4 ms·

I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight

• mistercow 14y ago
  Oh I definitely agree. I am assuming that he has a legitimate complaint for the sake of argument, because if he doesn't, then this is just the DMCA doing exactly what it's supposed to.
  • grabeh 14y ago
    I suppose it's one of those areas where surely there is a fantastic opportunity for someone like GW to get on board with 3-D printing rather than looking to suppress usage. It's interesting because the whole point of the models is that they have specific attributes and fits in with the codexes. Surely if someone is making a separate design, it would be beneficial in terms of fostering increased support and take-up of the GW models. Although of course it all depends on the similarities between the two!
    • Qworg 14y ago
      Actually, the whole point of the models is that GW sells them. The prices for GW products has steadily increased over the years, even though their material costs have not. 3D printing totally upends their business model.
      • grabeh 14y ago
        Yes, traditionally they sell them but I think a licensing of the designs for usage in 3D printers could be a great driver of increased uptake. Not entirely sure what you're getting at with static material costs? Are you taking into account inflation and saying retail costs have increased at a greater rate? In any event, home printing would reduce their own costs and hopefully foster greater uptake.
• nl 14y ago
  I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place. You probably should read the article. Even if there were similarities it wouldn't matter. Physical objects can be protected by (normal) patents, which protect physical functionality or design patents[1]. Even if GW did have a design patent (which is fairly rare) then it would only protect against identical copies. The standard of proof for design patent violation is that the new object could be mistaken as the original (not "has some similar features"), so provided they weren't copies of GW models then he was probably safe. The article says "so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank", which sounds to me like he was on very safe grounds. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
  • grabeh 14y ago
    Heh, I did read the article (which personally speaking, I think misunderstands the law)! My only point was from a factual perspective, it would be interesting to compare the two designs, rather than making assertions that Valenty was on 'very safe grounds'. That may of course very well be the case, however in the absence of the side-by-side comparison, I can't say either way. In terms of similarity, there will obviously be a sliding scale where at some point, the level of similarity will be sufficient to constitute an infringement (certainly this is the case under EU copyright/design right law, and I believe would be the case under the test you refer to). If infringement could take place only where there was identity, this would obviously leave it wide open for third parties to add capricious additions to get around the test.
  • mistercow 14y ago
    The article tries to imply that 3D designs cannot be copyrighted, but this is incorrect. If the design is functional, it cannot be copyrighted, but if it is a work of art, it is still protected by copyright. So if you carve a statue, and I make and distribute copies of that statue without your permission, I am violating your copyright. If I alter your design, but copy substantial portions in a way that does not constitute fair use, I am also violating your copyright by producing a derivative work. In contrast, design patents only apply to functional items. The classic example is the Coca-Cola bottle. Coke's patent on that is not on the invention of a bottle, or on a useless bauble, but on the ornamental design of a functional item. If the bottle were not intended to hold liquid, but were just a pretty object, it would be eligible for copyright, but not a design patent. I think it would be hard to argue that Warhammer miniatures are functional items. Rather, they are non-functional works of art, and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of copyright. So if you make your own figures based sufficiently on those made by GW, you are creating a derivative work, and violating their copyright.