Ghamak raising a GoFundMe for legal defence against GW lawsuit

[Evil Eye]

Just now, Mogger351 said:

Thank you for your opinions, it'll be the opinions of the legal teams and Italian judge that matter however.

Appeal to authority aside- I'll be very interested to see if you'll be as smug if the judge rules in favour of Ghamak.

 

(And before you ask, if they rule in favour of GW, my response will be "the law has failed to uphold common sense, and therefore it is a moral obligation to ignore and undermine this ruling to the best of your ability, as a law that is working against moral good has no business being enforced".)

[AvePicante]

In the US at least, there is a legal definition of Unfair Competition; it's based around causing economic damage to an IP by misleading or confusing consumers (unfair competition | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute). So, if GW loses sales because people purchase alternative models for use in 40k, then yes, that is unfair competition. Hell, I used a Ghamak knight as a proxy when I first started getting into IK. Regardless of what Ghamak has stated, "*wink wink nudge nudge* this isn't really for 40k" as a defense when they're clearly alternatives to GW kits isn't going to stand.

And, yes I think proxies should be allowed. Yes, I think proxies should be printable or buildable. Yes, I think they should be made, distributed, and used however anyone wants. We should have an alternative to GW's pricing.

 

Also, lots of comments about GW saying it's not copyright/trademark infringement; it's important to realize they're pursuing a broader suit. While a tort based on infringement might have higher consequences, calling it infringement would be a more difficult legal battle versus just calling it unfair competition. Infringement is more towards taking a one-to-one print of a GW Space Marine and selling it.

[Mogger351]

2 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Appeal to authority aside- I'll be very interested to see if you'll be as smug if the judge rules in favour of Ghamak.

 

(And before you ask, if they rule in favour of GW, my response will be "the law has failed to uphold common sense, and therefore it is a moral obligation to ignore and undermine this ruling to the best of your ability, as a law that is working against moral good has no business being enforced".)

I aren't smug now, I largely won't care if they do. Nice to know you'll happily encourage piracy and hand wave law if it doesn't suit your world view though, real top class human.

[Evil Eye]

1 minute ago, AvePicante said:

In the US at least, there is a legal definition of Unfair Competition; it's based around causing economic damage to an IP by misleading or confusing consumers (unfair competition | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute). So, if GW loses sales because people purchase alternative models for use in 40k, then yes, that is unfair competition. Hell, I used a Ghamak knight as a proxy when I first started getting into IK. Regardless of what Ghamak has stated, "*wink wink nudge nudge* this isn't really for 40k" as a defense when they're clearly alternatives to GW kits isn't going to stand.

The issue here is that nobody is being misled or confused that these aren't actually made by Games Workshop. Anyone seeking out 3D printable models for 40K is all too aware these are not official- not the same as unintentionally buying a bootleg that was sold in a shop marketed as "War Hammer" thinking it was the Real McCoy.

[Evil Eye]

5 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

I aren't smug now, I largely won't care if they do. Nice to know you'll happily encourage piracy and hand wave law if it doesn't suit your world view though, real top class human.

So now we're just insulting people's moral character over- ironically enough- placing moral fibre over written word. I believe there's a word to describe this sort of behaviour, and it rhymes with "bootlick".

[Joe]

@Evil Eye @Mogger351 Might be best to take a step back for a bit? 

 

I'm not going to lie, I love you all dearly; you're fantastic people and you bring a wealth of knowledge and personality to the forums that we'd suffer without - but these threads regularly devolve into personal attacks and digs, and that's not really on. The moderators may be content to sit back and allow this to happen time and time again, but it has to be said that we're letting this get the better of us.

 

I still don't really trust what Ghamak's presenting, but without further insight it's impossible to say if he's being entirely truthful. On the vice versa, the same goes for Games Workshop.

[TheVoidDragon]

36 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

If what Ghamak is saying is true (and I suspect it is; it would absolutely track given GW's past record, and the legal consequences of lying about something like that) then yes, they are bad. Trying to strangle small miniature producers (who, at the end of the day, pose precisely ZERO threat to GW's continued existence or success) for the "crime" of producing models that are compatible with their wargame is definitely a bad thing.

If you want people to stop calling GW bad, then wait for GW to stop being bad.

 

 

Except you aren't waiting to find out if they actually are or aren't "being bad", you've just immediately jumped onto that being the case based on half a story completely without any evidence of what's claimed, or even what exactly is going on . That's the point, being so eager to claim they're bad that no matter that you'll go straight for that before even knowing if it's actually whats going on, and anyone saying otherwise gets derided. 

 

 

Edited 19 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Evil Eye]

Just now, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Except you aren't waiting to find out if they actually are or aren't "being bad", you've just immediately jumped onto that being the case based on half a story completely without any evidence of what's claimed, or even what exactly is going no. That's the point. 

