SOPA Protest
- Thread starter Chrome
- Start date
- Status
I am pleased to see that Coolminiornot took part in the protest.
If you consider the implications that this legislation would have the protest against it to my mind a neccessity.
Without fighting against bad legislation like this companies like GW would have an almost unchallengeable international right to force websites like coolminiornot off the internet for just linking to someone like Scibor or Chapterhouse studios.
If you consider the implications that this legislation would have the protest against it to my mind a neccessity.
Without fighting against bad legislation like this companies like GW would have an almost unchallengeable international right to force websites like coolminiornot off the internet for just linking to someone like Scibor or Chapterhouse studios.
I think anything that gets people paying attention to what happens in our governments is a good thing. I just wish we all took an interest and demanded action on many more things that go on. The people really do have the power quite often, but not if we are distracted and disjointed.
A
Anatora
Guest
If you look closely, most of the protests are from companies that have something to lose because they actively allow the illegal activity to continue with their full knowledge or they fear the cost to their bottom line to actively police their own site to prevent illegal use. Much of the protest is based on fear-mongering. Everyone should read the entire laws (there are two) before saturating their representatives with fear pressure. Our legislators operate on constituent fear during an election year so any pressure will make most of them run the other way as we have seen from 3 of the co-authors of the SOPA bill withdraw their support. Nothing in this law is instant. There is a process in place for companies to comply if they are really involved in illegal activity or to defend their rights by correspondence if they are not quilty. Courts are not even involved in the initial actions taken toward a company who has been reported as harboring illegal activity.
In the example you gave, if contacted, all coolminiornot would have to do is NOT link to companies they know are illegally producing a product which has an IP belonging to another company. If they comply, no one is going to force them off the web. On the other hand, if some of the products they carry or produce under the CoolMiniornot label are rip offs of licensed (held by another company) IPs and they have been informed of the violation previously and still carry or produce that item, then they are indeed guilty and fall under this law. After a long, long process in court, they would either win or lose. Losing still wouldn't guarantee that their presence on the web would be over. It does not take this proposed law to help GW defend its IP. They are doing a nice job all by themselves (albeit, a bit over zealous in a few cases; right on point with most).
Artists should not be ripped off by anyone, whether it be in people in the US, Italy, or any other country via a web-based company. By having some control over US companies as the first line of defense against IP infringement, much of the illegal activity would be stopped. In the miniature world, we would no longer see knock-offs of Indiana Jones, Scooby Doo, Lara Kroft, or other popular icons that costs movie companies millions to develop, and a few hundred dollars to those companies who stole the IPs. Go pay two dollars at a RedBox machine and rent a movie instead of downloading one for free from an illegible site. Frankly, as an artist, I think these 2 laws are long overdue.
Actually, GW would be the company most at risk if this legislation comes into force, being largely based offshore, with product that is heavily inspired by other material. As far as the IP industry is concerned, GW is a little minnow compared to the the whales of the film studios and music labels.
This is not accurate. The way the law works as originally drafted is:
IP owner contacts domain companies, advertising companies and payment processors (3rd party). 3rd party notifies potential infringer. In the meantime, to benefit from immunity, 3rd parties may voluntarily cut ties with the potential infringer, which, by corporate logic of risk/reward ratio, they will do so as a reflex action rather than be embroiled in litigation to which they have little interest or upside. Being taken off line even for a few weeks will kill most Internet related businesses.
For example, we believe we have good claim on the Dark Age round lipped base popularized by Warmachine and used by many companies. Under these laws we would be able to have foreign sites taken down that featured these bases, even though the IP case itself may be weak. That would not affect, I believe, how Paypal or Visa would react, they simply wouldn't care. They'd disconnect these providers and simply wait to see how things turn out. The problem with these laws is you need to prove your innocence after you've been taken down. It is an abuse of due process and surely not what a country that has principles governed by the rule of law are all about. The correct way to go about it is for us to prove first that we have protectable IP before the alleged infringers are shut down.
As vindicated by US courts, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...right-to-sell-Stormtrooper-helmets-in-UK.html - anyone may now make Storm Trooper helmets as the copyright has been deemed to have expired. Without due process, this particular manufacturer (the original prop maker) would have been pre-emptively shutdown before having his day in court, and only after years of litigation would he be able to get his site back online, and more important his payment processing restored, by which time of course, Lucas Film would have won by default since he'd be out of money, which is simply money buying justice.
