Ghamak raising a GoFundMe for legal defence against GW lawsuit

[Matcap86]

30 minutes ago, caladancid said:

 

Profiting off the ‘reputation’ of a game is rather vague. Once one video game company makes a top down dungeon crawler with fantasy warriors, are all others prohibited from doing that? Of course not- only if it constitutes IP theft or copyright infringement. 

 

That's also not what's happening here? He doesn't have a competing wargame that uses models that are comparable to GW models. He makes VERY similar models, that have as a main use case: to be used for GW games.

 

If he'd invested, like a ton of other companies do, in making his own setting plus accompanying wargame, there'd be much less of an issue. 

 

I also can't make shirts copying Diablo 4 art, try to sell them, market them to Blizzards customers and when they ask me to stop then go: "no no don't you see? The diablo in this picture has slightly smaller horns and green eyes instead of orange ones, totally different".

[Marshal Reinhard]

1 hour ago, caladancid said:

I understand your opinions on his IP use, and everything he is doing with his business. 
 

Do you think that a third party should be allowed to make models than can be used to play a game of Warhammer? 

As someone who's not stuck his chin out here yet:

 

Yes? Do I think those designs can be allowed to be blatant rip offs too? Yes. Can those blatant ripoffs even be shared? Most probably 'Yes' again.

 

Should they be allowed to be sold, while being all the above? Probably where I draw my line. 

 

But I haven't put my opinion out here in this topic properly before now. Just think the above considerations considerably alter your question.

Edited 9 hours ago by Marshal Reinhard
clarification of a needlessly truncated sentence

[Mogger351]

10 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

You are missing the point- arguing that someone should not make a product that can be used for Warhammer is absurd, and setting a dangerous precedent for GW to strongarm their already oppressive near-monopoly over the miniature games market even further. Because if they think they can get away with pushing it further, they will; before long they'll claim completely unrelated miniatures that also have guns and wear armour, but otherwise have no reminiscence to Astartes, are "unfair competition" because they could be used to play Warhammer. Cut-out tokens drawn on cardboard can be used to play Warhammer, does this mean GW should be allowed to sue producers of cardboard, scissors and pencils?

 

That's the issue; citing "unfair competition" and trying to choke out anyone making "compatible" models, not because they're direct clones or inspired by existing models, but because they could be used to play Warhammer with. It even extends beyond the 3P/works-with-leading-brand aftermarket; it will create a chilling effect where other manufacturers or games companies are afraid to release their own models for fear they might fall afoul of a lawsuit over "unfair competition". GW makes a fairly generic dragon model for Age of Sigmar, for instance; if a company releases their own dragon with no intention of stepping on GW's toes whatsoever, they would risk GW suing them over it because it could be perceived as being used for Warhammer instead of GW's own offerings. Or heck, imagine if they take things a step further and try and sue paint manufacturers for selling paints that could be used on GW models instead of Citadel! It sounds ridiculous, but this is Games Workshop we're talking about; they're absurdly litigious and overprotective of their IP.

 

Also bear in mind that the product these models are aftermarket parts for is not a specific model- it's the game itself. A complete model being sold for use in the 40K game would firmly fall under the category of aftermarket products.

 

Finally- I will say even the most "plagiarized" designs Ghamak has put out are still very far from direct copies. It's obvious what they're standing in for, sure, but that is not grounds for a lawsuit.

You're missing my point. When the obvious intent is that something that looks, scaled and is marketed like a 40k unit, it makes it super clear to GW they're a potential target and dilutes any defense they have.

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Mogger351
Duplication

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Matcap86 said:

I also can't make shirts copying Diablo 4 art, try to sell them, market them to Blizzards customers and when they ask me to stop then go: "no no don't you see? The diablo in this picture has slightly smaller horns and green eyes instead of orange ones, totally different".

 

You actually can do that, as long as you change enough of it. If you sell a Diablo shirt where he is just himself but green, probably not. But if you changed enough elements then you would be allowed to sell it, if it was different enough.

 

That is actually not what Ghamak claims is going on here though. According to Ghamak (believe him or not), GW is disputing Ghamak's right to even sell his models for use in GW games. Apparently (again, grain of salt) they did not claim infringement in the suit. They claim Ghamak cannot sell his custom minis to be used in their game.

