"In mid-December, Games Workshop told Amazon that I’d infringed on the trademark they’ve claimed for the term “space marine” by titling my original fiction novel Spots the Space Marine. In response, Amazon blocked the e-book from sale [original post and update]. Since then, I’ve been in discussion with Games Workshop, and following their responses, with several lawyers."
"In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats. If they choose to proceed on that belief, science fiction will lose a term that’s been a part of its canon since its inception. Space marines were around long before Games Workshop. But if GW has their way, in the future, no one will be able to use the term “space marine” without it referring to the space marines of the Warhammer 40K universe."
daedalus wrote: It's a trademark. Not sure about UK law, but US law, you have to proactively defend it, or you risk losing it.
It's asinine, but then again, the law is asinine.
It's a trademark, but that doesn't mean you can't use the word. Trademarks are very specific and if you're not referring to specific Games Workshop "Space Marines" it shouldn't matter. This is GW's bully tactics at work. Just because their lawyers are trying to flex their muscles doesn't mean "Spots the Space Marine" is actually infringing on their trademark. As far as I know, plenty of other works before "Spots the Space Marine" use the term "space marine" to refer to non-GW space marines and that doesn't mean that those works are suddenly retroactively infringing on GW's trademark.
I only skimmed the original thread, but this is pretty lame. I can understand going after a company who blatantly rips you off for bits or whatever...but an independant writer? Who is probably relying on their book for income? Who probably doesnt know a thing about 40K? Absolute bs to me.
Mindless hogwash on GW's part. Space Marines have existed as a literary trope/theme since the 30s, Power armor is an invention of SciFi Grand Master Robert Heinlein. The GW legal team needs to be taken out to the treeline...
GW=pants on head dumbasses here. I've seen a frat boy smash a can over his head who demonstrated a higher brain cell count. Moronic decision, I hope they lose. And I have no idea what the book is about (but that's probably irrelevant here).
Lancer beat me to it. John Scalzi backing your cause, plus any other major writer... or publisher, or the estates of the same stepping up en masse here (because the law suit threatens ALL of their IP) can easily make the water too hot for a comparatively small fish like GW. They thought they could bully the little guy, but it's not going to work here... at least I hope not.
My thought about this are that "Space Marine" is general term and it should be used in every book, story or whatever. The copyrighted term for GW is "Adeptus Astartes" and it is really unique for 40k.
Space Marine is general term for combat infantry in space : "The space marine, an archetype of science fiction, is a Marine that operates in outer space or on alien worlds". By this logic the decedents of Bob Olsen should sue GW because he was the first one to use that word in book back in 1932 ( "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" ).
I am all up for bashing GW, they give plenty of good reasons to do so. So I will not jump at a bad one.
Space Marines are a legitimate registered trademark, they are also the companies core trademark. They have a right or an obligation, based on local laws, to defend it.
Orlanth wrote: I am all up for bashing GW, they give plenty of good reasons to do so. So I will not jump at a bad one.
Space Marines are a legitimate registered trademark, they are also the companies core trademark. They have a right or an obligation, based on local laws, to defend it.
Games Workshop-style Adeptus Astarte Space Marines are a registered trademark. That doesn't give them control over all uses of the generic term space marine.
Especially since space marine is just the word marine with space in front of it as an adjective used to define space soldier and only used instead of space soldier because space marine sounds cooler.
I think that James Cameron should sue GW. After all, he has the right or obligation to protect the Colonial Marines.
But I guess names are more important than visual aesthetics.
Right, Adeptus Astartes is fair enough. The term 'Space Marine' though? They have got to be kidding. As that article has said, the term has been used in many different science fiction and fantasy books way before GW started to use the term.
Once again this smacks of 'expensive legal team justifying its existence' - they must realise it makes the company come across as a bunch of cnuts surely?
Am excerpt from a brief email I got from Ian Douglas, author of the Star Marines series (LITERAL Space US Marines)
Thanks for spreading the word. Seriously, though, these... these civilians don't know what they're talking about. John mentioned "The Space Marines and the Slavers." Never heard of that one, but that alone establishes the term in the public domain. To it I'll add van Buskirk's Space Marines in Doc Smith's epic Lensman series. I think those Space Marines put in their first appearance in Galactic Patrol, which first saw print as a serialization in Astounding in 1937.
Those yahoos don't have a leg to stand on.
It would be like trying to copy-write the term "warp drive," "star ship," or "terraforming," or saying that no one, ever again, could use Enterprise as the name of a ship. I didn't notice Paramount trying to sue NASA over that last.
Orlanth wrote:I am all up for bashing GW, they give plenty of good reasons to do so. So I will not jump at a bad one.
Space Marines are a legitimate registered trademark, they are also the companies core trademark. They have a right or an obligation, based on local laws, to defend it.
Yeah, it's a registered trademark for tabletop miniatures and miniature wargaming. It's not a blanket trademark that applies to all thought and knowledge. Trademarks only work in the field for which they were specified. And where novels are concerned, GW is about 80 years late to the party.
Orlanth wrote: I am all up for bashing GW, they give plenty of good reasons to do so. So I will not jump at a bad one.
Space Marines are a legitimate registered trademark, they are also the companies core trademark. They have a right or an obligation, based on local laws, to defend it.
Oh come on, you know that's absolute horse apples. Even without it being a literary archetype. If we go by established precedence of use then GW is open to some serious law suits.
Bob Olsen "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" 1932 Space Marines
Bob Olsen "The Space Marines and the Slavers" 1936 Space Marines
E. E. Smith Lensman series 1934–1954 Galactic Marines
Robert A. Heinlein "Misfit" 1939 Space Marines
Robert A. Heinlein "The Long Watch" 1941 Space Marines
Robert A. Heinlein Starship Troopers 1959 Mobile Infantry
Joe Haldeman The Forever War 1974 United Nations Exploratory Force (UNEF)
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle The Mote in God's Eye and related novels 1975 Imperial Marines
Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling The Prince or Falkenberg's Legion series 1976–1993; 2002 CoDominium Marines
David Weber Starfire series 1990–Present Federation Navy Marine Corps
David Weber Honor Harrington series 1992–Present Royal Manticoran Marine Corps (RMMC) of the Star Kingdom of Manticore, et cetera
David Sherman and Dan Cragg StarFist series 1997–Present Confederation Marine Corps
Ian Douglas Heritage Trilogy, Legacy Trilogy, Inheritance Trilogy - 1998–Present United States Marines Corps, United Star Marine Corps
John Ringo Into the Looking Glass, Vorpal Blade, Claws That Catch, The Manxome Foe - 2005–Present Allied Space Marines
John Varley Rolling Thunder 2008 Martian Naval Corps
Better then half this list was using the term before GW was a concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Looking at the credits on the Amazon preview, it looks like the author used a lot of USMC-related books for reference material, and donated a portion of the proceeds from the book to the Wounded Warrior Project.
I intend to write a series of novels entitled Forward to Space, Marine; The Frontier of Space, Marine; Upward to Space, Marine; A Skyfull of Space, Marine; Infinity of Space, Marine, etc.
Would anyone like to help think of variations and trademark them?