You also fail to see that almost all of our culture is borrowed from our predecessors. Nothing is entirely original, and copyright law is very clear on what is protectable, and what is not, although individual instances become a judgement call (hence, the courts). Indiana Jones himself is a riff on B-movie tropes of the black and white cinema era and 30s comics and earlier (google Allan Quartermain, the 1885 acknowledged inspiration for Indiana Jones), but that does not mean Indiana Jones himself is in breach of copyright law, nor would any other wisecracking hero hero with a hat, a pistol and a whip be. Similarly, Necrons are not a breach of the Terminator property (a robot skeleton is about as close as they get), nor is a shaggy haired hippy in T-shirt and jeans the sole property of Hanna Barbara, otherwise Scooby Doo would be illegal because he too is a talking, big, slobbering dog like Marmaduke, created in 1954.
There is a lot of ignorance about what copyright law is, its goals, and its limitations. I suggest you familiarize yourself with why a state granted monopoly is being given to content creators (to encourage and enrich our collective culture), not, as is erroneously believed, to permanently enrich their heirs or to lock our culture and thinking strictly in the way those that create the content determine or like. The only way you get to do that is keeping your creation under wraps, never revealing it to others; this was also partially the reason why patent laws were created, so knowledge that would be good for society as a whole would be shared rather than kept as trade secrets. In exchange for adding to the common knowledge, you are granted a limited set of rights for a limited period of time which you may then exploit for personal gain.
It is this huge level of ignorance of what copyright and IP laws actually are, especially on the part of copyright owners, that makes anyone who creates content concerned. Brandishing this ignorance as a shield so as to avoid legal liability, SOPA and PIPA would have allowed IP owners (like ourselves) to takedown anyone without enough money to (once again, can't say this often enough) prove their innocence.
For example, Valloa, an example from your own site, Morland Miniatures:
View attachment 10170
which I believe is meant to represent a Phoenix crown, a traditional piece of Chinese headgear, or something similar:
View attachment 10171
If you had been based outside the USA, under these laws as originally drafted, an over-zealous or secretly malicious US company, say Phoenix Hats R Us, that makes prints or actual examples of this type of headgear could notify Paypal and your domain registrar that they "in good faith" believe you are infringing, after which you would be notified; in the meantime, you are now at the mercy of Paypal and your domain registrar making the judgement call whether or not your business is worth the hassle while PHRUS works it out with you in the courts. Yes, they can breach their contracts with you and hide behind SOPA and PIPA. Most likely, you would have your vital commercial relationships terminated even before you had a chance to reach for your phone to talk to your lawyer. The fact that their claim would likely be held ludicrous and unenforceable will not change the fact that your site will be off the air until you spend the time and money to sort it out.
Now, you may not care two shits about what happens to foreign companies, but we've all benefited from how due process works, and frankly, I do not trust companies and individuals enough to believe they would not abuse this process to harass their competition.
Last edited:
A
Anatora
Guest
Thank you for letting all of us know what you think. As you, a former lawyer knows or should know, the Phoenix hat is a head ware based on a culturally traditional item and not an IP enforceable item since it goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years. That is rather like saying every company who uses a flock coat or a cloak on a mini or in a painting is ripping off the IP of the creator who lived more than more than 100 years ago. Idiots who sue frivolously lose. Now knockoffs of Scooby-Do, Terminator, and Indiana Jones that are obviously intended to be those exact characters would be suitable, and enforceable, as they should be. You won't have any more lawsuits than you have now except by artists trying to protect their IP which is a good thing.
No, we did not fail to see where things like movies and IDEAS are influenced by others and that some ideas are broad concepts. The above listed would be very hard to prove or win in court and are a totally different thing that what we are talking about. We do understand you want to muddy waters with loose examples though, especially as several are very close to CMoN's interests. We are talking about pure and simple PROVABLE theft, not abstract concepts.. There are lots of artists (and one very vocal one) on Deviant art who's work was stolen by a Chinese company and produced exactly on clothing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the artist's signed artwork, the shirt and the artists statement that they did not license or ask permission to use their work. If an ISP company looked at her artwork, notarized statement that she didn't license and the companies refusal to take the items down off the site and decided that they should cut their hosting on their servers rather than get sued later, YES that is a good thing.