 

Selling custom parts for games is in fact allowed, as long as those things are not infringing. That is why people are either saying GW has overstepped, or that there has to be more to the story than that.

[Bryan Blaire]

Is there actual legal text on the filing against the GoFundMe creator so we can see what GW’s legal team filed against them, rather than randomly guessing at what is happening and everyone getting huffy about opposing viewpoints?

 

The law is always about the technicalities, and can come down to something as small as the tiny text posted at the bottom of a page making a claim someone else finds as spurious.

 

This august body may be having a row about something that is much more or less clear cut than what people are trying to make the two sides’ points out to be.

 

I personally wouldn’t be able to determine whether I would support defense against the allegations until I actually knew what the legal allegations were.

 

As a potential example, if Ghamak actually stated (especially if there’s a captured screenshot of it from somewhere - even some kind of Discord convo or something) at some point that these were intended to stand in for GW models so you don’t need to buy from them, GW may have a legal “unfair competition” claim under the concept of intentional targeted action against a competitor to disrupt the competitor’s sales, if that kind of claim exists in the jurisdiction this was filed in.

Edited 9 hours ago by Bryan Blaire

[Mogger351]

1 minute ago, Bryan Blaire said:

Is there actual legal text on the filing against the GoFundMe creator so we can see what GW’s legal team filed against them, rather than randomly guessing at what is happening and everyone getting huffy about opposing viewpoints?

 

The law is always about the technicalities, and can come down to something as small as the tiny text posted at the bottom of a page making a claim someone else finds as spurious.

 

This august body may be having a row about something that is much more or less clear cut than what people are trying to make the two sides’ points out to be.

No, their team posted on Reddit somewhere it's in an Italian court and they'll post a video in the future on the details and legalities after they get counsel...

 

But not before asking for people's money.

[Matcap86]

1 minute ago, phandaal said:

 

You actually can do that, as long as you change enough of it. If you sell a Diablo shirt where he is just himself but green, probably not. But if you changed enough elements then you would be allowed to sell it, if it was different enough.

 

That is actually not what Ghamak claims is going on here though. According to Ghamak (believe him or not), GW is disputing Ghamak's right to even sell his models for use in GW games. Apparently (again, grain of salt) they did not claim infringement in the suit. They claim Ghamak cannot sell his custom minis to be used in their game.

 

Selling custom parts for games is in fact allowed, as long as those things are not infringing. That is why people are either saying GW has overstepped, or that there has to be more to the story than that.

 

Sure if you changed it enough so it wasn't clearly recognisable anymore as a copy of the original; but then the majority of the intended market would also no longer be interested in the product. That's the rub: you're allowed to make derivative stuff, i.e you can put a demon on a shirt, but when you're clearly competing in the same market using another company's ideas/designs/IP etc etc it gets a lot more hairy.

 

This feels similar in mechanics to videogame companies taking down certain mods that had IP infringement or unwanted nudity/political issues/etc.

 

It might also show once again GW seeing itself more as a miniature company, that also makes games to use them with, instead of a game company that also makes game components.

 

[Inquisitor lorr]

27 minutes ago, caladancid said:

There is no gotcha. You are trying very hard to not answer a simple question. 

 

I think it’s because you’ve already decided on a position- that GW is correct and Ghamak is wrong, and you are worried that the answer might lead in a different way. It’s fine if you have that position but you (and others) should just acknowledge that, rather than say things like bad faith or ignoring nuance etc etc. I’m simply asking you a foundation question about the very subject of this thread and it’s been like I’m poking at you with a sharp stick. 

I presume I am one of the “(and others)” to whom you refer - I don’t think that’s a fair comment. I explained my position pretty clearly. 
 

Ironically, I think the contrary is more true - those decrying GW seem to be doing so primarily because of a deep set anti-GW/large corporation mindset, regardless of the actual position. 