Hm. Made it onto the Slashdot front page, for whatever that counts for. Corey Doctorow is talking about it now too. He's claiming this is Amazon acting willfully, and that they're not required by any law at this point to remove the book per GW.
Kilkrazy wrote: I intend to write a series of novels entitled Forward to Space, Marine; The Frontier of Space, Marine; Upward to Space, Marine; A Skyfull of Space, Marine; Infinity of Space, Marine, etc.
Would anyone like to help think of variations and trademark them?
How about Space: Marines of the Future!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
Well, the author has stated that she is in talks with GW, trying to make sense of it. If that's not evidence enough that GW is involved, well, I don't expect you will ever see evidence that satisfies you.
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
Is it really that hard to believe? Do you suppose the author just made up the whole story after the ebook was taken off of Amazon?
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
This is seriously weird. I can understand a healthy amount of skepticism, but this degree borders on neurosis.
Ultimately, you have the fact that the e-book was on Amazon and that it was subsequently removed. You have the author's word that it was due to a Games Workshop claim. You have Games Workshop's long pattern of behavior to date.
Yea, you need to take the author's word for it at this point, but please give everyone a break. I think it is reasonable to give the author the benefit of the doubt on this one. The alternative explanation is super unlikely. Are you saying that you think it is likely that the author wrote this book, self published it, put the e-book version up for sale, subsequently removed the e-book version on her own, and then started rabble rousing about how it was Games Workshop just to advertise herself? Have you seen the books that she writes? She has a page on WikiFur. I don't think that there is a substantial amount of crossover between her fan base and fantasy wargames enthusiasts.
weeble1000 wrote: She has a page on WikiFur. I don't think that there is a substantial amount of crossover between her fan base and fantasy wargames enthusiasts.
Which is chuckle-worthy, if only for the amount of strife I've seen between wargamers and furries.
In retrospect, that makes the title "Spot the Space Marine" make that much more sense.
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
Is it really that hard to believe? Do you suppose the author just made up the whole story after the ebook was taken off of Amazon?
I think that the "free publicity" angle is right on the money.
If you're naming something Space Marine, in this age, you're probably hoping for publicity from it: either search results that give you a bump in traffic or a suit and the publicity from that.
Having published comics and knowing a number of authors and aspiring authors, if you're in it legitimately, you're looking to make a name for yourself/your book/ your series.
An example: I knew someone writing a fantasy book. They started reading Game of Thrones, realized that a number of details were, coincidentally, unfortunately close to stuff from the Game of Thrones setting. So as to not appear too close, those details got changed where they could be, and the ones that remain are sporadic enough to not be concerning.
This goes doubly for titles-- If I was writing a book with the working title, "A Tournament of Thrones," and I had never heard of A Game of Thrones, if I spent 10 minutes on google (I actually tried for about that many seconds, with success), I'd find a whole bunch of suggestions related to a popular series. Then, even if my title fit perfectly, I'd swear a lot, then, wanting to distinguish myself from the popular series, try to figure out a distinct title that works as well.
Similarly, it makes me think that the author in this case is either intentionally trying to get some publicity or they're too lazy or ignorant to react to, or consider, the problems associated with said title. Harsh, but, that's how I feel...
No, it isn't right that a company try to maintain copyright on a common term, but I also don't think that using a similar title to a well-known company is very creatively legitimate.
IANAL, yet I am not sure you can actually trademark the title of a book. Perhaps it depends on how specific it is to a real world product like a car repair manual.
For a company that doesn't advertise, irking the SFWA and getting a bad rep amongst sci-fi writers and aficionados is certainly a BAD business move.
GW probably didn't start this (I'd rather blame Amazon's crazy legal enforcement department - I've already heard more than my share of stories about their "professionalism"), but should take action before this becomes a massive PR disaster that ends up taking its toll in their sales figures...
spiralingcadaver wrote: No, it isn't right that a company try to maintain copyright on a common term, but I also don't think that using a similar title to a well-known company is very creatively legitimate.
I think that "Games Workshop" and their particular "Space Marines" are not nearly as well-known in reality as you think they are, even amongst males between the ages of 14-30, the typical "gamer type", if you were to ask them what a "Space Marine" was, you'd probably get something between Master Chief and the guys in Aliens.
At least, that's what happened when I did it, just now, with the three goofballs I work with who fit the description.
Kilkrazy wrote: IANAL, yet I am not sure you can actually trademark the title of a book. Perhaps it depends on how specific it is to a real world product like a car repair manual.
You cannot copyright the title of a book, but it is sometimes possible to trademark a title.
Kilkrazy wrote: The question then, is can you trademark part of a title and deny the use of that part within any other title?
Not completely, no. There are limits to trademark protection. It's been a few years since I took a media law class (Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer), but if I remember correctly part of it has to do with whether or not a reasonable person would be confused by the product. Like, would someone think "Spots the Space Marine" is a book about GW Space Marines? Some of our resident lawyers could explain it better than I, but the information is out there in a form that is generally accessible to non-lawyers. A lot of it boils down to "it's complicated" and "it depends."
Hordini wrote: if I remember correctly part of it has to do with whether or not a reasonable person would be confused by the product.
The problem with this is (or, at least was) that the terms regarding similarity etc. are all highly subjective and/or poorly quantified, so it generally comes down to the person with more lawyers.
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
This is seriously weird. I can understand a healthy amount of skepticism, but this degree borders on neurosis.
Ultimately, you have the fact that the e-book was on Amazon and that it was subsequently removed. You have the author's word that it was due to a Games Workshop claim. You have Games Workshop's long pattern of behavior to date.
Yea, you need to take the author's word for it at this point,
The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.
The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.
Well, I sent a wee message to Amazon saying that as a 'concerned customer' I'm not pleased with their decision on this.
Not that they'll care, or do anything about it but meh, made me feel like I was doing something. Heck, I even half contemplated sending an email to the Daily Express, since they seem to like their crusading.
I really am getting more and more fed up of GW's random stupidity...
makes me wonder what else they think they own
I imagine them trying to sue someone over the word orc, or god of chaos (ala Discord, for example-though I don't think GW is that stupid to sue Hasbro)
You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?
This is seriously weird. I can understand a healthy amount of skepticism, but this degree borders on neurosis.
Ultimately, you have the fact that the e-book was on Amazon and that it was subsequently removed. You have the author's word that it was due to a Games Workshop claim. You have Games Workshop's long pattern of behavior to date.
Yea, you need to take the author's word for it at this point,
The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.
FoxNews Koolaid? You do realize that you, as an intelligent adult, can make reasonable inferences. Which is more likely: the author made it all up as a publicity stunt, or GW once again filed an unwise and poorly considered claim of infringement against an individual without the means to challenge the claim? How many authors have made up fake GW infringement claims as publicity stunts versus how many such notices of infringement has GW sent?
How would a normal, reasonable person act: by creating an elaborate hoax destined to inevitably be revealed and blow up in her face, or to be angry and offended by an unreasonable legal claim with nothing to do about it but publicize the circumstances?
An inference is a glorified guess, but if one never used logical reasoning to make reasonable inferences it would be socially paralyzing, hence why I said your skepticism borders on neurosis. if it interferes with normal day to day activity, it is a psychological problem.
