I hate to say it, but GW has been passing these things out like candy corn this month.

Dark Reign, the Warhammer /40k role-play site has just received one too.

Read details here on their forums.

http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0

Never heard of 'em but they're included in this thread already so methinks this is on the verge of being locked: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/264704.page

Someone mentioned that they scanned material straight off of GW's books - if thats true they deserve worse.

The last thread on this topic got locked for a variety of reasons.

There is a lot of good information and discussion taking place on this subject, but please remember to keep it on topic and polite.

Thanks!

Was unaware that there was another thread discussing the Dark Reign issue.

As someone who occasionally contributes there, I can say that GW's cease and desist skirts the edge of baseless, as DR's site clearly falls under fair use under US and most international definitions of fair use. Legally speaking, accepting a donation does not technically equate receipt of payment for a service under US tort law. This is how palm readers and other brands of fortune teller can operate legally, as they are not foreseeing your future for payment, which would be illegal in most states, but rather accepting a donation.

I think GW closing down fan-sites is ludicrous and counter-productive to their business!
Hell, Dakka keeps me in the hobby, if, for example Dakka got closed down it would seriously damage my hobby interest...

Damn you Games-Workshop! *shakes fist*

And as it was said in the countless other posts,

GW are protecting their IP, they aren't "shutting down" the websites, that is up to the owners- They are asking them to sort out where they are over-stepping the idea of fair-use
(Hence Cease and desist.... using stuff your not meant to, not "Cease and desist your website for ever, or cease and desist your breathing.... or we'll kill you!" :-p )

Bignutter wrote:And as it was said in the countless other posts,

GW are protecting their IP, they aren't "shutting down" the websites, that is up to the owners- They are asking them to sort out where they are over-stepping the idea of fair-use
(Hence Cease and desist.... using stuff your not meant to, not "Cease and desist your website for ever, or cease and desist your breathing.... or we'll kill you!" :-p )

The problem is that some of these websites are located in counties other then the UK, in which what they're doing IS fair use, but are closing down rather then fight a lengthy legal battle with GW over it.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Bignutter wrote:And as it was said in the countless other posts,

GW are protecting their IP, they aren't "shutting down" the websites, that is up to the owners- They are asking them to sort out where they are over-stepping the idea of fair-use
(Hence Cease and desist.... using stuff your not meant to, not "Cease and desist your website for ever, or cease and desist your breathing.... or we'll kill you!" :-p )

The problem is that some of these websites are located in counties other then the UK, in which what they're doing IS fair use, but are closing down rather then fight a lengthy legal battle with GW over it.

And again, closing down is a bit different from ceasing using the IP- regardless of any legal shenanigans- closing down is not what GW has told them to do- nor I think is that the message- If GW really didn't want fan sites (as some people seem to suggest they are trying to get rid of them) they'd probably be trying a hell of a lot harder- and we'd not be talking here on dakka as it'd be under the same raincloud

Well... let me put it in this context: If you couldn't say '40k' 'warhammer', discuss GW rules, or show a picture of a model, how exactly would, say, CMON or Dakka, be able to function?

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

BaronIveagh wrote:Well... let me put it in this context: If you couldn't say '40k' 'warhammer', discuss GW rules, or show a picture of a model, how exactly would, say, CMON or Dakka, be able to function?

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

I don't believe any of them said you couldn't discuss them- it was- as far as I'm aware, the use of trademarks mainly in URLs and picture leeching

Where exactly did they say you couldn't say 40k or warhammer?

BaronIveagh wrote:Well... let me put it in this context: If you couldn't say '40k' 'warhammer', discuss GW rules, or show a picture of a model, how exactly would, say, CMON or Dakka, be able to function?

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

That's not at all what the C&D's have been saying.

You can't use GW trademarks in the site's domain name. Not you can't use those words at all.
You can't post illegal scans of GW material. Not you can't discuss the rules at all.
You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.

While it's understandable that people get upset when their favorite site closes down, it would be nice if people toned down the hysteria enough to actually look at what's being asked, rather than just assuming that GW are trying to kill off fan sites entirely with some odd draconian ruleset that they've just come up with out of nowhere. Those rules have been in place for as long as GW have been on the internet.

So far as the C&D itself goes... Yes, as a layperson it seems a little extreme as a first step. But as has been pointed out in the other threads, we have no way of knowing whether or not GW did engage in any prior communication with these sites. I don't know about anyone else, but I also have no idea of the legal requirements of these sorts of requests... it's entirely possible that there are sound legal reasons that GW jumped straight to the C&D, if that's in fact what happened.

It's also possible, knowing what an intractible and/or unmotivated bunch a lot of wargamers tend to be, that GW have found in the past that asking politely just doesn't actually work. I can very easily imagine someone who has been running a fan site for years receiving a letter from GW politely asking them to change their domain name and thinking 'Yeah... when they make me' or 'Yeah, I'll get to it later...'


So, yeah, it's terrible that site owners feel that their best option is to close down. It seems on the surface to be a rather non-customer-friendly approach on GW's behalf. But we don't have the full story, here.

Bignutter wrote:
Where exactly did they say you couldn't say 40k or warhammer?

No, what most of them request is the removal of GW intellectual property and that you will not infringe on said property again. You may want to read the somewhat lengthy list of what GW considers it's intellectual property, as it includes things like the terms Ultramarines, Battlefleet Gothic, and Warhammer 40k. If one were to comply with the letter of the C&D, it would be impossible to discuss anything GW.

...

The aforementioned sites also used tons of GW IP, and didn't properly credit it while at the same time asking for donations, directlinking to GW photos, etc.

That's why they were sent the C&D. Proper credit, hosting the photos yourself with a watermark saying "property of Games Workshop", etc would have gone a long way. As would have requesting GW to help you figure out what material they had objections to.

Bignutter wrote:Where exactly did they say you couldn't say 40k or warhammer?

The earlier thread that was discussing this was about the C&D directed at "www.TalkBloodBowl.org" for the express reason that the name "Blood Bowl" was in the title.

Changing the name effectively shuts them down because it ends a 9-year-old site. The new name "talkfantasyfootball" is overly generic and will be confusing to those sportsfans looking for an actual fantasy football site not a miniatures game site and will not be easily found by new Blood Bowl fans.

Maybe it's community will fracture and go off in different directions starting new fan sites ... who knows. But it's always unfortunate when a fan site community dissolves.

insaniak wrote:

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

That's not at all what the C&D's have been saying.

You can't use GW trademarks in the site's domain name. Not you can't use those words at all.
You can't post illegal scans of GW material. Not you can't discuss the rules at all.
You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.

insaniak wrote:

You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.

Just asking... but if say a member of dakka sees new releases so he cant post or link them here directly from GW? Will the images/ links be considered illegal?

As for not knowing the full story I bet we will never know it all... like in most things in our lives.

On that topic Navarro, does that mean any pictures taken from said GW site (copied) would need to be stamped with a "Taken from Games Workshop, used without permission" stamp? Further, does doing this just make a legal case for GW easier should they choose to follow it up?

BeefyG wrote:What about the ones where they are telling a site to stop hosting historic GW articles and miniatures catalogue that aren't accessible by any other means?

Whether or not those articles are currently available, they're still GW's property, and still covered by copyright. They have the right to decide whether or not they will be made available. So posting such things online without GW's permission is likely to get you a C&D sooner or later, yes.

NAVARRO wrote:Just asking... but if say a member of dakka sees new releases so he cant post or link them here directly from GW? Will the images/ links be considered illegal?

Hotlinking is one of those internet minefield issues that you'll be hard-pressed to find a clear answer on. Some people consider it a definite no-no, as it's taking someone's picture without permission and displaying it in a way that wasn't originally intended by the actual owner (particularly if you're doing so as, say, an avatar, or as a part of your site layout rather than just as part of a news post). It can also play havoc with server statistic tracking. Some consider it to be fine, as it's basically just free advertising. Some opinions fall somewhere in between, depending on specific situations.

I don't believe it's actually illegal, although I believe you could potentially run into issues if the pic is not appropriately credited. But whether or not it's illegal, the owner of a picture should always have the right to dictate when and where it's posted, or to ask someone to remove it if has been posted somewhere they don't want it... because it's their property.

This would also include hosting things like the old Black Library Dark Heresy content which GW no longer hosts. I have one of the C&D's in front of me, and I'll quote it:

"1: Immediately cease and desist any activity which infringes on Games Workshop's Intellectual property rights."

"2: Immediately remove all the images/files listed above as well as any other files or images which infringe on Games Workshop's intellectual property rights from the (removed to protect the record) website"

"3: confirm by return that you will not infringe Games Workshop's intellectual property rights at any time in the future."



There are some other statements in it which are legally questionable as well: "...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

They're also insisting that Dark Reign remove images of GW products from their Amazon Webstore. These images are hosted by Amazon, not GW site and therefor do not constitute theft of bandwidth. It does however constitute an attempt by GW to manipulate or control the secondary market for it's goods, a violation of US law.

BaronIveagh wrote:This would also include hosting things like the old Black Library Dark Heresy content which GW no longer hosts.

Again, whether or not GW currently host it, they still own the copyright.

"...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

Like where?

It's true at least in most of the 'western world' these days.

They're also insisting that Dark Reign remove images of GW products from their Amazon Webstore. These images are hosted by Amazon, not GW site and therefor do not constitute theft of bandwidth. It does however constitute an attempt by GW to manipulate or control the secondary market for it's goods, a violation of US law.

If the images being used are GW's, it doesn't matter that they're hosted by Amazon. They're still GW's images. They can't stop you from selling their products, or using pictures you've taken yourself of those products, but they certainly are entitled to grant or withhold permission to use images they own.

So that one's not about bandwidth. Just about copyright.

BaronIveagh wrote:

This would also include hosting things like the old Black Library Dark Heresy content which GW no longer hosts. I have one of the C&D's in front of me, and I'll quote it:

"1: Immediately cease and desist any activity which infringes on Games Workshop's Intellectual property rights."

"2: Immediately remove all the images/files listed above as well as any other files or images which infringe on Games Workshop's intellectual property rights from the (removed to protect the record) website"

"3: confirm by return that you will not infringe Games Workshop's intellectual property rights at any time in the future."



There are some other statements in it which are legally questionable as well: "...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

They're also insisting that Dark Reign remove images of GW products from their Amazon Webstore. These images are hosted by Amazon, not GW site and therefor do not constitute theft of bandwidth. It does however constitute an attempt by GW to manipulate or control the secondary market for it's goods, a violation of US law.

Care to share it then in full?

And how does GW asking them to remove images from their webstore count as trying to manipulate or control the secondary market? Looking at the images, they appear to be the same sample ones that would be found on the GW site- so unless they'd done a REALLY good job of taking very professional pictures then how else would they get such images except taking them from the GW site and rehosting them.... in effect taking the IP from GW (the image) and using it for their own personal gain?

When I was trying to sell some of my handcasts on ebay I got what was at first look a rather agresive mail threatening legal action.

I entered into some polite discussion with Adam, one of GW's legal guys.

Long story short, everything got cleared up, and in the end he even offered to give me some free advice if ever I needed it on what was and was not acceptable.

