Wouldn't surprise me to see GW forcing Amazon to take down all the works of Lionel Johnson.

"We want Amazon to take down every book, comic and movie we ever stole from, because our customers might be confused when seeing the original."

Another news piece on the BBC, although doesn't really say anything new:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

Does anyone really understand the GW blanket ban on talking to the media or giving interviews? Their flat refusal to speak to anyone and engage with the outside world at all seems almost cult-like and insular. They deliberately choose to turn down opportunities to increase awareness of their product and present themselves and their hobby in a positive light is just weird. Instead they just shut out the whole world, turn down their right of reply to journalists and let stories like the one on this thread get published on the BBC.

There's a thread going elsewhere where people say how they would run GW. Well I've not run many international companies so can't speak on authority, but as a minimum I would suggest they should invest in someone to do some PR and media work for them. Instead of paying for more lawyers and lawsuits to reinforce that paranoid 'fortress wall' they have spoken about, try making the walls look a little more inviting.

Its because their owners are stuck in an outdated business model which assumes they are the only company in the market and that the internet doesn't exist.

I think they just have no idea what they're doing and the people in charge have no business running a McDonald's shift let alone an actual company.

 Amaya wrote:
I think they just have no idea what they're doing and the people in charge have no business running a McDonald's shift let alone an actual company.

To be fair, they are a lot more successful than the miniature gaming companies that you and I run.

And 50 Cent is a multi platinum selling rapper, that doesn't mean he's actually good at what he does.

 Amaya wrote:
And 50 Cent is a multi platinum selling rapper, that doesn't mean he's actually good at what he does.

Actually, it kind of does. Even if 'what he does' is just sell albums. It makes him kind of an amazing salesman.

Not really considering Dr. Dre and Eminem are the ones supporting him. Interscope/Shady/Aftermath could sell just about anyone other than Bizarre.

They business model worked well when they first started up, IE: no competition and the internet wasn't what it was today.

Is it stupid, yes and no. It works well with a captive audience. Little school kids that walk into a GW store, get their parents to buy them space marines, and never ever know that other wargames exist(or even Amazon and E-bay)

 Amaya wrote:
Not really considering Dr. Dre and Eminem are the ones supporting him. Interscope/Shady/Aftermath could sell just about anyone other than Bizarre.

Not really on topic at this point and really mixing business models. GW runs their own business. Saying '50 cent isn't good at what he does' in reference to a debate about GW is really saying that '50 cent/interscope/shady/aftermath isn't good at what it does'.

Obviously, you already disproved that. So maybe a better analogy next time.

So has GW contacted Marvel and Paramount about this yet?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981115/

Actually you'd kind of hope they are moronic enough to do so

They actually might have a leg to stand on with that one. IIRC the Fantesy Malekith got invented shortly before the comic character.

Marvel malekith wins over GWs version by about eight years iirc

The Malekith's are called slightly different, and both IP's are specific to those names if I recall correctly.

Marvel has "Malekith the Accursed".

GW has "Malekith, Witch King of Naggaroth".

However GW also claims ownership of "Dark Elves".....

What was the first appearance of WHFB Malekith?

According to wikipedia, Comic Malekith was:
Created by Walt Simonson, Malekith first appeared in Thor #344-349 (June-November 1984)

I think Malekith has been around since the beginning. Which was 1983, I could be wrong.

Even if he was around at the beginning, it would be almost simultanious with the comic.

Google brought me to Warseer, and this is what it says:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?265077-Malekith-Were-We-First

It is ok to link to Warseer, right?

(if not a mod can of course delete)

So it appears GW stole another idea here.

Not surprising. They stole tons of stuff. There's even a planet called Metallica.

Pretty sure - GW stole everything, I had attempted to identify an original idea which they had a while back...but failed to.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not surprising. They stole tons of stuff. There's even a planet called Metallica.

I think Inquisitor Obi-Wan Sherlock Clouseau must go investigate this!

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Pretty sure - GW stole everything, I had attempted to identify an original idea which they had a while back...but failed to.

Didnt somebody earlier point out that a Grimdarkness future with starships that look like cathedrals was orignal to GW ? or was i misreading that post?

 TBD wrote:



However GW also claims ownership of "Dark Elves".....

WOTC and Hasbro might have somthing to say about that. By oh, 10-20 years.

But did they trademark it?

GW have a few original ideas actually....

The most influential is surprisingly... green orcs.

As the story goes, GW used to be good buddies with D&D and there was quite a good flow of ideas between the two. Up until someone at GW made an orc model for the D&D games and painted it green, they had all looked more like the LOTR orcs.

Or, so the story goes...