On the other hand, we could give you a true life example. But we will stay within your realm of "suppose" for now. You have used our company as an example, so let's use yours. A foreign company rips off a US artist's work; US artist licenses artwork to a US company but never to the foreign company; the foreign company knows they are in the wrong by producing said product, but then go the extra step to license out production of the unlicensed item to be produced and sold by another company, lets say another US company like CMoN. Of course when both companies ignore the theft instead of doing the right thing, they should be cut off. Since the US company continues to produce this item after being informed that the item was not licensed to the foreign company, that makes the US company liable for a lawsuit (does it not?) from both the artwork artist and the US company who DOES have the license to produce the artwork figures into minis. Even so, I doubt that that would be enough to have the US company removed from the web under the new law without their day in court. People do have brains and companies are not likely to cut service to sites that pay them if there is not a good reason. This bill gives artists and other IP/copyright holders more options, especially as many of them do not have deep pockets, unlike most thieves.
No, we did not fail to see where things like movies and IDEAS are influenced by others and that some ideas are broad concepts. The above listed would be very hard to prove or win in court and are a totally different thing that what we are talking about. We do understand you want to muddy waters with loose examples though, especially as several are very close to CMoN's interests. We are talking about pure and simple PROVABLE theft, not abstract concepts.. There are lots of artists (and one very vocal one) on Deviant art who's work was stolen by a Chinese company and produced exactly on clothing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the artist's signed artwork, the shirt and the artists statement that they did not license or ask permission to use their work. If an ISP company looked at her artwork, notarized statement that she didn't license and the companies refusal to take the items down off the site and decided that they should cut their hosting on their servers rather than get sued later, YES that is a good thing.
On the other hand, we could give you a true life example. But we will stay within your realm of "suppose" for now. You have used our company as an example, so let's use yours. A foreign company rips off a US artist's work; US artist licenses artwork to a US company but never to the foreign company; the foreign company knows they are in the wrong by producing said product, but then go the extra step to license out production of the unlicensed item to be produced and sold by another company, lets say another US company like CMoN. Of course when both companies ignore the theft instead of doing the right thing, they should be cut off. Since the US company continues to produce this item after being informed that the item was not licensed to the foreign company, that makes the US company liable for a lawsuit (does it not?) from both the artwork artist and the US company who DOES have the license to produce the artwork figures into minis. Even so, I doubt that that would be enough to have the US company removed from the web under the new law without their day in court. People do have brains and companies are not likely to cut service to sites that pay them if there is not a good reason. This bill gives artists and other IP/copyright holders more options, especially as many of them do not have deep pockets, unlike most thieves.
Anatora, I intentionally used a ludicrous example with the Phoenix hat because it relies on Paypal's / Visa's / Godaddy's cultural knowledge, and the knowledge of the people they employ. How many experts on Chinese culture do you think they have on staff? Do you sincerely believe they'd care? You have a much more optimistic view of human nature than most people do, I think.
If I was on Paypal's legal team, I would be simply suggest erring on the side of caution, unless Morland Studios drove a significant amount of revenue. It wouldn't be our fight, so why get involved?
As for the Deviantart situation, I have no idea about that specific example, but there are several trade agreements that allow the seizure of counterfeit items already existing on US books. Just because this particular artist is not aware of, or does not make use of existing laws, does not mean we need overly broad new ones. Taking this example, you are asking an ISP to make a judgement call as to who came first. How would they tell? Why would they care? Reverse the situation, a US artist who copies a piece of Chinese clothing and claims to have made it first. It's not obvious to people who are not intimately involved in the situation, and frankly they aren't invested enough to care and will likely always err on the safe side.
The "vague" or "arguable" examples cited (Scooby Doo, Indiana Jones) are examples you brought up. I'm confused, are you now saying that Scooby Doo inspired figures are not infringing any more? If you aren't 100% sure, or even 80% sure, should this be the basis of shutting down a UK company without due process?
