The article suggests that it is preferable to have an action under patent infringement rather than under copyright infringement because patents expire. I think

The article suggests that it is preferable to have an action under patent infringement rather than under copyright infringement because patents expire. I think this is a gross over-simplification of the matter as if I were advising a manufacturer I would prefer to go down the route of copyright infringement as it would be a cheaper option than full-scale patent litigation. Although this would be with the slight caveat that copyright infringement requires evidence of actual copying and will not succeed if independent creation can be shown. I think it essentially still boils down to whether copying in this instance has actually taken place. In the instant case, I would love to see a comparison of the Games Workshop creations and the third party's creations. My guess is the third party works were inspired by GW rather than being substantially the same. In any event, it seems heavy handed of GW. I would say overall that patent references are a red herring. In the instant case, GW will not hold a patent over each of the models of course. The focus on 3-D printing is interesting, but again it boils down to whether copying has taken place. I would also add that under UK law, this would also be potentially dealt with under design rights law where protection is far more limited. In fact, because of mass production nature of the models, a claim would have to based on design right law rather than copyright, as they would not qualify as sculptures in my view.