And, as we've seen from someone earlier in the thread. Other companies trademarking things like 'land speeders' isn't any barrier to Games Workshop trying it!

carmachu wrote:

 TBD wrote:

However GW also claims ownership of "Dark Elves".....

WOTC and Hasbro might have somthing to say about that. By oh, 10-20 years.

Not to speak of the Edda (Snorri version around 1200) which describes Light, Black and Dark Elves as part of Northern mythology. BTW the word "dwarf" originated from the word Dwarftalf=Black Elf.

But the modern Dark Elf picture was formed by Michael Moorcock (Elric) who also introducced the Chaos Star, followed by the obsidian skinned D&D version.

BTW the value of GW shares recovered today, so GW management might not learn from this.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not surprising. They stole tons of stuff. There's even a planet called Metallica.

I think Inquisitor Obi-Wan Sherlock Clouseau must go investigate this!

They totally ripped off Sherlock. Bad GW! Bad GW!

They own everything else though

 Breotan wrote:
But did they trademark it?

TSR, The orignial owners of the D&D franchise, was as bad with trademarks as GW is today(meaning they agreessively tried to get things trademarked, including Nazis as the story goes).. So I would say yes. COnsidering GDQ series was a huge hit.....

 swampyturtle wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Pretty sure - GW stole everything, I had attempted to identify an original idea which they had a while back...but failed to.

Didnt somebody earlier point out that a Grimdarkness future with starships that look like cathedrals was orignal to GW ? or was i misreading that post?

Not sure if someone did - but if they did, they would be sort of wrong.

Various GDW works (Space 1889 and Sky Galleons of Mars) both utilize ships which are identical to those used in Space Fleet and later Battlefleet Gothic by GW. Both of those games predate GW's entry by several years. You can also see comparable shapes in a variety of the pulp comics which dealt with similar concepts to Space 1889 published in the 1970s and early 80s. The Silver Ships in the Nemesis series published in 2000AD also have the same look to them (interestingly enough, you also have Xenos eradicating inquisitors and a protagonist who is wearing head gear which was the basis for the first Eldar).

Now, GW did add skulls and stained glass to them...but those surface details are not intrinsic to the design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

carmachu wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
But did they trademark it?

TSR, The orignial owners of the D&D franchise, was as bad with trademarks as GW is today(meaning they agreessively tried to get things trademarked, including Nazis as the story goes).. So I would say yes. COnsidering GDQ series was a huge hit.....

The problem of course is that the Nazi was a LucasArts trademark not a TSR one. Not much different than the front of FFG books for the 40K RPG probably having a long list of claimed marks by GW in it...whether or not FFG agrees that they should be, it is a clause in their license agreement.

carmachu wrote:

 TBD wrote:



However GW also claims ownership of "Dark Elves".....

WOTC and Hasbro might have somthing to say about that. By oh, 10-20 years.

...and they in turn stole the term from Tolkien, who also had Dark Elves. In fact, that spelling of the word "elves" was introduced by Tolkien - before him, there were "elfs" and "dwarfs".

I wonder, btw, whether notable omission of the word "Eldar" in LotR movies is related to GW trademarking of the name. Even though that name is actually invented by Tolkien, and legally GW would not be able to stop using it - but perhaps New Line Cinema was just being polite.

Green orcs predate GW.

Do they?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do they?

Description: Orcs appear particularly disgusting because their coloration
- brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen - highlights their pinkish
snouts and ears. Their bristly hair is dark brown or black, sometimes with
tan patches. Even their armor tends to be unattractive - dirty and often a
bit rusty. Orcs favor unpleasant colors in general. Their garments are in
tribal colors, as are shield devices or trim. Typical colors are blood red, rust
red, mustard yellow, yellow green, moss green, greenish purple, and
blackish brown. They live for 40 years.

From the 1st Edition Monster Manual - 1977

So, there is one without even breaking a sweat. Since Citadel didn't come into existence for another 2 years - I would say yes.



1980 Boxed Set

I am trying to recall when GW first did their green orcs, but I never followed their fantasy products that much.

swampyturtle wrote:

Didnt somebody earlier point out that a Grimdarkness future with starships that look like cathedrals was orignal to GW ? or was i misreading that post?

Nah.. Just look at the Cover Art for Herbert's "The Jesus Incident" - 1979

Backfire wrote:


...and they in turn stole the term from Tolkien, who also had Dark Elves. In fact, that spelling of the word "elves" was introduced by Tolkien - before him, there were "elfs" and "dwarfs".

Absolutely. And before them Norse mythology. Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying TSR, WOTC or Hasbro are the originater of dark elves. But that term has been around a hell of a long time.