Accusing me of being disingenuous and "muddying the waters" is frankly, insulting. In the past, I've had to point out to more than one outraged merchant that their products aren't as original as they think they are before they went off and made fools of themselves. I will happily litigate our position in a US court of law and accept its decision; that does not mean agreeing to do whatever another company or person with vested interests tells me to do, no matter how sincere their beliefs are. For example, a quick search on our site: http://www.coolminiornot.com/articles/5537-candles-set-and-new-inverted-bases will reveal that your company has accused several other vendors of ripping off your "hollow" bases, which in fact were being produced by Reaper Miniatures since at least 1995, something I had to research on your behalf, and point out to you, before you went on spreading disinformation on the Internet. Even besides the fact that the idea itself may not even be particularly protectable, your company did not even invent it! No doubt the belief was genuinely held, but it was still wrong, yet you still felt prepared to act hastily when even a disinterested third party (we don't carry this type of base) could find out this information with cursory research. I did not see an apology, update or retraction to Tabletop Art forthcoming from either of your accounts. Perhaps you sent one via personal message? Or maybe you genuinely still believe Tabletop Art is infringing a copyright you do not actually own, in which case I am very glad that SOPA/PIPA will remain out of your hands.
If I was on Paypal's legal team, I would be simply suggest erring on the side of caution, unless Morland Studios drove a significant amount of revenue. It wouldn't be our fight, so why get involved?
As for the Deviantart situation, I have no idea about that specific example, but there are several trade agreements that allow the seizure of counterfeit items already existing on US books. Just because this particular artist is not aware of, or does not make use of existing laws, does not mean we need overly broad new ones. Taking this example, you are asking an ISP to make a judgement call as to who came first. How would they tell? Why would they care? Reverse the situation, a US artist who copies a piece of Chinese clothing and claims to have made it first. It's not obvious to people who are not intimately involved in the situation, and frankly they aren't invested enough to care and will likely always err on the safe side.
The "vague" or "arguable" examples cited (Scooby Doo, Indiana Jones) are examples you brought up. I'm confused, are you now saying that Scooby Doo inspired figures are not infringing any more? If you aren't 100% sure, or even 80% sure, should this be the basis of shutting down a UK company without due process?
Accusing me of being disingenuous and "muddying the waters" is frankly, insulting. In the past, I've had to point out to more than one outraged merchant that their products aren't as original as they think they are before they went off and made fools of themselves. I will happily litigate our position in a US court of law and accept its decision; that does not mean agreeing to do whatever another company or person with vested interests tells me to do, no matter how sincere their beliefs are. For example, a quick search on our site: http://www.coolminiornot.com/articles/5537-candles-set-and-new-inverted-bases will reveal that your company has accused several other vendors of ripping off your "hollow" bases, which in fact were being produced by Reaper Miniatures since at least 1995, something I had to research on your behalf, and point out to you, before you went on spreading disinformation on the Internet. Even besides the fact that the idea itself may not even be particularly protectable, your company did not even invent it! No doubt the belief was genuinely held, but it was still wrong, yet you still felt prepared to act hastily when even a disinterested third party (we don't carry this type of base) could find out this information with cursory research. I did not see an apology, update or retraction to Tabletop Art forthcoming from either of your accounts. Perhaps you sent one via personal message? Or maybe you genuinely still believe Tabletop Art is infringing a copyright you do not actually own, in which case I am very glad that SOPA/PIPA will remain out of your hands.
Last edited:
A
Anatora
Guest
QUOTE: "Anatora, I intentionally used a ludicrous example with the Phoenix hat because it relies on Paypal's / Visa's / Godaddy's cultural knowledge, and the knowledge of the people they employ. How many experts on Chinese culture do you think they have on staff? Do you sincerely believe they'd care? You have a much more optimistic view of human nature than most people do, I think.
If I was on Paypal's legal team, I would be simply suggest erring on the side of caution, unless Morland Studios drove a significant amount of revenue. It wouldn't be our fight, so why get involved?"
Chern Ann, I have repeatedly told people on the web to be careful what they assume about the people they are talking to and about, since public faces are not always what they really seem. In the same vein as you, I used a ludicrous example as well, unless you know otherwise. Oh yes, I do know Paypal cares. They can take down the big boys at their leisure, but it is the little fish who make up their bread and butter. I call it lawsuit by quantity, rather than quality. Do the research here, do the numbers and it will amaze you to see who they take to court.
QUOTE:"As for the Deviantart situation, I have no idea about that specific example, but there are several trade agreements that allow the seizure of counterfeit items already existing on US books. Just because this particular artist is not aware of, or does not make use of existing laws, does not mean we need overly broad new ones. Taking this example, you are asking an ISP to make a judgement call as to who came first. How would they tell? Why would they care? Reverse the situation, a US artist who copies a piece of Chinese clothing and claims to have made it first. It's not obvious to people who are not intimately involved in the situation, and frankly they aren't invested enough to care and will likely always err on the safe side."
