Has EA Been Caught Stealing Designs From 40K?

[Wraith]

http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-bee...-tabletop-game

"Now, designs looking like other designs is nothing new. It's how art works, even in video games. Inspiration and homage are everywhere. Just look at how strongly StarCraft was influenced by, again, Warhammer 40K. But what EA is being accused of here isn't inspiration, it's straight up theft."

By the looks of it, it's a direct rip-off...

[Rick Blaine]

It's a direct rip-off of the Armorcast Baneblade, yes. Will GW do anything about it? Going up against EA is a bit different from bullying overzealous fans and one-man garage companies.

[Cuchulain84]

But the rewards are presumably much greater. I'd imagine GW's lawyers are eagerly rubbing their hands together in light of this.

[ThePope]

I wasn't sure if this was relevant to computer games section or GW section. I decided on putting it here.

Link http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/04/has...tabletop-game/

Can't believe how much EA has ripped off the Baneblade, would Games Workshop have the balls to go after such a big company like EA?

[The Dire Troll]

I dont thing THQ will be very happy about this either, thats poor form from the artists involved.

[Charax]

More like they're pissing themselves at the prospect of being sent against someone bigger than them.

GW won't sue, EA may change the designs if this goes REALLY widespread and generates bad publicity, otherwise they'll ignore it.

Also: Tiberium Alliances sucks, I played it for a week, it's all grind

[shelfunit.]

This looks to be a copyrights issue - the tank designs for the ork vehicle and Baneblade look to have been copied exactly. If this is real then, yes, the legal dept would have (at last) an apparently cut and dry case.

[djc]

Bigger pictures here.

The Baneblade has a few minor differences (no coaxial autocannon, no bolters on the sponsons and an extra hull mounted mini turret weapon) but the Bonecruncha is practically a carbon copy. It's even painted in bad moon colours!

[Souleater]

I know GW have a history of being heavily influenced by various things so shouldn't be wagging fingers at anybody but this over the line by a long way. EA really should be able to come up with their own designs.

[New Cult King]

I can't see GW going after EA. I mean legally, it looks like they have a very good case, but has GW ever (legally) gone after any other company bigger than they for any reason?

[Jedi152]

I know GW have a history of being heavily influenced by various things so shouldn't be wagging fingers at anybody but this over the line by a long way. EA really should be able to come up with their own designs.

I've seen this argument a lot, but there really is a difference between 'being inspired by' (the Leman Russ is inspired by the British ww1 tank for example) and blatant copying. Some things are quite close to the bone (halflings/hobbits for example) but nothing GW have done is a direct copy AFAIK.

The C&C designs aren't 'inspired by' GW stuff, they're copied due to time/imagination constraints in the hope no one will notice.

[sigur]

Seems to be a very sure case. Geez, that's a blatant rip-off.

[StraightSilver]

OK, this is all a little bit complicated but I don't think EA are actually in the wrong here.

The reason being that in 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 above.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

Obviously there is the issue as to whether SSI produced 40K LIberation under license, or whether they owned the rights fully, but technically speaking EA has already used these models in a previous game, so it could be a bit of a grey area.

[Dryaktylus]

would Games Workshop have the balls to go after such a big company like EA?

Well, they should have each others phone numbers since EA is a licensee of GWs IP (though not 40k) since nearly 20 years (Space Hulk, Dark Omen, Age of Reckoning).

I wonder where they found these ancient designs... maybe Final Liberation? Edit: ninja'd.

[AndrewGPaul]

It's a direct rip-off of the Armorcast Baneblade, yes.

You mean the Epic scale Citadel miniature, yes?

For what it's worth, this is also being discussed in GW General Discussion and Warhammer 40,000 General Discussion.

[Codsticker]

I think as we already have an existing discussion I will merge this thread with the one in Computers and Consoles.

Codsticker

The Warseer Mod Squad

[Damaged Dan]

OK, this is all a little bit complicated but I don't think EA are actually in the wrong here.

The reason being that in 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 above.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

Obviously there is the issue as to whether SSI produced 40K LIberation under license, or whether they owned the rights fully, but technically speaking EA has already used these models in a previous game, so it could be a bit of a grey area.

Don't these licenses have a time frame though? i.e. I remember hearing recently that THQ had renewed their license. I would have thought that a license from 16-17 years ago would have expired by now. Unless IP law was different back then...

[carlisimo]

Here's an early Epic-scale Baneblade. The artist would've had to be familiar with Epic to come up with that Ork tank, so it's more likely that he pulled the Baneblade design from the same game (as opposed to the very obscure Armorcast 28mm version).

[Eumerin]

Don't these licenses have a time frame though? i.e. I remember hearing recently that THQ had renewed their license. I would have thought that a license from 16-17 years ago would have expired by now. Unless IP law was different back then...

It's not IP Law that matters. It's the contractual agreement that was put in place between the two parties. For instance, Starfleet Battles is based off of a license issued back when licensing wasn't considered to be all that lucrative. As a result, the agreement didn't have an expiration date, and the game is still being produced today based off of that original license (even though the game's setting has less and less in common with the official Star Trek Canon as time passes due to the evolution of both).

However, given that Final Liberation was developed back in the '90s, I would be surprised if there isn't an expiration date on the agreement.

My suspicion is that GW will make a fuss about it, and there will be a settlement between EA and GW. EA can probably afford a protracted legal battle much more easily than GW can, meaning that GW probably doesn't want to see this go to court. But GW needs to make a fuss about this in order to protect its rights to the vehicle designs. So EA will pay GW a small sum of money, and retain the right to continue using the vehicles. And whoever was responsible for the decision at EA to use the designs will have a lot of explaining to do.

[Mr Ogre]

Also, let's not forget it's been relicensed.

I don't know my Gork from my Mork when it comes to these sorts of things, but one would imagine putting it out to tender again kind of suggests the previous license has expired?