514
Post by: Orlanth
GW possibly lied here, they said there was a misunderstanding after telling the Damnatus production team to stop, wheras I heard the film was reviewed in White Dwarf. Any confirmation on that.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
BBC.com, banned in Red China.
978
Post by: Shattered Soul
I am disgusted with two of my favorite organizations now, Games Workshop and the great nation of Deutschland.
348
Post by: Xerxes
Sooooo, if German law would make GW "lose" the 40k IP if Damnatus was released, why can Star Wars and Star Trek fan works be made in Germany?
What I heard was that the order to ban Damnatus came past the GW lawyers themselves, from management. And as we can see, GW's legal dept is led by Andy Jones, an ex design studio member IIRC. So I think we just have a case of management incompetence, business as usual.
4140
Post by: Griffu
For Kyoto and other dirty commie spies on Dakka: A copyright row means that one of the most ambitious fan films ever made may never be shown before an audience.
Four years in the planning Damnatus, made by German fans of the Warhammer 40,000 game, cost more than 10,000 euros, took months to film, employs 11 principal actors, dozens of extras and sophisticated post-production special effects. Now finished the film runs to 110 minutes.
But Huan Vu, director and producer of the movie, said Damnatus' creators have now given up trying to get the film in front of an audience.
Nottingham-based Games Workshop created Warhammer 40,000 - a science fiction wargame which revolves around battles fought between factions and races that populate the universe in the 41st century. It is an outgrowth of the Warhammer tabletop game created by Games Workshop in 1983.
Mr Vu said that, despite lengthy negotiations with Games Workshop, the company has refused to give permission for the film to be shown.
"It's really horrible for an artist not being able to show off their own work," Mr Vu told the BBC News website.
Owner occupier
German copyright law lies at the heart of the dispute between Games Workshop and the Damnatus creators.
Andy Jones, legal and licensing head for Games Workshop, said this law confers rights on the creators of works that cannot be given away.
This means that the creators of Damnatus cannot assign their rights to Games Workshop even if they wanted to.
But by sanctioning the release of the film without this "assignment" Games Workshop would essentially be giving up the title to the Warhammer 40,000 intellectual property.
In a lengthy response explaining the ban on Damnatus Mr Jones wrote: "To lose control of Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000 is simply unthinkable.
"So we must be vigilant, and perhaps sometimes seemingly heartless in our decisions to safeguard the IP for the future success of the business and the hobby."
A misunderstanding meant that filming on Damnatus continued after Games Workshop had asked Mr Vu and his colleagues to stop.
Mr Vu said the Damnatus team was "shocked" when it learned of the ban but even when they found out about it thought that an amicable solution could be reached.
"I imagined that in the end I would be forced to sign some more or less 'fair' contract in which I'd have to give them all rights bar the unalienable ones, but to get this film out I'd underwritten everything," he said.
Copy control
Dr Guido Westkamp, a lecturer on intellectual property law at the University of London, said copyright cases were always tricky to resolve.
"It's very much a question of looking in total at the work in question and then perhaps to look at the technical features in that work," he said.
But, he added, a question like the dispute between the Damnatus creators and Games Workshop was unprecedented.
"It's not come before German courts before at all," he said.
"But," he added, "it's one that really affects new technology."
This also meant that it would be unclear what would happen if the case did come before the courts.
"We have little guidance," he said, "It's just case law."
Mr Vu said the Damnatus creators have tried everything to reach a deal with Games Workshop including setting up online petitions and asking other Warhammer players to let the game maker know how they feel at the fan events it runs around the world.
The Damnatus team have also explored releasing the film in a different format or changing it to see if this would escape the copyright problems.
"But," said Mr Vu, "we do not really want to get away from the 40k universe - the film is meant as a dedication to it after all."
Mr Jones said despite Games Workshop's "admiration" for Damnatus it could not change its policy and allow the film to be shown.
He said Games Workshop was not acting "malevolently" but that this was a case where an agreement has "failed to be reached".
Said Mr Jones: "This is perhaps to be regretted, nonetheless in the final analysis we simply have no choice but to say 'no'."
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
Actually that´s shoddy research on German copyright law. It would have been possible.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Ick more about reminding me about wasting a long wait for this movie.
Regardless about GW legal matters, I am bitter about it. It smacks of bad taste on the part of GW.
Also, I feel it is a direct reflection on how GW treat their consumers as a whole.
Thank goodness there are other, better games than GW out there. I still love the 40K universe, but I abhor GW.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Couldn't GW make everyone who did the film contractors/employees. The work product of their work would be the GW's. Make a few "edits" and voila instant GW product.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I expect GW didn't want this film published and just cocked up the process of killing it.
348
Post by: Xerxes
I'll say again, GW's legal department is headed by Andy Jones. It's a good old boys' club. Competence is likely not a qualifying trait.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Regardless of who is in charge it is unlikely that GW do not consult proper lawyers when they need to. (As someone who works in a big company with a legal department, I can tell you that our properly qualified lawyers regularly call in expert opinions.)
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Really, really sucks for the Damnatus guys. Imagine all that work for nothing.
666
Post by: Necros
Could be that maybe GW is in talks of putting together a real hollywood 40K film and don't want this fan film messing things up. Or it could be that the movie is just boring and stupid and horribly acted like most indie films are and they don't want their name on it.
GW could easily just have all rights signed over to them and sell it in a cheapy reproduced DVD off the website and not give the filmmakers a dime
It is pretty sucky of GW to just pull the plug and I'm sure that if the folks that made it really wanted to they could get real lawyers into it and find a loophole that will allow it to be shown.. but it's I guess they figure it's not worth the effort. But the first time GW told em no, they should have stopped instead of wasting more time and resources.
What they should have done is just made it and stuck it up on Youtube and the web for download without even asking and when GW yells at em just say "Gee we made a fan film just like all those trekkie and comic book folks do, we didn't know we weren't allowed" .. and it'll last a couple weeks before the plug is pulled, and by that time plenty of folks will have downloaded it and if it's good it would get spread all over by fans and the guys that made it could be like "Gee, we can't help it if the fans love it and are spreading it all over the internet, we took it off our site just like you asked".
83
Post by: ZandrisIV
They should just get a contact in the Netherlands to put up a torrent of it somewhere. Then they can express outrage at how the copy was leaked online, but as everyone knows, once something gets on the interwebs, it *STAYS* on the interweb...
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Posted By Xerxes on 11/06/2007 6:41 AM
Sooooo, if German law would make GW "lose" the 40k IP if Damnatus was released, why can Star Wars and Star Trek fan works be made in Germany?
There are huge swathes of Star Trek IP that Paramount (or whatever holding company it is) simply no longer controls due to the proliferation of fan works in the 70s and 80s. People publish and profit from Trek fan works and Paramount does nothing because they basically failed to do anything in the 70s, so now it's too late. A good example is the "Ships of the Star Fleet" book series.
263
Post by: Centurian99
I have to say, I fully understand and support Games Workshop in this. Copyright law is tricky, and when the whole basis of your company arises from their IP, you have to vigorously protect it. Once you lose IP rights to anything, it's nearly impossible to get them back.