If the ISP doesn't consider itself invested enough to care about the people they serve, then it really is time for laws to protect the people being ripped off. If you paid attention, the proposed law states that any site has the option of removing offending content before being shut down, The IP owners need to contact the offending site for removal with the option of contacting the ISP if the offending site doesn't remove the content as requested. These steps are hardly considered being proven innocent AFTER the fact when the IP owners clearly know their IP materials and face real consequences if they initiate a false claim.
QUOTE: "The "vague" or "arguable" examples cited (Scooby Doo, Indiana Jones) are examples you brought up. I'm confused, are you now saying that Scooby Doo inspired figures are not infringing any more? If you aren't 100% sure, or even 80% sure, should this be the basis of shutting down a UK company without due process?"
How vague are Scooby Doo or Indiana Jones? I said "Now knockoffs of Scooby-Do, Terminator, and Indiana Jones that are obviously intended to be those EXACT characters (rather than a slobbering dog concept) would be suitable, and enforceable, as they should be." You are not confused, so don't try a lawyer's tactic of deflection from the real issue by twisting words. You know exactly what I said, but just in case you couldn't read it correctly, I repeated it just for you. Since I don't all the miniatures being produced out there, and obviously you do, I don't know what company has produced these, but, since they are popular, I am sure someone has.
QUOTE:" Accusing me of being disingenuous and "muddying the waters" is frankly, insulting. In the past, I've had to point out to more than one outraged merchant that their products aren't as original as they think they are before they went off and made fools of themselves. I will happily litigate our position in a US court of law and accept its decision; that does not mean agreeing to do whatever another company or person with vested interests tells me to do, no matter how sincere their beliefs are. For example, a quick search on our site: http://www.coolminiornot.com/article...inverted-bases will reveal that your company has accused several other vendors of ripping off your "hollow" bases, which in fact were being produced by Reaper Miniatures since at least 1995, something I had to research on your behalf, and point out to you, before you went on spreading disinformation on the Internet. Even besides the fact that the idea itself may not even be particularly protectable, your company did not even invent it! No doubt the belief was genuinely held, but it was still wrong, yet you still felt prepared to act hastily when even a disinterested third party (we don't carry this type of base) could find out this information with cursory research. I did not see an apology, update or retraction to Tabletop Art forthcoming from either of your accounts. Perhaps you sent one via personal message? Or maybe you genuinely still believe Tabletop Art is infringing a copyright you do not actually own, in which case I am very glad that SOPA/PIPA will remain out of your hands."
So be insulted just as I was that you implied we were ignorant of the law. Don't throw stones while you are in a glass house. You claim you are a nice guy who did research for others so they don't look like fools. We were nice and returned the favor by informing you that Nocturna did not have a license or permission to produce "The Greek Goddess" from the artist whose artwork they took it from and that they sold you a license to produce it here in the US when they had no rights to the artwork. Where was your research then? We offered to show the license from the artist to another company. SO, please don't do any more research on our behalf. Your 5-minute research is flawed.
As far as the bases are concerned, Reaper put out a square lipped base, as did GW before them and Ral Partha before them. It is not the same as a "hollow base" which we developed in 1994, a full year before another company suddenly discovered a "new" base. If needed in court, we have the proof. Again, these bases were nothing like Reapers nor was that a claim. Tabletop Art was not the company who ordered our bases, then came online later with the exact same thing. They came later. If you can't tell the difference in what we made and what Reaper produced, maybe it is time to do more research before answering. If innovations don't matter, as you implied, is a base the same as another base? Is this example similar to your patents on computer mice? Did you invent the mouse that your business was developed around? Would it be infringement if someone took one of your mice, change a little something or not change anything except the name, then sell it? Does it matter if they were a global company, a small mom-and-pop or an off-shore company? The whole point of laws like SOPA is to stop the blatant theft, pure and simple,that people have become used to. What is wrong with companies licensing works of art or come up with their own ideas rather than take the easy way and just take someone else work as their own?
I can see that you will stand your ground until the world collapses around you, much as New Wave did. I can only say that I support these laws designed to stop theft and which do not affect other laws such as fair use, which was the point of the original post.
