Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'copyright'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Reaper Discussion
    • News
    • Reaper General & Faq's
    • Reaper's Product Lines
    • ReaperCon
    • Reaper Virtual Expo
  • Reaper Social
    • Exchanges and Contests
    • Birthdays!
    • Socializing
  • Painting
    • Show Off: Painting
    • Works in Progress: Painting
    • Tips & Advice: Painting
    • Shutterbug
    • Speed / Army / Tabletop Techniques
  • Sculpting, Conversion, and Terrain
    • Show off: Sculpts, Conversion, Terrain.
    • Works in Progress: Sculpts, Conversion, Terrain.
    • Tips and Advice: Sculpting
    • Tips and Advice: Conversion
    • Tips and Advice: Terrain
    • Tips and Advice: 3-D printing
    • Conversions, Presentation, and Terrain
  • General Discussion
    • General Fantasy
    • General Sci-Fi
    • General Modern / Historical
    • Kickstarter
    • Off-Topic Rampancy
  • The Sandbox
    • The Gathering
    • The Playing
    • Fiction, Poetry, and Other Abuses
  • Reaper Games
    • Dungeon Dwellers RPG
    • CAV
    • Warlord

Calendars

  • Reaper Events
  • Forum Contest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 5 results

  1. Hey guys, I have a question that I could not find on the forums, but maybe I didn't search well enough but here goes nothing. Is it legal for someone to buy a miniature from Reaper, paint the miniature, and then resell it? I mainly want to know about whether it is illegal for me to do so (I would be selling them on a site like Etsy, etc.) If it is, what would I have to do to go about it being legal? If there is a thread already describing this in detail, directing me to that post would be all I need. Thanks in advance.
  2. I received an email newsletter from CoolMiniOrNot just before, and in it I noticed this chap: https://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/54mm-plus-category/industria-mechanika/adrian-smith-s-frankenstein-1.html This seemed rather familiar: it is very (very) similar to Anvall the Thrice Damned from the Reaper store. https://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/anvall/sku-down/01521 The sculptors are different, and the Frankenstein version claims it's a 3D printed design which was the winner of competition to realise a sketch by the artist - but it just seems so similar in style and pose, equipment everything. There's also passing similarity to this one from Games Workshop: http://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Nurgle-Chaos-Lord So I guess I'm curious as to whether there are thoughts from others out there as to whether the variations are enough (ie the devil in the detail) or if there is a borderline IP issue for the artistic design?
  3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/01/23/candy-crush-saga-tries-to-crush-the-banner-saga-in-bizarre-trademark-saga/ I thought about putting this in the Beekeepers forum and if a mod thinks it should go there then they can move it i guess, but I don't think it needs to be their as ther really isn't anything to discuss. No one should be allowed to trademark common words. King is simply bullying the makers of Banner Saga and I can't understand why. It certainly doesn't make the maker of Candy Crush look good. I for one would reccomend not purchasing anything from that company until they come to their senses. Edit: trademark not copyright.
  4. http://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/klinger-order-on-motion-for-summary-judgment-c.pdf Federal judge Rubén Castillo has Issued a declarative statement in a case against the Conan Doyle Estate, LTD., declaring that story elements predating January 1, 1923, are in the public domain. I've only skimmed the document, and one still has to step carefully, but it looks like the more than a century old characters and stories are finally in the public domain, long, long past due.
  5. I thought that this was of enough interest that it shouldn't be buried in the other GW thread. I literally just copied this from a post on Bell of Lost Souls. You can find the original post here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33351-LEGALWATCH-Games-Workshop-vs-Chapterhouse-Verdict LEGALWATCH: Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Verdict We have a verdict! Some initial notes: This is a Jury Verdict, and has not yet become a Final Judgement Breaking down the counts along the different categories we have: Copyright Claims 160 claims alleged against CHS -GW won on 1/3 of the claims, including items such as CHS' Powerfists -CHS won on 2/3 of the claims, including the use of the