Duncan Idaho, what are your qualifications to discuss German IP law?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why do you support them in this? This was a joyously bad PR move. Any manner of steps could be taken to prevent IP loss without looking like the rear end of a donkey.
GW gets minimal publicity. If the only non-internet board publicity is bad publicity "that ain't a good thing." Edit: Here's some ideas. *Hire the guys, make changes sufficient to make the work GW's. *Don't show it in Germany. *Travel to GB, officially sell the film and all its rights there. Come on this is stupid. I work by the former Enron building. Creative attorneys can do anything. I've seen it in action.
459
Post by: Hellfury
GW really should just give the people who made the film the money for the cost it took to make.
I am not sure about this next part though, but I beleive the producers of the film can ask for compensation upto what they forked out to produce it, and anything after that cannot be collected as it would then be seriously infringeing on GW's IP.
So GW buys the film for cost plus give Sphaerentor a percentage of any profit and GW can have a nice film they can sell.
If it cost as little as I heard it cost, then if GW distributed this film, it would be nearly pure profit.
I really think there is a way for GW to not look like complete a*$%&*)s here. Wether or not you side with GW, you have to admit this is bad publicity and appears immensely shady..
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Well, the thing is, we don't know what goes on in the film. Perhaps GW would prefer not to be associated with it and therefore don't want the rights.
BUT!
The time for them to tell the Damnatus guys not to go ahead was the first time they were contacted, not after the film is made. That's just sucky!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Well, there are two ways of looking at these German guys.
(1) They are righteous dudes who poured their heart, soul and cash into such a top-notch product that GW should be only too glad to give them money.
(2) They were foolish and naive and failed the first test of a film producer, which is to make sure the core idea is yours, so you can money off it.
I don't think it is bad publicity at all for GW to have stopped them. GW would have been complete idiots not to stop them. The next shareholders AGM would sound a lot different if GW had wimped out, given the Germans money or freedom to distribute, and lost control of their core IP because otherwise a bunch of internet fanbois would be flaming them.
263
Post by: Centurian99
Again, unless someone here is a specialist in German IP law, I haven't read anything that would make me question Games Workshops actions in this situation. It's an open question as to whether German courts would ever waive jurisdiction to a foreign court because a sale happened there, when the principal was a german citiizen with all of the labor performed in Germany. The extent of my knowledge of German law is in the area of immigration law, where a buddy of mine is a German citizen despite having lived almost his whole life in the US, simply because his father is a German citizen. He also cannot ever give up his German citizenship. German courts simply do not recognize the declaration of American citizenship that he made when he was 18.
From a professional standpoint (I'm trained as a scriptwriter, and have friends in the industry), it's simply idiotic of the creators of Damnatus to have spent the money that they did and put the work in that they did without first securing the IP license. In fact, I'd use the words "moronic", and "utterly irresponsible" without hesitation.
2559
Post by: ancientsociety
Just because a bunch of people got together and spent a boatload of their time making a movie about their favourite game doesn't necessarily mean they made a GOOD movie.
I can't imagine that a fan-made film on a very limited budget could properly portray the 40K universe. Prop and set design alone could cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at least.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
The article makes a point that in Germany there are certain rights that can never be signed over. It is entirely possible that British (or American, almost as important) law requires those rights for full ownership. In otherwords, if GW can't get those from the company, they don't have all their rights any more in their own country, and thus the sale doesn't work right.
It is a shame that the film can't be shown, but it is absolutely correct that you can't expect a company to have their ideas taken and used without their permission, and then just say "Well, it's kind of neat, why doesn't everyone give that a go?"
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that GW mentioned that they can't just hire these guys and push the movie itself as they already have an agreement with another company over all movie rights to their IP. Its hard to find fault with GW as their IP is everything to them. In the end, this is just a s***ty situation.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
263
Post by: Centurian99
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that GW mentioned that they can't just hire these guys and push the movie itself as they already have an agreement with another company over all movie rights to their IP. Its hard to find fault with GW as their IP is everything to them. In the end, this is just a s***ty situation. If they've already sold the movie rights to another company, than those idiots in Germany are well and truly screwed.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I feel sorry for the German guys, because GW should have made it totally clear with them from the start. It was a bit unprofessional of them not too. On the other hand, why go ahead when you don't know for sure?
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
@Centurian99
1.) Of course you can give up German citizenship, but you need to have lived for quite some time in the other country, at least six years. Besides there is the little difference of being American by being born to american parents and of being German by being born in Germany. There are some mor details involved in this, but this is the general line.
2.) I do know quite some about copyright law since my wife is a professional musician and we had to make sure she had the copyright to her pieces. Besides friends of ours are lawyers who are quite good at it.
3.) They did not sell the rights to any other company. But GW advertised for their film two times in the german version of the White Dwarf.
4.) GW Germany for quite some time acted in a way that everyone would have considered as supporting the project. The only mistake the Damnatus crew made was not getting the support written on paper. On the other hand, advertising of GW in the WD for the movie could bee seen by a judge as supporting it.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Couldn't GW make everyone who did the film contractors/employees. The work product of their work would be the GW's. Make a few "edits" and voila instant GW product. Doubtful. It's well outside my area of expertise, but what I do recall about copyright law in the EU (in general) involves inalieanable, unassignable "moral rights" to a work. In the U.S., you can assign away all rights. In (parts of?) Europe, there are some rights which you can't assign away, period.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Wikipedia on Moral Rights of authorship. Rather US-focused, but the Berne Convention except is notable: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.So, irrespective of any assignment of rights to GW (always assuming they were willing to sign over everything they could, at a price GW was willing to pay - information we lack), GW would still face uncertainty as to how they could use what they "bought." What if an author decided, somewhere down the line, that a GW edited release was a "mutilation" of the original? No, I'm with Centurian99 on this one. GW can't afford to let other people wander freely through their IP; it's the heart and liver of their company.
3720
Post by: brettz123
Posted By Duncan_Idaho on 11/06/2007 4:02 PM
@Centurian99
1.) Of course you can give up German citizenship, but you need to have lived for quite some time in the other country, at least six years. Besides there is the little difference of being American by being born to american parents and of being German by being born in Germany. There are some mor details involved in this, but this is the general line.
2.) I do know quite some about copyright law since my wife is a professional musician and we had to make sure she had the copyright to her pieces. Besides friends of ours are lawyers who are quite good at it.
3.) They did not sell the rights to any other company. But GW advertised for their film two times in the german version of the White Dwarf.
4.) GW Germany for quite some time acted in a way that everyone would have considered as supporting the project. The only mistake the Damnatus crew made was not getting the support written on paper. On the other hand, advertising of GW in the WD for the movie could bee seen by a judge as supporting it.
Are you kidding? Your wife is a musician so you know something about copyright law in Germany? Umm ok dude. Maybe you and the rest of us would be best served if someone who actually knew something about German copyright law would make an intelligent post about it. It seems that some fans who just want to hate on GW are spouting off at the mouth about what they should have done without any legal basis for that opinion.