Here's another one for the pot. Was reading through the Judge Dredd source book by Mongoose and there is mention of a Land Raider. Pretty certain this would of been before GW ever used it.

oh well. At least the books will be worth reading.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Here's another one for the pot. Was reading through the Judge Dredd source book by Mongoose and there is mention of a Land Raider. Pretty certain this would of been before GW ever used it.

By coincidence, GW made a Judge Dread miniature game before introducing Land Raiders. As they distributed D&D before introducing Dark Elves, Orcs etc.. Will be hard for them to prove that they weren't aware of things they distributed

Forgotten about that. I think I have a PDF of that rule book knocking around somewhere. I will have a poke a round and see

 Amaya wrote:
Not really considering Dr. Dre and Eminem are the ones supporting him. Interscope/Shady/Aftermath could sell just about anyone other than Bizarre.

OT: Interscope didn't promote AFI's 2009 album, despite the band being well-known amongst goths and punks alike, and the follow up to Decemberunderground, so something went wrong there, didn't it?

It took skill to take GW to where it is now.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Here's another one for the pot. Was reading through the Judge Dredd source book by Mongoose and there is mention of a Land Raider. Pretty certain this would of been before GW ever used it.

The Dredd Land Raider appeared in the early story "The Cursed Earth." That was in 1978 so it certainly predates GW!

Also, I'm pretty sure the word "Psyker" was used in Dredd before WH40K was launched. I don't know, as it was only a brief mention. Don't take my word for it but if I had to guess I would say it was used in the story "The Warlord," which was in 1986.

Ah, ha. If it's the one I remember, they did a cutaway of it in an annual. Two part beast with a nuclear powered engine. Big tank tracks on the back? I think the front separated and became an all terrain vehicle.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do they?

Description: Orcs appear particularly disgusting because their coloration
- brown or brownish green with a bluish sheen - highlights their pinkish
snouts and ears. Their bristly hair is dark brown or black, sometimes with
tan patches. Even their armor tends to be unattractive - dirty and often a
bit rusty. Orcs favor unpleasant colors in general. Their garments are in
tribal colors, as are shield devices or trim. Typical colors are blood red, rust
red, mustard yellow, yellow green, moss green, greenish purple, and
blackish brown. They live for 40 years.

From the 1st Edition Monster Manual - 1977

So, there is one without even breaking a sweat. Since Citadel didn't come into existence for another 2 years - I would say yes.



1980 Boxed Set

I am trying to recall when GW first did their green orcs, but I never followed their fantasy products that much.

I just peed myself a little at seeing this one, Thanks.

They had the green orks when they were a D and D spinoff. One of the first sculpters, I think it was The Perry's, and Kev Adams, had them back then.

Lets check. I found this one from '88.

http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/

http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/0501orcs-02.htm

Anyone else got any that are older? That was the Green ones, By the Way, not the pig faces of Otherworlds fame that came from the old style from Dungeon Dwellers.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Ah, ha. If it's the one I remember, they did a cutaway of it in an annual. Two part beast with a nuclear powered engine. Big tank tracks on the back? I think the front separated and became an all terrain vehicle.

This entire Dredd storyline - The Cursed Earth thing where he has to deliver (a serum?) from one Mega City to another, was lifted lock stock from a Roger Zelazny story called Damnation Alley - see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnation_Alley

The 2000 AD comic had a long running Judge Dredd story arc that was an adaptation of the story (with the journey in the reverse direction), in which Dredd and Spikes Harvey Rotten (the greatest Punk alive) journeyed across the Cursed Earth between Megacity 1 (on the U.S. East Coast) to Megacity 2 (on the West coast) to deliver a vaccine to the 2T(Fru)T virus.

Here it is:

the Stub Gun is also from Dredd.

Basically, if anything was cool, it was co-opted for 40k. Does anyone actually claim, or is somehow deluded into believing, that 40k is a wholly original creation?

Alan Merrett does...

carmachu wrote:

Backfire wrote:


...and they in turn stole the term from Tolkien, who also had Dark Elves. In fact, that spelling of the word "elves" was introduced by Tolkien - before him, there were "elfs" and "dwarfs".

Absolutely. And before them Norse mythology. Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying TSR, WOTC or Hasbro are the originater of dark elves. But that term has been around a hell of a long time.

Yup, I was going to bring up the same thing. "Dark elf" is a pretty direct translation of "dokkalfar." There were also "svartalfar," or "black elves." Interestingly enough, "dokkalfar," "svartalfar," and "dverg" all seem to be used interchangeably, and "dverg" is the origin for what we think of now as "dwarf." It's interesting to think that what we now think of as "dark elves" or "drow" and "dwarves" were originally the same mythological being.

(Sigh. It's not often I actually get to use stuff from my Medieval English Literature degree....)

Yeah- but most of our gaming monsters are split terms that used to be synonyms. In Shakespear, there really isn't a difference between a demon, and a goblin (and Hamlet uses both terms to refer to his father's ghost).