underlying shape and size of GW Shoulderpads. General Trademark Claims 9 claims alleged against CHS -CHS won all 9 claims, including either no infringement, or fair use of the GW trademarks on CHS' website. Disputed Trademark Claims 21 disputed trademark claims alleged against CHS CHS won 11 claims GW won 10 claims GW Trademarks ruled "Previously Used in Commerce" Claims 61 claims alleged against CHS CHS won 35 claims GW won 27 Notable Trends and Individual Products Under Dispute CHS lost on some individual products including: -Doomseer -Dark Elf Arch Tortress CHS won on some individual products including: -Jetbike -Super-heavy walker model -Lizard Ogre Damages Awarded: CHS ordered to pay GW damages of $25,000 USD Both sides may appeal the ruling. Thoughts and Implications: It's looking like however CHS as an entity comes out of this ruling, the implications for the 3rd party industry are profound. -The ruling of no infringement for the use of the underlying shape and size of GW shoulderpads is now on the legal record. -Possibly more important is not guilty verdicts on the use of GW trademarks and terms on the CHS website. -While certain CHS products themselves may disappear from the Earth in the aftermath of this case, it looks like the verdict may have provided a clear blueprint for the 3rd party accessory bits market. One that allows legal use of certain GW trademarks and terms in a way that goes way beyond what Nottingham themselves ever wished to allow. More details as we get it... Documents will be coming in time. UPDATE 6/17/2013 Winston & Strawn LLP issue a press release on the case: June 17, 2013 Winston & Strawn Defeats Hundreds of Trademark and Copyright Infringement Claims on Behalf of Pro Bono Client Cutting-Edge Decision Protects Industries from Litigation Blocking Add-On Products CHICAGO, IL – In a classic David-versus-Goliath battle, Winston & Strawn LLP represented Chapterhouse Studios LLC on a pro bono basis in a cutting-edge federal trademark and copyright dispute in the Northern District of Illinois (Games Workshop Limited v. Chapterhouse Studios LLC 1:10-cv-8103). The verdict of this jury trial, held in June 2013 before Judge Matthew Kennelly, confirms that copyright and trademark law should not be used to block add-on products. Winston & Strawn has litigated the case since 2010, and co-counsel law firm Marshall Gerstein joined the matter in 2012. “This was a classic case of trademark and copyright bullying by a much bigger Plaintiff,” said Jennifer Golinveaux, partner in Winston & Strawn’s San Francisco office. “I am proud of the investment made by the firm, and the many attorneys who devoted themselves to making sure the intellectual property laws were not misused to squash a much smaller player.” Games Workshop manufactures Warhammer 40,000, a tabletop battle game that works with armies of miniature figures and vehicles, while Chapterhouse sells customized add-on parts for the figures and vehicles used in the game. The United Kingdom-based Games Workshop, a company with $200 million per year in revenues, alleged more than 200 claims of copyright and trademark infringement against Chapterhouse, a small business run out of an individual’s garage in Texas. Games Workshop argued that it was seeking a complete shutdown of Chapterhouse’s entire business and although Games Workshop initially sought over $400,000 in damages, by the end of the two-week jury trial, the plaintiff dropped its damages demand to only $25,000. The jury deliberated for more than two days and found that Chapterhouse could continue to make and sell over a hundred products without fear of copyright infringement. The jury also confirmed that Chapterhouse could continue to use most of Games Workshop’s asserted trademarks when selling compatible parts, including all nine of Games Workshop’s registered trademarks. Together with the summary judgment wins, the jury’s verdict confirmed Chapterhouse can continue to make and sell 111 products that Games Workshop hoped to block using copyright laws, and can continue to use 104 words and phrases that Games Workshop said were trademarked. Imron Aly, lead trial attorney and partner in Winston & Strawn’s Chicago office added, “It was a pleasure to represent a small entrepreneur like Nicholas Villacci of Chapterhouse, who has a passion for his work and wanted to see his business survive.” Julianne Hartzell, partner at co-counsel law firm Marshall Gerstein added, “We are proud that we were able to help protect Chapterhouse against the overreaching claims made by Games Workshop in such a substantial trademark and copyright dispute.”
×
×
  • Create New...