 

I really struggle to accept that anyone can look at some of the examples that have been shown in this thread and then honestly say they: (1) do not immediately know what GW model it is ripping off; and (2) that the models are not blatant rip offs. Indeed, the very reason they have any commercial success at all is that they are rip-offs - the entire market for them is wholly dependent on GW and its games. 
 

Remove GW from the situation and look at the hypothetical I set about having your own game in this scenario - I doubt anyone who says they would readily accept this kind of behaviour impinging on their game/products. 
 

There’s also an awful lot of weight being put in the one sided summary from Ghamak who very clearly does not understand the legal principles at play, or the causes of action he faces. The amount requested also seems entirely arbitrary - if he’s being sued properly, that won’t come close to dealing with the matter. 

[Wispy]

15 minutes ago, Bryan Blaire said:

Is there actual legal text on the filing against the GoFundMe creator so we can see what GW’s legal team filed against them, rather than randomly guessing at what is happening and everyone getting huffy about opposing viewpoints?

 

The law is always about the technicalities, and can come down to something as small as the tiny text posted at the bottom of a page making a claim someone else finds as spurious.

 

This august body may be having a row about something that is much more or less clear cut than what people are trying to make the two sides’ points out to be.

 

I personally wouldn’t be able to determine whether I would support defense against the allegations until I actually knew what the legal allegations were.

 

As a potential example, if Ghamak actually stated (especially if there’s a captured screenshot of it from somewhere - even some kind of Discord convo or something) at some point that these were intended to stand in for GW models so you don’t need to buy from them, GW may have a legal “unfair competition” claim under the concept of intentional targeted action against a competitor to disrupt the competitor’s sales, if that kind of claim exists in the jurisdiction this was filed in.

Your potential example reminds me of what Coke actually sued Pepsi for wasn't similar products but taste tests in the 1990s lol.

[Subtleknife]

Sounds like a grifter to me who is jumping on the "GW bad" bandwagon. Looking at what he produces I have no sympathy. GW have done the right thing and the veracity of the case will be tried in the courts. 

[Pacific81]

Spin this around to something like the aftermarket for custom parts for cars/bikes.

Would Honda or BMW sue someone like Yoshimura or Akrapovic for making exhaust systems that fit their cars?

Arguably those are competing against the manufacturers own 'standard' products.

 

That this would seem insane to me, leads me to think the same about this lawsuit.

[Mogger351]

9 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

Spin this around to something like the aftermarket for custom parts for cars/bikes.

Would Honda or BMW sue someone like Yoshimura or Akrapovic for making exhaust systems that fit their cars?

Arguably those are competing against the manufacturers own 'standard' products.

 

That this would seem insane to me, leads me to think the same about this lawsuit.

I mean im sure Honda are less bothered once you've already paid them for their car and voided your warranty adding after market components.

 

That's equivalent to buying a pack of heads or arms though, what Ghamak offers is a Hodna or a WBM that happens to fit the exact same silhouette and tech specs but is shipped as a kit car and has an extra panel on the roof or something.

 

Edit: now I think about I'm sure there was a big wave about 10 years ago of knock off range rovers in China, which were made from the components lifted from the factory and sold with a fictional badge

Edited 9 hours ago by Mogger351

[Inquisitor lorr]

16 minutes ago, Pacific81 said:

Spin this around to something like the aftermarket for custom parts for cars/bikes.

Would Honda or BMW sue someone like Yoshimura or Akrapovic for making exhaust systems that fit their cars?

Arguably those are competing against the manufacturers own 'standard' products.

 

That this would seem insane to me, leads me to think the same about this lawsuit.

That is, for several reasons, a false equivalency. 

[Pacific81]

My thinking would be, 40k is the 'main chassis' or engine of the car. GW have already sold you the rulebook(s), main core of your army, probably 95% of the total value spent.

Then you get a miniature or two from a 3rd party webstore, which the equivalent accessory that you are plugging into the core elements.

 

This whole thing smacks of Chapterhouse again. That just cost them a load of money, massive negative PR, I am surprised they did not learn from last time.

[Evil Eye]

35 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

You're missing my point. When the obvious intent is that something that looks, scaled and is marketed like a 40k unit, it makes it super clear to GW they're a potential target and dilutes any defense they have.