Backfire wrote:

carmachu wrote:

 TBD wrote:



However GW also claims ownership of "Dark Elves".....

WOTC and Hasbro might have somthing to say about that. By oh, 10-20 years.

...and they in turn stole the term from Tolkien, who also had Dark Elves. In fact, that spelling of the word "elves" was introduced by Tolkien - before him, there were "elfs" and "dwarfs".

I wonder, btw, whether notable omission of the word "Eldar" in LotR movies is related to GW trademarking of the name. Even though that name is actually invented by Tolkien, and legally GW would not be able to stop using it - but perhaps New Line Cinema was just being polite.

I doubt that bit about Eldar. GW would not sue New Line Cinema- because New Line is a company that has the resources to protect itself legally. Games Workshop only goes after small companies and people who do not have the resources to protect themselves, and consequently almost never actually has to prove their case before a court (just look at what's been going on in the Chapterhouse Studios case).



On a side note- Disney used the title "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" before Tolkien used the term in his books. I'm sure I could find other precedents for these terms, but overall I've simply found that both spellings of the plural for Dwarf has been acceptable for some time. I would bet the same is true for Elf- the issue there was that Tolkien's publisher preferred using the terms "Elfs, Dwarfs, Elfin, etc."

there was me thinking that the greeks had marines on their ships at the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, but then, what does anyone who has read a history book know?

A space marine is simply a marine who operates from a spacecraft (duh!) The Royal Marines were created in 1664, and the USMC in 1775. so when the nations of the earth put warships in space, and put marines on them, will GW sue the USMC or the RM for trademark infringements when they get called the United States Space Marine Corps or the Royal Space Marines? is the world going crazy?

judgedoug wrote:the Stub Gun is also from Dredd.

Basically, if anything was cool, it was co-opted for 40k. Does anyone actually claim, or is somehow deluded into believing, that 40k is a wholly original creation?

40k is entirely derivative of other people's work. Some of it blatantly, some of it not. That GW now takes their derivative work and tries to pass it off as their own stuff and shut down the creativity of others with DMCA take down notices is really disgusting. Fortunately in this case, GW failed.

madtankbloke wrote:there was me thinking that the greeks had marines on their ships at the battle of Salamis in 480 BC, but then, what does anyone who has read a history book know?

They did indeed have soldiers on triremes and biremes that would attack from the ships. I'm not sure they were dedicated to the ships though some probably fought their entire careers on ships while others would be regular hoplites some of the time and fight at sea some other times.

 agustin wrote:

judgedoug wrote:the Stub Gun is also from Dredd.

Basically, if anything was cool, it was co-opted for 40k. Does anyone actually claim, or is somehow deluded into believing, that 40k is a wholly original creation?

40k is entirely derivative of other people's work. Some of it blatantly, some of it not. That GW now takes their derivative work and tries to pass it off as their own stuff and shut down the creativity of others with DMCA take down notices is really disgusting. Fortunately in this case, GW failed.

Keep in mind though, it isn't necessarily over. Based on the information which has been released, Amazon changed there minds - there is no indication of GW relenting on the issue (if anything, their Facebook post was doubling down). They may still end up filing a lawsuit against the author in an attempt to bury her under the legal fees which come with a case like this. Significantly less than what you would find in a case like CHS - but still, if they would file suit in the UK...it could become prohibitive to even put up a defense for a self published author in the US - and I do not know how active the EFF is in the UK, so they might not even be able to offer pro-bono representation.

Worse still is that they actually have a fair amount of time to choose to file suit against the author. By waiting a few months to a few years (I think the limit is 3 years off the top of my head, though it might be a little more or less than that) they can wait till the stink dies down and people forget...then just pile on with legal activity when people are less interested in her cause.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 agustin wrote:

judgedoug wrote:the Stub Gun is also from Dredd.

Basically, if anything was cool, it was co-opted for 40k. Does anyone actually claim, or is somehow deluded into believing, that 40k is a wholly original creation?

40k is entirely derivative of other people's work. Some of it blatantly, some of it not. That GW now takes their derivative work and tries to pass it off as their own stuff and shut down the creativity of others with DMCA take down notices is really disgusting. Fortunately in this case, GW failed.

Keep in mind though, it isn't necessarily over. Based on the information which has been released, Amazon changed there minds - there is no indication of GW relenting on the issue (if anything, their Facebook post was doubling down). They may still end up filing a lawsuit against the author in an attempt to bury her under the legal fees which come with a case like this. Significantly less than what you would find in a case like CHS - but still, if they would file suit in the UK...it could become prohibitive to even put up a defense for a self published author in the US - and I do not know how active the EFF is in the UK, so they might not even be able to offer pro-bono representation.