If you would have liked to see the movie I sympathize with you because I would like to see it too but you have no clue what you are talking about from a legal basis so why bash GWs decision?
241
Post by: Ahtman
So was this an insanely expensive fan film or a low budget commercial film?
91
Post by: Hordini
Posted By brettz123 on 11/06/2007 5:03 PM Are you kidding? Your wife is a musician so you know something about copyright law in Germany? Umm ok dude. Maybe you and the rest of us would be best served if someone who actually knew something about German copyright law would make an intelligent post about it. It seems that some fans who just want to hate on GW are spouting off at the mouth about what they should have done without any legal basis for that opinion. If you would have liked to see the movie I sympathize with you because I would like to see it too but you have no clue what you are talking about from a legal basis so why bash GWs decision?
Hey brettz123, in case you haven't quite got with the program here yet, I believe Mr. Duncan_Idaho is from Germany, and while that certainly doesn't make him an expert on German copywright law, I'd be willing to bet he knows a damn sight more about it than you do, especially if he's done some previous research on it, since, you know, his wife is a professional musician. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to take any of our German posters' word for it, vs. one of our non-German posters, unless that person happened to be a copywright lawyer with experience in the EU. As far as I know, no one in our community that contributes regularly has those credentials, and since this isn't a critical legal issue for most of us personally, I'll go with the second best source for now. If your job revolves around creating or reproducing creative content (as a professional musician does, for example) you ought to know at least a bit about the legalities involved.
4827
Post by: venkh
The doubters need to look at this. http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#13 Section V Dealings with Rights in Copyright
1. Succession to Copyright
Article 28 Inheritance of Copyright
(1) Copyright may be transferred by inheritance.
(2) The author may transfer the exercise of copyright to an executor by testamentary disposition. Article 2210 of the Civil Code shall not apply.
Article 29 Transfer of Copyright
Copyright may be transferred in execution of a testamentary disposition or to coheirs as part of the partition of an estate. Copyright shall not otherwise be transferable.
Article 30 Successor in Title of Author
In the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, the successor in title of the author shall have the rights afforded the author by this Law. No need to rely on heresay in this case, just type German copyright law into a browser and read it yourself. Pretty clear cut if you ask me. GW were right to block this although i feel very sorry for the Dammatus Team.
60
Post by: yakface
What I don't understand (and this is coming from someone with absolutely zero legal experience) is that if they don't collect any money off of the release, what exactly happens to them if they give it to someone to post on the internet?
They can't be sued to give over any earnings. Whoever is hosting the video can obviously be forced to shut it down, but once its out on the internet we all know it will be impossible to completely eradicate.
So what happens? Are they stuck with a hefty fine by British courts. . .? If they don't collect any money off of this, how is this any different then painting a picture of a McDonalds logo and then just standing with that painting on a street corner? I don't understand how simply displaying the movie can be a crime/IP infringement in any country.
Somebody please enlighten me.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The Damnatus team could be sued for business damages as having damaged the reputation and good name of GW by releasing an unauthorised film.
GW would have to prove damages, which might be difficult.
The Damnatus team would then be liable to pay a fine. If unable to, maybe the bailiffs get sent in, I am not sure about that system in Germany.
60
Post by: yakface
Killkrazy wrote:
The Damnatus team could be sued for business damages as having damaged the reputation and good name of GW by releasing an unauthorised film.
GW would have to prove damages, which might be difficult.
The Damnatus team would then be liable to pay a fine. If unable to, maybe the bailiffs get sent in, I am not sure about that system in Germany. I've heard of that, sort of. Like those people who printed up anti-McDonalds pamphlets and started handing them out all over the place. I believe they were taken to court by McDonalds for defaming them. But how could that possibly apply here? I can't imagine the simple production of a clearly adoring movie could be legally found to be damaging to the company's business. I mean, they clearly have no recourse to make money off of the thing, but I still don't understand how they are prevented from just letting people watch it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its irrelevant if they win Yakmeister. All GW has to do is actually sue them. Legal costs alone would be painful for anyone without deep pockets.
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
Googeling for laws is dangerous, since you very often get to see only a part of the picture. Germany has over 900 different law books. So just googling it is a sure way to get yourself in trouble.
Besides, Gearge Lucas has no problems with fan films in general and German law. So why should GW do have a problem with it? And rest assured, Lucas definitely goes for the decision that generates the most in cash.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
That's why someone needs to steal it from them and then release it. They can't be held accountable at that point...  Ozymandias, King of Kings
263
Post by: Centurian99
Somebody please enlighten me. Just by releasing it, especially if GW sold the film rights for 40K to someone else, they're lowering the value of the IP, or stealing the film rights from the actual studio that purchased the option. Fan fic and fan pics are the exception, not the rule. The IP holder has to offer specific film rights, and that's totally at the IP holder's discretion. Even then, there's the difference between German IP law and US IP law, in that German law does not permit the sale or transfer of certain IP rights. There's a reason why the only examples people are dredging up for "sanctioned" fan films are George Lucas and Star Trek. Star Trek, as has been cited earlier, actually lost some of their IP due to insufficiently vigorous defense of it back in the 70s. And George Lucas, for whatever reasons, actually sanctions fan films to a certain extent. Then again, George Lucas has always been something of an abberation in the Industry. GW is behaving extremely responsibly towards the value of its IP by the steps its taking. Whatever issues I have with GW, I can't fault them for the decisions they've made here. And Idaho - the fact that your wife is a muscian who had to deal with German IP law by no means qualifies you as an expert. I think we can safely assume that GW HQ and GW Germany are getting some good legal advice in making their decision, so unless you want to argue that they're legal advice is flawed, and can explain exactly how its flawed, I'm going to side with the professionals on this one.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Why couldn't they just release it another country with less restrictive IP laws?
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
Duplicate! Please delete and sorry.
752
Post by: Polonius
If I were to guess this is a question of the legal world vs. the real world.
In the legal world, GW wants to defend it's IP as vigoursly as possible to prevent it from being diluted. Keep in mind that much of GW's IP is barely distinguishable from stuff in the public domain, so they need to be very, very zealous in defending their legal right to own their IP. One fan film clearly won't hurt too much, but it opens the door for other things, and GW wants to be able to point to a sterling record, around the world, of defending it's IP.
In the real world, GW can't stop this. It'll get on the internet, it'll be leaked, and then anybody that wants to see it can see it. The filmmakers never really could have made money off of it, so all they're losing is the credit. GW can't seize all copies, and probably can't sue the filmmakers if it gets out.
Does anybody really think that GW fans won't see this?
3884
Post by: Buoyancy
Posted By Centurian99 on 11/07/2007 10:18 AM
There's a reason why the only examples people are dredging up for "sanctioned" fan films are George Lucas and Star Trek. Star Trek, as has been cited earlier, actually lost some of their IP due to insufficiently vigorous defense of it back in the 70s.