DarknessEternal wrote:
The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.
Well, if you have better information on this whole thing than Scalzi, Doctorow, et al, then why don't you post it? Otherwise, you're just the one making the unsubstantiated claim that this is a hoax, or publicity stunt.
I did a little checking before I posted.. and I evidently wrongly assumed others could do the same for themselves..
This is insane. I am going to copy paste that nice reference timeline on the first page into an email to GW and tell them to stop if they want any more of my money.
Not that they care because they clearly hate money.
Good news folks, apparently Hogarth is getting legal support, the Pope Hat website I linked already had a copyright/trademark lawyer jump in and say he'd go in pro bono, and apparently the sheer amount of fuss that's been caused by the case is getting the EFF (which previously declined to do the case as it's a bit outside their usual pro bono work) to take a second look.
First, the good news: I am now in talks with the EFF. I’m not to say anything more on it, but this development was very heartening.
So yes, there’s that. And then there’s… there’s all of you, and it’s just… it’s totally overwhelming. My WordPress site has had almost 50,000 hits in 24 hours. The post has gotten retweets from luminaries I’ve admired all my life and been written up in at least fifteen different venues, and those are only the ones I know about (I’ve started tracking them here; feel free to add yours!). Hundreds of people have left me encouraging comments or sent me warm personal emails. When Neil Gaiman retweeted the post I put my head down on my desk and cried.
I am deeply moved by your support, and very grateful. I’ve taken the next step with that phone call, and I’ll keep you updated on that as it develops. But some of you have asked what more you can do. Here are my suggestions:
• Keep talking! I’ve seen #spacemarine, #spacemarines and #savespacemarines hashtags on Twitter and Google+. I’m seeing personal blog posts pop up along with news articles and even humor; one of my favorite finds was at cheezburger.com! It all helps. And please, share your links with me. I’m collecting them!
• I’ve heard that many of you are contacting Games Workshop about this issue. If you do so, I’d ask for your courtesy when engaging them; the person receiving the email/tweet might not have anything to do with the problem. I’ve worked customer service and the impotence you feel when facing an angry customer is painful.
• Many of you have suggested I put the e-book up in some other way. You can find the e-book (all formats) on Smashwords, which allows you to sample the first 15% to see if it’s your cup of tea.
Your questions to me are accumulating faster than I can answer them personally, though I’m going to try. If I don’t manage, I just want to reiterate: thank you all. You are making a difference.
And plenty of other Marine Corps astronauts since.
Just the funny, the usage list on the last page (which I got off wikipedia and I'm sure is no where close to complete is the actual proof this whole thing is ridiculous.
Back in December, at the time of the original takedown order the "book"(it's really more of a "script") was being buoyed up by a number of fake reviews on Amazon and was continually being put into the same search syntaxes/"suggested product" lists as Black Library novels--which is a common tactic for these kinds of self-published no name authors.
I call shenanigans on this author.
This is nothing but publicity for her alongside of the rabid hatred people have for Games Workshop.
Kanluwen wrote: I call shenanigans on this author.
This is nothing but publicity for her alongside of the rabid hatred people have for Games Workshop.
As opposed to the opposite end of the scale, I suppose - specifically, do you have any evidence that GWS was not responsible for having it pulled from Amazon? Or is it just as much conjecture as the other camp, who says they did?
I mean, on the one hand, we have the possibility the customer self-published the book, had it pulled from Amazon to drum up publicity (while also making it almost impossible to actually buy the book) in order to "drum up publicity" and drive people to some website that people have never heard of to buy the book, as opposed to Amazon. The reward here is iffy at best.
On the other hand, GWS has a very long and unambiguous history of wildly overreaching with their IP claims to historic creatures. I'm not trying to re-hash that argument here, simply using it as an example that Occam's Razor is not on their side on this. It's certainly in-character for them to have done this.
Still, could just be Amazon being the bad guy here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, why is this suddenly a big story now, and not back when this first happened?
Is it really that hard to believe? Do you suppose the author just made up the whole story after the ebook was taken off of Amazon?
I think that the "free publicity" angle is right on the money.
If you're naming something Space Marine, in this age, you're probably hoping for publicity from it: either search results that give you a bump in traffic or a suit and the publicity from that.
I think you and a few others have an exaggerated impression of how big GW is. They might be a big part of your life but they are on the fringe of many and not even on the radar of most who see them as some sort of toy shop. Someone trying to use GWs IP is picking on a fairly niche interest. Far more people will have read/seen Starship Troopers or Aliens than have ever played Warhammer.
So, lets say GW isn't as big as you claim, in that case, it would make sense that an author naming something to do with 'Space Marine' would NOT be riding off of "I'm hoping those warhammer geeks will think its sphess mehreens and buy it" but would instead be more trying to tie into the legacy of, like you say, Starship Troopers or Aliens. Which is a common thing for any sci fi authors to do...
I'm actually on GW's side on this one. Given that Space Marine is the name of a video game, as well as generally being associated with the Astartes, they have every right imo to take action.
Obviously some sort of compromise might be better. The author could offer to rename the book and I don't see why GW wouldn't agree to that.
There's a rather popular (and, lets be frank, far more popular video game series than GW's) series called "God of War."
Should that mean no-one else should be allowed to write books about Ares, Athena and Mars?
Ray Harryhausen made a very popular film in the 80's called "Clash of the Titans." - As well as the sequels/remakes, there have been several films about Titans. They can't just decide to lay claim to the historical term and stop anyone else from using it, just because it's their brand name.
So why should GW, who also used the Space Marine term for the first time in the 80's, be able to lay claim to a term that seems to have been first used in 1932?
It's all well and good to protect your IP, but really this is going over the top. As mentioned before Harry Harrison uses the term in some of his books.
Games Workshop certainly are allowed to "lay claim" to a phrase that was first used in the 1930s however as a trademark it must be restricted to the categories in the legal framework about trademarks.
The point is whether a trademark can be established for a title of a book, to deny other authors the use of it.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Does not really have suasion, given the prior history of the term.
It is rather like Lucas trademarking Nazi(TM). But at least Lucas had better sense than to try to press the matter....
The Auld Grump
Don't know about Lucas trying it, but TSR sure as hell tried to. In the Indiana Jones games they published back in the late 80s.
Didn't stand up at all, but didn't stop them trying it on.
GW is just following in the footsteps of another idiotic game company.
For those calling "Publicity Stunt" here's something to comsider, if so, it's been a rather long planned one, Just judging by the history on the TV tropes page for the book
Kilkrazy wrote: Games Workshop certainly are allowed to "lay claim" to a phrase that was first used in the 1930s however as a trademark it must be restricted to the categories in the legal framework about trademarks.
The point is whether a trademark can be established for a title of a book, to deny other authors the use of it.
In the Chapterhouse case, the consensus (from both lawyers) seemed to be that you couldn't establish trademark through a single book title, but could through the name of a series, eg the Harry Potter series, which would also apply to Gaunts Ghosts . in this case GW must be establishing trademark via the Space Marine Battles(tm) series.
Kilkrazy wrote: Games Workshop certainly are allowed to "lay claim" to a phrase that was first used in the 1930s however as a trademark it must be restricted to the categories in the legal framework about trademarks.