The key was 'polite a reasoned' which was how I aproached things.

They got my stuff removed, no one got harmed and I learned some stuff. It's not in GW's interest to sue people, but they have to agresively persue perseaved breach of ip, or risk loosing it all together, which could effectively shut them down over the long run which no one actually wants!

insaniak wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Just asking... but if say a member of dakka sees new releases so he cant post or link them here directly from GW? Will the images/ links be considered illegal?

Hotlinking is one of those internet minefield issues that you'll be hard-pressed to find a clear answer on. Some people consider it a definite no-no, as it's taking someone's picture without permission and displaying it in a way that wasn't originally intended by the actual owner (particularly if you're doing so as, say, an avatar, or as a part of your site layout rather than just as part of a news post). It can also play havoc with server statistic tracking. Some consider it to be fine, as it's basically just free advertising. Some opinions fall somewhere in between, depending on specific situations.

I don't believe it's actually illegal, although I believe you could potentially run into issues if the pic is not appropriately credited. But whether or not it's illegal, the owner of a picture should always have the right to dictate when and where it's posted, or to ask someone to remove it if has been posted somewhere they don't want it... because it's their property.

Thanks mate, I'm covered on my site since i do my own artwork and use general urls and no hiperlinks etc... yet I'm still not sure how to act here on dakka.
I know its their IP and i know this is a polemic subject and many diferent people accept it diferently but the big question for me is:

I want to post on the dakka news forums a new GW release... can I post or link it? Because we( kind of?) know GW position in that issue.
I ussually find some miniature related news on the net and post it here... or for example someone asks for a painting advice and theres a cool GW tutorial i could link it... How is that action considered here knowing now GW stance?

Bignutter wrote:


Care to share it then in full?

And how does GW asking them to remove images from their webstore count as trying to manipulate or control the secondary market? Looking at the images, they appear to be the same sample ones that would be found on the GW site- so unless they'd done a REALLY good job of taking very professional pictures then how else would they get such images except taking them from the GW site and rehosting them.... in effect taking the IP from GW (the image) and using it for their own personal gain?

Because they only sent C&Ds to some parties. Not all sellers of GW material were ordered to do so.

insaniak wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote: "...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

Like where?

It's true at least in most of the 'western world' these days.

Not true. US copyright law does not recognize any copyright that is contingent on the US participation in the Berne Convention. Therefor it must conform to the 1976 Copyright Act, which does offer some protection to unpublished material, but otherwise protection is for up to 120 years after date of publication (with the most recent revisions) or 75 years after the death of the author, whichever comes first. Further, this is for materials published in the United States. Works originally published overseas (in this case, England) are on somewhat shakier ground, as evidenced by the repeated failures of certain Japanese animation companies to stem the tide of fansubbing in the US.

Further, as game rules constitute a system, the actual system of a game may not be copyrighted in the US AT ALL. However, the name of the system may be claimed as trademark (example: Dungeons & Dragons)

Under US law, copying a system is only an infringement on copyright if you lift the description exactly as it is in the original publication.

BaronIveagh wrote:Not true. US copyright law does not recognize any copyright that is contingent on the US participation in the Berne Convention. Therefor it must conform to the 1976 Copyright Act, which does offer some protection to unpublished material, but otherwise protection is for up to 120 years after date of publication (with the most recent revisions) or 75 years after the death of the author, whichever comes first. Further, this is for materials published in the United States. Works originally published overseas (in this case, England) are on somewhat shakier ground, as evidenced by the repeated failures of certain Japanese animation companies to stem the tide of fansubbing in the US.

Not sure how the US having grey areas on it constitutes it being questionable in most of the world.

Further, as game rules constitute a system, the actual system of a game may not be copyrighted in the US AT ALL.

That much is true as I understand it. But GW don't seem to be objecting to anyone doing that. They're just objecting to people using their artwork and trademarks.



Oh, and for what it's worth, that letter actually reads as quite polite to me.

You can't use GW trademarks in the site's domain name. Not you can't use those words at all.

You can use it even if the site name is exactly a word with a trademark . If the name include the the trademark but is not exactly the same word they cannot do anything most of the time. This is why we can have www.games-workshop-suck.com

The test is if the owner of the site is trying to confuse the user by making them think they are the owner of the trademark. By exmaple in some case where the name was exactly the same

mcdonalds.com: This domain name was taken by an author from Wired magazine who was writing a story on the value of domain names. In his article, the author requested that people contact him at ronald@mcdonalds.com with suggestions of what to do with the domain name. In exchange for returning the domain name to McDonalds, the author convinced the company to make a charitable contribution.

The court will check if the user has register the name in bad faith base on

* Does the domain name holder have trademark rights in the domain name?
* Is the domain name the legal name of the domain name holder, or some other name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person?
* Has the domain name holder made use (prior to the dispute) of the domain name in connection with a bona fide sale of goods or services?
* Is the domain name holder using the mark in a bona fide noncommercial or fair use way at a web site accessible at the domain name?
* Is the domain name holder attempting to divert consumers from the trademark owner's web site in a confusing way, either for commercial gain or in an attempt to tarnish or disparage the trademark mark?
* Has the domain name holder offered to sell the domain name to the trademark owner (or anyone else) for financial gain without having any intent to use the mark with the sale of goods or services?
* Has the domain name holder behaved in a pattern of registering and selling domain names without intending to use them in connection with the sale of goods or services?
* Did the domain name holder provide false information when applying for the registration of the domain name (or do so in connection with other domain names)?
* Has the domain name holder registered domain names of other parties trademarks?; and
* How distinctive and famous is the trademark owner's trademark?

Among the ways that a domain name owner can prove a legitimate right or interest in a domain name is by showing:

* use or preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to any notice of the dispute;
* that the domain name owner has been commonly known by the second level domain name; or
* that the domain name owner is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent of (i) commercial gain, (ii) misleadingly diverting consumers, or (iii) tarnishing the trademark at issue


I don't think that games workshops could have a case to get the domaine name for them. The site make it very clear they they are not the official owner of the trademark by putting in the site banner "The unofficial warhammer 40k rgp forum"

You can't post illegal scans of GW material. Not you can't discuss the rules at all.

Rules are not copyright. It is only the expression of the rule like how the rules are place in the page and which fonts are used that is copytight. Here is a text form the us copyright office

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

For the scans I agree unless it is to discuss about the scan or that the scan is covered by fair use.

You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.


Again there is a lot of court case like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc. that give some right to do it.



Basically it is a case of I have a bigger bank account than you to pay for a lawyer so do what I say.

Basically it is a case of I have a bigger bank account than you to pay for a lawyer so do what I say.

A little less basically, it's a case of: We have a list of things on our website that we would prefer that you don't do. If you ignore or are unaware of that list, we'll send you a letter pointing out that we don't like what you're doing and explaining what we would like you to do about it.

And then, maybe, it becomes a case of who has the bigger bank account.

Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it? After all this hobby is about caring and attention to detail (LOL that's a GW rules writing pun right there) to no small degree. I don't argue that they don't have a legal right to burn books (ok e-books) but the concept of it is painful to a lot of people.

BeefyG wrote:Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it?

Not really. The old books are all still out there. They're mostly not that difficult to get a hold of.

insaniak wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Not true. US copyright law does not recognize any copyright that is contingent on the US participation in the Berne Convention. Therefor it must conform to the 1976 Copyright Act, which does offer some protection to unpublished material, but otherwise protection is for up to 120 years after date of publication (with the most recent revisions) or 75 years after the death of the author, whichever comes first. Further, this is for materials published in the United States. Works originally published overseas (in this case, England) are on somewhat shakier ground, as evidenced by the repeated failures of certain Japanese animation companies to stem the tide of fansubbing in the US.

Not sure how the US having grey areas on it constitutes it being questionable in most of the world.

I used it as an example, since many of the sites targeted by GW are located in the US, even DR, though it's site manager lives in the Netherlands.

To make some broad generalizations, acknowledging there are exceptions, most African nations either do not have copyright, or follow a pattern similar to England's. Most Asian countries either do not have them, or have copyrights with limited lifespans, usually around the same duration as their patents. Eastern Europe has partially accepted Berne, with a few notable exceptions, while South and Central America are somewhat more spotty. Enforcement is also nearly impossible in some locations that do have copyright laws, such as Singapore and several former Warsaw pact nations.

Mind you, that's just non Berne signatories.

Dark Reign is in no way a copyright of GW. Activision might be able to sue them, but that's about it.

@Insaniak: What about files that were never in print to begin with but have always been internet exclusive.

insaniak wrote:

BeefyG wrote:Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it?

Not really. The old books are all still out there. They're mostly not that difficult to get a hold of.

What explicitly do you mean by "...out there." If you mean available electronically by any other means than through official GW providers then that is illegal and that's what they are burning.

I'm talking about bloodbowl content as I'm not sure about any of the other stuff. There are several articles, miniature catalogues and magazine issues that were hosted by Galak that are not available through any GW means whatsoever nowadays.

BeefyG wrote:What explicitly do you mean by "...out there." If you mean available electronically by any other means than through official GW providers then that is illegal and that's what they are burning.

By 'out there' I mean still available if you look for it.

eBay. Bartertown. Second Hand Bookstores. Garage Sales. Wargaming Forum trading areas. Gaming Clubs. That old guy who comes into the store every week but nobody talks to much because he's a little odd.

There are plenty of options for tracking down out of print material legally.

I'm talking about bloodbowl content as I'm not sure about any of the other stuff. There are several articles, miniature catalogues and magazine issues that were hosted by Galak that are not available through any GW means whatsoever nowadays.

I don't know how much web exclusive Bloodbowl content there was, if any... I'm fairly sure there was at least one compilation book printed, and of course, back issues of White Dwarf aren't that hard to find.

Even for anything web exclusive, though... it really just comes back to the fact that it's GW's material, and it's up to them how and when it gets distributed. While they may or may not have any immediate interest in supporting Bloodbowl, that may change. If they rerelease the game, and decide to also reprint some of that old material to go along with it, websites offering that material illegally for free is going to damage their sales.

So, yeah, it would be lovely for GW to say 'Yeah, it's open slather... post what you want' ... but they're a business. They have to protect what's theirs. Even if they never rerelease this particular product, they need to apply the same rules as to that other product that they might rerelease.

At least, that's my understanding of it all. I'm not a lawyer, and I've never run a multinational wargaming company.

NAVARRO wrote:
Thanks mate, I'm covered on my site since i do my own artwork and use general urls and no hiperlinks etc... yet I'm still not sure how to act here on dakka.
I know its their IP and i know this is a polemic subject and many diferent people accept it diferently but the big question for me is:

I want to post on the dakka news forums a new GW release... can I post or link it? Because we( kind of?) know GW position in that issue.
I ussually find some miniature related news on the net and post it here... or for example someone asks for a painting advice and theres a cool GW tutorial i could link it... How is that action considered here knowing now GW stance?

I think I get how this one works... you post a link to the article on their website...

like so :http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp

What you don't do is post the images or the words from the article on here...