 

GW do not have the right to make someone a "target" and nor does anyone need a "defense" for making a model that is compatible with 40K. That is the entire problem here. Because if GW is given the right to sue someone for making or selling something compatible with their product- let alone something as inherently nebulous as a tabletop game- they WILL abuse it, as will ANY company of comparable size with a similar monopoly, offered the chance to strengthen that position.

 

GW has made a game (40K) that is very popular. The miniatures for said game are very expensive, and so some people produce and sell alternative models that are compatible with 40K. Remember, a painted rock could be compatible with 40K- it is a very vague term and absolutely not a good basis for any kind of lawsuit, let alone one on "unfair competition". GW may not like the fact that aftermarkets exist but that, as they say, is not our problem. They don't want people using non-GW products for their game? Sucks to be them. Next time maybe don't drive customers away with poor business practices and ridiculous price hikes.

22 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

Sounds like a grifter to me who is jumping on the "GW bad" bandwagon. Looking at what he produces I have no sympathy. GW have done the right thing and the veracity of the case will be tried in the courts. 

"Leave the billion dollar company alone!"

[Indy Techwisp]

2 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

GW do not have the right to make someone a "target" and nor does anyone need a "defense" for making a model that is compatible with 40K. That is the entire problem here. Because if GW is given the right to sue someone for making or selling something compatible with their product- let alone something as inherently nebulous as a tabletop game- they WILL abuse it, as will ANY company of comparable size with a similar monopoly, offered the chance to strengthen that position.

 

GW has made a game (40K) that is very popular. The miniatures for said game are very expensive, and so some people produce and sell alternative models that are compatible with 40K. Remember, a painted rock could be compatible with 40K- it is a very vague term and absolutely not a good basis for any kind of lawsuit, let alone one on "unfair competition". GW may not like the fact that aftermarkets exist but that, as they say, is not our problem. They don't want people using non-GW products for their game? Sucks to be them. Next time maybe don't drive customers away with poor business practices and ridiculous price hikes.

 

Do we actually know that is what the Lawsuit is about or is that just what Ghamak is saying the suit is about?

[TheVoidDragon]

1 minute ago, Evil Eye said:

"Leave the billion dollar company alone!"

 

Seems a bit strange that your response to someone talking about the "GW BAD!" bandwagon where many seem to try and make out that no matter what they're wrong, is to do exactly that. 

[phandaal]

3 minutes ago, Matcap86 said:

 

It might also show once again GW seeing itself more as a miniature company, that also makes games to use them with, instead of a game company that also makes game components.

 

This could be the reason. Maybe in their minds, anyone selling "minis for Warhammer" is infringing because GW is a miniatures company and Warhammer is just the vehicle for selling minis.

 

Although assuming that is the case, I am not sure that is actually something that a company could claim, even if they do style themselves as a miniatures company first, game company second.

 

The precedent is that people are free to make parts for games as long as they are not infringing on IP or copyright. GW would still have to argue for infringement unless they wanted to establish a new precedent.

[Marshal Reinhard]

3 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Do we actually know that is what the Lawsuit is about or is that just what Ghamak is saying the suit is about?

We do not. A lot of people seem to be prepositioned to assume this is what it is because of their typical stance taking. (And to be fair I'm sure the opposite can be said too)

Edited 9 hours ago by Marshal Reinhard

[Evil Eye]

4 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Seems a bit strange that your response to someone talking about the "GW BAD!" bandwagon where many seem to try and make out that no matter what they're wrong, is to do exactly that. 

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.

 

5 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

Do we actually know that is what the Lawsuit is about or is that just what Ghamak is saying the suit is about?

I don't think Ghamak would risk the legal consequences of being caught lying about that unless it was, indeed, what it was about. Either that or he's made a simple mistake and misinterpreted the lawsuit (which is the only likely case for him being "wrong"; lawyers love to word things in deliberately hard-to-understand ways to trip up or confuse targets of suits).

Edited 9 hours ago by Evil Eye
Appended quote.