The point is whether a trademark can be established for a title of a book, to deny other authors the use of it.
In the Chapterhouse case, the consensus (from both lawyers) seemed to be that you couldn't establish trademark through a single book title, but could through the name of a series, eg the Harry Potter series, which would also apply to Gaunts Ghosts . in this case GW must be establishing trademark via the Space Marine Battles(tm) series.
However there is the reverse question. Can a book title infringe a trademark? If a book title cannot be considered a mark for trade, how then can it infringe a trademark other than by diluting a famous mark. But, as a federal judge has recently found, GW's trademarks, including Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer 40K, and Space Marine, are not famous marks. So, even if it was a deliberate attempt to trade off of GW's intellectual property, and I seriously doubt that it was, and even assuming that Space Marine is anything near a valid mark, which I seriously doubt it is, how can the book title "Spots the Space Marine" infringe said mark?
Compel wrote: I don't understand your point, Howard...
So, lets say GW isn't as big as you claim, in that case, it would make sense that an author naming something to do with 'Space Marine' would NOT be riding off of "I'm hoping those warhammer geeks will think its sphess mehreens and buy it" but would instead be more trying to tie into the legacy of, like you say, Starship Troopers or Aliens. Which is a common thing for any sci fi authors to do...
I seem to have put a quote bracket in the wrong place, only the last paragraph was mine. Someone using the 'Space Marine' term isn't riding on the IP of anyone, it's a generic science fiction term. The majority of people outside the gaming community will not associate Space Marines with GW, and that community that are familiar with them is quite small in the grand scheme of things. GW trying to claim on the use of 'Space Marine' in general usage is just another example of them puffing up their chest and trying to look a lot bigger and important than they are.
BryllCream wrote: I'm actually on GW's side on this one. Given that Space Marine is the name of a video game, as well as generally being associated with the Astartes, they have every right imo to take action.
Obviously some sort of compromise might be better. The author could offer to rename the book and I don't see why GW wouldn't agree to that.
Except that it's not just Space Marine. It's Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine, and yes it's pretty easy to guess in our little microcosm of a site dedicated to Games Workshop games that this seems to be a publicity stunt, but nothing about the book, its cover, or its description on Amazon even show anything related to Space Marine(s) other than the title.
Kilkrazy wrote: Games Workshop certainly are allowed to "lay claim" to a phrase that was first used in the 1930s however as a trademark it must be restricted to the categories in the legal framework about trademarks.
The point is whether a trademark can be established for a title of a book, to deny other authors the use of it.
In the Chapterhouse case, the consensus (from both lawyers) seemed to be that you couldn't establish trademark through a single book title, but could through the name of a series, eg the Harry Potter series, which would also apply to Gaunts Ghosts . in this case GW must be establishing trademark via the Space Marine Battles(tm) series.
However there is the reverse question. Can a book title infringe a trademark? If a book title cannot be considered a mark for trade, how then can it infringe a trademark other than by diluting a famous mark. But, as a federal judge has recently found, GW's trademarks, including Warhammer, Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer 40K, and Space Marine, are not famous marks. So, even if it was a deliberate attempt to trade off of GW's intellectual property, and I seriously doubt that it was, and even assuming that Space Marine is anything near a valid mark, which I seriously doubt it is, how can the book title "Spots the Space Marine" infringe said mark?
With difficulty I would say. It does become more of a problem if Spots the Space Marine Goes to Mars etc. It was more to say that book series can become trademarks, and even if GW had that trademark, it wouldnt prevent anyone using Space Marines for their futuristic mercenary company/energy drink/ramen noodles, because GW is not active in those areas (unlike what is proposed above. For what it's worth I think that both this and the Chapterhouse case are a phenomenal waste of effort and money by GW.
DarknessEternal wrote: Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.
As mentioned, it is the eBook which GW was able to shut down with a DMCA complaint - standard form letters for IP lawyers now. The physical product falls outside the limits of the DMCA complaints, and would require GW's lawyers to go find a judge to issue an injunction on the sale of the product and then serve Amazon with that injunction. Pretty sure they don't think their case is that strong...so they are not going to go in front of a judge who might well tell them that they have no grounds.
If the judge tells them that, then they can't file anymore DMCA complaints for the same term as they have been told that they don't have the claim by a judge (and would be committing fraud by stating they do have a claim). Until a judge tells them the claim is bunk though, they can feign ignorance of 80 years of prior art and use of the generic term.
If this is a publicity stunt, it's the worst publicity stunt ever. If she really wants publicity because of the title it would be more in line with "Spots the Star Trekker" rather than a more broad term like Space Marine.
daedalus wrote: It's a trademark. Not sure about UK law, but US law, you have to proactively defend it, or you risk losing it.
It's asinine, but then again, the law is asinine.
Except you cant blanket trademark a term unquestionably in use before you. Its like Marvel trying to shut down any book with Thor in it. They own the trademark of Thor, the guy in the red cape who turns into Donald Blake and is friends with a space horse named Beta Ray bill. Not all references to the god Thor. Similarly, GW owns the trademark to Space Marines, complete giant shoulderpads, too many skulls and all that.
This is why I buy all my GW stuff from recasters. At least those guys have scruples...
Hey we were 111 years ahead of you Johnny come-latelys. If anyone is entitled to grinding GW beneath their iron-shod boots its us!
I was looking for a cool picture to put up like yours on google and found a fething great one. How good is this.
Royal Marine complete with gak tattoo wearing flip flops whilst brassing the Taliban up with a big fifty. I think dress regs have slipped since I left in the Gan 2009
On topic, as much as I like to slag GW off, I do think they kind of have a point, its just a thorny one. Say what you like, the actual Space Marines in common perception are GW. Aliens marines were Colonial ones, and plenty of marines have been "in space" In books and sci fi for years, but technically it can be any kind of soldier really, they dont actually do "Amphibious operations" as per a marine.
But.. I dunno, I can see both sides of the debate certainly. If you say Space Marine, I think most people do think of the big shouldered giants that GW makes.
But.. I dunno, I can see both sides of the debate certainly. If you say Space Marine, I think most people do think of the big shouldered giants that GW makes.
That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.
mattyrm wrote: [ But.. I dunno, I can see both sides of the debate certainly. If you say Space Marine, I think most people do think of the big shouldered giants that GW makes.
Id wager most people think of the guys in Aliens, Halo or any other mass media. Trademarks have to be specific. For it to infringe, it would need to step on the characteristics of SPACE MARINES that are trademarkable (big shoulderpads, skullz, spikez, crappy rules.. not generic power armor and lasers) as opposed to just being space marines, who are marines in space.
Glad to hear that the author is getting some pro-bono legal services. Usually these things are unfortunately a case of
"we're bigger than you, so give up before we take you to court because you certainly can't afford it!"
I do think alot of folks who are talking about GW's space marine novels or games are missing the point. It's a widely used term, that predated GW, and one which has already been demonstrated by the courts to not be the sole property of GW (I believe this was the 2nd circuit case mentioned above) .
Regardless of the intentions of the author, with the above established, this seems like a pretty clear case of C&D Lawyer bullying.