In otherwords you send people to the info on their site.. instead of posting said info here.
*and by info I mean stuff that would break IP type legal stuff... like pictures and stuff*

To take things a step further, the reproduced art was created by an individual and sold to Games Workshop. Games Workshop is also protecting the rights of those artists and writers who make their living producing those works. It's expensive and impractical for freelance artists to be able to afford to threaten legal action against anyone who copies their works.

You can, however, take photos of your own GW models, or add your own illustrations based on GW ideas.

I make my living in design. I'm very careful about what I post, because I know full well that once something's on the internet, anyone with bandwidth can grab it and claim it as their own. So I'm pretty supportive of the people who produce actually work, rather than those who feel entitled to take it and display it for their own use.

Mastiff wrote:To take things a step further, the reproduced art was created by an individual and sold to Games Workshop. Games Workshop is also protecting the rights of those artists and writers who make their living producing those works. It's expensive and impractical for freelance artists to be able to afford to threaten legal action against anyone who copies their works.

You can, however, take photos of your own GW models, or add your own illustrations based on GW ideas.

No, you can't, those are considered derivative works.

Also, 'for work' is not recognized under certain circumstances and it then reverts back the the original artist (or their heirs). (for an example of how it can be annulled, see the current legal battle over the ownership of Superman).

Also, if an artist publishes a work, and then later sells the rights to another party, this tends to be limited to the nation that the agreement is signed in unless specifically noted otherwise in the agreement, and may not extend to international rights (example: Netherlands does not recognize implied agreement, therefor artists doing 'for work' art may retain certain international distribution rights.)

Unlike many companies, here at Games Workshop we usually only stop people from using our intellectual property if we must do so in order to protect it (provided that use is by and for hobbyists). For example, the law requires us to protect our trademarks in certain ways - and if we do not - we might lose them. As you can imagine, we do not want to lose our trademarks as we would no longer be able to create the great miniatures and table top hobby wargames that we pride ourselves on!
Games Workshop is a tabletop hobby wargames company however, so we want people to enjoy our IP as much as we do. For example, whilst most companies would not allow you to convert their products, we think that conversions are an integral part of the hobby, so we love them!
Accordingly, you can do quite a lot of things with our intellectual property without having a formal license with us (see the Specific Examples section below for more details on what you can do with our intellectual property), but there are also some general principles that you need to keep in mind, and then there are the things that you definitely cannot do.
PLEASE NOTE that any work you create using our intellectual property is not "owned" by you. It is called a "derivative work" and those parts based upon our IP do not give rise to their own copyright. Please bear this in mind when using our IP.
General Principles

- Please make it clear that your use is unofficial by including some wording to the effect that, for example, "This website is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited." Are people likely to be confused as to whether your web site or any material was produced by Games Workshop just by looking at it? If so, then you need to alter it. In other words, do not try to make your material look "official."
- Please do not change our trademarks in any way (e.g., stretch or deform them)
- Include an appropriate disclaimer on your web site from the list on the following webpage
- Please make the origins of the intellectual property very clear, in other words, make sure that from a brief review of your material people know that you are unofficially using Games Workshop's intellectual property (and not your own IP or the IP of a third party).
WHAT YOU CANNOT DO WITH GAMES WORKSHOP'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Please read the following in conjunction with the What you can do section above and the Specific Examples section below. Other than a few exemptions, Games Workshop is not obliged to let anyone use its IP at all (for example, it's a widely held misconception that you can freely make use of someone else's copyrights, without their permission, as long as it's for your own private use - this is currently not an automatic exemption to copyright), and accordingly we always insist that our IP is treated with the respect that we feel that it deserves.
So, If you are using or want to use our intellectual property and you do not have a written license with us, you must not:
- Use Games Workshop's intellectual property in relation to any commercial activity this includes, for example, paying a printer to print some flyers for you, obtaining sponsorship, or selling non-Games Workshop materials using our trademarks.
- Make any direct copies and/or scans of Games Workshop publications, images, or other materials. This includes any Out-o- Production materials, web site materials, and White Dwarf articles. We would however suggest that you produce your own materials (as long as you follow the other requirements of this policy).
- Use our trademarks in respect of your domain name.
- Use our intellectual property in relation to any third party products or third party intellectual property.
- Alter our trademarks in any way.
- Use any of our IP without appropriately crediting the IP and using the appropriate disclaimers in accordance with this policy (see below).
- Create, distribute, or use any material that is not consistent with the functionality, atmosphere, and parameters of the Warhammer universe as created and owned by Games Workshop
- State that anything that you create using Games Workshop's intellectual property is "official."
- Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.
- Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
In addition to the above rules, we have additional rules for specific uses of our IP. The following is a definitive list of activities and uses that Games Workshop will usually not take active steps to prevent. If your proposed use is not on the list, it is highly likely that we will not permit it. This list may change from time to time so please check it regularly.
Web Sites

Please don't use one of our trademarks to directly identify your web sit (e.g., "The Space Hulk Home Page"). This right is reserved for GW companies and formal licensees only.
This doesn't mean that you can't use our trademarks to talk about our stuff, it just means you need to make it clear that description is the reason why you are using them (e.g., "Cleanse and Burn - my web page dedicated to Games Workshop's Space Hulk game") is fine because you're using our trademarks to simply describe what your web page is about and because it identifies us as the publishers of the game.
Also, please do not use any material from the official Games Workshop websites. Instead, we suggest that you make your own.
Web Names

Please don't use one of our registered trademarks as part of your web domain name. This right is reserved for GW companies and formal licensees only.
Educational Use

Unfortunately, we currently cannot give official "permission" for students to use our IP in relation to their studies for reasons of possible licensing conflicts. Unofficial permission would be governed by the remainder of this document and the specific use of the IP. We would point you in the direction of the "fair use" (US) or "fair dealing" (UK) rules in relation to copyright protected materials and research/educational usage. Be aware that there is not an equivalent doctrine for trademark usage.
Maps

We would ask you not to take direct scans or copies of our maps. We suggest that you create your own equivalents. Again, please avoid reproducing our trademarks.
Making Terrain

If you simply make the terrain for yourself and you have no intention of selling it, any use of our IP in relation to your terrain will probably be okay. Do not reproduce our trademarks. However, as always, you cannot use our intellectual property in relation to a commercial activity - if you make and sell terrain, please avoid using any Games Workshop intellectual property in or in relation to that terrain. For example, do not sell it on Ebay as "Warhammer terrain," as it is not Warhammer terrain. Indeed, only Games Workshop could produce Warhammer Terrain.
Bandwidth Theft and Mirroring Resources

We do not tolerate deep linking to the pictures, images, PDFs or other downloads on our website. Such activity is bandwidth theft. Also, do not mirror the resources that we have on our websites. So, if you want other people to see the materials that we have produced, please use a simple HTML link to the relevant web page.
Themes

While we are likely to be happy for you to create your own desktop themes based upon our IP, please do not use our trademarks in those themes. In other words, do not use our logos and symbols, but please do draw your own version of a Wood Elf or Tyranid.
Photos of Painted Models

We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"
Background

Background text is a major part of the hobby and writing your own is almost as much fun as reading it. Please remember to use the correct trademark disclaimer somewhere on your site, zip file and/or document. We would also ask that at the top of the material you state something equivalent to the following: "Death Ravine" an unofficial story by K. Roundtree derived, without permission, upon the Warhammer intellectual property owned by Games Workshop Ltd." Please note that we consider any background material you write to be a work which is derivative of our intellectual property. As such, you should refrain from putting any notice claiming that anyone other than Games Workshop Ltd has any right over Games Workshop-owned intellectual property or derivatives thereof.
Rules

We encourage fellow hobbyists to invent rules that work for them. There is no need to stick precisely to the published rules. However, if you are thinking about making your own Codex for your Space Marine chapter (in addition to following the other guidelines in this policy), please avoid making it look official as this may confuse gamers and amount to a challenge to our trademarks. Also, do not copy our official publications or documents.
Conversions

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:
Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.
Your conversions should be one-time, unique masterpieces of hobby goodness. Do not create a production run of conversions for sale. Whilst infringing our IP, this is also simply not hobby.
Casting
Do not cast any materials that are based upon Games Workshop material. Games Workshop has to maintain a strict policy on this to fight counterfeiters. We would also remind you that reproduction for personal use is NOT an automatic exclusion in respect of copyright protection in many territories worldwide.
Unreleased Material

While we know that it is always cool to see new material before it arrives on the shelves, we would ask you not to publish, or link to other sites that publish, any material that has not been officially reported or released by Games Workshop. This does not apply to small pieces of conjecture written in your "rumors" section (unless of course said "rumors" are akin to publishing unreleased material).
Forums

We have no problem with people using forums to express their love (or even hate) of the hobby. We would, however, ask people to bear in mind that the hobby is for people all ages. Please be careful of the language used and the topics discussed. We would strongly recommend that you avoid any discussion of illegal behavior.
Movies

The video games that our licensing partners have created have done an incredible job of bringing the Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 games to life, and we appreciate that hobbyists may even want to make movies based upon our intellectual property. Unfortunately, due to the nuances of the law in some territories, we cannot allow any unlicensed movies to be created which are based upon our intellectual property.
Modifications, Total Conversions, and Games

We want people to express their enjoyment of our games with as little interference from us as possible, as long as they behave reasonably with our IP and follow any reasonable requests that we may make. We are not inherently opposed to hobbyists creating games or mods using our IP, in fact we are flattered that people want to spend so much time creating games and mods in the GW universes.
If you want to make a game, TC or a mod using our IP you must adhere to the following (in addition to the general principles as outlined above):
Any game or mod must be a "total conversion." In other words, you must not use our intellectual property (logos, images, names etc.) in relation to the worlds, names, logos, or images of any other company. For example, you cannot place our Space Marines in a Disney total conversion using the Unreal engine, but you could make a TC solely using Space Marines with the Unreal engine. This is, of course, assuming that you have permission to use the Unreal engine.
Please bear in mind that we may require you to remove the game or mod from any public forum at any time so that we can comply with any licenses that we may have with computer game publishers/developers. Be aware that we may even have to insist that the mod be destroyed. Please take very careful note of this statement, as we would not want you to feel unfairly treated at a later date.
The game or mod must be strictly non-commercial - this includes any web site that the mod or game is hosted on. You also cannot pay a printing company to publilsh copies of it onto CD. It may also mean that you cannot get sponsorship.
It must be made clear on any readme files, splash/intro screens and accompanying material that the game or mod is unofficial and the origins of the intellectual property must be made obvious (e.g., your mod might say "Battletoes a total conversion for XXXX (insert game name) using intellectual property owned by Games Workshop. Used without permission...etc." See the relevant disclaimer on the following page.).
The game or mod must not devalue any Games Workshop product in any way.
Any distribution (zipped or otherwise) of the whole, or any part, of the mod or game must be accompanied with the appropriate disclaimers and must also follow these guidelines.
The functionality, atmosphere, and parameters of any mod or game must be consistent with the relevant IP.
Skins
Unfortunately, GW cannot allow thirds parties to use our IP without properly crediting our ownership. It is not possible to credit ownership with skins and accordingly we do not allow their creation.
Online Auctions

Do not use our trademarks in relation to products that are not owned by or originate from Games Workshop (see Making Terrain above).
Do not associate our products or IP with any third party products or IP.
We would encourage you to use digital photographs of any materials that you are planning on selling. Do not use any materials from any GW website to sell the product.
Café Press