Except that the only IP they could have possibly lost due to a lack of defending it is trademarks. Neither patents (which don't apply to artistic efforts), nor copyright require the holder to defend their IP to maintain control over it.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Posted By Buoyancy on 11/07/2007 11:17 AM Posted By Centurian99 on 11/07/2007 10:18 AM
There's a reason why the only examples people are dredging up for "sanctioned" fan films are George Lucas and Star Trek. Star Trek, as has been cited earlier, actually lost some of their IP due to insufficiently vigorous defense of it back in the 70s.
Except that the only IP they could have possibly lost due to a lack of defending it is trademarks. Neither patents (which don't apply to artistic efforts), nor copyright require the holder to defend their IP to maintain control over it.
All I know is that people can put the Starship Enterprise in any work they want to and apparently there's not a damned thing Paramount can do about it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yes. However, how has that harmed Paramount other than helping turning ST into a household name?
3720
Post by: brettz123
Posted By jfrazell on 11/07/2007 12:14 PM
Yes. However, how has that harmed Paramount other than helping turning ST into a household name?
It hasn't because it takes lots of money to make movies so home grown movie businesses arent going to just start making Star Trek films. But it is significantly less espensive to start making Space Marine Models. So if they GW failed to protect their IP how would they stop me from paying someone $400 or $500 dollars to sculpt me a space marine and then producing them. I could then sell them for a couple dollars a piece which is much cheaper then a metal space marine from GW and if they have failed to protect their IP on previous occassions they might not be able to stop me.
As others have said unless you can show some relevant German IP law that contradicts what GW is stating as their reason why are people calling them liars?
1406
Post by: Janthkin
What I don't understand (and this is coming from someone with absolutely zero legal experience) is that if they don't collect any money off of the release, what exactly happens to them if they give it to someone to post on the internet? In the U.S., they hit you for statutory damages, rather than going after profits. And if you've seen any of the RIAA lawsuits, statutory damages (here) are hefty. If they can prove willfulness (extremely easy in this case, given all the notice that they aren't allowed to distribute), there are some hefty damage-enhancers. And our system isn't unique in this... Oh, and if they release and it enters the U.S.? Yeah, all those U.S. copyright options become available. Note to Damnatus people: DO NOT illicitly release this. You've made it far too apparent that you're aware you lack permission of the copyright holder to do so, and you really, really don't want to open yourselves up to that kind of liability.
1639
Post by: Flagg07
Besides the legal ramifications, it's entirely possible that GW is refusing to let this be released because it's a steaming pile of _______ (insert choice phrase) that they don't want to be conected to. Fan + time + money does not = good film.
4499
Post by: Oktavian
Me again... ^^
As some of you should know, I´m am member of the damnatus-team since beginning.
First I´ve got to say that there will be no leak over the internet an no hacker that steals our movie. GW has forbidden any kind of release and we´ve got to accept this.
On the second we´ve never planned to do money with this an GW knows it. Every discussion with the legal departement was based on that fact.
The third thing ist that the movie was allowed for a long time based on the GW´s IP-policy. It was clearly allowed to create animations and such things. The IP were changed very later (on the same time they´ve forbidden the release of the movie). Till december last year everything looked fine, and GW promised us to find a way for both sides. At this time Damnatus were nearly finished ex. some Animations. But then things changed and we´ve got the trouble you can see in the BBC-article.
Till about march of this year, there were no sign from GW, going to forbid the movie. Everything that was discussed with the legal departemet, were the specifications of the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie.
And please don´t justice Damnatus until you haven´t seen it. GW never seen our movie (yes, really), so there were no quality reasons to forbid it.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
As some of you should know, I´m am member of the damnatus-team since beginning. I feel for your lost time. Unfortunately, you probably should not have begun production of such a labor of love without first entering into some sort of binding contract with GW. Couple hours of work? Sure. A week? Why not. But thousands of dollars and thousands of hours? Nope, not without a written guarantee.
3618
Post by: fourganger88
Posted By Da Boss on 11/06/2007 2:44 PM
I feel sorry for the German guys, because GW should have made it totally clear with them from the start. It was a bit unprofessional of them not too. On the other hand, why go ahead when you don't know for sure?
We don't actually know if the "misunderstanding" was GW's fault. It may have simply been wishful thinking on the part of the film crew. No means no guys.
958
Post by: mikhaila
If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this. With no agreement, GW is within their rights to change their minds at any time. It's there call. I can understand the Damnatus crew being upset, but this problem was as much their doing as it was GW's
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this. Is that really true? For practical purposes, maybe, but isn't a verbal agreement legally sufficient if it comes from someone who is able to give this agreement?
91
Post by: Hordini
Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 11/07/2007 6:22 PM If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this. Is that really true? For practical purposes, maybe, but isn't a verbal agreement legally sufficient if it comes from someone who is able to give this agreement?
Whether that is the case or not, I would think the biggest problem with that is proving the existence of the verbal agreement, unless of course you have some audio or video documentation of the thing.
348
Post by: Xerxes
Posted By Hordini on 11/07/2007 10:19 PM Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 11/07/2007 6:22 PM If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this. Is that really true? For practical purposes, maybe, but isn't a verbal agreement legally sufficient if it comes from someone who is able to give this agreement?
Whether that is the case or not, I would think the biggest problem with that is proving the existence of the verbal agreement, unless of course you have some audio or video documentation of the thing.
I think the White Dwarf ads for Damnatus will count for a lot if the question is ever put to the test.
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
Except it's very likely that neither the person who wrote it up nor the person who okayed it for publication was legally able to grant the permission needed.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 11/08/2007 5:16 AM
Except it's very likely that neither the person who wrote it up nor the person who okayed it for publication was legally able to grant the permission needed.
In Canada anyway there's ostensible authority rules when dealing with corporate agents (as opposed to actual authority) that cover that sort of thing. I don't feel like getting into a technical discussion about it though. You can wiki it if you're curious.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
GW's problem is the following:
You cannot patent rules and you only hold copyright on the rules as expressed in your writings.
You cannot copyright or patent names such as Eldar, Warhammer etc though they can be used as Trade Marks within the narrow context of wargaming. (In other words, I can open a pub called The Warhammer but I can't publish a game called The Warhammer.)
Although the models are copyright by virtue of being sculptures, sales of the figures are very dependent on their association with the rules and fluff.
As a consequence of these factors, much of GW's value as a company rests on their control of their trade marked terms.
Trade Marks need to be defended or they lapse (see Hoover.)
241
Post by: Ahtman
Posted By Kilkrazy on 11/08/2007 8:01 AM
Trade Marks need to be defended or they lapse (see Hoover.)
Herbert or J. Edgar?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Hoover the vacuum cleaning company, which let its name become a household term in the UK and lost control of it for Trade Mark purposes.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
You guys over at Damatus should have seen this coming when GW says Yes, they really mean NO.
Silly GW, always being coy. Give us a kiss first!
Seriously though, How about just up and selling the movie to GW if it's so good? Maybe trading it to them and getting one of those nifty ork boxed sets in return for the cost of production?
