Reaper Rips-off Rackham

[Nomis]

There have been a number of cases where musicians have been sued for \"stealing\". The cases sometimes hinging on a judges interpretation of a series of notes claimed to be the same or derivative.

In the same way it is up to manufactures to police the products produced by other companies and, as has been discussed elsewhere on CMON, companies like GW are very keen to stop any copyright infringement they may find. - This does not seem to be happening!

Why argue which minis copy which - personally I can\'t wait for the Sister of Battle to come out as the pose looks superb and it\'s one I want to paint - and I don\'t say that too often nowdays!

I do find it interesting that there seem to be two different sources that GW are being accused of ripping off with her however!

Surely we should be pleased that a number of talented people can use the same influences to provide some extremely good minis for us to enjoy.

Originally posted by barkel
Fiana is Dolly Parton up top and Calista Flockhart down below. If her back doesn\'t break from the weight of her boobs, her legs will.
and original in its own right, if not better.

barkel

This probably explains the controversial pose - balancelol

 

[finn17]

I am quite amazed....

..that people seem to be supporting the the blatant theft of intellectual property.

I personally would like to see Rackham sue Reaper\'s arse off, but that wont happen.

However, there is no excuse for such theft and I suspect that the people cheering Reaper would be squealing like stuck pigs if it was their ideas that were being, a) stolen and then, b) brutalised.:flame:

Shame on you

 

[Sand Rat]

Ahh, but then Finn, the Japanese Company that originated the anime that Rackham ripped off for the Fiannas could sue and so forth -

 

[Nomis]

So far the only possible \"rip off\" I\'ve seen is the Reaper Fianna with the sword - and if you have followed through all the posts on this you can see where the original pose came from - and it wasn\'t Rackham!

I don\'t seek to defend direct copying of minis but I don\'t think that even this model can be called that, as only the pose and size of the sword is similar - the figure itself is quite different and, to me, inferior.

At the end of the day people will buy what they like and my guess is that in this case the Rackham figure will win out as it is - in my very humble opinion - better.

As far as the Sister of Battle is concerned there are indeed similarities to both the rackham and the Reaper(?) figures - one in pose the other in colour - so what - if I could only afford one it would be the GW mini because I like it best - so much so I have already enquired in my local GW for a release date and it is a long, long time since I\'ve been that keen on a GW model!

I am in the luxurious position of being able to afford all of them and will certainly buy the Rackham and possibly the Reaper figure as well because I like all of them!

As a one time collecter of DC/Marvel and many other comics the idea of originality would seem quite novel. The only time I remember a law suit was when Marvel went out of it\'s way to protect the use of it\'s trademark name by destroying two rival Captain Marvel titles - one of which was in the UK Warrior mag - sad!

I repeat I cannot see where there is any infringement with any of the minis shown - but then my eyesight is starting to go

 

[MostlyHarmlessSnack]

I kind of like the variety that playing off/ reinterpreting the different minis creates. But thats just me.

 

[Sjakkie]

I think Chern Ann\'s post raises another interesting question (since the second miniature shown is a converted miniature):

Can intelectual property (or whatever it\'s called, \"copyrighted originallity\") be established with a converted miniature?

Let\'s consider the following hypothetical situation:
someone takes five chopped-up games workshop miniatures, some GW bits and pieces, and some modelling putty, and turns that into a truly uniquely looking miniature, something no-one has ever seen or thought possible. But it\'s all based on parts, made by games workshop, hold together with some putty.
Now if games workshop saw a picture of it somewhere online and decides to incorporate a sculpted version (based on the original conversion) in their line of figures.
Could the original converter sue GW?


Just something I was wondering about.

Originally posted by Chern Ann
Mmm.. seperated at birth?

CMON img id 22881.

 

[barkel]

Yes. The original converter could sue.

IF said converter had a registered copyright on the conversion, and IF said conversion could be shown to be different enough from the original models to be a completely original work.

Have you ever seen CDs entitled Best of 1999? They have something like 12 different top 40 songs from 1999. Well that song list, song order and mix is copyrighted by a certain person. They pay royalties to the artist, but that list belongs to them and is considered an original work. The difference is permission has to be granted by the artist and royalties must be paid. Once that is done the \"new work\" belongs to the dude with enough initiative to do it. If anyone were to copy the Best of 1999 CD and try to sell it, they would be in violation of copyright.

in response to Finn17:
I write music as another hobby. I have many songs copyrighted and I play from time to time at local pubs. I will never be famous, and I don\'t care, but my material is very precious to me, and the idea of someone stealing wholesale scares and infuriates me. But for the last 5 years the whole fabric of copyright law has been picked at by kids who want something for free, so they download music without regard for the law, and I\'ve watched as recording artists are rendered helpless just because their art is not \"tangible,\" or physical. I\'m not saying that makes stealing minis right.

In an earlier post on this forum a hobbyist asked if it was ok to cast one of GW\'s minis if he made a slight alteration. I told him it was against copyright law. Further I sided with the camp that said it was unethical, even to produce it for yourself and not for profit.