 

 

This is Games Workshop we're talking about. They have, to put it lightly, a less than positive track record with this sort of thing. We don't know but we can make an educated guess, and all signs are pointing towards "GW are being stupid and malicious. Again."

[Subtleknife]

28 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Which, ironically, is exactly what your original post did. No attempt to actually argue a point, just ad hominem in defence of a company trying to strangle any form of even perceived competition.

IP hasn't been infringed and neither has anything been falsely advertised. Ghamak's sculpts are not 1:1 copies/clones of existing GW products, and nor are they advertised as anything they're not.

Except my post didn’t, and now you’re making assertions on matters a court has yet to rule on.

 

Calling someone a grifter isn’t ad hominem when it’s based on observable behaviour, like producing models that closely mimic GW’s for profit. That’s a critique of conduct, not name-calling.

 

My position was clear, the case will be settled in court. Based on what’s publicly visible, Ghamak’s models very clearly resemble GW’s, in my opinion, enough that GW sees grounds for legal action.

 

As for the “Leave the billion-dollar company alone!” remark, that was a blatant appeal to emotion and a bad faith misrepresentation of what I said. My original comment was a statement of how I see the situation. You’re trying to conflate the two to muddy the waters, but they aren’t comparable, I can only assume this is done through ignorance or a further bad faith reply.

 

Anyways, as fun as this is, I think it has reached an end, I won't be replying further to you.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Subtleknife

[DemonGSides]

5 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Except you aren't waiting to find out if they actually are or aren't "being bad", you've just immediately jumped onto that being the case based on half a story completely without any evidence of what's claimed, or even what exactly is going on . That's the point, being so eager to claim they're bad that no matter that you'll go straight for that before even knowing if it's actually whats going on, and anyone saying otherwise gets derided. 

 

Does it surprise you? 

[Mogger351]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

@Evil Eye @Mogger351 Might be best to take a step back for a bit? 

 

I'm not going to lie, I love you all dearly; you're fantastic people and you bring a wealth of knowledge and personality to the forums that we'd suffer without - but these threads regularly devolve into personal attacks and digs, and that's not really on. The moderators may be content to sit back and allow this to happen time and time again, but it has to be said that we're letting this get the better of us.

 

I still don't really trust what Ghamak's presenting, but without further insight it's impossible to say if he's being entirely truthful. On the vice versa, the same goes for Games Workshop.

I'm opting not to reply to them further, but I don't think promoting either piracy, nor promoting ignoring judicial decisions/legal requirements should really be tolerated.

 

The topic is an interesting one to see play out.

[TheVoidDragon]

3 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

This is Games Workshop we're talking about. They have, to put it lightly, a less than positive track record with this sort of thing. We don't know but we can make an educated guess, and all signs are pointing towards "GW are being stupid and malicious. Again."

 

Except you've literally just posted that even if GW were ruled to be right here and won, you'll still make out they're wrong and the bad guys.  So it doesn't matter what they do, as it seems you just want to find any excuse to say that.

 

As someone just posted in the last page, it seems in Italy "unfair competition" actually does cover things like infringing designs. So there's seemingly more to this than initially claimed. 

 

[Mechanicus Tech-Support]

Funnily that definition for "unfair competition" in Italy seems to have been largely ignored 

[Evil Eye]

Just now, TheVoidDragon said:

Except you've literally just posted that even if GW were ruled to be right here and won, you'll still make out they're wrong and the bad guys.  So it doesn't matter what they do, as it seems you just want to find any excuse to say that.

 

Yes- because GW is objectively, morally in the wrong here. Laws are there to enforce moral order. If laws fail to do so they have failed as laws. Enforcing or obeying the law solely because it is the law and not because it is right is not righteousness, it is cowardice.

2 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

As someone just posted in the last page, it seems in Italy "unfair competition" actually does cover things like infringing designs. So there's seemingly more to this than initially claimed. 

 

And as I noted, no infringement took place as no design has been directly, 1:1 reproduced.

[AvePicante]

12 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

The issue here is that nobody is being misled or confused that these aren't actually made by Games Workshop. Anyone seeking out 3D printable models for 40K is all too aware these are not official- not the same as unintentionally buying a bootleg that was sold in a shop marketed as "War Hammer" thinking it was the Real McCoy.

So would you agree that people are purchasing the Ghamak product in lieu of the GW product for use in 40k, causing economic damage? That's  the highlight. It's not limited to misleading or confusing practices, that's just a large facet of the definition.

I can also put my Ghamak knight next to my GW knight and let my wife decide which is the real GW item, we'll see if she's deceived lol

[Evil Eye]

Just now, AvePicante said:

So would you agree that people are purchasing the Ghamak product in lieu of the GW product for use in 40k, causing economic damage?

"Economic damage" is such an incredibly vague and loose term that it holds zero weight. GW cause economic damage to themselves by making poor decisions that drive away customers- are you suggesting GW should file lawsuits against individuals within their company responsible for poor decisions that contribute to this?