If I was on Paypal's legal team, I would be simply suggest erring on the side of caution, unless Morland Studios drove a significant amount of revenue. It wouldn't be our fight, so why get involved?"
Chern Ann, I have repeatedly told people on the web to be careful what they assume about the people they are talking to and about, since public faces are not always what they really seem. In the same vein as you, I used a ludicrous example as well, unless you know otherwise. Oh yes, I do know Paypal cares. They can take down the big boys at their leisure, but it is the little fish who make up their bread and butter. I call it lawsuit by quantity, rather than quality. Do the research here, do the numbers and it will amaze you to see who they take to court.
QUOTE:"As for the Deviantart situation, I have no idea about that specific example, but there are several trade agreements that allow the seizure of counterfeit items already existing on US books. Just because this particular artist is not aware of, or does not make use of existing laws, does not mean we need overly broad new ones. Taking this example, you are asking an ISP to make a judgement call as to who came first. How would they tell? Why would they care? Reverse the situation, a US artist who copies a piece of Chinese clothing and claims to have made it first. It's not obvious to people who are not intimately involved in the situation, and frankly they aren't invested enough to care and will likely always err on the safe side."
If the ISP doesn't consider itself invested enough to care about the people they serve, then it really is time for laws to protect the people being ripped off. If you paid attention, the proposed law states that any site has the option of removing offending content before being shut down, The IP owners need to contact the offending site for removal with the option of contacting the ISP if the offending site doesn't remove the content as requested. These steps are hardly considered being proven innocent AFTER the fact when the IP owners clearly know their IP materials and face real consequences if they initiate a false claim.
QUOTE: "The "vague" or "arguable" examples cited (Scooby Doo, Indiana Jones) are examples you brought up. I'm confused, are you now saying that Scooby Doo inspired figures are not infringing any more? If you aren't 100% sure, or even 80% sure, should this be the basis of shutting down a UK company without due process?"
How vague are Scooby Doo or Indiana Jones? I said "Now knockoffs of Scooby-Do, Terminator, and Indiana Jones that are obviously intended to be those EXACT characters (rather than a slobbering dog concept) would be suitable, and enforceable, as they should be." You are not confused, so don't try a lawyer's tactic of deflection from the real issue by twisting words. You know exactly what I said, but just in case you couldn't read it correctly, I repeated it just for you. Since I don't all the miniatures being produced out there, and obviously you do, I don't know what company has produced these, but, since they are popular, I am sure someone has.
QUOTE:" Accusing me of being disingenuous and "muddying the waters" is frankly, insulting. In the past, I've had to point out to more than one outraged merchant that their products aren't as original as they think they are before they went off and made fools of themselves. I will happily litigate our position in a US court of law and accept its decision; that does not mean agreeing to do whatever another company or person with vested interests tells me to do, no matter how sincere their beliefs are. For example, a quick search on our site: http://www.coolminiornot.com/article...inverted-bases will reveal that your company has accused several other vendors of ripping off your "hollow" bases, which in fact were being produced by Reaper Miniatures since at least 1995, something I had to research on your behalf, and point out to you, before you went on spreading disinformation on the Internet. Even besides the fact that the idea itself may not even be particularly protectable, your company did not even invent it! No doubt the belief was genuinely held, but it was still wrong, yet you still felt prepared to act hastily when even a disinterested third party (we don't carry this type of base) could find out this information with cursory research. I did not see an apology, update or retraction to Tabletop Art forthcoming from either of your accounts. Perhaps you sent one via personal message? Or maybe you genuinely still believe Tabletop Art is infringing a copyright you do not actually own, in which case I am very glad that SOPA/PIPA will remain out of your hands."
So be insulted just as I was that you implied we were ignorant of the law. Don't throw stones while you are in a glass house. You claim you are a nice guy who did research for others so they don't look like fools. We were nice and returned the favor by informing you that Nocturna did not have a license or permission to produce "The Greek Goddess" from the artist whose artwork they took it from and that they sold you a license to produce it here in the US when they had no rights to the artwork. Where was your research then? We offered to show the license from the artist to another company. SO, please don't do any more research on our behalf. Your 5-minute research is flawed.