We cannot allow users to make and or sell derivatives of our copyright protected material or our trademarks on the café press or any similar websites.
Web Comics

We would probably not take issue with anyone creating a web comic based upon our intellectual property - but as with forums, keep in mind that the hobby is for people of all ages. Please be careful of the language used and the topics discussed. We would strongly recommend that you avoid any topics concerning illegal behavior, obscenity, or libel.
Fonts

Unfortunately, GW cannot allow third parties to use our trademarks without properly crediting our ownership, lest they be damaged. With fonts, it is difficult, if not impossible, to use the marks and credit Games Workshop as rightful owners. Accordingly, do not use our IP in relation to fonts.
Screen Savers

As is the case with fonts, GW cannot allow third parties to use our trademarks without properly crediting our ownership, lest they be damaged. You may only create screen savers if it properly credits our IP. We would also remind you that you cannot alter or change our trademarks in any way.
Animations

We would probably not have a problem with anyone creating animations based upon our intellectual property - as long as there is no commercial connection to that creation. Again, please be careful of the language used and the topics discussed.
Club Names and Trademarks

We actively encourage hobbyists to begin their own clubs connected with the hobby. In fact, in most territories, we have an employee tasked with helping people set up and run their clubs. However, we would advise anyone with a club or starting a club to avoid directly using our trademarks (do not, for example call the club, "The Warhammer Club"). Instead, create your own names, such as "The Hellfire Hunters," "Da Narsty Boarz," or other, far more creative names than these pathetic examples.
Fanzines

Fanzines are a great way to immerse yourself in the hobby. However, if you are thinking about starting a fanzine, please do not use our trademarks. Again, we would remind you that the main principles set out at the head of this page apply to fanzines, as they do to all of the specific examples herein. Importantly, if you are creating a solely GW-focused fanzine, do not sell your fanzine and do not obtain any sponsorship.
Out-of-Print Material

Please do not scan, copy, or republish any out-of-print (OOP) materials. It may be that in the future we reuse or license out the use of this material.
Out of Production Games

We frequently get requests from the older hobbyists out there to make computer versions of our old games - some of you out there will remember games like Blockmania, Chainsaw Warrior and indeed Talisman from many years ago, and a lot of those that do remember them very fondly indeed. There are three good reasons why we cannot allow this - one of which is simply that it will necessarily make use of our copyright in ways that are not permitted anywhere else in this document. Secondly, providing a system for playing the game on the internet effectively means that you could play the game without having ever bought it originally, which therefore devalues Games Workshop products as outlined above. Finally, as with Talisman, it may be that we decide to revisit some of these games at some time in the future to create a better, updated version for all.
Avatars

Avatars and similar monikers are now commonplace on nearly every forum or chat program that you come across. As cool as they may be, they can cause problems if the use our trademarks since we need to maintain the distinctiveness of our trademarks in relation to their origin.
If you want to use avatars and similar monikers, create them yourself and credit the origins of the IP in your message sign off.
T-shirts, Clothes, Tatoos and the Like

As always, we cannot allow third parties to obtain money from our intellectual property.
This effectively means that you would either have to buy Games Workshop T-shirts or clothes or make them yourself. You would not be able to sell any t-shirts or clothes that you make.
This also means that we cannot allow tattoos as an acceptable use of our IP as a third party necessarily has to perform the "service."
Costume Play / Live Role-Play (LRP)

We frequently get requests from the hobbyists out there that love our game worlds so much that they want to make costumes so as to bring them to life even more. To this end, this section does not contain special rules for costumes or live role-play - it is only to say that provided you comply with all the contents of this policy, it is something we are unlikely to object to.
Cardboard or Paper Conversions

Unfortunately, we cannot allow the printing or publishing of such conversions- such action devalues existing GW products.
Special Figures

If you have a web site or gaming club and you want to create something special for that club, it will have to be handmade. You cannot pay third parties to produce any materials using our intellectual property, and "using" is very broadly defined. Also, you should not make a production run of such materials.
Painting Services

We often get e-mails from hobbyists regarding our position on providing painting services for third parties. As always, we do not allow third parties to make money from our IP. Accordingly, any "painting service" must be entirely generic, i.e., it cannot state that it is a Games Workshop, 'Eavy Metal, or Golden Demon painting service. The service must not be based on the intellectual property, i.e., using the intellectual property (images, trademarks etc.) to "sell" itself. Nor must you exclusively paint Games Workshop's miniatures. The same would be true of any painting companion or guide - you must not make money from Games Workshop intellectual property without a license.
Model Conversion Kits

We do not allow unlicensed third parties to manufacture or produce conversion kits for our models. We need to be able to control our products and all derivatives thereto in order that we produce quality products for years to come.
E-mail Lists

Placing scans or copies of any Games Workshop material on an e-mail list or news group is a violation of our rights and amounts to a serious infringement. Please do not participate in this activity, and if you are aware of it, please write to the legal department on the following email address: Legal@games-workshop.co.uk
Thank you very much for your compliance with the above policies. We know that there is a lot here and appreciate that you have taken the time to read it all.
 

You know, Games Workshop should open a tattoo studio too.

Shenanigans would ensue.

@swbruni: Yes, it makes an interesting read, but GW policy does not carry weight of law. There are several things that GW disallows in that document which are, however, legal, and therefor not IP infringement, at least in the US.

Example: the entire conversion section. While, in theory, the conversion could be considered derivative works (depending on just HOW converted it is. If it is not recognizable as GW IP, then a legal argument could be made that it's your own art, therefor, your IP) GW does not have a legal right to tell you that you cannot mod the mini in whatever manner you see fit, as the mini itself is no longer GW's property. There is no EULA on any GW product that you must agree to before purchasing a GW mini, nor, under US law, anyway, may they censure you or demand that you take down an image of a modded mini as to do so would be a violation of the right to free speech (within reason, obviously). They can however, sue you for mass producing said, as they do retain the exclusive right to manufacture their minis.

In addition: as long as a conversion is NOT specifically designed for GW IP, it is perfectly acceptable to make as many of them as you damn well please, as under both US and international law, what your customers do with the product after you sell it to them is their doing, not yours (RIAA v Kazaa). So if you make a range of 28mm heroic heads, it's not your fault if people put them on IG torsos.

That said, they also may not, once again, under US law, attempt to control or manipulate the secondary market for their products, as this would constitute a violation of anti-trust laws.

BaronIveagh wrote:Example: the entire conversion section.

Not a good example, actually, since that section as worded is really just asking you not to do certain things.

They only specifically tell you not to cast such conversions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the hotlinking:

Bignutter wrote:I think I get how this one works... you post a link to the article on their website...

like so :http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/home.jsp

What you don't do is post the images or the words from the article on here...

In otherwords you send people to the info on their site.. instead of posting said info here.
*and by info I mean stuff that would break IP type legal stuff... like pictures and stuff*

That's pretty much what they're asking for, yes. They would prefer you to post the link as that drives traffic to their website, rather than taking the content and using it on your own site, or posting it elsewhere.

How enforcable that is is apparently up for debate. Most forums hotlink pictures from the GW website and have done for years. I suspect it's only become an issue for the websites in question because they had other stuff going on as well. So where GW might not have bothered sending them a C&D over hotlinked images, if they're sending a C&D for some other issue anyway, they might as well include it.

insaniak wrote:

Not a good example, actually, since that section as worded is really just asking you not to do certain things.

They only specifically tell you not to cast such conversions.

Achem... "WHAT YOU CANNOT DO WITH GAMES WORKSHOP'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY "...

...much scrolling down later...

"Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement."

Stating that you cannot do these thigns and that it is a major infringement means that what follows are not just 'suggestions'. I seem to recall recently a complaint on this board about a GW employee implying the same.

GW are simply saying that they are a country in their own right (although stateless) and that their currency (miniatures) falls under similar laws to damage and defacement of a countries legal currency effectively. <end sarcasm>

I think that when somebody decides to sell something (that aren't shares or money) all IP rights to that individual figure in regards to conversions/modification (They could grind it up into little bits to pave their driveway) are forwarded to the person who payed them money for that service.

BaronIveagh wrote:
"3: confirm by return that you will not infringe Games Workshop's intellectual property rights at any time in the future."

This one is neat, they want to turn something that can be ruled both ways (fair use or not of the GW´s IP) in an EULA so next time GW needs to drop the hammer instead of fighting through IP law they can say that the fansite violated a standing contract and turn the whole thing into private law. Very, very neat.

Item plus, the whole "what you can do page" is a bunch of half truths worded in a way to sound absolutes to the lay man. Eg. The club names, as they say Warhammer is a TM in the gaming sector but as Killkrazy pointed in another thread while the Warhammer Club could be contested as a miniatures club name by GW, the Warhammer Club Ancient Armies Renactors, can be used as GW is not into that line of bussiness and even if GW started a line, those guys would have the right to contest GW TM because they were there first (at least according to the US IP law links that some people have been linking). Not that GW needs to mention that in their webpage of course but laws are not absolutes as some people might believe specially UK based companies granting or withholding rights that are not valid in other countries as Baron has already pointed here.

So this brings us to the part that I really love from GW´s webpage, the don´t mix our miniatures with 3rd party things... While GW retains the IP rights to the box art, the sculptures and all other thingies after buying a box I can do anything I want with the 10 little, physical, bits of plastic that come inside because I never signed an EULA with GW saying that I was not going to do that, and those little ten guys (not the design, not the art...) are mine to convert, modify, even to melt in pieces of slag if I want. For allI need to care GW can say that I need to paint them red that unless I agree to that contract between me and GW the clause will be null and void no matter how many times it appears in GW rulebooks, codex, webpage... (and even the EULAs that we sign when joining online games for example, can be and in some places have been taken down for being abusive clauses, IIRC Microsoft tried that in the EU and failed)

M.

BaronIveagh wrote:Stating that you cannot do these thigns and that it is a major infringement means that what follows are not just 'suggestions'.

My point was that in the midst of a page full of things that GW are saying 'Don't do this' there's a section on conversions that says 'Please don't do this...'

Make of that what you will.

Miguelsan wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
"3: confirm by return that you will not infringe Games Workshop's intellectual property rights at any time in the future."

This one is neat, they want to turn something that can be ruled both ways (fair use or not of the GW´s IP) in an EULA so next time GW needs to drop the hammer instead of fighting through IP law they can say that the fansite violated a standing contract and turn the whole thing into private law. Very, very neat.

Ironically, that one can work in the US, but would be not be binding in the Netherlands, where the sys admin in question lives, and therefor could be construed as deception on GW's part.

Miguelsan wrote:

Item plus, the whole "what you can do page" is a bunch of half truths worded in a way to sound absolutes to the lay man. Eg. The club names, as they say Warhammer is a TM in the gaming sector but as Killkrazy pointed in another thread while the Warhammer Club could be contested as a miniatures club name by GW, the Warhammer Club Ancient Armies Renactors, can be used as GW is not into that line of bussiness and even if GW started a line, those guys would have the right to contest GW TM because they were there first (at least according to the US IP law links that some people have been linking). Not that GW needs to mention that in their webpage of course but laws are not absolutes as some people might believe specially UK based companies granting or withholding rights that are not valid in other countries as Baron has already pointed here.

