly, hard edged cylinder/curved surfaces on display in either.

 

I challenge you prove objectively with poly counts that they are.  Show us your facts here - or stop making the claim because you can’t prove it, so you are just repeating yourself with no support.

 

So yes, it must be that you personally prefer the official ones, or you have some other axe to grind here - might be on the IP protection stuff.  I would also posit that you likely don’t know as much about IP law as you think you - however, I’m not a lawyer (you might be, in which case what college did you earn your J.P. or international equivalent from?), my only association with IP law is a friend who’s an attorney who likes to discuss things he doesn’t directly practice (because he’s legally not allowed to discuss the things he does practice), as well as courses I’ve been required to take from work about who owns what IP stuff in scientific research doing things on the clock vs. off the clock and between using official equipment vs. personal equipment.  I do know the difference between copying/plagiarism vs derivative works, and have read and evaluated what I could get my hands on from the GW vs. Chapterhouse lawsuit out of interest, as well as where the lines are typically drawn on IP infringement vs. aftermarket legally authorized part manufacture (and in the car world, aftermarket parts are knowingly acknowledged as being superior in some customization instances over OEM - so there’s nothing that says that can’t be the case in the aftermarket miniature parts world as well).

 

So yes, Warmaster_, put up your data or understand that you have your opinion, but like most, you don’t have objective facts to back up your claims about why.  We can both continue to agree on the fact that GW won’t be purchasing the rights to these or other 3rd party sculpts, we just won’t agree on things surrounding this fact.

 

(And yes, I can and will do this all day with you if you don’t provide some actual object facts/stats/counts for your claims rather than just accepting that you have an opinion… you aren’t willing to provide backing, but want to just keep circularly claiming that your train of thought is so complex and your company line is right, which will get the thread shut down - get over it - you don’t have a provable fact to point to here, you have personal preference and a general acknowledgment that GW won’t buy 3rd party work - after all, they have gotten some 3rd party sculptors works straight up removed due to similarities too close to their own…)

Edited October 31, 2022 by Bryan Blaire

[Stitch5000]

"Better" is highly subjective, and 3rd Party sculptors have plenty of opportunity to sell their services to GW. Jobs are frequently advertised here: https://jobs.games-workshop.com/

[MegaVolt87]

I think GW would be up to licence just about anything these days except for anything with the actual table top miniatures themselves.

[NovemberIX]

Separate from any aesthetic opinions on 3rd party designs, I feel that a strong aftermarket is the mark of a healthy primary market, and is generally a beneficial in deepening the relationship to the product via personalization.

[appiah4]

Because they don't need to.

 

On the other hand, the blade cuts both ways.  That means, neither do we need to buy their models, or rules. 

 

*shrug*

 

I haven't been buying GW books, and for the most part models, for a long time now.  A printer, some Patreon subscriptions and within months I have 10 times the models in my service than what I would have bought from GW at the same cost.  I have an entire Chaos Space Marines "Kill Team" ready to be printed using exclusively derivative 3rd party models that are way better yet way cheaper than their GW counterparts, and the One Page Rules: Firefight is a way better game than Kill Team.  GW is a dinosaur trying to adapt to a post-apocalyptic world at this point.

 

 

The pandemic has changed pretty much everything about gaming.  D&D has migrated to become an online virtualtabletop gaming thing within the span of a few years - 70% or thereabouts of D&D campaigns moved to digital and Wizards were quick enough to realize and capitalize on it.  GW on the other hand still think they are a models company.. yet all the while models as we know them are going extinct.  3D printing in terms of quality, price and difficulty is reaching a point where it will be less of a barrier to entry than the next overpriced GW starter box.  Just a brief trip through MMF should be compelling enough to most that GW is doomed.

 

They will probably try to branch out to as many media as they can and license out as much IP as possible in order to maximize value before selling the company to Hasbro, Disney or something. In my mind, this outcome is inevitable.

Edited November 1, 2022 by appiah4

[Scribe]

1 hour ago, appiah4 said:

They will probably try to branch out to as many media as they can and license out as much IP as possible in order to maximize value before selling the company to Hasbro, Disney or something. In my mind, this outcome is inevitable.

 

That would be the end of the IP.

 

I'm not convinced 3rd party is there yet, and I'm certainly not convinced it can match Jes' grasp of the design language for the IP, but as long as it remains true to itself, I'll still be invested to some degree with the setting.

[tychobi]

57 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

That would be the end of the IP.

 

I'm not convinced 3rd party is there yet, and I'm certainly not convinced it can match Jes' grasp of the design language for the IP, but as long as it remains true to itself, I'll still be invested to some degree with the setting.

How would it "end" the IP? They farm out the IP everywhere else to varied success.  GW is a business first and foremost and exit strategy is important to long term business success.   

 

I think they missed the boat in making a video game that mirrors the actual rules and selling digital models.  Get the digital for free if you buy the plastic sort of thing. 

[Scribe]

8 minutes ago, tychobi said:

GW is a business first and foremost and exit strategy is important to long term business success.

 

Thats such a non-starter for me. I couldnt care less about the 'well its a corporation it must make money, all hail capitalism.' argument, but yes selling to some other mega corp would certainly put the IP at risk in my eyes.

[Slave to Darkness]

11 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Thats such a non-starter for me. I couldnt care less about the 'well its a corporation it must make money, all hail capitalism.' argument, but yes selling to some other mega corp would certainly put the IP at risk in my eyes.

Blackrock is one of the largest shareholders of GW (5th I think), they dont exactly have a good reputation for a fair few reasons that are not exactly board friendly, so all Im saying is its already started, just a matter of time. 

[Scribe]

9 minutes ago, Slave to Darkness said:

Blackrock is one of the largest shareholders of GW (5th I think), they dont exactly have a good reputation for a fair few reasons that are not exactly board friendly, so all Im saying is its already started, just a matter of time. 

 

They own everything, I highly doubt they care about...well anything, in the same way Disney/Hasbro do.