To take an entire work from someone else without getting any permission from the artist, and without giving any credit is stealing. It is wrong and I am opposed. But that is NOT what is going on here. It is, at best, theft of an idea. And it appears that the idea was not stolen from Rackham, but from a sketch artist, if it was stolen at all.

I personally find it very difficult to say that someone stole a pose. That seems ludicrous to me. They stole a pose? When does a pose become public domain?

In my first pose I said that someone should rip off Rackham and shave away the crap. I admit I was not thinking when I said it, I was trying to be funny because I don\'t like Rackham. I don\'t think anyone should steal from anyone. If I found out that Reaper made a practice of stealing ideas from other companies I would not patron them. However, the examples in this thread do not convince me of theft. I see similar ideas being used in similar ways. And as I mentioned before, it could have been a tribute.

barkel

ps. Sorry if I offeneded.

 

[asphyx]

Why Reaper should rip Rackham? Because Rackham rocks =)
Seriously, if Rackham was not the ripped one, the fact is that the Reaper mini ( http://www.reapermini.com/albums/exalted/61011_G.jpg ) seems top have an ugly sculpt (especially in front of the Rack\' Fianna)

Should we add that Rackham is just the best overall? =)

 

[dauber22]

Originally posted by finn17
I am quite amazed.....that people seem to be supporting the the blatant theft of intellectual property.

Really!! I mean, just look how unpopular Kaza, and Napster before it, is because of the blatancy of copyright infringement

 

[beestieboy]

My $.02

Well, I\'m thinking that as long as the quality of miniatures is raised all around, good for everybody! If someone comes up with a hot idea that painters and mini collectors like, it\'s natural that the other companies won\'t want to be left behind. If this foces them to raise the bar on their miniatures, great for me! I love it when there are more mini\'s I\'m totally in love with than I could ever hope to paint in my lifetime (not there yet, so I hope they keep pumping out great models). Some examples here show that someone took an idea and expounded on it some, but if it takes them out of their box, go for it. They just need to make sure that they make their own enought that they don\'t get their butts sued off! lol Well, I just think all this will lead to better minis for us, so good for everone!

 

[Rachel]

Originally posted by Chern Ann

Mmm.. seperated at birth?

yeah, sure - but that means that their mum was John Blanche\'s drawings

although I don\'t really think that the same paint scheme qualifies them to be twins - the models are quite different, their just both painted with classic Blanche/Inquisitorial gold armour, red fabric and white details.

CMON img id 22881.

I know for a fact that several GW studio folk bought the CMON annual , but it\'s probably a coincidence?

 

[Wren]

Originally posted by finn17
..that people seem to be supporting the the blatant theft of intellectual property.

I personally would like to see Rackham sue Reaper\'s arse off, but that wont happen.

However, there is no excuse for such theft and I suspect that the people cheering Reaper would be squealing like stuck pigs if it was their ideas that were being, a) stolen and then, b) brutalised.:flame:

Shame on you

My understanding of copyright law is that you can\'t copyright an idea, what\'s protected is the unique expression of an idea that someone makes. Should Bram Stoker sue Anne Rice for writing stories about vampires? Should Anne Rice sue White Wolf for creating an RPG based on vampires that shares some elements of her mythos? Should White Wolf sue the makers of Underworld for a movie they say shares a whole lot with its mythos?

Where an individual draws the line of this is copying/this isn\'t is going to differ from person to person. I think the Assassin and Aitna models of the falconer are far more egregious infringements than the Reapers. They clearly seem like derivative works, even the painting on the cloak of the assassin is the same as the original artwork.

There\'ve been two print art works posted with similar poses to the contested \'fiana\' miniature, one of which the mini is probably (legally) based on. And the pose and large weapon are pretty much all that\'s similar, unlike with the falconers. The clothes are different, the general style is different. I just looked at the new Reaper releases today, and as much as I\'ve looked at, admired and purchased that version of the fiana, it didn\'t twig any recognition in me at all, until I saw the post.

The leaping thief, however, did immediately bring to mind Shanys, though a closer look shows me a lot of differences in the two figures. And I can believe Bobby Jackson\'s assertion that the cloak is there to support the leaping figure, which was his goal with the sculpt in the first place. It probably would have been to his advantage to sculpt the cloak itself in a different way, to avoid even the suggestion of copying.

I respect that you feel that the similarities are too great to be allowed, I\'m just trying to explain why I, and perhaps others on the other side of the discussion, feel that they are not so great after all. If that makes me an ignorant Reaper cheerer in your eyes, so be it, but for the record, I have been in a situation where there was legally definable theft of my material (not that it was a context where anyone would sue or anything). I have also been in a situation where it was a question of ideas rather than specific words and getting all worked up about that. In the former, I did squeal like a stuck pig until the situation was rectified. In the latter, I slept on it, got some perspective, and accepted the fact that the other person might have independently come up with a similar idea, or have been inspired by some of the same sources I was.