So this brings us to the part that I really love from GW´s webpage, the don´t mix our miniatures with 3rd party things... While GW retains the IP rights to the box art, the sculptures and all other thingies after buying a box I can do anything I want with the 10 little, physical, bits of plastic that come inside because I never signed an EULA with GW saying that I was not going to do that, and those little ten guys (not the design, not the art...) are mine to convert, modify, even to melt in pieces of slag if I want. For allI need to care GW can say that I need to paint them red that unless I agree to that contract between me and GW the clause will be null and void no matter how many times it appears in GW rulebooks, codex, webpage... (and even the EULAs that we sign when joining online games for example, can be and in some places have been taken down for being abusive clauses, IIRC Microsoft tried that in the EU and failed)

M.

My personal favorite is CCP's EULA for EVE Online, which is 'governed by the laws of Iceland' except that some of it's clauses would be found not only unreasonable, but illegal if anyone ever actually took it to court in Iceland.

GW (and some other companies) like to forget that the internet is not just in their country of origin. Microsoft is the funniest. I loved their email to thepiratebay demanding that the Swedish website comply with US laws.

The reason for the 3rd party thing, is, of course, that it blurs GW's exclusive claim to the IP (go figure) and potentially brings them into conflict with people who might have just as many lawyers as they do. Or, god-emperor save us, the items might enter the public domain, and then all sorts of mini makers might come crawling out of the wood work. (This can actually happen. In some countries if the IP is unclear or draws from several different IPs it's considered to be different from a derivative work. Needless to say, GW DOES NOT want something like THAT to happen as it would mean that they would end up surrendering some rights) It also means that there are bits unused floating around on the secondary market, which might reduce their sales.

Personally, I'm waiting for GW's heavy handed approach to get them a counter suit. I'd consider it ironic if they lost a few million for their arrogance over fan sites.

Most people will just comply out of fear of litigation.

I remember DemonBlade games complying with a GW cease and decist over their Orc line, simply because it was less expensive to resculpt the models than it was to fight a legal battle, that they should have won.

The deeper we go on this the weirder it gets... By reading the dont's, specially the dont convert I was wondering something... One thing is dont allow things on their turf/ stores/ tournaments but how can they enforce this in their clients homes? Im no law man yet it seems not only impossible but somewhat illegal to even hint we cannot convert the miniatures the way we want to.

But if theres a law that can make them submit people to their ridiculous random laws just by buying a freaking miniature then Insaniak mate... you and me should really stop converting

BTW thanks on the clarification about linking GW on dakka...

So I assume that 40konline is as good as dead eh?

I don't see what all the fuss is about. That list of stuff is pretty reasonable and polite and basically says

"we're really not too fussed what you do, have fun but don't take the mickey please"

which seems fair enough to me. People seem to just be nit-picking now and looking for faults that either aren't there or are ever likely to be followed up by GW. There is pretty much nothing there that is going to affect 99.9% of people posting on forums as they normally would.

Thanks for posting that, swbruni! I hadn't read it before... it does sound reasonable, actually, although I can understand people getting upset when they've built up a large website, etc. in violation of the copyright without realizing it, and suddenly had to change it.

Cheers,
Steve / RiTides

Johnynoi wrote:I don't see what all the fuss is about. That list of stuff is pretty reasonable and polite and basically says

"we're really not too fussed what you do, have fun but don't take the mickey please"

which seems fair enough to me. People seem to just be nit-picking now and looking for faults that either aren't there or are ever likely to be followed up by GW. There is pretty much nothing there that is going to affect 99.9% of people posting on forums as they normally would.

Johny, reasonable or not, the point was that they're filing C&Ds against people in countries where what they're doing is (in most cases) legal, to the detriment of the fanbase.

Further, I site Beck v Eiland-Hall as legal precedent that TBB was within their rights in the US to use GW's IP in their domain name, as no one would mistake it for an official website.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Mastiff wrote:To take things a step further, the reproduced art was created by an individual and sold to Games Workshop. Games Workshop is also protecting the rights of those artists and writers who make their living producing those works. It's expensive and impractical for freelance artists to be able to afford to threaten legal action against anyone who copies their works.

You can, however, take photos of your own GW models, or add your own illustrations based on GW ideas.

No, you can't, those are considered derivative works.

Yes, they are derivative works. But I'm going by GW's policies.

Also, please do not use any material from the official Games Workshop websites. Instead, we suggest that you make your own.

Unfortunately, we cannot allow the printing or publishing of such conversions- such action devalues existing GW products.
Special Figures


wait didnt they in white dwarf in previous years have CONVERSION CORNER!!!!!!! tells you how to CONVERT(bad word) some of their models and with what pieces hrmmmm... Kinda seems like an oxymoron if you ask me. Also just typing all this online does not in a legal since constitue rights reserved. They have to link or show what articles and subsections to find their copyrights under. Just saying on the overall they play off the whole bank thing alot but in truth somone TAKE THEM TO COURT. Then counter sue for harrassment and if your in the U.S utilize the first amendment people as they sure do a good job infirnging upon it.

Wow there are a lot of lawyers here, or at least people pretending to be. God I love the internet.

theHandofGork wrote:Wow there are a lot of lawyers here, or at least people pretending to be. God I love the internet.

I spy troll off the port bow!

theHandofGork wrote:Wow there are a lot of lawyers here, or at least people pretending to be. God I love the internet.

how do you know some people arent' lawyers? or are you just assuming. Next time you could make your point without comming across negatively. Plus all this is is a open forum of people expressing their concerns. I for one think this is great because it shows more so that we as a collective group love this great product that citadel inc. produces. We are just overly concerned of an alienation from them and as such are voicing our opions in a free and moderate open format. This is what America was founded upon in the basic principles. You dont need to be a lawyer to know laws just have a little bit of sense and a desire for education and knowledge insteqad of ignorance. That is all you may bash me now because most likely you will.

Frazzled wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:Wow there are a lot of lawyers here, or at least people pretending to be. God I love the internet.

I spy troll off the port bow!

Sorry- just saying this has gotten really very silly. Especially since we get a thread like this every month or so in which the same arguments seem to be repeated over and over again.

If people really are interested in IP law issues it seems rather strange to go to Dakka for info rather than an actual book on the subject.

Oh, and I'm off your starboard bow btw.

We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"

ROFLMAO!!!

Are they serious?

Who does this?

Just about every website that has pics of any painted GW miniature, including eBay, is hosed if they enforce this.

Ok, so if I wanted to a fan site based on Space Marines, how do I do it (but make it findable) without infringe GW's IP? If you can't use any of their "protected" words / phrases in your URL, won't that make it harder for you to promote your site?

What about Meta tags, surely as they are used to identify your site they are used in a way that is infringing on GW's IP as they are used as is, not in a descriptive paragraph. GW imply that by using the IP protected words in the Meta tags section you are causing potential confusion?

Examples:

Years ago I used my design skills and love of Space Wolves to create a site about them. I did just because I could. The following is some text from one of the pages;

Planet Fenris

For a man born on a Dragonship, the vastness of space holds no fears.

To a Fenrisian it matters not that his ship sails the mighty oceans of his planet, or between the Emperor's stars.

Born to battle, it is an unwary foe who lets the ships of the Space Wolf chapter get within boarding range. To Russ' wolves a boarding action is the chance to win more glory.

Many an enemy captain has lost his ship to packs of ravaging Blood Claws, his crew torn apart by bolter and chainsword.

For does not the chapter banner show a mighty wolf striding amongst the stars?

As you can see there are the terms Blood Claws, Fenris, Space Wolf and bolter used. Now I would imagine GW wouldn't have a problem with this format. Lets take a look at how Meta tags work:

<meta name="keywords" content="28mm, 15mm, SoTR, FoW, Urban War, Urban Mammoth, Secrets of the Third Reich, Malifaux, Flames of War, Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, Rules of Engagement, AK47, PBI, Peter Pig, Uncharted Seas, Hordes, Warmachine, Wargaming, War Gaming" />

This example is taken from my club website. As you can see the format is completely different. Surely if I had listed a load of Trademark protected Space Marine & Space Wolf terms into my meta tags I would be breaking GW's IP. I would be using their IP to promote my site, which breaks their usage rules and if that's the case GW will be getting one huge bill from their lawyers for all the C&D letters they will need to send out.

theHandofGork wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:Wow there are a lot of lawyers here, or at least people pretending to be. God I love the internet.

I spy troll off the port bow!

Sorry- just saying this has gotten really very silly. Especially since we get a thread like this every month or so in which the same arguments seem to be repeated over and over again.

If people really are interested in IP law issues it seems rather strange to go to Dakka for info rather than an actual book on the subject.

Oh, and I'm off your starboard bow btw.

I went over IP law issues every day at work for 3 years while I was the VP of internet sales for a now defunct .com (not my fault, owner decided to close shop and retire)

Why people talk about it on dakka is that the group mindset is heavily rules oriented, and when something has the appearance of breaking the rules in a way that effects such a group, it becomes a matter of discussion.

Wolfstan wrote:Ok, so if I wanted to a fan site based on Space Marines, how do I do it (but make it findable) without infringe GW's IP? If you can't use any of their "protected" words / phrases in your URL, won't that make it harder for you to promote your site?

What about Meta tags, surely as they are used to identify your site they are used in a way that is infringing on GW's IP as they are used as is, not in a descriptive paragraph. GW imply that by using the IP protected words in the Meta tags section you are causing potential confusion?

They are pretty specific about URLs, not Metatags.

Web Sites
Please don't use one of our trademarks to directly identify your web site (e.g., "The Space Hulk Home Page"). This right is reserved for GW companies and formal licensees only.
This doesn't mean that you can't use our trademarks to talk about our stuff, it just means you need to make it clear that description is the reason why you are using them (e.g., "Cleanse and Burn - my web page dedicated to Games Workshop's Space Hulk game") is fine because you're using our trademarks to simply describe what your web page is about and because it identifies us as the publishers of the game.
Also, please do not use any material from the official Games Workshop websites. Instead, we suggest that you make your own.

Web Names
Please don't use one of our registered trademarks as part of your web domain name. This right is reserved for GW companies and formal licensees only.

I know people were complaining that if TalkBloodBowl.com changes it's name to TalkFantasyFootball.com they'll never be found, but that's not how it works. The metatags, H1 tags, alt tags etc. can still use names like "Blood Bowl" and will get still found using a search engine. The URL is only one component of Search Engine Optimization, and not necessarily the most important.

The determination of ownership of URLs has been a rapidly growing part of the legal industry, but to my knowledge Metatags aren't part of this, since no one registers or owns metatags. In fact, companies often use their competitor's names in their metatags to try and siphon off search inquiries.

BaronIveagh wrote:Personally, I'm waiting for GW's heavy handed approach to get them a counter suit. I'd consider it ironic if they lost a few million for their arrogance over fan sites.