As far as the bases are concerned, Reaper put out a square lipped base, as did GW before them and Ral Partha before them. It is not the same as a "hollow base" which we developed in 1994, a full year before another company suddenly discovered a "new" base. If needed in court, we have the proof. Again, these bases were nothing like Reapers nor was that a claim. Tabletop Art was not the company who ordered our bases, then came online later with the exact same thing. They came later. If you can't tell the difference in what we made and what Reaper produced, maybe it is time to do more research before answering. If innovations don't matter, as you implied, is a base the same as another base? Is this example similar to your patents on computer mice? Did you invent the mouse that your business was developed around? Would it be infringement if someone took one of your mice, change a little something or not change anything except the name, then sell it? Does it matter if they were a global company, a small mom-and-pop or an off-shore company? The whole point of laws like SOPA is to stop the blatant theft, pure and simple,that people have become used to. What is wrong with companies licensing works of art or come up with their own ideas rather than take the easy way and just take someone else work as their own?
I can see that you will stand your ground until the world collapses around you, much as New Wave did. I can only say that I support these laws designed to stop theft and which do not affect other laws such as fair use, which was the point of the original post.
In this thread, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, rather than being intentionally intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant, that you were simply misinformed. I think in this case I was mistaken. You brought up miniature companies that make knock offs of Scooby Doo, and now you claim you have no idea which companies do so.
For your convenience -
"In the miniature world, we would no longer see knock-offs of Indiana Jones, Scooby Doo..."
Very next post:
"Since I don't all the miniatures being produced out there, and obviously you do, I don't know what company has produced these, but, since they are popular, I am sure someone has."
The only thing that makes sense is... you've seen Scooby Doo models, from unknown persons, that you don't really know are infringing or not? I genuinely find it baffling, is this "make no sense at all day?" Am I being pranked? You're the one who brought up these examples, I presume for a reason. I don't know about anyone else, but the claim not to know who makes stuff like this after first raising the "issue" just feels like a bald faced lie to me.
Leaving aside the mysterious apparent own-goals, on to your substantive points:
Firstly, if you look at the original thread, you claim to have created the bases in 2004. Now the number has magically become 1994 when I mentioned 1995. Perhaps it will magically become 1984 if Ral Partha bases were around since 1985? This is precisely the reason why no company entertains this kind of nonsense except in formal proceedings, and you have demonstrated you are prepared to change your position at the drop of a hat at your own convenience.
Secondly, we don't litigate in public; but to address your issue with the "Greek Goddess".
1. You are not the alleged injured party, i.e. the artist in question.
2. You have no business relationship with us - we tend to value talking to the people we actually work with over random strangers over the Internet.
3. As you mentioned in the case of the Phoenix head gear, it's a Greek Goddess, a culturally public item.
4. This pose is a woman in a low cut robe, holding a spear, sitting on a rock, that has a pose similar to the painting you mentioned, with no other distinctive elements that are not drawn from the public domain. Unless the artist in question is prepared to claim a copyright on such an expression, in a different medium (i.e. not a painting, but sculptures and photographs too), then there's no issue. If he is, I doubt he'd be successful. I doubt any painter of Roman generals with their swords in the air is going to be very successful making a claim against Warlord Games, for instance. But, like I said, we don't litigate in public, so if the correct aggrieved party believes that they have a reasonable claim, we await the writ and we'll deal with it in the appropriate forum, i.e. a court of law.
5. Without hearing from the artist in question directly, we have no idea if he was inspired by the sculpture, or the sculpture inspired by the artwork, or they were both inspired by a pre-existing ancient sculpture, or if this was entirely coincidental. I have walked through at least a dozen historical Roman exhibits and Athena with spear and helm isn't exactly a unique subject.
6. Your license from the artist, the reason why you sent us the email, which you conveniently glossed over in this post, means you do not approach this as a neutral 3rd party. In essence you were claiming your license was better than our license. Which it may well be, but I certainly wouldn't take your word on it. Turn it on its head, would you take mine.
Going on shouting "We own everything!" isn't going to get you anywhere, that's just not the way the world works, no matter how much you wish otherwise. You seriously do not want other companies looking at the things you design and sell with a fine toothed comb, since there will be always something, somewhere in the world that looks like your stuff and came before you. Your ignorance, reckless inaccuracy with the facts that bothers on dishonesty, and now general bellicosity on our forums, isn't welcome. SOPA and PIPA would not have helped your company in this case, nor the artist in question. In any event, it is now a moot point: http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/rip-sopa/.