Eilif wrote: Glad to hear that the author is getting some pro-bono legal services. Usually these things are unfortunately a case of
"we're bigger than you, so give up before we take you to court because you certainly can't afford it!"
I do think alot of folks who are talking about GW's space marine novels or games are missing the point. It's a widely used term, that predated GW, and one which has already been demonstrated by the courts to not be the sole property of GW (I believe this was the 2nd circuit case mentioned above) .
It's not as widely used as you think, not in any meaningful way at least.
You might have organizations referred to as "Space Marines" or some variant of that nature("Galactic Marines" was E. E. Lensman but I can't remember which book/short story had them), but not to the extent where someone says "Space Marine" and you go "Oh! Like Bob Olsen's Amazing Stories novella?" or "Oh, like Robert A. Heinlein's guys from 'Misfits' and 'The Long Watch'?".
The immediate recognition that most people who even have a passing familiarity with Games Workshop get when confronted with the term "Space Marine" is the GW version.
Regardless of the intentions of the author, with the above established, this seems like a pretty clear case of C&D Lawyer bullying.
Except as mentioned before, trademarks have to be defended. At this point in time we now have a series of Black Library novels called the "Space Marine Battles Series"...which somehow Amazon's search trending/related items was including "Spots the Space Marine" in that listing.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Does not really have suasion, given the prior history of the term.
It is rather like Lucas trademarking Nazi(TM). But at least Lucas had better sense than to try to press the matter....
The Auld Grump
Don't know about Lucas trying it, but TSR sure as hell tried to. In the Indiana Jones games they published back in the late 80s.
Didn't stand up at all, but didn't stop them trying it on.
GW is just following in the footsteps of another idiotic game company.
That was TSR publishing Lucas' Nazi(TM) - the same (TM) is also found on the Kenner Indiana Jones(TM) toys of the time.
Because they were publishing a Lucas property they had to list all of the included tributary properties, which included Nazi(TM).
So, in this case TSR is having poo slung at it that should more accurately be aimed at Mr. Lucas. Gamers just noticed it while the parents buying toys for their kids either did not, or just did not care. (Not that TSR was any great shakes in the suits over IP department - folks used to joke that TSR stood for 'They Sue Regularly'. And they lost or settled every single suit - usually paying the second party's legal fees....)
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* For the giggles - from the Dark Days of 1997 came a movie titled:
I believe there was mention of someone taking on this case pro-bono, so hopefully she will be allowed to continue to sell the book. I do think that to take offence at her trying to free-load on the back of GW* is missing the point a bit here. Namely, that a company shouldn't be allowed to trademark such a generic term in the broader field of fantasy and sci-fi literature - the failing on GW's part here being even more apparent considering the classic sci-fi influences there 40k game universe originally drew upon.
Above and aside from anything else, what the hell is wrong with GW these days? It's like they are trying to paint the biggest possible sign saying "We are a bunch of cnuts" at every instance possible - doing things like this does absolutely nothing to endear them to either the science fiction and fantasy writing fraternity (who are conscious that it is setting a dangerous precedent), the fans or anyone from the public who reads about it for that matter.
*(I don't think she is - there are other far more likely candidates, and as has been mentioned there is a strong possibility that 'Adeptus Astartes' will not be the first thing people think of when they think the term 'Space Marine').
The immediate recognition that most people who even have a passing familiarity with Games Workshop get when confronted with the term "Space Marine" is the GW version.
I'm willing to bet a lot more people think "Starcraft" than GW when they hear the words "space" and "marine" in conjunction. That thought most likely accompanied by the sounds of stimpacks and death. Anyway, if it goes to court, GW will lose. You can't trademark space marine anymore than you can trademark "werewolves" or "vampires" (as White-Wolf found out when they sued the makers of Underworld).
But.. I dunno, I can see both sides of the debate certainly. If you say Space Marine, I think most people do think of the big shouldered giants that GW makes.
That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.
I gotta agree, the term space marine is in wide use, but we're still in very much a small niche here. I have to explain 40k to most people I bring up the hobby to most times provided they aren't active gamers.
That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.
I gotta agree, the term space marine is in wide use, but we're still in very much a small niche here. I have to explain 40k to most people I bring up the hobby to most times provided they aren't active gamers.
Generally speaking when one admits to engaging in absolutely no advertising of any kind whatsoever it is pretty hard to establish that one's alleged trademarks are famous.
Regardless of the intentions of the author, with the above established, this seems like a pretty clear case of C&D Lawyer bullying.
Except as mentioned before, trademarks have to be defended. At this point in time we now have a series of Black Library novels called the "Space Marine Battles Series"...which somehow Amazon's search trending/related items was including "Spots the Space Marine" in that listing.
Defending where there's good reason to defend I expect, not whenever someone uses generic language you happen to share. This just comes across as GW looking for an excuse to pick on a very weak target and hope that Amazon will simply remove the book rather than bother fending off their unwarranted claim on generic terms. Is that really what constitutes 'defending your copyright'?
Or is that just what GW legal think 'defending your copyright' means? Coming up with spurious cases to make a show of it, rather than actually doing all the things that has caught them with their pants down in the Chapterhouse case, such as establishing exactly what they have protection on and whether they can locate all the paperwork to prove their ownership?
For those of you who would like to actually make yourselves heard, there's a wonderful twitter hashtag going around, #spacemarineforaday. Add Space Marine to your name, toss in the hash tag, and mention @voxcaster. Apparently it's doing well enough that @voxcaster is going through and blocking anyone who uses it. Can't argue with results like that.
Ian Livingstone and his buddy Steve Jackson were known to me as a kid, ever since I read one of those "go to page 23 if you want to stab the knight, go to page 47 if you gak yourself and run into the woods" fighting fantasy books as a kid.
Anyways, I think they set up GW in a little tiny place in London in the 70s, and sold it in the late eighties or early 90s. Regardless, the bloke isn't practising rank hypocrisy because he sold GW fething ages ago.
Id guess that articles at least twenty years old.. its probably from the eighties or something when Star Wars was in its heyday.
I'm not buying into this crap. The more I read about this story, the more it seems like a carefully crafted piece of artificial drama to me.
I won't be defending GW either. They seem to be fully commited to letting this escalate to a major PR setback for them. But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.
Ian Livingstone and his buddy Steve Jackson were known to me as a kid, ever since I read one of those "go to page 23 if you want to stab the knight, go to page 47 if you gak yourself and run into the woods" fighting fantasy books as a kid.
Anyways, I think they set up GW in a little tiny place in London in the 70s, and sold it in the late eighties or early 90s. Regardless, the bloke isn't practising rank hypocrisy because he sold GW fething ages ago.
Id guess that articles at least twenty years old.. its probably from the eighties or something when Star Wars was in its heyday.
It's not hypocrisy on the part of Ian Livingstone, it's just funny how once the company was arguing against the over litigious nature of media companies trying to shut down SF and fantasy projects, yet years on and now they are the big company, they are doing exactly the same thing in the most unreasonable manner. It's a bit like that old George Lucas speech where he argues against allowing directors to go back and tinker with their works as it will destroy the cultural significance of the original piece. Then years on he did that repeatedly and made it pretty difficult to get copies of the original.