"Not buying your products" cannot under any circumstances be considered a crime. Otherwise eBay is responsible for "economic damage" when I buy a metal Dreadnought from a seller second-hand rather than giving GW money for a Redemptor.

[phandaal]

9 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Except you've literally just posted that even if GW were ruled to be right here and won, you'll still make out they're wrong and the bad guys.  So it doesn't matter what they do, as it seems you just want to find any excuse to say that.

 

As someone just posted in the last page, it seems in Italy "unfair competition" actually does cover things like infringing designs. So there's seemingly more to this than initially claimed. 

 

 

Not sure where that definition on the last page came from, but what is written there does not say that the law covers infringing designs.

 

It says that the law for unfair competition operates alongside and distinct from laws covering IP infringement, and that it can be used to cover things like trademark and patent.

 

Trademark would be something like GW's logos, which do not seem to be at issue here, and patents would be for something like unique game mechanics. Also does not seem to be at issue here.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by phandaal
accidentally a word

[Inquisitor lorr]

9 minutes ago, Mechanicus Tech-Support said:

Funnily that definition for "unfair competition" in Italy seems to have been largely ignored 

Why should they let a little thing like the law, facts, common sense, listening, or basic comprehension get in the way of a good opportunity to grandstand about the wicked GW and its army of “bootlickers”… 

[TheVoidDragon]

8 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Yes- because GW is objectively, morally in the wrong here. Laws are there to enforce moral order. If laws fail to do so they have failed as laws. Enforcing or obeying the law solely because it is the law and not because it is right is not righteousness, it is cowardice.

 

So as I've said several times now, you're just looking for any excuse at all to make out that GW are the bad guys, no matter what. Doesn't matter what the facts are and whether GW are actually right or wrong here, you've already made up your mind that it's not them.

 

8 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

And as I noted, no infringement took place as no design has been directly, 1:1 reproduced.

 

Are you aware that infringement doesn't have to involve a 1:1 exact reproduction? Seemingly not. 

Edited 19 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Mogger351]

3 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

Not sure where that definition on the last page came from, but what is written there does not say that the law covers infringing designs.

 

It says that the law for unfair competition operates alongside and distinct from laws covering IP infringement, and that it can be used to cover things like trademark and patent.

 

Trademark would be something like GW's logos, which do not seem to be at issue here, and patents would be for something like unique game mechanics. Also does not seem to be at issue here.

 

https://registrare-marchio.com/en/three-types-of-unfair-competition/

 

I'm not awake enough to work out what slavishly imitating means.

[Evil Eye]

Just now, TheVoidDragon said:

So as I've said several times now, you're just looking for any excuse at all to make out that GW are the bad guys, no matter what.

Because in this case they absolutely are. And if you're defending them? So are you.

1 minute ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Doesn't matter what the facts are and whether GW are actually right or wrong here, you've already made up your mind that it's not them.

If Ghamak has lied about the lawsuit (which again, I HIGHLY doubt) GW might be in the right. As is this is textbook legal bullying.

2 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Are you aware that infringement doesn't have to involve a 1:1 exact reproduction? Seemingly not. 

It has to involve a closer degree of likeness than what Ghamak is producing.

[Northern Walker]

I agree that the chap seems a bit sus in his representstion, but at the same time I'm not happy if GW are going to start chasing 3rd party parts/models people without ironclad cases.

 

Also, this thread is, to borrow an affectation from our colonial descendants, a dumpster (bin/skip) fire.

[Bryan Blaire]

11 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

https://registrare-marchio.com/en/three-types-of-unfair-competition/

 

I'm not awake enough to work out what slavishly imitating means.

One thing that is interesting in the Italian law there:

”It is important to note that the law punishes acts of unfair competition irrespective of the fact that a breach has actually occurred. It punishes the mere possibility that an injury will occur.”

 

So GW likely doesn’t have to prove that actual damage was done in this instance, only that it could.

 

Depending on the legal text filed, GW may be specifically using this section of Italian law:

”The breach of the principles of professional integrity does not necessarily require the violation of rules of law, but it can be simply a breach of ethical standards, generally accepted in the field of reference.”

 

They would have to provide their evidence in court to show that this violation of the law occurred.

Edited 18 hours ago by Bryan Blaire

[Moonstalker]

In before the lock, I guess.

[phandaal]

4 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

https://registrare-marchio.com/en/three-types-of-unfair-competition/

 

I'm not awake enough to work out what slavishly imitating means.

 

I had to get an Abominable Intelligence to help on that one. Apparently it covers things like packaging and design when Intellectual Property rights do not cover the supposedly illegal thing, and is intended to prevent brand confusion.

 

Wonder if GW is going to use this as a test case for getting around their Chapterhouse losses, and that is why they picked Ghamak for their target. "Sure, we cannot claim Space Marines as our intellectual property, but come on! Everyone thinks of 40k when they see big round pauldrons and power armor!"

 

Now I am even more interested to see Ghamak post the details like he claims he will.