It appears plain that you do not value CoolMiniOrNot as a place to discuss things, and bringing up New Wave, which I was neither involved in one way or another mystifies me. If you do not respect us, the things we do, and your other fellow publishers and manufacturers in this space, I think the time has come for you and Morland Miniatures to promote your products elsewhere. To be 100% clear, we (as a company) will not entertain any discussion on any of our sites on possible litigation as a matter of course. Tolerating that will only serve to prejudice our position, and will result in an instant ban.
For your convenience -
"In the miniature world, we would no longer see knock-offs of Indiana Jones, Scooby Doo..."
Very next post:
"Since I don't all the miniatures being produced out there, and obviously you do, I don't know what company has produced these, but, since they are popular, I am sure someone has."
The only thing that makes sense is... you've seen Scooby Doo models, from unknown persons, that you don't really know are infringing or not? I genuinely find it baffling, is this "make no sense at all day?" Am I being pranked? You're the one who brought up these examples, I presume for a reason. I don't know about anyone else, but the claim not to know who makes stuff like this after first raising the "issue" just feels like a bald faced lie to me.
Leaving aside the mysterious apparent own-goals, on to your substantive points:
Firstly, if you look at the original thread, you claim to have created the bases in 2004. Now the number has magically become 1994 when I mentioned 1995. Perhaps it will magically become 1984 if Ral Partha bases were around since 1985? This is precisely the reason why no company entertains this kind of nonsense except in formal proceedings, and you have demonstrated you are prepared to change your position at the drop of a hat at your own convenience.
Secondly, we don't litigate in public; but to address your issue with the "Greek Goddess".
1. You are not the alleged injured party, i.e. the artist in question.
2. You have no business relationship with us - we tend to value talking to the people we actually work with over random strangers over the Internet.
3. As you mentioned in the case of the Phoenix head gear, it's a Greek Goddess, a culturally public item.
4. This pose is a woman in a low cut robe, holding a spear, sitting on a rock, that has a pose similar to the painting you mentioned, with no other distinctive elements that are not drawn from the public domain. Unless the artist in question is prepared to claim a copyright on such an expression, in a different medium (i.e. not a painting, but sculptures and photographs too), then there's no issue. If he is, I doubt he'd be successful. I doubt any painter of Roman generals with their swords in the air is going to be very successful making a claim against Warlord Games, for instance. But, like I said, we don't litigate in public, so if the correct aggrieved party believes that they have a reasonable claim, we await the writ and we'll deal with it in the appropriate forum, i.e. a court of law.
5. Without hearing from the artist in question directly, we have no idea if he was inspired by the sculpture, or the sculpture inspired by the artwork, or they were both inspired by a pre-existing ancient sculpture, or if this was entirely coincidental. I have walked through at least a dozen historical Roman exhibits and Athena with spear and helm isn't exactly a unique subject.
6. Your license from the artist, the reason why you sent us the email, which you conveniently glossed over in this post, means you do not approach this as a neutral 3rd party. In essence you were claiming your license was better than our license. Which it may well be, but I certainly wouldn't take your word on it. Turn it on its head, would you take mine.
Going on shouting "We own everything!" isn't going to get you anywhere, that's just not the way the world works, no matter how much you wish otherwise. You seriously do not want other companies looking at the things you design and sell with a fine toothed comb, since there will be always something, somewhere in the world that looks like your stuff and came before you. Your ignorance, reckless inaccuracy with the facts that bothers on dishonesty, and now general bellicosity on our forums, isn't welcome. SOPA and PIPA would not have helped your company in this case, nor the artist in question. In any event, it is now a moot point: http://mashable.com/2012/01/20/rip-sopa/.
It appears plain that you do not value CoolMiniOrNot as a place to discuss things, and bringing up New Wave, which I was neither involved in one way or another mystifies me. If you do not respect us, the things we do, and your other fellow publishers and manufacturers in this space, I think the time has come for you and Morland Miniatures to promote your products elsewhere. To be 100% clear, we (as a company) will not entertain any discussion on any of our sites on possible litigation as a matter of course. Tolerating that will only serve to prejudice our position, and will result in an instant ban.
Last edited:
Well that's that I'm afraid. Feel free to start your own forum, and I will certainly be an interested participant. If you wish a refund on your remaining subscription term, just raise a Paypal claim and it will promptly forwarded to you.
Last edited:
- Status