That's what the free world was waiting for with the RIAA insanity. That train wreck been going on for years and you can guess how many times they've been punished for their arrogance. In this litigious world we live in nowadays, the only thing I can think of that you can do is move your hosting to an area that is hostile to western copyright cartels. I hate using the word cartel because typically when I see it used online it is used by people I imagine wearing tinfoil hats and hiding in the bomb shelters in their basements, but IP laws and "enforcement" have gotten so out of hand in the last few years that it's becoming quite scary.

Empchild wrote:Unfortunately, we cannot allow the printing or publishing of such conversions- such action devalues existing GW products.

wait didnt they in white dwarf in previous years have CONVERSION CORNER!!!!!!!

2 things on that... The bit you quoted was referring to paper or cardboard models.

And GW have every right to publish conversion articles of their own. The IP is theirs.

You are right insainik,and I would be heavily inclined to agree with you but as such is the deal with the american legal system unless your specific on your rightings of the law and put down almost every possible contigent then no they do not have legal rights as they did not put down they do to do such things. Interpetation of the law only takes you so far sadly here and in all honesty it's one of the major downfalls of our legal system.

daedalus wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Personally, I'm waiting for GW's heavy handed approach to get them a counter suit. I'd consider it ironic if they lost a few million for their arrogance over fan sites.

That's what the free world was waiting for with the RIAA insanity. That train wreck been going on for years and you can guess how many times they've been punished for their arrogance. In this litigious world we live in nowadays, the only thing I can think of that you can do is move your hosting to an area that is hostile to western copyright cartels. I hate using the word cartel because typically when I see it used online it is used by people I imagine wearing tinfoil hats and hiding in the bomb shelters in their basements, but IP laws and "enforcement" have gotten so out of hand in the last few years that it's becoming quite scary.

RIAA has actually lost quite a few suits, however, with the economic power of the recording industry behind them, losing a few million is no big deal for them. GW however would find it a devastating blow.

The major problem with this is it runs counter to how most other businesses do business.

Example: I make a site called fordmakesawsomecars.com I load it up with images of Ford cars, taken by Ford, and extolling how to get the most out of each one, and how to mod them.

Ford would be, in all likelihood, happy with this. Why? It's free advertising for their products. They might even turn a blind eye to me selling custom parts for their cars to be modded with. Why? Because they've already made their money in the car sold. They'd be pissed if I offered fake Ford goods, but otherwise...

On the flip side, we have GW who is freaking out right now because they've pinned too much of thier brand identity on their monopoly on Warhammer, etc. Rather then diversifying and expanding brand awareness, they've been contracting and focusing solely on their Big 3 (WHFB, 40k, and LotR) and they know that other companies have been producing superior product to theirs in the metal and resin mini's market. If their monopoly on these trademarks was broken, they could kiss their sales goodbye if they didn't immediately improve quality or reduce price.

FUMBBL is getting the C&D and taken to town.

Empchild wrote:You are right insainik,and I would be heavily inclined to agree with you but as such is the deal with the american legal system unless your specific on your rightings of the law and put down almost every possible contigent then no they do not have legal rights as they did not put down they do to do such things. Interpetation of the law only takes you so far sadly here and in all honesty it's one of the major downfalls of our legal system.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

There are going to be a lot of sad panda's about FUMBBL.

(edit: My Engrish is Eggsalad)

Ahh... GW strikes again...

From what I understand, GW is now closeing fan sites with trademarks in their names. (I dont get dark reign though, thats not 40k) Sorry to sound paranoid, but isnt DAKKA a GW trademark? Dose that put us on the chopping block?

If you are next, and if this is true, then should we be ready for a legal battle? I mean, as far as I know the server for DAKKADAKKA is hosted in the US, so are we safer? The only thing they could take us for is the DCM thing right? Sorry to sound like a manic, but this thing has me concerned. If Dakka went away I am not sure what I would do with my GW stuff....

In response to GW's (attempted to date) destruction of FUMBBL here is an interesting perspective from Impact miniatures in response to the "GW must do this" vitriol:

[As I understand it, GW are obliged to go after all these sites, othewise they lose their intellectual property rights by default. I am sure we would all do the same if we were GW.]

No I wouldn't. I'd offer them licensing agreements and require text on their site that the copyrighted material on the site was used under license.

We've already sold licenses to fans for Elfball for a couple folks that asked to do internet stuff.

Other games have Fan Packs for the internet. See WOW ( worldofwarcraft.filefr..._Kit;42980 ) Elfball is following THAT model ... instead of the souless squash everyone model that GW is using.

See ... I've called GW SEVERAL times over the last 4 years to try and purchase licenses to do things personally or with Impact! and every time I was told no via email. So finally I called licensing and asked what I needed to actually get a yes and the head of marketing said they don't do licenses for less than 1000000 GBP.

So the answer is no I would not do it the way GW has. I would do and in fact DO do it it in a way to encourage fans and I would not care if the license for them to do so was only 15 GBP per a year.

Happygrunt wrote: Sorry to sound paranoid, but isnt DAKKA a GW trademark?

Nope.

If they tried that gak on Dakka, several hundred of us are in commuting distance of GW in Nottingham.

I'd be up there with half a brick in a sock before you could say 'Is tom kirby protected by the look out sir rule?'...

BeefyG wrote:So the answer is no I would not do it the way GW has. I would do and in fact DO do it it in a way to encourage fans and I would not care if the license for them to do so was only 15 GBP per a year.

It basically comes down to how much control a company wants over its IP.

Some companies are happy to let fans do more or less what they want. Some encourage fans to get creative with their IP (see the video mash-up competitions on the official Star Wars website not so long ago). Some, like GW, prefer to keep as much control over the expression of their IP as possible. They've always been rather choosy as to who they work with, and who gets to develop their IP, in order to (at least as they explain it) avoid their product from being 'watered down' ...

Here's the thing. You produce a game. Someone comes along who wants to produce a website producing, say, fan-made army lists. You sell them a license to do so... and so those fan-made armies, despite you not actually having any real control over what's in them, become indelibly associated with your game. Even if they're rubbish.

That's more or less what GW are claiming they're trying to avoid. They want to ensure that whatever is out there being associated with their product is of a quality that they would be happy to produce themselves. And so they remain picky about licenses, and they keep an eye on anything that may impinge on where they want their product to go.

Whether or not that's actually a good business model is ultimately decided by the success (or lack thereof) of the company.

So Cyanides bug filled, rules inaccurate, horrible interface, hacked, disconnect cheating, cherry picked cheating, 8 teams out of 24 licensed product is far superior to FUMBBL? (This is slightly tongue in cheek).

Give me a LRB 5 compliant FUMBBL anyday simply for the fact that it isn't watered down.

This is the single most damaging event to the bloodbowl hobby (albeit JJ's overzealous rules review that was universally shunned a lot earlier in the piece) that could occur.

The letter to FUMBBL also is interesting in the fact that GW state that they have only recently become aware of its existence when that is an outright lie as the rules council (JJ included) used FUMBBL statistics in reviewing teams.

Cheers for the actual valid argument though insaniak, there have been very little to date that aren't simply "GW can do what it wants...whatever".

As you said it comes down to choice. The way in which the company chooses to act. Blizzard are a good example of a massive company that allow their fans to expand their enjoyment/use of the IP. As has been stated above, GW seem to take the "...souless squash everyone model" which I am very disappointed in.

BeefyG wrote:So Cyanides bug filled, rules inaccurate, horrible interface, hacked, disconnect cheating, cherry picked cheating, 8 teams out of 24 licensed product is far superior to FUMBBL? (This is slightly tongue in cheek).

While I have no experience with the BB game from which to base a comment on the quality of it, it's worth mentioning that being 'picky' about your licenses doesn't automatically mean that you always make the right decisions...

Or that the company that looks great when you engage in initial talks will actually deliver at the standard promised (see Mongoose vs Chinese miniature painters...)

The letter to FUMBBL also is interesting in the fact that GW state that they have only recently become aware of its existence when that is an outright lie as the rules council (JJ included) used FUMBBL statistics in reviewing teams.

To be fair, the fact that the design studio, or any other department for that matter, is aware of something is no guarantee that the legal department is aware of it.

You know what happens when companies get careless with access to their IPs?

This:



Yeah, that's right. Promoting the Watchmen movie with condoms.

insaniak wrote:To be fair, the fact that the design studio, or any other department for that matter, is aware of something is no guarantee that the legal department is aware of it.

... however, if they want to make a copyright issue out of it, it's not required at a particular department knows of it. Though if legal WERE to claim that they had no idea and then the defendent were to produce a copy of said information, it makes them look bad.

insaniak wrote:

BeefyG wrote:Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it?

Not really. The old books are all still out there. They're mostly not that difficult to get a hold of.

Copyrights are very long and even if no copy exist on the market they would still apply. Trademarks are worse because you need to protect them even if you don't sell anymore of those products if you want to keep the trademark.

This is used a lot by company the would like that people forget things they have done in the past by enforcing copyright on bad products. Look for bugs bunny cartoon from world war II or from that era where a lot of them are consider too racist today.

In the US if you cannot find who hold the copyright and get a permission from them you cannot distribute it . It lead to ridiculous amount of time. I remember reading about a case of an historian that made a book about letter written by soldier in the secession war in the US. He was not able to publish his book because the last soldiers died in the 50's and there was copyright on those letters 70 years after the death of those soldiers which lead around 2020.

In the US they don't name the copyright law the Mickey mouse law for nothing.

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Ah, but beware the morasse that is PATENT LAW. For example, Wizards of the Coast cannot copyright the game Magic: The Gathering, it's rules or mechanics, but they do hold the patent for it. Before you decide to do anything frisky with a published game be sure to check for patent info.

Happygrunt wrote:From what I understand, GW is now closeing fan sites with trademarks in their names. (I dont get dark reign though, thats not 40k) Sorry to sound paranoid, but isnt DAKKA a GW trademark? Dose that put us on the chopping block?

If you are next, and if this is true, then should we be ready for a legal battle? I mean, as far as I know the server for DAKKADAKKA is hosted in the US, so are we safer? The only thing they could take us for is the DCM thing right? Sorry to sound like a manic, but this thing has me concerned. If Dakka went away I am not sure what I would do with my GW stuff....

Dakka Dakka ™ is a trademark of Dakka Dakka.

scramasax wrote:

In the US if you cannot find who hold the copyright and get a permission from them you cannot distribute it . It lead to ridiculous amount of time. I remember reading about a case of an historian that made a book about letter written by soldier in the secession war in the US. He was not able to publish his book because the last soldiers died in the 50's and there was copyright on those letters 70 years after the death of those soldiers which lead around 2020.

In the US they don't name the copyright law the Mickey mouse law for nothing.

Thanks big business and the politicians who service them by keep extending the length of time the copyrights remain in effect.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If they tried that gak on Dakka, several hundred of us are in commuting distance of GW in Nottingham.

I'd be up there with half a brick in a sock before you could say 'Is tom kirby protected by the look out sir rule?'...

Dakka (TM) really is TM'd. GW hast no claim upon these badlands.

Breotan wrote:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Ah, but beware the morasse that is PATENT LAW. For example, Wizards of the Coast cannot copyright the game Magic: The Gathering, it's rules or mechanics, but they do hold the patent for it. Before you decide to do anything frisky with a published game be sure to check for patent info.