Worse still is that they actually have a fair amount of time to choose to file suit against the author. By waiting a few months to a few years (I think the limit is 3 years off the top of my head, though it might be a little more or less than that) they can wait till the stink dies down and people forget...then just pile on with legal activity when people are less interested in her cause.

Well, WRT Facebook. It looks like GW has stuck their head in the sand again. They've deleted their FB page...
https://www.facebook.com/gamesworkshopofficial?fref=ts goes to nowhere now.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 agustin wrote:

judgedoug wrote:the Stub Gun is also from Dredd.

Basically, if anything was cool, it was co-opted for 40k. Does anyone actually claim, or is somehow deluded into believing, that 40k is a wholly original creation?

40k is entirely derivative of other people's work. Some of it blatantly, some of it not. That GW now takes their derivative work and tries to pass it off as their own stuff and shut down the creativity of others with DMCA take down notices is really disgusting. Fortunately in this case, GW failed.

Keep in mind though, it isn't necessarily over. Based on the information which has been released, Amazon changed there minds - there is no indication of GW relenting on the issue (if anything, their Facebook post was doubling down). They may still end up filing a lawsuit against the author in an attempt to bury her under the legal fees which come with a case like this. Significantly less than what you would find in a case like CHS - but still, if they would file suit in the UK...it could become prohibitive to even put up a defense for a self published author in the US - and I do not know how active the EFF is in the UK, so they might not even be able to offer pro-bono representation.

Worse still is that they actually have a fair amount of time to choose to file suit against the author. By waiting a few months to a few years (I think the limit is 3 years off the top of my head, though it might be a little more or less than that) they can wait till the stink dies down and people forget...then just pile on with legal activity when people are less interested in her cause.

Well, WRT Facebook. It looks like GW has stuck their head in the sand again. They've deleted their FB page...
https://www.facebook.com/gamesworkshopofficial?fref=ts goes to nowhere now.

*Slow clap*

They are really killing themselves with their attitude towards social media. But to be fair I guess they can't really embrace it without completley changing their public image.

Always tough to make first contact with reality.
GW managers are so isolated, they are seriously in danger of dying of common flue when they leave the GW building
How about renaming them Autistic Workshop

You know, you'd think a smart business would get wise after a while...when your public image is so bad that any time you poke your head outside your "fortress wall", you're met with such hatred and scorn that it sends you scurrying back inside in retreat of the mob, you'd think someone over there at GW would look at all that mess and say "Gee, this might be a problem. We should fix this."

LOL NOPE

So I wonder what happened, was this purely because of the fallout from their IP bullying or what?

Meanwhile, inside the GW offices:

Executive #1: I just don't understand!
Executive #2: What?
Executive #1: I've been hitting the Escape key for an hour and the Internet still won't go away!
Executive #2: Try Ctr-Alt-Delete.
Executive #3: Don't do that! You'll only reset your computer.
Executive #1: Then what do we do?
Executive #3: Just wait it out! Just remember your training - the Internet is nothing but a fad, and will go away in a few years just like hoola-hoops and New Labor*.
Executive #2: He's right you know. All you're doing is using up how many times the escape key can be used!
Executive #1: Good point. So... roll in the money pit?
Executive #2 & #3: Roll in the money pit!!!





*Only our friends in the UK might get that reference.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Here it is:

Oh man, my older Cousin gave that too me as present one day, I always wondered what it was from.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Well, WRT Facebook. It looks like GW has stuck their head in the sand again. They've deleted their FB page...
https://www.facebook.com/gamesworkshopofficial?fref=ts goes to nowhere now.

Wow, that's really quite bad and doesn't show a very good attitude at all.

Of course, it would be a bad idea for GW to actually sue. Of course, that didn't stop them with Chapterhouse, but it is even more obvious here (John Scalzi noted that the term has been used back to the '30s).

If they did, and it went to court, it might be possible for Games Workshop to lose their IP rights for a time (and it is very probable that 'Space Marine' would be declared officially a generic term).

And in any case, if they did decide to try and sue in order to bury this small author- well, it would cost GW way more than any potential damages such a small author could put forward.

I'm not sure that a UK lawsuit is even possible when Games Workshop has a US branch, and all of the other parties involved (Amazon and the self published author) are US companies.

On a side note- I'm sure this publicity has to be very good for a certain self published author.

 jonolikespie wrote:


*Slow clap*

They are really killing themselves with their attitude towards social media. But to be fair I guess they can't really embrace it without completley changing their public image.

This is why white knighting GW just makes people look stupid.

I cannot fathom how ridiculous this is. It's like a schoolyard bully has gotten hold of the reins and is now flailing about.