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Strewth, the boards understanding and sympathies for the Damnatus guys brings a tear to my eye... NOT! Boy, I've never seen such a collection of self righteous, up themselves people all in one place, it's amazing. Nice of you lot to make assumptions that the film is probably a total pile of crap (having not seen it in full) and that it's the guys & gals own fault for this whole situation, because they never got a yes from GW HQ signed sealed and delivered in blood. Forgive me for being a little idealistic / cynical here, but I would of thought at some point in the 4 years that this non secret project was being made, somebody at GW would of said, "hummm, I think we need to check this is ok for these people to be doing this." Come on, if someone tries to sell a copy of a GW model on ebay or something based on their IP, they come down like a ton of bricks. GW allowed this project to be advertised in their own publications, THEY knew what was going on here, this wasn't a misunderstanding. This is GW taking a sledgehammer to a nut. Yes the Damnatus crew appear to of been a bit naive about this, but only in the way fans usually are about something they have a passion about. They weren't looking to make a living out of GW's IP.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think the reactions have been pretty sympathetic, and well, I feel really bad for them too. I think most of the posters have now moved past "that sucks dude" and are trying to figure out where, exactly, the wheels came off the wagon.
I'm sorry if we come off as callous, but there are two possibilities here:
1) GW screwed around with Damanatus
2) The Damnatus guys misread GW's policy
I'm guessing GW literally looked up German copywrite law (which grants the authors of works rights to it for life, BTW) this summer and realized that it probably is not in their long term interest to allow a dilution fo their IP.
I'm upset about, as I wanted to see the movie. Hopefully it'll leak, but if not, this is just one of those things, ya know?
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
@Wolfstan
Finally someone talking sense..... but alas.... to deaf ears.
3720
Post by: brettz123
Posted By Duncan_Idaho on 11/08/2007 3:01 PM
@Wolfstan
Finally someone talking sense..... but alas.... to deaf ears.
I really don't see how that is talking sense. Almost everyone who has posted feels bad about the Damnatus people not being able to put out something that they took a long time and put a lot of effort into. What we are saying is that just because they arent allowed to put it out doesnt automatically make GW the bad guy.
What is wrong with voicing that opinion? It actually seems that German IP law would hurt GW if they let Damnatus put it out. So I would like either Duncan Idaho or Wolfstan to tell the rest of us why GW should allow this out *IF* it would hurt their IP? Or if you could positively refute that it would hurt their IP that would be most helpful too. Unfortunately, to date no one has shown that GW has misrepresented themselves over the IP issue. And frankly we do not know what kind of 'permission' was given to the Damnatus people. Who told them they could do this? etc... etc... I have been to their website and would love to see what they have come up with but I don't automatically jump all over GW for what appears to be a reasonable business decision. Now it would have been nice if it didn't take 4 years to do but then the Damnatus guys might have wanted to consult a lawyer themselves and find out what the relevant legal issues would have been. It really isn't GWs responsibility to tell them what they can and can't do. It is the Damnatus people who are responsible for their own actions. They should have done the research. To me that is the bottom line.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Finally someone talking sense..... but alas.... to deaf ears. There is, lamentably, some irony present in this statement. We feel for you, truly we do. It sucks that you've poured so much effort into this project, only to reach the finish line, and discover the tape there is legal and unarguable. You've poured years of effort and significant treasure into a project which you wanted to share with the world, and have been barred by an out-of-left-field copyright consideration. Dedication to the project is no yardstick for actual success, but we know how much the project meant. I cannot speak to the specific quality of your work, as I have not seen it, but I know that there ARE fan works that can reach an extremely high level. (LucasArts encourages fan work, and we've seen some phenominal work there, for instance.) But just because we feel badly for you, does not mean that we can villify GW over this decision, when it is a decision that makes sense, at least from a legal and business standpoint. And yes, the discussion went past "that sucks" and into "So, what went wrong?" and "Wait, copyright-whatsis?" It's just how message boards work - the initial post is a springboard, and there's no telling where the conversation will land.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
GW has every right to protect their, but you are still missing the point. THIS project has been out there for 4 years, GW has promoted the project THEY knew about it. SOMEONE somewhere at GW should of picked up on it a long time ago, they do with everyother thing. Again I say this, if this was the case of someone in Germany selling their version of a Space Marine model on Ebay, refering to it as a Space Marine and it looking near as damn it to a Space Marine, GW would get Ebay to remove it forthwith. If they can do this to a model, based on the idea of a Space Marine, how hard is it to work out a feature length film based on their IP is not allowed? I think that this is GW sending out a message, they are saying, "don't do anything with our IP, fullstop." If they had done this in the early days it wouldn't of had the same impact, but now fans will be saying "bugger that" if someone suggests doing a fan based film. Out of interest, how does licensing work, couldn't this be a work around?
1406
Post by: Janthkin
GW has every right to protect their, but you are still missing the point. THIS project has been out there for 4 years, GW has promoted the project THEY knew about it. SOMEONE somewhere at GW should of picked up on it a long time ago, they do with everyother thing. I understand your point. And its the reason why one should not embark upon a long, expensive project without securing the necessary permissions (in writing) before getting 4 years in. And GW, as handy a label as it is, is not actually a singular entity. It's made up people, some of whom have the authority to make these decisions, and many of whom don't. White Dwarf editors probably aren't in the first category, though they have the authority to include information in White Dwarf. So who knows exactly what happened? Did no one even TALK to the legal department until the project was ready for release? Sadly, that is quite possibly the case - I seriously doubt that anyone in the development studio, for example, faced with a project like this would immediately think "But what about the inalienable, untransferable moral rights of the creators under (German) copyright law, and how will they affect our IP?!?" I don't see a conspiracy here. I expect it's as simple as no one bothered to seek legal advice, either inside GW or outside, before the project got this far along. (Licensing is only an option if GW was willing to accept the consequences of letting the creators obtain, unassignably, certain rights under copyright law. It's apparent they aren't.)
162
Post by: engine
This seems like a really, really wierd law. You can't sign over certain rights for what youc reate, no matter what? Huh? Why not?
In the case of GW, then how does Golden Demon work in Germany? If I create a really cool scratchbuilt Space Marine for 40k single, do I now own a part of the IP because of my conversion based on the work of GW? Wha-?
Just seems very odd.
engine
3884
Post by: Buoyancy
Posted By Wolfstan on 11/08/2007 3:29 PM I think that this is GW sending out a message, they are saying, "don't do anything with our IP, fullstop." If they had done this in the early days it wouldn't of had the same impact, but now fans will be saying "bugger that" if someone suggests doing a fan based film.
It's quite obvious that this is what is happening, since it's what GW has _always_ done with any fan project. They wait until its ready for release and then sic their lawyers on it to bury the project under legal fees regardless of what's actually legal.
3720
Post by: brettz123
Posted By Buoyancy on 11/08/2007 4:57 PM Posted By Wolfstan on 11/08/2007 3:29 PM I think that this is GW sending out a message, they are saying, "don't do anything with our IP, fullstop." If they had done this in the early days it wouldn't of had the same impact, but now fans will be saying "bugger that" if someone suggests doing a fan based film.
It's quite obvious that this is what is happening, since it's what GW has _always_ done with any fan project. They wait until its ready for release and then sic their lawyers on it to bury the project under legal fees regardless of what's actually legal.