Pacific wrote: I believe there was mention of someone taking on this case pro-bono, so hopefully she will be allowed to continue to sell the book. I do think that to take offence at her trying to free-load on the back of GW* is missing the point a bit here. Namely, that a company shouldn't be allowed to trademark such a generic term in the broader field of fantasy and sci-fi literature - the failing on GW's part here being even more apparent considering the classic sci-fi influences there 40k game universe originally drew upon.
Above and aside from anything else, what the hell is wrong with GW these days? It's like they are trying to paint the biggest possible sign saying "We are a bunch of cnuts" at every instance possible - doing things like this does absolutely nothing to endear them to either the science fiction and fantasy writing fraternity (who are conscious that it is setting a dangerous precedent), the fans or anyone from the public who reads about it for that matter.
*(I don't think she is - there are other far more likely candidates, and as has been mentioned there is a strong possibility that 'Adeptus Astartes' will not be the first thing people think of when they think the term 'Space Marine').
they don't understand how fast word travels on the net, and think its an annoying fad that will go away
That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.
I gotta agree, the term space marine is in wide use, but we're still in very much a small niche here. I have to explain 40k to most people I bring up the hobby to most times provided they aren't active gamers.
Generally speaking when one admits to engaging in absolutely no advertising of any kind whatsoever it is pretty hard to establish that one's alleged trademarks are famous.
The thing is that it isn't even wide use. WIthin the tiny segment of the population who are fantasy/sci-fi wargamers - it is generally connected to GW, though with all the examples of prior and concurrent use of the term Space Marine in miniatures gaming...their claim would be tenuous at best for a simple text mark "space marine". It is a generic term, and like most generic terms - people have one company or another within a niche that they think of first when you mention that generic term. Being connected, even strongly, to that term does not grant a specific ownership though.
Outside of the realm of miniature gamers though, Games Workshop is almost unknown. I would be surprised if it had actual name recognition with more than 5-10% of the population. I would guess that less than half of that number would make the connection between Space Marine and Games Workshop. Most would not make a specific connection between the term space marine and anything - though based on casual reading of the comment streams on this article...it would appear that the Aliens' franchise would be more likely as many have been erroneously connecting the Colonial Marines to space marines.
In other news - this story has legs and is starting to run:
In the realm of corporate goodwill, a small fish like GW can't expend much on lawsuits like this. They aren't a big dog like Marvel, Disney or DC who can afford to wage unpopular campaigns against broad public opinion. They are not a holding company who only sells ideas so that their public perception is irrelevant. The more press they get from mainstream outlets will connect the trademark "Games Workshop" not to space marine but to spanker.
I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
Agent_Tremolo wrote: But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.
So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?
I'm assuming he's saying that because her "book" has very few actual reviews, one of which says to read the extract so as to avoid the mistake of buying it like the reviewer did...
And the extract is a disjointed mess which reads more like someone trying their hand at writing a play or a script than a book.
Fake reviews aside, is it the author's fault if Amazon associates BL books and this book?
Many years ago, I bought "Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism". Next thing I know, I'm getting recommendations for copies of the Communist Manifesto.
Kanluwen wrote: I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
Which would only be relevant if it were relevant.
Most of those listings are simply generated on text entries. Book A has Space Marine in the description, Book B has Space Marine in the title - the database says they much be related, especially when you do a text search of Amazon for "space marine". Getting bent out of shape about that is like getting all twisted up when I get suggestions for Star Wars when looking for a book on H.R. Giger...it isn't evidence of anything in particular.
Further, claims of dilution require fame, which GW does not have.
Now, apparently you do not like the book - that is fine and good, but has no actual bearing on the legal issues. The courts have long since held that they are not to determine between good and bad art, just application of the law relating to art.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.
So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?
And the extract is a disjointed mess which reads more like someone trying their hand at writing a play or a script than a book.
You do know that that is a particular style of writing which a lot of readers actually enjoy, right? The book is even mentioned as such in a number of the articles.
Kanluwen wrote: I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
Just assuming all that were true, I would still say that what GW is doing is wrong, and a slap to the face of the community on the same level as Disney copyrighting the Birthday Song. Whether or not the author is good or not, if poking GW was part of the advertising strategy then it's a genius one.
This reminds me of that episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the Owner of the restaurant copyrighted the Baltimore slang word 'Hon'. And even that was an actual legal copyright, GW is just bullying the smallest victim with nothing to back it up.
Kanluwen wrote: I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
Just assuming all that were true, I would still say that what GW is doing is wrong, and a slap to the face of the community on the same level as Disney copyrighting the Birthday Song. Whether or not the author is good or not, if poking GW was part of the advertising strategy then it's a genius one.
This reminds me of that episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the Owner of the restaurant copyrighted the Baltimore slang word 'Hon'. And even that was an actual legal copyright, GW is just bullying the smallest victim with nothing to back it up.
I am hoping for a grand humiliation on GW's part myself
Kanluwen wrote: I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
Just assuming all that were true, I would still say that what GW is doing is wrong, and a slap to the face of the community on the same level as Disney copyrighting the Birthday Song. Whether or not the author is good or not, if poking GW was part of the advertising strategy then it's a genius one.
This reminds me of that episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the Owner of the restaurant copyrighted the Baltimore slang word 'Hon'. And even that was an actual legal copyright, GW is just bullying the smallest victim with nothing to back it up.
It's not smart. It's exploitation of the stupid. Like when you see an Ipad BOX sell for 60 quid on eBay to people too dumb to know the difference.
You will be surprised how many grannies will end up buying gak like that because they are new to amazon and little timmy is into "them space marines things"
It's the same as getting Carol vorderman to sell loans to thick people on council estates "oh look she does math on telly it must be good"
Just because we would not fall for any of it doesn't mean it's not morally wrong and I've long been against ambiguous marketing and I think that we should be doing more about it, not less. If what kan said is correct I expect the dubiously named god awful book was made for that very reason.
We have to pay for the sick lame and lazy, so we should take care of the gak for brains members of our society as well!
A friend of mine just sent me this email from someone's twitter account regarding this whole ordeal.
A Space Marine @howardtayler
Games Workshop's official Twitter Feed, @Voxcaster, has started blocking Space Marines and critics. Because they can't sue us all, I guess?
that was a tweet from someone who's participating in the "I'm a Space Marine" thing on Twitter...lotsa folks are renaming themselves to "A Space Marine" and things like that.
Fair amount of really spiky comments on Twitter - and somewhat amusingly a lot of it coming from seemingly middle aged people completely unconnected with anything to do with GW previously. Not often that a company's behaviour escapes the niche that the wargaming hobby occupies, but this looks like one of those times - and not in a good way.
This was really stupid move from their side... so what if she used "Space Marine" in her book? That word is used all over sci-fi, not just 40k.
And general term "Space Marine" is already connected with Adeptus Astartes a LOT, type "Space Marine" in Google search and I can guarantee you that first 3 or 5 pages will be just about them. This move could only hurt their already bad publicity with people.
If they want to repair the damage all they have to do is publicly apologize to the author and put her book back to the Amazon. But seeing how she will then have right to sue them and get a LOT of money from them that is not going to happened.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.
So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?