Deleting their Facebook page smacks of nothing but petulance.

Wow.... Dear GW, hire ONE GUY with a marketing degree and listen to what he tells you. Bloody hell.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow.... Dear GW, hire ONE GUY with a marketing degree and listen to what he tells you. Bloody hell.

Sadly that's not how they operate... they'd rather hire one guy with a beautifully painted Ultramarines army and a marketing GCSE, and then if he ever tells them to do anything useful or sensible, they'll sack him for not fitting in to the corporate culture.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow.... Dear GW, hire ONE GUY with a marketing degree and listen to what he tells you. Bloody hell.

Sadly that's not how they operate... they'd rather hire one guy with a beautifully painted Ultramarines army and a marketing GCSE, and then if he ever tells them to do anything useful or sensible, they'll sack him for not fitting in to the corporate culture.

I swear for a bunch of greedy gits, you'd almost think GW hates money...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow.... Dear GW, hire ONE GUY with a marketing degree and listen to what he tells you. Bloody hell.

Sadly that's not how they operate... they'd rather hire one guy with a beautifully painted Ultramarines army and a marketing GCSE, and then if he ever tells them to do anything useful or sensible, they'll sack him for not fitting in to the corporate culture.

I swear for a bunch of greedy gits, you'd almost think GW hates money...

I really am boggled by their behavior sometimes.

Hell, if BP America can maintain their Facebook page through and beyond the Deepwater Horizon debacle, then Games Workshop can keep theirs going. Why aren't they filling it with 'Oooh Shiny!' to distract people? Lots of beauty shots of new WoC models should be the order of the day instead of taking it down in a fit.

Without a doubt they love money hence the yearly price increase. It's their methods which are suspect.

 Sidstyler wrote:
You know, you'd think a smart business would get wise after a while...when your public image is so bad that any time you poke your head outside your "fortress wall", you're met with such hatred and scorn that it sends you scurrying back inside in retreat of the mob, you'd think someone over there at GW would look at all that mess and say "Gee, this might be a problem. We should fix this."

LOL NOPE

But OTOH, it's no different from any other company dominating their respective field. McDonalds goes nuts in very public fashion every time any product or service with the letters "M" and "C" in the name appears somewhere, and they get incredible hate for it. Yet they seem to do just fine. And if you think GW is ridiculous in their attempt to own up "Space Marine", I might remind people that Facebook has tried to trademark word "book".

Backfire wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
You know, you'd think a smart business would get wise after a while...when your public image is so bad that any time you poke your head outside your "fortress wall", you're met with such hatred and scorn that it sends you scurrying back inside in retreat of the mob, you'd think someone over there at GW would look at all that mess and say "Gee, this might be a problem. We should fix this."

LOL NOPE

But OTOH, it's no different from any other company dominating their respective field. McDonalds goes nuts in very public fashion every time any product or service with the letters "M" and "C" in the name appears somewhere, and they get incredible hate for it. Yet they seem to do just fine. And if you think GW is ridiculous in their attempt to own up "Space Marine", I might remind people that Facebook has tried to trademark word "book".

Nope, that's completely different. GW owns Space Marine TM for games and such, and then decided that because they publish books that they now own a common law TM for Space Marine in literature. McDonald's didn't say, oh, hey we make food for people, so since our employees and customer are people are TM extends to them through common law usage, and now we'll lobby the government to remove anyone with the last name McDonald.

Plus wasn't Facebook's TM'ing of 'book' the same thing that GW did - just SAY they own it, without actually trying to register it? (as the Chapterhouse case is now revealing that GW doesn't actually own most/all of it's trademarks)

According to the GW twitter feed, of their Facebook page they say...

Our website Servitors will soon be conducting some 'essential site maintenance' - that means they'll be hitting... http://t.co/CAOrL0e3

And later on...

Well, folks, the website is still down for maintenance. Clearly some of you haven't been chanting the litanies... http://t.co/1fqf9bNe

So just down for maintenance, not removing the huge number of critical comments being left about them or preventing more going up.

 judgedoug wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
You know, you'd think a smart business would get wise after a while...when your public image is so bad that any time you poke your head outside your "fortress wall", you're met with such hatred and scorn that it sends you scurrying back inside in retreat of the mob, you'd think someone over there at GW would look at all that mess and say "Gee, this might be a problem. We should fix this."

LOL NOPE

But OTOH, it's no different from any other company dominating their respective field. McDonalds goes nuts in very public fashion every time any product or service with the letters "M" and "C" in the name appears somewhere, and they get incredible hate for it. Yet they seem to do just fine. And if you think GW is ridiculous in their attempt to own up "Space Marine", I might remind people that Facebook has tried to trademark word "book".