[Mogger351]

15 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

GW do not have the right to make someone a "target" and nor does anyone need a "defense" for making a model that is compatible with 40K. That is the entire problem here. Because if GW is given the right to sue someone for making or selling something compatible with their product- let alone something as inherently nebulous as a tabletop game- they WILL abuse it, as will ANY company of comparable size with a similar monopoly, offered the chance to strengthen that position.

 

GW has made a game (40K) that is very popular. The miniatures for said game are very expensive, and so some people produce and sell alternative models that are compatible with 40K. Remember, a painted rock could be compatible with 40K- it is a very vague term and absolutely not a good basis for any kind of lawsuit, let alone one on "unfair competition". GW may not like the fact that aftermarkets exist but that, as they say, is not our problem. They don't want people using non-GW products for their game? Sucks to be them. Next time maybe don't drive customers away with poor business practices and ridiculous price hikes.

"Leave the billion dollar company alone!"

 

I mean a lot of people, me included, do not know legalese. Your post is a fantastic example.

 

The case is in an Italian court. The definition of "unfair competition" in Italy?

 

Quote

In Italy, unfair competition is governed by Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code, which prohibits actions contrary to fair commercial practices, such as product imitation, discrediting competitors, misleading advertising, and confusingly similar signs. This law protects market fairness and can be invoked alongside IP rights, though it is a distinct area of law. It addresses commercial misconduct that undermines a competitor's business, often in ways that aren't direct infringements of registered IP, like patents or trademarks. 

IP infringement and/or false advertising. The same thing they hit the US stores with.

[Subtleknife]

21 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

"Leave the billion dollar company alone!"

 

What a bad faith response. A clear attempt at misrepresenting my position and also appeal to emotion. No attempt to address the argument.

 

Says it all really

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Subtleknife

[Dr. Clock]

Trying to both sides this:

 

For GW: 

 

GW's claim seems to amount mostly to 'the dimensionality and features of these items allow them to be used as a (potentially) cheaper alternative to our models'... And alot of that boils down to base sizes I guess? The problem with their claim is that there is very little they can defend as unique about their bases and overall features of minis as such. While I generally prefer GW offerings to Ghamak's, I know that it's really a matter of taste, and that there are important limits placed on 'what counts' as infringement in a legal sense. Most serious firms avoid making direct references to using their minis in other companies' games any more, and of course it is we the players at home who I'd argue mostly benefit from this omerta because we know that no-one can stop us from using any dang meeple in any game-of-meeples. 

 

For Ghamak: 

 

Sucks to be the subject of a nebulous and possibly frivolous 'fair competition' lawsuit, but it can't be surprising when many of your designs are indeed largely and obviously targeted as 3d print alternatives to other products. I find some of the Ghamak products interesting in providing thematic options or alternatives that GW will never themselves actually provide (like fully just 'Japanese Skaven' or whatever). Some of them seem to be rather mid imitations of GW products, but that's not to say that they are or should be illegal to sell... And indeed there are lots of products very like these across the 3d printing ecosystem that I'm sure we're all familiar with, if not personally interested in ever buying/collecting.

 

However, if you imitate a litigious company's products, you should be charging enough for your work that you can cover the litigation risk in your purchase price. You're clearly 'imitating with intent' to compete on price in a shorter value chain (3d printing/POD vs stocking physical product). So it's great that you don't have to spend (as much) on design and development and production and inventory... But in changing the ground of competition, as it were, you're finding yourself in a pickle now when risk becomes reality and you realize that you haven't priced things correctly initially. So you're now asking your customers for free cash to allow you to defend your obvious practice of imitation when James' lawyers arrive. This would feel alot more authentic if you just said 'I'm raising prices because this is riskier than I anticipated, and please buy some stuff at the new price so I don't go bankrupt'. I simply don't think any of this should be a surprise, and if it is I don't think that it's your customers' responsibility to bail you out. 

 

If we knew more about the venue and actual complaint, I might feel different. I do want to know more. 

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Evil Eye]

2 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

 

What a bad faith response. A clear attempt at misrepresenting my position and also appeal to emotion. No attempt to address the argument.

 

Says it all really

 

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.

6 minutes ago, Mogger351 said:

IP infringement and/or false advertising. The same thing they hit the US stores with.

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.

[Mogger351]

2 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.

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