I'm assuming he's saying that because her "book" has very few actual reviews, one of which says to read the extract so as to avoid the mistake of buying it like the reviewer did...
And the extract is a disjointed mess which reads more like someone trying their hand at writing a play or a script than a book.
I did read the few sample chapters she put online when this whole mess started, yes. You can still catch them on Smashwords, if interested. Mediocre is a fair term to describe it. A serialized novel titled Earthrise is also sampled, accesible from Hogarth's site.
I used hack as in "hacker". Sorry, but this entire ride-an-internet-lynchmob-to-fame scenario sounds like social engineering to me. Regardless, what I'm saying is that the entire "legal issues" may have sparked from a misunderstanding or, let's hope not, be a deliberate forgery. So far the only proof we have for GW's intent to claim the term "Space Marine" is an email she's not bothered to copy and paste for us all to see. Remember when GW stalled that fan film "Exterminatus"? The production team victimized by the Workshop's IP claims made sure we heard both sides of the story. Now all we have is her take on things, a couple lines copypasted from the trademark database, and the presumption that GW will never, ever do anything right.
At the very least, and given that GW won't do anything but block users in Twitter and pretend it's not happening, she could make her correspondence with GW public. That'd be the honest thing to do IMHO.
Compel wrote: Aren't there laws governing publishing correspondence that say you should get permission from the other party first?
She's already done enough by claiming that she's "talking with Games Workshop" and that they are "suing her" that I can't see her really giving a crap about the legalities of consent regarding correspondence.
I thought such restrictions only apply to private and confidential information, Compel. There's little private or confidential in a Cease and Desist letter.
In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats.
And that's all we know about the content of such emails. Doesn't seem threatening. The threat is mostly inferred by the following paragraphs, in which the author claims GW's words suggest their intentions to stamp their copyright on a common sci-fi term.
Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".
I see no quote, rather a different author not understanding the difference between a legal demand letter and a threat of lawsuit. They are two very, very different things. The take down letter isn't a lawsuit, it isn't even a threat of a lawsuit. They may have threatened a lawsuit with her in the correspondence, but I have not seen her say they have actually threatened a lawsuit (which brings with it it's own legal actions and reactions).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Agent_Tremolo wrote: I thought such restrictions only apply to private and confidential information, Compel. There's little private or confidential in a Cease and Desist letter.
In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats.
And that's all we know about the content of such emails. Doesn't seem threatening. The threat is mostly inferred by the following paragraphs, in which the author claims GW's words suggest their intentions to stamp their copyright on a common sci-fi term.
Again, her words, not GW's.
Reread her words - she actually doesn't imply that they intend to "stamp their copyright" on anything. She does say:
Even more than I want to save Spots the Space Marine, I want someone to save all space marines for the genre I grew up reading. I want there to be a world where Heinlein and E.E. Smith’s space marines can live alongside mine and everyone else’s, and no one has the hubris to think that they can own a fundamental genre trope and deny it to everyone else.
That doesn't imply they want to copyright (being the wrong application here) anything - but that she does think it is important that generic staples of science fiction and fantasy are swallowed up simply because someone has a lawyer on retainer to file DMCA complaints.
Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".
I see no quote, rather a different author not understanding the difference between a legal demand letter and a threat of lawsuit. They are two very, very different things. The take down letter isn't a lawsuit, it isn't even a threat of a lawsuit. They may have threatened a lawsuit with her in the correspondence, but I have not seen her say they have actually threatened a lawsuit (which brings with it it's own legal actions and reactions).
That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.
It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
Kanluwen wrote: I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
The placements along side BL novels is the fault of Amazon's programs, not the author. As for the reviews, I'm not going to be so quick to call them "fake", and comparing it to Starship Troopers is not at all related to the GW case.
It's clear you have a low opinion of this author and her books, but that's just your opinion and not really material to the case.
Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".
This is an alleged trademark violation case, not a copyright case, which is exclusively what the invocation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is for, so it looks like your site got that wrong too.
That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.
It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
How easy is it to rapidly correct poor journalism occurring on news... uh, "blogs", that one might not even be aware exists? In particular, when the story is "spreading like wildfire"?
I've never been in that situation, so I'm asking here.
Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".
I see no quote, rather a different author not understanding the difference between a legal demand letter and a threat of lawsuit. They are two very, very different things. The take down letter isn't a lawsuit, it isn't even a threat of a lawsuit. They may have threatened a lawsuit with her in the correspondence, but I have not seen her say they have actually threatened a lawsuit (which brings with it it's own legal actions and reactions).
That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.
It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
No - the story is that the trademark complaint was filed incorrectly. She has said that the section of law which they used to file the initial complaint against the Kindle edition refers to printed works - stationary, wrapping paper and the like (not books at all). It was filed to Amazon UK. It was later expanded with a DMCA (which is related to copyrights not trademarks) in the US. Neither of the standings which GW used is valid, though in order for her to continue selling the eBook through Amazon she needs either GW to withdraw their complaint or a court order saying her works do not infringe - I do not see anything within what she has done as fanning the flames.
GW has done a dumb move on many different levels. Space marines is a generic term - especially when used generically. Even without the threat of lawsuit, there is still the threat to the creative process which is as important or more so than an actual lawsuit.
Still, what makes the "Spots" case unique is that 40k and its tie-in media have coexisted with previous and later incarnations of the "space marine" concept in different media without GW raising a finger, even if they supposedly held a trademark over the term.
According to Hogarths/GW, they should have sued EA over Timesplitters (2002), since GW's first venture into videogames dates back to 1993.
Don't know. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe it's a side effect of the DMCA making IP lawyers even more trigger-happy than before.
That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.
It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
How easy is it to rapidly correct poor journalism occurring on news... uh, "blogs", that one might not even be aware exists? In particular, when the story is "spreading like wildfire"?
I've never been in that situation, so I'm asking here.
The problem with that though is that you have to educate people first on the different types of IP (copyright, trademark, patent in the US...copyright, patent, trademark, design in Europe...) and how they are all applied. Many in the legal field don't have a solid grasp on it, journalists...whether bloggers or traditional media...generally are even less well tied into the specific intricacies of IP law. Correcting is pretty easy though if you manage to get it through their thick skulls as to what is going on.
However, since a copyright law was used in an attempt to correct a perceived trademark violation by formally trained legal professionals - you can see how it can be easy for a lay person to confuse things.
Formats
Amazon price New from Used from
Kindle Edition -- -- --
Paperback $19.79 $15.79 $38.02
Physical - not Kindle. The physical copy would require a judge to issue an injunction as it isn't electronically transmitted. The Kindle version is covered under safe harbor rules in the DMCA and only requires a claim to be made. Amazon could choose to force GW to prove it - though then they open themselves up to more legal issues...so they simply drop it from their inventory.
GW has done a dumb move on many different levels. Space marines is a generic term - especially when used generically. Even without the threat of lawsuit, there is still the threat to the creative process which is as important or more so than an actual lawsuit.
And I think that is why most people are narked at GW - not because of anything else, but because they have had the audacity to try and take ownership of such a generic term.
Kanluwen wrote: I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.
I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".
Blame Amazon then. or better yet, blame GW for being stupid and trying to trademark generic terms they didnt come up with. But dont defend gakky behavior with "well, they have to act like tools otherwise their tool rights might be contested". Frankly, GOOD.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.