Interestingly enough, they run into problems with it overseas where patents are much more limited in duration and/or cannot be renewed. (Japan, for example, is limited to just a few years, if I remember correctly. Some eastern European countries have no such thing, even))

MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Is tom kirby protected by the look out sir rule?'...

Yeah I'm certain there'd be a few employees ready to push him closer, or hold him still so you'd have a good shot.

BaronIveagh wrote:
On the flip side, we have GW who is freaking out right now because they've pinned too much of thier brand identity on their monopoly on Warhammer, etc. Rather then diversifying and expanding brand awareness, they've been contracting and focusing solely on their Big 3 (WHFB, 40k, and LotR) and they know that other companies have been producing superior product to theirs in the metal and resin mini's market. If their monopoly on these trademarks was broken, they could kiss their sales goodbye if they didn't immediately improve quality or reduce price.

^ This pretty much proves to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Monopoly on the product they sell?? That doesn't even make sense. To use your car example, that's like saying Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars.

*gasp!*

You're right Ozy! Ford does have a monopoly on Ford cars just like GW has a monopoly on GW models!!! It's a conspiracy!!!!



Personally, I blame Jervis...

Ozymandias wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
On the flip side, we have GW who is freaking out right now because they've pinned too much of thier brand identity on their monopoly on Warhammer, etc. Rather then diversifying and expanding brand awareness, they've been contracting and focusing solely on their Big 3 (WHFB, 40k, and LotR) and they know that other companies have been producing superior product to theirs in the metal and resin mini's market. If their monopoly on these trademarks was broken, they could kiss their sales goodbye if they didn't immediately improve quality or reduce price.

^ This pretty much proves to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Monopoly on the product they sell?? That doesn't even make sense. To use your car example, that's like saying Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars.

Not really. In the case of my example it would be more like claiming Ford has a monopoly on cars.

... looking back I'm not sure why I said brand identity when I meant potential income, I think I was tired or writing too fast...

Ford does have a monopoly on Ford cars, but Ford doesn't pin everything on that. They have a large selection of current product lines and other forms of income (stocks, etc.)

Why? Because Ford's income does not revolve around the idea that to drive you must own Ford products.

GW relies on the idea that you must (at some point) buy their products to play Warhammer/40k. God help you if you have a non-GW skeleton in your undead legion. (I've actually had them spot the single Reaper skeleton in a vampire counts army and demand the player be disqualified for using non-GW minis [not a requirement in the rules]. At a non-GW store. At a tournament they didn't sponsor. They were not asked to officiate again.)

I can't say I've ever had or heard of a Ford employee who was judging an Autoshow hosted by someone else dock a Mustang points for having a Shelby muffler.

Maybe Tamiya would be a better example. I've built a lot of Tamiya kits over the years, with parts from Verlindin, Dragon, etc. I have never heard of a cease and desist order from Tamiya to any website for using their graphics, modding their models, or seen them request that I not use whatever parts I want, even though their kits are, in fact, their IP. Nor have I heard such a thing from any other mini or model manufacturer.

Breotan wrote:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Ah, but beware the morasse that is PATENT LAW. For example, Wizards of the Coast cannot copyright the game Magic: The Gathering, it's rules or mechanics, but they do hold the patent for it. Before you decide to do anything frisky with a published game be sure to check for patent info.

In the case of Games workshop I am aware of patent for injection moulding but not for the game itself.

HA HA HA!! I found this while cruising that thread where a chap had pulled the legal jumbo off the GW site and posted it. Ine one instance they site what you can not do with the GW IP saying:

- Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.

Sooooo appearantly we can not talk smack about GW products without getting sewed! HA HA HA!!! I love these guys!

That is not what that means.

I also believe the word you are looking for is "sued".

Just saying.

Given that GW are on the rampage at the moment, could I ask the members of the board if the logo I've created for my new freelance venture is stylised enough to escape their attentions? The logo can be found here: http://www.wessexwyverns.org.uk/wulfstan.html

Yeah, it's fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hang on a minute...

If the cited reason in many of these cases is reproduction of points costs and stat lines, isn't BOLS in the firing line for the alternative army lists it makes for the Badab Uprising, Genestealer Cults etc?

Looks good. It is not going to be related to any 40k what-nots will it?

Thanks Fateweaver, I am kind of embarassed to have missed that spelling since I used to be a case manager for the Probate dept in our state Court House. Can we blame it on my recent Cherry and Honey flavored Ricola throat drop addiction? That was a joke by the way and so was the previous post. Even though it was a joke and I was intentionally whimsically bending the intent of that passage they could sue over harmful criticism that results in the loss of revenue as long as it is not factually based such as a consumer report pointing out a defect. An instance could be where I have suggested that the last batch of Skaven that were skulpted in what 2001 or so looked like monkey-rats and I would never buy them, that is opinion based and if they can prove that they have lost revenue for it they could come after me for that lost revenue and any potential future revenue. It would be the first time I have been sued for somthing like that but not the first time a company has lost a case due to an on-air personality rattling off their opinion. Though, just out of curiosity can the forum site be sued for libel for our ill expressed feelings, or are we kings of our own desitiny at that point?

BaronIveagh wrote:Maybe Tamiya would be a better example. I've built a lot of Tamiya kits over the years, with parts from Verlindin, Dragon, etc. I have never heard of a cease and desist order from Tamiya to any website for using their graphics, modding their models, or seen them request that I not use whatever parts I want, even though their kits are, in fact, their IP. Nor have I heard such a thing from any other mini or model manufacturer.

Military kits are a slightly different issue, as ownership of the IP falls into all sorts of grey areas.

Tamiya may create a model of, say, a Challenger tank. But the ownership of the original IP is questionable. At least from what I've been reading recently, the law has yet to decide in the case of military vehicles whether the IP belongs the company that originally designed the vehicle, the defense department that commissioned it, or the taxpayers who actually payed for it to happen. The only thing that everyone's pretty confident of is that producers of military models can't claim to own the IP for these sorts of kits, because they didn't design the original, and they didn't get permission to make the model based on that original.

You also won't hear of cease and desists being issued over the use of parts from or modifications of these kits because it's too hard to prove which kit you used. One Sherman tank kit looks pretty much like any other Sherman tank kit. They'd be pretty useless if they didn't.

insaniak wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Maybe Tamiya would be a better example. I've built a lot of Tamiya kits over the years, with parts from Verlindin, Dragon, etc. I have never heard of a cease and desist order from Tamiya to any website for using their graphics, modding their models, or seen them request that I not use whatever parts I want, even though their kits are, in fact, their IP. Nor have I heard such a thing from any other mini or model manufacturer.

Military kits are a slightly different issue, as ownership of the IP falls into all sorts of grey areas.

Tamiya may create a model of, say, a Challenger tank. But the ownership of the original IP is questionable. At least from what I've been reading recently, the law has yet to decide in the case of military vehicles whether the IP belongs the company that originally designed the vehicle, the defense department that commissioned it, or the taxpayers who actually payed for it to happen. The only thing that everyone's pretty confident of is that producers of military models can't claim to own the IP for these sorts of kits, because they didn't design the original, and they didn't get permission to make the model based on that original.

You also won't hear of cease and desists being issued over the use of parts from or modifications of these kits because it's too hard to prove which kit you used. One Sherman tank kit looks pretty much like any other Sherman tank kit. They'd be pretty useless if they didn't.

Not true, box art and mold layout can be and are IP of the manufacturer. The actual model itself might not be.

I am currently making a conversion which blasphemously combines parts from GW, Gundam, and Terminator into a single model.

I'm pondering whether to jam some Halo stuff on there too, for Extra Heresy.

Don't forget the new Avatar toys too!

BaronIveagh wrote:Not true, box art and mold layout can be and are IP of the manufacturer. The actual model itself might not be.

Given that the actual model is what I was talking about, I'm curious as to which part you think isn't true.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am currently making a conversion which blasphemously combines parts from GW, Gundam, and Terminator into a single model.

I'm pondering whether to jam some Halo stuff on there too, for Extra Heresy.

Way to go, lil baby Jebus totally hates you now, he told me himself. Sheesh. What is wrong with you people?!? No respect for the hobby... which is exactly why you people play and use it for your own creative projects. It is obvious!

Ok, here's a question that occurs to me, due to some rather strange activity over on Warseer suddenly: How many sites have gotten C&Ds without telling anyone?

Reason I ask is that the Warseer mods seem to be going around squashing this story. Hard.

I started a thread on it over there and very, very few posts are lasting more then a few hours, as the mods sweep through and erase them as OT. To the point that the thread has contracted a whole page size while I was reading it. (I got 10 demerits myself, as discussing why GW was issuing them all was off topic in a thread discussing the fact that they were issuing a bunch of them.)

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Kilkrazy wrote:I am currently making a conversion which blasphemously combines parts from GW, Gundam, and Terminator into a single model.

I'm pondering whether to jam some Halo stuff on there too, for Extra Heresy.

Do they still make treasure troll dolls?

EDIT: That doesn't make much sense though...if Warseer had gotten a C&D for whatever reason then what good would it do to quash all discussion on the topic? If you were implying that Warseer even got one.

Kilkrazy wrote:I am currently making a conversion which blasphemously combines parts from GW, Gundam, and Terminator into a single model.

I'm pondering whether to jam some Halo stuff on there too, for Extra Heresy.

Dont forget to add a impact miniature blood ball for extra touch.

BaronIveagh wrote:Ok, here's a question that occurs to me, due to some rather strange activity over on Warseer suddenly: How many sites have gotten C&Ds without telling anyone?

Reason I ask is that the Warseer mods seem to be going around squashing this story. Hard.

I started a thread on it over there and very, very few posts are lasting more then a few hours, as the mods sweep through and erase them as OT. To the point that the thread has contracted a whole page size while I was reading it. (I got 10 demerits myself, as discussing why GW was issuing them all was off topic in a thread discussing the fact that they were issuing a bunch of them.)

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Warseer is filled with a bunch of prigs..

I said it and I think mostly everyone here will back me up. They delete any mention of non-GW products (even if it pertains to 40K) as well as discussions that question the board and mods actions. They dont edit, they flat out delete. I now know why GW closed its own forums down.. why go through the headache when you can pay another board owner to advertise only your products and make it look like its all hobbyist free opinion on how great they are.

Call me sour, but after spending 300$ to try to advertise with them and not getting any response for 5 months, they are nothing more then a GW advertising board IMO.

You have no evidence Warseer admins are being bribed by Games Workshop, and the accusation is frankly idiotic.

As the adage goes, never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.

Agamemnon2 wrote:You have no evidence Warseer admins are being bribed by Games Workshop, and the accusation is frankly idiotic.

As the adage goes, never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.

That is my opinion based on actions many people have witnessed on that board. Can you give me another explanation as to why they blatantly block mention of ANY companies minis but GWs (by block I mean move, delete or edit).

It may not be the admins, it could be just the owner, in any case, they are doing the best job of pro-GW censorship I have ever witnessed.

Can't say I've seen much of that myself.

Aye they are sometimes trigger happy on subjects, but with the numbers they deal with over there I'd imagine Modding on Seer can be a bit of a nightmare.