Not contradicting you but when has this happened before? I am not aware of this and would actually like to know if this is true.
752
Post by: Polonius
The german Moral Right, or Author's Right, is based on the assumption that when you create something, it is virtually an extension of the self, and just like you can't sell your arm or leg (outside of Tijuana), you can't sell all the rights to your book, painting, or fanfilm.
German law also prohibits the selling of any rights to a corporation, meaning GW couldn't even buy the economic rights to Damnatus: one individual would literally have to. It's part of the difference between civil and common law.
I think the allusion to GW railing people over IP was mostly on fan sites, where they used too much GW imagery. There is also the ban on using their images in online shopping carts.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I work in a large IP related corporation and have a lot of dealings with various aspects of IP and our legal department.
From my experience it is quite likely that GW simply did not join up all the dots until near the end, when the need to resolve the situation became urgent. Up until then, the Damnatus guys must have thought they were "talking to GW" and that "GW approved their project" though actually they just talked to a couple of guys at GW who liked the idea, but had no authority to form contracts, and some stuff on their project appeared in WD which is edited by some other guys who also probably liked it but again these guys had no authority to make contracts.
Once the project neared completion, the corporate legal department got involved, and the whole thing was stamped on.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If its in the magazine its now a question of fact as to whether those "approving" had apparent authority and control to those outside of the Company.
Again I agree with the camp that says "what you didn't get anything in writing" But I'm also of the camp that this is a real shoot foot with own pistol sort of move by GW-not in nixxing the film, but doing it so late in the game.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You would have to see the exact wording of the magazine article to form an opinion.
If we are to pursue this line of enquiry, perhaps someone might copy and post it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're right Kilkrazy, but thats my point, its partially a question of fact now. Its not a line I'd follow if I were the damnatus boys as a legal fight would be surpremely stupid.
752
Post by: Polonius
Posted By jfrazell on 11/09/2007 6:12 AM
If its in the magazine its now a question of fact as to whether those "approving" had apparent authority and control to those outside of the Company.
Again I agree with the camp that says "what you didn't get anything in writing" But I'm also of the camp that this is a real shoot foot with own pistol sort of move by GW-not in nixxing the film, but doing it so late in the game.
I agree, it was a blunder. I suppose GW had a meeting, where legal made it's case to nix the film, and marketing made it's argument that'll bring ill will to the company. Part of me simply envisions this shadowy figure sitting through the entire meeting, then quietly saying, "We raised prices, the fans stayed. We cancelled specialist games, the fans stayed. We won't answer rules questions, our magazine is a monthly catalog, and despite our core demo being adults, we continue to dumb done the product for 10 year olds. And you honestly think vetoing a german fan movie is going to hurt us? Nothing can hurt us, we are invincible!"
And then everybody around the table laughs, and laughs, and laughs. And then they eat a kitten.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Posted By Polonius on 11/09/2007 6:39 AM Posted By jfrazell on 11/09/2007 6:12 AM
If its in the magazine its now a question of fact as to whether those "approving" had apparent authority and control to those outside of the Company.
Again I agree with the camp that says "what you didn't get anything in writing" But I'm also of the camp that this is a real shoot foot with own pistol sort of move by GW-not in nixxing the film, but doing it so late in the game.
I agree, it was a blunder. I suppose GW had a meeting, where legal made it's case to nix the film, and marketing made it's argument that'll bring ill will to the company. Part of me simply envisions this shadowy figure sitting through the entire meeting, then quietly saying, "We raised prices, the fans stayed. We cancelled specialist games, the fans stayed. We won't answer rules questions, our magazine is a monthly catalog, and despite our core demo being adults, we continue to dumb down the product for 10 year olds. And you honestly think vetoing a german fan movie is going to hurt us? Nothing can hurt us, we are invincible!"
And then everybody around the table laughs, and laughs, and laughs. And then they eat a kitten.
Now THAT was funny! (Glad I wasn't drinking anything as I read it!) And sadly, probably closer to the truth than we'd really like to believe...
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
Actually from the article in the German WD you could get the impresion that it was fully supported by GW. Have to look for a copy of the article.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
>>I agree, it was a blunder. I suppose GW had a meeting, where legal made it's case to nix the film, and marketing made it's argument that'll bring ill will to the company. Part of me simply envisions this shadowy figure sitting through the entire meeting, then quietly saying, "We raised prices, the fans stayed. We cancelled specialist games, the fans stayed. We won't answer rules questions, our magazine is a monthly catalog, and despite our core demo being adults, we continue to dumb done the product for 10 year olds. And you honestly think vetoing a german fan movie is going to hurt us? Nothing can hurt us, we are invincible!"
It would not work quite like that.
Legal would point out that for the directors to relax control on the firm's IP would be a gross dereliction of their duty, and would certainly see them dismissed for gross misconduct and sued personally and individually for substantial damages for malfeasance, and Marketing would shut up.
3884
Post by: Buoyancy
Posted By brettz123 on 11/08/2007 5:19 PM
Not contradicting you but when has this happened before? I am not aware of this and would actually like to know if this is true.
There's at least one roguelike games based on Warhammer that was forced to change it's theme only after it was released.
3720
Post by: brettz123
Posted By Buoyancy on 11/09/2007 7:50 AM Posted By brettz123 on 11/08/2007 5:19 PM
Not contradicting you but when has this happened before? I am not aware of this and would actually like to know if this is true.
There's at least one roguelike games based on Warhammer that was forced to change it's theme only after it was released.
Well why did they theme something on Warhammer? I don't see how you blame GW when someone else tries to use their IP to put out a product?
Now back to Damnatus. It is pretty crappy to put something about it in a White Dwarf and then years later tell them its a no go. That really is bad form. Just looks to me that both sides really dropped the ball. Damnatus crew because they wanted to do something cool and didnt really get the approval they need and GW because it seems like no one understood the legal implications until it was too late. And as far as upsetting most people I don't even think the Damnatus petition got more then 5000 signatures so I dont think most people either know or care that the film didnt come out.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Posted By Polonius on 11/09/2007 6:39 AM I agree, it was a blunder. I suppose GW had a meeting, where legal made it's case to nix the film, and marketing made it's argument that'll bring ill will to the company. Part of me simply envisions this shadowy figure sitting through the entire meeting, then quietly saying, "We raised prices, the fans stayed. We cancelled specialist games, the fans stayed. We won't answer rules questions, our magazine is a monthly catalog, and despite our core demo being adults, we continue to dumb done the product for 10 year olds. And you honestly think vetoing a german fan movie is going to hurt us? Nothing can hurt us, we are invincible!" And then everybody around the table laughs, and laughs, and laughs. And then they eat a kitten.
Exalt. That was good.
171
Post by: Lorek
Remember, never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Posted By Kilkrazy on 11/09/2007 7:48 AM
>>I agree, it was a blunder. I suppose GW had a meeting, where legal made it's case to nix the film, and marketing made it's argument that'll bring ill will to the company. Part of me simply envisions this shadowy figure sitting through the entire meeting, then quietly saying, "We raised prices, the fans stayed. We cancelled specialist games, the fans stayed. We won't answer rules questions, our magazine is a monthly catalog, and despite our core demo being adults, we continue to dumb done the product for 10 year olds. And you honestly think vetoing a german fan movie is going to hurt us? Nothing can hurt us, we are invincible!"