Nope, that's completely different. GW owns Space Marine TM for games and such, and then decided that because they publish books that they now own a common law TM for Space Marine in literature. McDonald's didn't say, oh, hey we make food for people, so since our employees and customer are people are TM extends to them through common law usage, and now we'll lobby the government to remove anyone with the last name McDonald.

Plus wasn't Facebook's TM'ing of 'book' the same thing that GW did - just SAY they own it, without actually trying to register it? (as the Chapterhouse case is now revealing that GW doesn't actually own most/all of it's trademarks)

Refresher for those who might not have noticed that GW isn't alone in being dumb...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/03/facebook-asserts-trademark-on-word-book-in-new-user-agreement/

...but like your mother probably told you, just because everyone else is jumping off a cliff - doesn't mean you should too. Same goes for McDonalds for that matter too (and dozens of other companies). Trademark, copyright and patent laws have been abused by companies for decades. Usually the only ones who are capable of actually attempting a defense against the abuses are those who have a vested interest in not trying to change the way in which the laws are administered...so more often than not, they end up coming to mutually beneficial agreements. Most the cases which actually are litigated exist on the periphery and have little long term impact on the way laws are written or enforced.

That was the posts about working on the actual GW website a couple of days ago. That fb thing was just likely a cross post/link thingy to their facebook account.

I'm pretty sure GW doesn't actually do anything remotely involving 'maintenance' of their facebook page. And you don't delete a facebook account if you're just redesigning it.

Someone should open there own GW facebook page. After all facebook says anything posted on there site they can use, all the pic GW used should on FB should now be able to be posted by others on facebook with no problem, as they have all ready been giving to facebook by GW. Atleast by facebooks own rules, love to see that one go to court GW vs. Facebook.

Facebook is as hated as GW. Not sure how that absolves either company from its virtual sins.

The national and local GW facebook pages are still online, just saying folks
Oh, and https://www.facebook.com/gamesworkshopofficial is now free for everyone to register

 judgedoug wrote:

Backfire wrote:

But OTOH, it's no different from any other company dominating their respective field. McDonalds goes nuts in very public fashion every time any product or service with the letters "M" and "C" in the name appears somewhere, and they get incredible hate for it. Yet they seem to do just fine. And if you think GW is ridiculous in their attempt to own up "Space Marine", I might remind people that Facebook has tried to trademark word "book".

Nope, that's completely different. GW owns Space Marine TM for games and such, and then decided that because they publish books that they now own a common law TM for Space Marine in literature. McDonald's didn't say, oh, hey we make food for people, so since our employees and customer are people are TM extends to them through common law usage, and now we'll lobby the government to remove anyone with the last name McDonald.

GW specifically stated (in their now removed Facebook page) that they do not claim ownership of the term "space marine" in general usage, for example in body of prose. As for McDonald's, yes they do try to extend their ownership of "McSomething" trademark outside food industry.

Backfire wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

Backfire wrote:

But OTOH, it's no different from any other company dominating their respective field. McDonalds goes nuts in very public fashion every time any product or service with the letters "M" and "C" in the name appears somewhere, and they get incredible hate for it. Yet they seem to do just fine. And if you think GW is ridiculous in their attempt to own up "Space Marine", I might remind people that Facebook has tried to trademark word "book".

Nope, that's completely different. GW owns Space Marine TM for games and such, and then decided that because they publish books that they now own a common law TM for Space Marine in literature. McDonald's didn't say, oh, hey we make food for people, so since our employees and customer are people are TM extends to them through common law usage, and now we'll lobby the government to remove anyone with the last name McDonald.

GW specifically stated (in their now removed Facebook page) that they do not claim ownership of the term "space marine" in general usage, for example in body of prose. As for McDonald's, yes they do try to extend their ownership of "McSomething" trademark outside food industry.

Here is the bigger issue though - they only have a pair of unmatched prosthetic legs to stand on with specific useage, for example as the title of a product. It has been used in the nomenclature of goods sold (yes - even miniatures) since 1977 (FanTac - Space Marines, Asgard Miniatures - Space Marines...).

The mark is also descriptive, which greatly limits it's protectability. If I were to make sci-fi marines (in or out of power armor) a reasonable name for them would in fact be Space Marine miniatures. It describes their purpose and function. It would be like Yellow Jacket attempting to trademark the term "Extension Cord" - yes...it is what they sell, but that term already has meaning.

They do have the right to protect it regarding specific packaging and things like the font and display methods to avoid confusion between GW products and a potential competitor.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow.... Dear GW, hire ONE GUY with a marketing degree and listen to what he tells you. Bloody hell.

Sadly that's not how they operate... they'd rather hire one guy with a beautifully painted Ultramarines army and a marketing GCSE, and then if he ever tells them to do anything useful or sensible, they'll sack him for not fitting in to the corporate culture.