As to non GW stuff, well aye post it in the 40K/Warhammer section and it'll be gone (or at least moved to the correct forum.) But there are non GW model forums over there that are quite active.

If you talking about stuff 'like GW' but not GW, Avatars of War and such are usually quite happily found in the right GW themed forum.

So aye, not really something I'm seeing, from my observations anyway.

Let us not forget the GW spies. They surround us, silently, stealthily scurrying about, questioning IP rights and whtanot.

Sidstyler wrote:EDIT: That doesn't make much sense though...if Warseer had gotten a C&D for whatever reason then what good would it do to quash all discussion on the topic? If you were implying that Warseer even got one.

No we haven't and eight out of sixty eight posts have been removed despite multiple warnings that members should stay on topic and haven't.

As for the other Warseer subject on here I'll refrain from replying as it would get me into trouble and be off topic.

Chapterhouse, if you don't like Warseer, feel free to post here!

But seriously, please do not attack other forums, especially with unproven accusations. Every messageboard is run by people with different ideas of what they want on their board.

Dakka is known for being more lenient, but we also have to spend more time cleaning up after the chowderheads.

Lorek wrote:
Dakka is known for being more lenient, but we also have to spend more time cleaning up after the chowderheads.

Hello there!

In other news, lets get back to reeling from GWs overly hostile grandstanding over it's perceived need to protect it's IP from it's own fanbase.

Other forums are available, your mileage may vary.

I have just deleted a slew of posts from this thread, since people chose to ignore Lorek's first warning.

Let's keep the thread on-topic, please.

im suprised it's even still going honestly.

Was gw able to trademark, (orcs, trolls,vampires,) ETC.
Because those words and or descriptions were in common folk lore, long before GW began. If not their fantasy line has no protection.

No, it could not possibly tm or even try to claim ownership over the word goblin for example.

It can and has claimed ownership and rightly so, of the things it has created, like Khorne or Skaven. It would not be able to tm something like a 'chaos god of war' or 'mutated fantasy ratmen' though.

If they really want to be lame they could maybe possibly think they have reason to complain about some of the smileys, but I doubt it would be a real issue.

TBD wrote:If they really want to be lame they could maybe possibly think they have reason to complain about some of the smileys, but I doubt it would be a real issue.

Quoted to be veiwable

Happygrunt wrote:Quoted to be veiwable

But I made it small so the GW spies would read over it.

Now if it gives them any ideas it will be your fault

insaniak wrote:One Sherman tank kit looks pretty much like any other Sherman tank kit. They'd be pretty useless if they didn't.

I've heard that the universe will implode if two different manufacturers of the same replica tank/aircraft etc. make a model that is the same size as someone else's. Conversion kits are always made with one manufacturer in mind.

Brimstone wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:EDIT: That doesn't make much sense though...if Warseer had gotten a C&D for whatever reason then what good would it do to quash all discussion on the topic? If you were implying that Warseer even got one.

No we haven't and eight out of sixty eight posts have been removed despite multiple warnings that members should stay on topic and haven't.

As for the other Warseer subject on here I'll refrain from replying as it would get me into trouble and be off topic.

I won't discuss this issue after this post either, but about 1 in 6 posts on a thread being OT seems a little odd to some of us, as it was down to 64 posts last I looked, and shrinking. Discussing what might motivate GW legal to issue the C&Ds does not seem OT in a thread about them issuing the C&Ds, which is what I got pegged for.

All this talk makes me look at the contrast between GW and Blizzard. One is zealous about using C&D's while the other seems to want their imagery and art spread as far afield as possible.

Video games vs Tabletop.

And Blizzard can't really trademark anything, whatsoever, from their games. They're bog standard fantasy/grimdarkfuture archetypes.

The Elven races in Warcraft, for example. They're three "sundered" kin bands, one of which was basically slaves to the other two at one point or another(the Night Elves having been non-magic users during the early years).
Then we've got the Humans and Dwarves, two races who've bound themselves together for mutual protection and out of thanks for the humans having saved the Dwarves from being overwhelmed by a gigantic Orcish horde...

Etc, etc, etc.

Kanluwen wrote:And Blizzard can't really trademark anything, whatsoever, from their games.

Like hell they can't. They have trademarks and copyrights up the ying-yang, just like GW does. Take a moment and read the legalese on their website and games sometime. And every bit of art they commission is copyrighted, even the skins of the character models.

The things they have trademarked are basically the Zergs and Protoss, along with expansions, characters, and a few of their insignias.

Everything else is just so fething generic there's nothing really distinct about the universes to separate them from anything else.

Every image generated through any of their games belongs to Blizzard's IP. Doesn't matter if someone else has a "dwarf" because the ones generated by Blizzard's code are unique instances of art.

I agree with Breotan. This is not an argument about conceptual ownership (at Kanluwen) as you could easily start the tedious argument of GW's taking concepts such as starship troopers, Gundam etc. This is about unique products that they take legal ownership of.

The argument that was raised earlier about Blizzard versus GW was a good example and comes down to each big companies choice of business model.

One model is open and encouraging at the risk of diluting the quality of their product (Blizzard). Whilst the other is closed and discouraging at the risk of killing interest in their product.

The choice of Blizzard to issue licenses to fans who wish to work in that fan space is met with glee by most.

The choice of GW to drop the iron curtain is met with much disdain and disgust by a lot of veterans. The 1 million pound licence statement is horrible if it is a company wide policy.

It's their (GW's) choice and as Insaniak said. Time will tell who's is the more intelligent business model.

Personally in response to this I've stopped buying GW and started buying alternate. YMMV.

loki old fart wrote:Was gw able to trademark, (orcs, trolls,vampires,) ETC.
Because those words and or descriptions were in common folk lore, long before GW began. If not their fantasy line has no protection.

Among those trakemark there is: Tau, necrons, kroot, dark angels, eldar, space marine, deathwing, pretty much all colors of paint,


Some are dead like: confrontation, heroquest , squat, warcry, codex

Even if warhammer is trademark there is some old warhammer drawing that have not been renewed but are still copyright

orcs, vampire and trolls have a lot of trademark own by someone else. They can coexist if they are not in the same domain or same geopraphic area

Breotan wrote:Every image generated through any of their games belongs to Blizzard's IP. Doesn't matter if someone else has a "dwarf" because the ones generated by Blizzard's code are unique instances of art.

Erm, you know what IP is right?

Blizzard's dwarf is like any other dwarf.
Just with bigger hands.
Thus, your argument holds no water whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeefyG wrote:I agree with Breotan. This is not an argument about conceptual ownership (at Kanluwen) as you could easily start the tedious argument of GW's taking concepts such as starship troopers, Gundam etc. This is about unique products that they take legal ownership of.

The argument that was raised earlier about Blizzard versus GW was a good example and comes down to each big companies choice of business model.

One model is open and encouraging at the risk of diluting the quality of their product (Blizzard). Whilst the other is closed and discouraging at the risk of killing interest in their product.

The choice of Blizzard to issue licenses to fans who wish to work in that fan space is met with glee by most.

The choice of GW to drop the iron curtain is met with much disdain and disgust by a lot of veterans. The 1 million pound licence statement is horrible if it is a company wide policy.

It's their (GW's) choice and as Insaniak said. Time will tell who's is the more intelligent business model.

Personally in response to this I've stopped buying GW and started buying alternate. YMMV.

You're aware that the "licenses" they issue to fans are for artwork(things like drawings, videos of gameplay, etc)--and those licenses also have the basic limitations that GW's do?

Blizzard, just like Games Workshop, doesn't care if you write a backstory for your army/characters. That's awesome, fantastic. Big whoop.
Blizzard also, just like Games Workshop, has a limitation as to how much you can alter your gameplay experience(mods, UIs, etc). Heck, what do you think Battle.Net is all about?

There's also the fact that, while Games Workshop works in an artistic medium--Blizzard works in a mostly digital medium. You don't have Chapterhouse styled companies selling you an alternative product. You don't have competition like Privateer Press, etc.
You basically have just Blizzard, their game engine, their game models, and whatever authentication protocols they use.

scramasax wrote:Some are dead like: confrontation, heroquest , squat, warcry, codex

Hang on - if GW hold the trademark for Confrontation, how did Rackham manage to run a game with that name for years? Would it because they're based in France?

I would guess either because GW let the Confrontation trademark lapse (it's pretty old... Confrontation was the aborted precursor to Necromunda), because it was only registered in the UK, or because Rackham's Confrontation was a completely different game, meaning there was no real chance of someone confusing the two.

shutting down fan sites looks like it's gonna be a regular thing with GW, prolly a stupid question, but there aren't any reasons or grounds for them to serve this site with a cease and desist, are there? Are all the "i's" dotted, so to speak?

As has been stated several times, Dakka is legally secure.

gil gerard wrote:
shutting down fan sites looks like it's gonna be a regular thing with GW, prolly a stupid question, but there aren't any reasons or grounds for them to serve this site with a cease and desist, are there? Are all the "i's" dotted, so to speak?

These threads are causing alot of paranoia. GW has asked sites not to infringe copyright/IP - NO ONE has been forced to shut down.

Ultra, point of fact, someone in a forum saying 'Deathwing' could constitute infringement of their IP, depending on context and how extreme GW wants to get with this. (Nintendo used to send out C&Ds to porn sites for making references to their games. Including forum posters sigs.)

If GW does take it that far, there's not much of a point of a fan site where you can't talk about, or show pictures of, GW rules and minis.

Gw closes fan sites is stupid

Chapterhouse wrote:

I said it and I think mostly everyone here will back me up. They delete any mention of non-GW products (even if it pertains to 40K) as well as discussions that question the board and mods actions. They dont edit, they flat out delete.

That is my opinion based on actions many people have witnessed on that board. Can you give me another explanation as to why they blatantly block mention of ANY companies minis but GWs (by block I mean move, delete or edit).

It may not be the admins, it could be just the owner, in any case, they are doing the best job of pro-GW censorship I have ever witnessed.

Sorry, Chapterhouse, I call BS on this one.

If they did do what you were claiming, why would there constantly be Avatars of War(non-GW product) news in the WHFB News and Rumour Section?

Eh, Chapterhouse is exaggerating for effect, but by and large, I've noticed the same thing, that threads seem to simply 'vanish' from time to time. I've had one or two that I was subscribed to reach a page or two and then disappear. Not locked, just gone.

But then again, anything I say will be justifiably suspect, as I've had threads hijacked and 'edited' by the mods of late and made no bones about bitching about it on other boards.

But we're getting off topic here.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, it could not possibly tm or even try to claim ownership over the word goblin for example.

Someone forgot to tell this to Marvel, DC, and TSR/WotC, all three have TMs on historic or mythological characters, races and locations.

BaronIveagh wrote:Eh, Chapterhouse is exaggerating for effect, but by and large, I've noticed the same thing, that threads seem to simply 'vanish' from time to time. I've had one or two that I was subscribed to reach a page or two and then disappear. Not locked, just gone.

But then again, anything I say will be justifiably suspect, as I've had threads hijacked and 'edited' by the mods of late and made no bones about bitching about it on other boards.

But we're getting off topic here.

I wish I was exagerrating...

hahaha watch this lads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK-cI9bE9Tw