It would not work quite like that.
Legal would point out that for the directors to relax control on the firm's IP would be a gross dereliction of their duty, and would certainly see them dismissed for gross misconduct and sued personally and individually for substantial damages for malfeasance, and Marketing would shut up.
And to threaten the marketers that they would be personally liable would also be malfeasance on the part of the bloodsuckers but I digress from the main topic-when do they eat the kitten? 
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Posted By Kilkrazy on 11/09/2007 7:48 AM
Legal would point out that for the directors to relax control on the firm's IP would be a gross dereliction of their duty, and would certainly see them dismissed for gross misconduct and sued personally and individually for substantial damages for malfeasance, and Marketing would shut up.
I really like how you used the word "gross" twice in once sentence, and "and" four times. Right, so we all learned a valuable lesson here? Don't spend a lot of time and effort on fanfic/films. It'll all end in tears.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
If people have that much talent they should just go and make a great film of their own. Maybe the Damnatus guys could do that using the stuff they learnt making Damnatus.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Well, thats the problem. Damnatus is the proof of capability for Spaerentor, no Damnatus, not thing to show to forward their careers. While a labour of love (which makes ittwice as bad to crush) it was also an indirect meal ticket for Mr Hu and other production staff, and maybe even the actors.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Here we come to the dilemma. someone answer this if they can.
from Gw perspectives.
1. They must safeguard their IP.
2. The main problem is german law and untransferable artisitic right. Unberreicht (sp) or whatever.
So if the artisitc right is so untransferable, how does it globally compromise IP if it is specifically permitted by GW. Gw has the rights, the video game prioducerrs have purchased licences, and through a validated Damnatus, Mr Hu would have rights. But Mr Hu cannot sell those rights, transfer those rights give them away, use them for toilet paper etc etc etc. They live with him, they die with him. So where do GW get threatened.
This was incompetence to begin with, its incompetence now. I see no reason to claim anything other than GW are sticking to their long established legal principle of: 'kick em til they are down, then kick em til they stay down'.
3862
Post by: Duncan_Idaho
Aw come on folks, ist that hard to understand. The only rights they can´t give away are authorship. Besides that trademarks of GW would not have been touched if GW had made them put their sign under a contract that they accept that the IP behind 40K belongs to GW... yadda yadda yadda.
For the simple ones: The only thing they can´t sell is the authorship, i.e. they will always be the authors of the movie and can´t sell this right to anyone. The can sell the movie to whomever they want and this whomever would have the rights to distribution, etc. IP of GW will not be touched all it takes is to ask Damnatus to sign an aditional contract that they accept GW as the source of their inspiration and do abstain from claiming that the IP to the GW-stuff is theirs.
Hey, we DO have runnung water and electricity over here. We do have a quite healthy music and movie industry. What do you think how they do business. And if they can, why can´t GW.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
For the simple ones: The only thing they can´t sell is the authorship, i.e. they will always be the authors of the movie and can´t sell this right to anyone.
That is rather a gross simplification of what the moral right of authorship entails, and completely neglects the eternal control the authors of a work can assert over the distribution, alteration, and continued use of their work.
And, at the end of the day, it IS GW's IP. What compelling business interest do they have in allowing somebody else to use their IP to make a movie (and derive benefits, even if they're non-monetary benefits like increased professional exposure)? Apparently, they've decided that whatever goodwill or marketing advantages allowing the project to go forward do not exceed the potential cost of allowing an outside party to make use of their IP.
Did anyone at Damnatus seek to pay GW for a license to use the IP? Is it cost-prohibitive to do so? Or is it just assumed that a fan-made work shouldn't have to pay for use of the parent IP?
So if the artisitc right is so untransferable, how does it globally compromise IP if it is specifically permitted by GW. Gw has the rights, the video game prioducerrs have purchased licences, and through a validated Damnatus, Mr Hu would have rights. But Mr Hu cannot sell those rights, transfer those rights give them away, use them for toilet paper etc etc etc. They live with him, they die with him. So where do GW get threatened.
You'd have to look more deeply into German copyright law (and ALL other relevant jurisdictions - remember that copyright attaches in EVERY country that recognizes it, if/when the work is distributed there) for the particulars. But it's extremely unlikely that Mr. Hu's rights die with him - copyrights extend far beyond author-death these days.
And, again, the rights that attach actually carry some significance, in terms of governing how the work is used forevermore. It's apparent that someone significant at GW doesn't want to have this perpetual anchor on their IP floating around out there, when they can't control how it's used.
Bash GW for their many stupid business decisions, if you like - White Dwarf as a catalogue, exclusion of veteran input, discontinuation of armies, etc. I have, do, and will continue to speak out when I see something that is egregious. But this isn't one of those cases. Here, I cannot fathom any reason why GW would want to allow a free license for a fan-based work, particularly in light of the on-going issues it will create for them with regards to that work.
We do have a quite healthy music and movie industry. What do you think how they do business. And if they can, why can´t GW.
If someone wants to call them up and offer to pay for a license to the IP, I bet you could find someone over there willing to start a dialogue (but bring your checkbook). That's how business is done. Publicly-traded companies aren't in the business of giving away their core assets.
*edit: Switched old-style (broken) quote tags to italic.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Dakka should make a movie based on the legal woes of Damnatus and GW. That would be as entertaining as this thread...
Ozymandias, King of Kings
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Dakka should make a movie based on the legal woes of Damnatus and GW. That would be as entertaining as this thread... I get to play the bad guy. Centurian99 will be my right-hand and cheif henchman. But see the Evil Overlord list - I won't be saddled with the common errors! Only uncommon errors for THIS Dark Lord of IP.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Posted By Janthkin on 11/09/2007 4:37 PM
If someone wants to call them up and offer to pay for a license to the IP, I bet you could find someone over there willing to start a dialogue (but bring your checkbook). That's how business is done. Publicly-traded companies aren't in the business of giving away their core assets.
Brutal in its simplicity.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Posted By Duncan_Idaho on 11/09/2007 3:19 PM
Aw come on folks, ist that hard to understand. The only rights they can´t give away are authorship. Besides that trademarks of GW would not have been touched if GW had made them put their sign under a contract that they accept that the IP behind 40K belongs to GW... yadda yadda yadda.
...
...
There you have the crux of the matter.
GW does not want unauthorised authors authoring material.
2726
Post by: J'santai Khan
Pariah Press wrote:Posted By Xerxes on 11/06/2007 6:41 AM
Sooooo, if German law would make GW "lose" the 40k IP if Damnatus was released, why can Star Wars and Star Trek fan works be made in Germany?
There are huge swathes of Star Trek IP that Paramount (or whatever holding company it is) simply no longer controls due to the proliferation of fan works in the 70s and 80s. People publish and profit from Trek fan works and Paramount does nothing because they basically failed to do anything in the 70s, so now it's too late. A good example is the "Ships of the Star Fleet" book series.