 

[kittykat23uk]

White Wolf did try to sue the makers of Underworld! I\'m not sure what the outcome was but I did read the full paper of what they felt was infringing their IP and whilst some aspects were very similar to the werewolf and vampire games (for example, calling a werewolf who has been embraced by a vampire an \"abomination\", the werewolves ability to shift into hybrid form at will, etc) other aspects that they were citing was just stretching it too far, like \"in white wolf vampires and werewolves are worst enemies, in the film vampires and werewolves are worst enemies\". Well anyone who has played werewolf or vampire would know that werewolves worst enemy is \"the Wyrm\" and camarilla vampires tend to fight against other vampire clans that form the Sabbat. Yes werewolves and vampires will fight but to say that they are \"worst enemies\" isn\'t strictly correct.

Furthermore, there were a number of differences between the film and White Wolf\'s games. The werewolves were not portrayed as being the saviours of Gaia or as being spiritual in any sense which is a key aspect of them in the game. They also didn\'t appear to use gifts of any kind, or enter the spirit world (the Umbra). The also looked terrible- they should have been fluffier.

Either way, Underworld was a film that could have been great, but wasn\'t! I was incredibly let down by it. Dog Soldiers is far superior!

Regards

Kat

 

[Nomis]

Not having played the games I am relying on the novels which do show that the wolves kill any vampires they find.

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by Wren
Should White Wolf sue the makers of Underworld for a movie they say shares a whole lot with its mythos?

Um, actually White Wolf is sueing Sony over Underworld - WW says that they took the idea to Sony and got brushed off, only to have Sony put out Underworld.

From White Wolf\'s Website -

WHITE WOLF, INC. and author NANCY A. COLLINS sue SONY PICTURES, SCREEN GEMS and LAKESHORE ENTERTAINMENT for \"Underworld\" copyright infringement

Atlanta, GA, 5 September 2003—White Wolf, Inc. and Nancy A. Collins yesterday filed suit in US District court in Atlanta, Georgia against defendants Sony Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment, alleging 17 counts of copyright infringement for the film Underworld, set for release on September 19. White Wolf alleges that Underworld characters, theme and setting are based on White Wolf’s award winning games Vampire: The Masquerade® and Werewolf: The Apocalypse™, both set in White Wolf’s fictional World of Darkness®. Further, Collins alleges that Underworld’s script is based on her 1994 story Love of Monsters, published by White Wolf and also set in the World of Darkness.

Plaintiffs claim over 60 points of unique similarity between Underworld and their work. \"Ours is a huge fictional world, supported by over 200 volumes of fictional material,\" asserts Mike Tinney, White Wolf’s President. \"It’s infuriating to see Underworld’s script riddled with our property.\" Plaintiffs also claim that Underworld’s entire plot is based on Collins’ short story Love of Monsters. \"Apparently they are marketing this as a remake of Romeo and Juliet,\" comments Collins. \"What I think they really mean is that it’s an on-screen adaptation of my story.\"

White Wolf and Collins are seeking immediate injunctive relief and damages. \"The volume of confusion in our marketplace is amazing,\" observes Tinney, \"our fans think they’re going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets released, in a way they will be.\"

 

[kittykat23uk]

\"our fans think they’re going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets released, in a way they will be.\"

Well I don\'t think its going to go down as one of the greatest films of all time. If white Wolfe were involved in the film-making process it could have been a lot better than it was really.

Regards

Kat

 

[Wren]

Oops, I guess maybe I shouldn\'t post so late at night, I think I left stuff out. I know White Wolf is suing over Underworld, that\'s specifically why I used the vampire example for how people\'s opinions can validly vary about whether a work is a \'copy\' or \'not\' without it meaning that those who vote \'not\' are loser thieves without any sense of honour or respect for others creativity.

I don\'t know anyone who\'s outraged on Stoker\'s behalf re modern retellings of vampire tales. I know a few people who think White Wolf skimmed more than a little off the top of Anne Rice\'s world. I know more people who think White Wolf has a strong enough case to sue, but even there, in a situation that _has_ gone to the courts, I\'ve seen plenty of arguments that White Wolf is seeing more similarity than actually exists.

I\'m just hoping the movie isn\'t that horrible, as I just bought it on DVD. Kindred didn\'t last very long on television, but I don\'t know that that means it was bad, or just not very commercial.

 

[Sand Rat]

Actually, I saw Underworld, and it wasnt that bad. I have to say tho - to get this slightly back on topic - when I saw the trailers for it, my first thought was \"Hmm, a full length VLARP movie\"

 

[zenmaster]

Hey Kat, Is Dogsoldier\'s a movie about werewolves and Vampires. You got me interested.

 

[Rachel]

Dogsoldiers

Just werewolves, no vamps. It\'s a really cool low-budget movie about a bunch of soldiers on a training exercise who run into werewolves - it rocks! The werewolf effects are less than stellar, but the acting and story etc make it a great film. One of the better of the genre I\'ve seen (for the record I thought Underworld sucked and can\'t stand Anne Rice, so take the opinion as you will )