Actually you are still wrong, they would rather hire one guy that allows Tom Kirby to do "things" to him in a dank and dirty back alley than have any meaningful PR and ad campaigns.

[quote=Howard A Treesong

 Lanceradvanced wrote:
[quote=Howard A Treesong

So just down for maintenance, not removing the huge number of critical comments being left about them or preventing more going up.

Sod writing books, I'm gonna change my name to Space marine, let them try and sue me!!!!!

They shut it down obviously to hide while it blows over, GW are nortorious for that, they are still waiting for the internet to blow over.

Of course they are doing surprisingly well considering what they have done and how the internet has reacted. The internet is slipping if they can't take down a little thing like GW.

This debacle is actually making bbc now, and since GW looks,so,bad in this this is bad publicity. Maybe they could,advertise their point, like a FB page or something....

 Harriticus wrote:
This debacle is actually making bbc now, and since GW looks,so,bad in this this is bad publicity. Maybe they could,advertise their point, like a FB page or something....

I suppose next, Tom Kirby will be so distraught over the whole affair, he'll take hostages and barricade himself inside Bugman's Bar.

The whole thing ends in tragedy when police negotiators arrive, but he refuses to say a word to them - he simply glared, and turned away until they left.

More than likely "Kirby" in that situation will be a loyal white knight here from Dakka acting as a body double. The real Kirby will be at his estate, enjoying his millions he's already pulled out of the company.

everytime I see the name Tom Kirby, I think of the adorable-pink Kirby in a suit...or Pierre Kirby from American Commando 2

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
everytime I see the name Tom Kirby, I think of the adorable-pink Kirby in a suit...or Pierre Kirby from American Commando 2

I can see him devouring everything set out before him. Definitely not far fetched.

 Harriticus wrote:
This debacle is actually making bbc now, and since GW looks,so,bad in this this is bad publicity. Maybe they could,advertise their point, like a FB page or something....

There is no such thing as "bad publicity".

Backfire wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
This debacle is actually making bbc now, and since GW looks,so,bad in this this is bad publicity. Maybe they could,advertise their point, like a FB page or something....

There is no such thing as "bad publicity".

Contrary to those that constantly repeat that statement: it's untrue.

If you are seeking name recognition, then yes any publicity at all is good. However, the caveat is that if it's bad enough people will associate your name not with a product but rather with the bad idea. In this case, GW is now associated in the much larger public mind as being TFG. In 6 months most won't remember any of the details. However, if you utter the words Games Workshop then they will have a negative feeling towards the company.

This isn't a good situation to be in when they are depending on people to spend exorbitant sums of money for pieces of plastic. If all mom or dad remembers is a general bad feeling when little timmy asks for a DV set, then you can be sure that any fence sitters won't bite.

To counteract this GW needs to make quite a few positive gestures to the overall community quickly. Unfortunately because they don't have a marketing department this is going to be really tough.

Didn't see this here and thought everyone would enjoy this.

From over at ENWorld, courtesy of Morrus.

Basically, Morrus posted on this same topic of this thread. He references, and posts, an article from WD #5 that talks about the drawbacks of being over strict in the enforcement of copyright laws and the damage it does.

 ProtoClone wrote:
Didn't see this here and thought everyone would enjoy this.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?334349-Hey-so-you-know-this-quot-space-marine-quot-thing
From over at ENWorld, courtesy of Morrus.

Basically, Morrus posted on this same topic of this thread. He references, and posts, an article from WD #5 that talks about the drawbacks of being over strict in the enforcement of copyright laws and the damage it does.

Good 'ol Irony

For those that didnt follow the link this is white dwarf #5 Feb 1978 written by the co-founder of GW

GW is not what once it was.

Among other things, it is no longer a company that I spend much money on.

I do not know how typical I am, but I spend around $1,500 a year on gaming material - that's both RPGs and wargames.

This year past I mostly bought into Kickstarters - Kings of War, Reaper Bones, Dwarven Adventurers.

And I kept up on Pathfinder.

But I have not spent more than $100 in a year on GW stuff for about ten years now.

The money that went to Kickstarters this year would likely have gone to Reaper miniatures and Mantic in any event.

GW just isn't on the list any more.

The Auld Grump

 ProtoClone wrote:
Didn't see this here and thought everyone would enjoy this.

From over at ENWorld, courtesy of Morrus.

Basically, Morrus posted on this same topic of this thread. He references, and posts, an article from WD #5 that talks about the drawbacks of being over strict in the enforcement of copyright laws and the damage it does.

AHAHAHAH!

That's amazing.

As an aspiring author, this kind of thing both inspires, yet evokes utter dread in me.