I couldn't agree more!! It would REALLY be too bad if it got 'leaked' and ended up on utube or something similar! I've been a loyal GW fan for a LONG time, but this is as stupid as them informing everyone that getting a tattoo of GW imagery was a violation of the law a few years ago. Apparently, much like professional sports, here in the states, they forgot that without thier fans, they are nothing....
1406
Post by: Janthkin
J'santai Khan wrote:I couldn't agree more!! It would REALLY be too bad if it got 'leaked' and ended up on utube or something similar! I've been a loyal GW fan for a LONG time, but this is as stupid as them informing everyone that getting a tattoo of GW imagery was a violation of the law a few years ago. Apparently, much like professional sports, here in the states, they forgot that without thier fans, they are nothing....
For reasons covered adequately earlier in the thread, it would be too bad if this was leaked. GW knows who made it, and their legal department is not known for moderation in dealing with intentional and knowing copyright infringement.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kilkrazy wrote:Hoover the vacuum cleaning company, which let its name become a household term in the UK and lost control of it for Trade Mark purposes.
This was to Hoovers credit, same as Biro. In both cases the company name became synonymous with the general product classification. Company marketing managers would give their employees right hands for that level of coverage.
2726
Post by: J'santai Khan
Janthkin wrote:J'santai Khan wrote:I couldn't agree more!! It would REALLY be too bad if it got 'leaked' and ended up on utube or something similar! I've been a loyal GW fan for a LONG time, but this is as stupid as them informing everyone that getting a tattoo of GW imagery was a violation of the law a few years ago. Apparently, much like professional sports, here in the states, they forgot that without thier fans, they are nothing....
For reasons covered adequately earlier in the thread, it would be too bad if this was leaked. GW knows who made it, and their legal department is not known for moderation in dealing with intentional and knowing copyright infringement.
I realize...... but you can't tell me you don't want to see it, can you?
263
Post by: Centurian99
Orlanth wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Hoover the vacuum cleaning company, which let its name become a household term in the UK and lost control of it for Trade Mark purposes.
This was to Hoovers credit, same as Biro. In both cases the company name became synonymous with the general product classification. Company marketing managers would give their employees right hands for that level of coverage.
Which marketing managers are you talking about? The name Hoover is now worthless, because any company can now create (in the UK) a vacuum cleaner and call it a Hoover vaccuum.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Centurian99 wrote:
Which marketing managers are you talking about? The name Hoover is now worthless, because any company can now create (in the UK) a vacuum cleaner and call it a Hoover vaccuum.
Xerox spent many, many thousands of dollars pulling their trademark back from the brink of generic. And Google actively fights against the attempt to use "google" as a verb. Rollerblade and Kleenex have fought similar battles over the years.
Name recognition is a good thing. Having your trademark become synonymous with the product being sold is a very bad thing, from the perspective of a trademark holder. All that effort you put into putting the name out there becomes free advertising for anyone who wishes to market a similar product under the (now generic) name.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Orlanth wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Hoover the vacuum cleaning company, which let its name become a household term in the UK and lost control of it for Trade Mark purposes.
This was to Hoovers credit, same as Biro. In both cases the company name became synonymous with the general product classification. Company marketing managers would give their employees right hands for that level of coverage.
No... It's why Xerox spent tens of millions of dollars in the 80's and 90's to tell people "It's a photocopy, not a Xerox. You make a photocopy on a Xerox brand machine." in order to preserve their company name. It worked for them. Xerox is still a trademark and most people talk about photocopies and not Xeroxes these days. IBM also faced this problem and again spent millions to ensure that the generic term was ' PC' and not 'IBM'. EDIT: What Janthkin said.
185
Post by: Ebon
What would happen if the film makers bring the actors back in and over dub their movie to remove as much of the trademarked items as possible? As has been pointed out, 40k is barely distinguishable from public domain as it is. All that needs to be changed are the identifiers that link specifically to the 40k Universe. So for instance:
Space Marines become Astro Soldiers
Imperium becomes Domain of Man
Chaos becomes Corruption
etc etc
A few small changes might be able to make it into a movie similar in genre but not in exact substance to the 40k world. So be it. It's not the same, but would that allow them to show their work with a little more effort?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I think the look of 40K is more distinctive than the names.
514
Post by: Orlanth
GW does not own the concept Gothic setting, besides the Imperium bears very strong resemblance to other fictional universes, especially Asimov's Foundation series, the De Laurentis film version of Dune, in some ways Herbert's Dune, pretty much all the classic Jules Verne tech, Flash Gordon, the list goes on.
Its not the 'look of 40K', its the specific technologies that will cause problems. The post production team went to great lengths to recreate Imperium vehicles and spacecraft, and they could not be waved away as generic. The designs for the Cobra, Basilisk and Valkyrie, as seen in the trailer are clearly IP of GW, as are the iconography of the Adeptus Mechanicus etc. Too much would been to be removed to make the film generic.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
By "look" I meant the specific equipment and vehicle designs, which -- to GW's credit -- have pretty clear design themes running through them.
GW of course were strongly "inspired" by a range of existing SF and fantasy literature/movies in creating the 40K universe. Unless they are challenged on it by the original copyright holders (let's suppose the estate of Robert Heinlein for example), their copyrights and TMs stand and Damnatus is still a derivative work.
I doubt GW can be successfully challenged or it would have been done already. And if they were challenged and fell, Damnatus would fall too because it would be a derivative of a derivative work.
I still say the Damnatus crew's best next step would be to make an original SF movie using the skills and experience they took from this unsuccessful effort.
3618
Post by: fourganger88
Ebon wrote:What would happen if the film makers bring the actors back in and over dub their movie to remove as much of the trademarked items as possible? As has been pointed out, 40k is barely distinguishable from public domain as it is. All that needs to be changed are the identifiers that link specifically to the 40k Universe. So for instance:
Space Marines become Astro Soldiers
Imperium becomes Domain of Man
Chaos becomes Corruption
etc etc
A few small changes might be able to make it into a movie similar in genre but not in exact substance to the 40k world. So be it. It's not the same, but would that allow them to show their work with a little more effort?
From what I've seen of Damnatus, the amazingly accurate costumes are the best thing about it. The film would be dull without them.
And I doubt the Damnatus guys would really want to have years on this, only to change the very essence of the film due to legal problems. If they can't make the film they originally set out to make (which they can't), then they shouldn't make the film at all.
Also, I doubt as much as a quarter of the original audience would bother watching it if it went through those minor changes. It might be the same film, but people would just not be bothered if it didn't have the recognisable names.
EDIT- spelling.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
[quote=fourganger88
...
...
Also, I doubt as much as a quarter of the original audience would bother watching it if it went through those minor changes. It might be the same film, but people would just not be bothered if it didn't have the recognisable names.
EDIT- spelling.
THis is kind of a Litmus test for IP transgression. If your product depends for its popularity on the popularity of someone else's product, you have almost certainly created a derivative work.
|
|