So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?
I'm assuming he's saying that because her "book" has very few actual reviews, one of which says to read the extract so as to avoid the mistake of buying it like the reviewer did...
And the extract is a disjointed mess which reads more like someone trying their hand at writing a play or a script than a book.
I did read the few sample chapters she put online when this whole mess started, yes. You can still catch them on Smashwords, if interested. Mediocre is a fair term to describe it. A serialized novel titled Earthrise is also sampled, accesible from Hogarth's site.
I used hack as in "hacker". Sorry, but this entire ride-an-internet-lynchmob-to-fame scenario sounds like social engineering to me. Regardless, what I'm saying is that the entire "legal issues" may have sparked from a misunderstanding or, let's hope not, be a deliberate forgery. So far the only proof we have for GW's intent to claim the term "Space Marine" is an email she's not bothered to copy and paste for us all to see. Remember when GW stalled that fan film "Exterminatus"? The production team victimized by the Workshop's IP claims made sure we heard both sides of the story. Now all we have is her take on things, a couple lines copypasted from the trademark database, and the presumption that GW will never, ever do anything right.
At the very least, and given that GW won't do anything but block users in Twitter and pretend it's not happening, she could make her correspondence with GW public. That'd be the honest thing to do IMHO.
So, like any of the lame 40k, Fogotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc novels. The same hacky drivel, but you know, without the branding, so clearly one sucks while the other is spikey, skullz covered GOLD.
Kanluwen wrote: It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
This, while possible, in no way rules out the possibility that GW is overreaching with their legal claims...
Which they have time and again, GW hands out C&D's out like candy, even if they have no leg to stand on. Hell, they did it to dakka for posting the dark angel pics from white dwarf.
Rainbow Dash wrote: well I should cash in on this craze and stick space marine into my novel... though it's a fantasy...
ooh there's an alicorn in there... wonder if hasbro will come after me...
Nope - part of the reasoning behind the SRD/Open Gaming thing they did was that when they bought out WotC was that the Hasbro lawyers sat down and looked over the new IP that came with the acquisition. They came to conclusion that very little was actually protectable (well - not very little, but huge chunks and swaths were in the public domain). They ended up breaking it down into the open content (monsters, rules and the like) and "Product Identity" materials like beholders, yuan-ti and slaad as well as the various specific settings like Faerun.
GW could very well learn a few things from Hasbro.
Rainbow Dash wrote: well I should cash in on this craze and stick space marine into my novel... though it's a fantasy...
ooh there's an alicorn in there... wonder if hasbro will come after me...
Nope - part of the reasoning behind the SRD/Open Gaming thing they did was that when they bought out WotC was that the Hasbro lawyers sat down and looked over the new IP that came with the acquisition. They came to conclusion that very little was actually protectable (well - not very little, but huge chunks and swaths were in the public domain). They ended up breaking it down into the open content (monsters, rules and the like) and "Product Identity" materials like beholders, yuan-ti and slaad as well as the various specific settings like Faerun.
GW could very well learn a few things from Hasbro.
they don't even own many of the my little pony names they used from the 80s and 90s...not sure why or who now does
but that's good, at any rate (they never actually refereed to Alicorns as, well Alicorns in the show, the only use of the word was an amulet, and the word is, well old, older then space marine, but not as well known or used
Formats Amazon price New from Used from Kindle Edition $6.42 -- -- Paperback $19.79 $15.79 $38.02
Ok, checked with Amazon again and looks like the Kindle edition has been restored (even tried to order -I'm now itching to know if Spots gets to use her mommy powers to communicate with the evil Crabs.... not available in Spain, though). Whatever happened in the backstage, we may never know.
Now I`m a bit scared to walk into my FGLS for my weekly game of 40k. The Malifaux-Infinity-FoW crowds are going to have quite a laugh at our expense
if she was I don't think she would have picked something rather obscure, but something everyone knows, like star wars
you leech on something hugely successful and something that's a household name, not a niche thing that a lot of people don't even know
Kanluwen wrote: It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
Honest question - do you believe that Games Workshop is the only party that has the right to use the name "Space Marine" in literature?
Of course not, but I think this instance is a bit more complex than simply "GW went after this poor poor woman for using Space Marine in the title of her 'book'."
As I said earlier, the book's Amazon page was full of fake reviews heralding the book as being the "next Starship Troopers" and it kept showing up in the same search results as "Games Workshop" or "Black Library" prior to this whole debacle starting.
Some keep saying this is a result of Amazon's search engine, but it's not like I was searching for "Space Marine" where it would make sense now is it? Someone--I don't know whether it was the author, her friends, or just some jokers on the Internets--kept plugging the search engine so that "Spots the Space Marine" was showing up in searches for GW material on Amazon. That's why I made my remark that the author is looking for her 15 minutes of fame. It's a self-published serialization of her "novel" that she wrote on her LiveJournal years ago. If this whole debacle did not happen, she would just be another self-published "author" who sells maybe one or two of her books a year.
But now with this happening? She's got all these people rallying behind her, wanting to buy the book, etc.
It's awfully convenient and I'm inclined to think the worst for this particular situation--especially considering that it is not really a state secret that Games Workshop aggressively defends what they consider to be their "property" and would likely have no good will engendered towards them if they started a program where they had vans filled with puppies to be given away for free to children all over the world.
So if you concur that they don't own the rights to the name "Space Marine", then why does all that unrelated stuff you keep throwing up matter?
Are you saying that other authors can use the phrase and concept of a Space Marine, unless it becomes popular enough that it might cost GW money in potentially lost sales?
I mean, so what if it showed up in related searches?
Also, do you have absolutely any evidence for these claims you keep making about how she or her friends colluded to game Amazon's search somehow or that she had a whole bunch of fake reviews? And is that even actually gaming, if she wrote a book about Space Marines and it showed up with other Space Marine related books? I mean, that sounds like "working as intended" to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: considering that it is not really a state secret that Games Workshop aggressively defends what they consider to be their "property"
When even you agree it's not actually their property, in what possible way does this not make them wrong?
Rainbow Dash wrote: if she was I don't think she would have picked something rather obscure, but something everyone knows, like star wars
you leech on something hugely successful and something that's a household name, not a niche thing that a lot of people don't even know
Spots the Stormtrooper would have been a better move in this case, as Stormtrooper generally refers to First out Marines (storming the beach and all) and can be generic enough to get away with it. Though Lucasfilm would probably let her walk away with it knowing her ebook would never garner that much attention (reading the small bit I did, Its pretty aweful, and yes a ripoff of Starship Troopers, insert Bugs instead of Crabs at every mention and the protagonist is a horrible mary sue, its more or less decent fanfic at best.)
But just because her book is bad, doesnt mean GW gets to unleash the lawdogs on her for using the title. (though I wouldn't blame the Heimlien estate if they did. but while they are at it, go ahead and sue GW for the power armor ripoff) I find it disheartening that someone has the chutzpah to go around with C/D's for trademarks of IPs they have been ripping off for decades. Space marine? not their concept. Power Armor? nope. Dystopian future filled with xenophobic racists? LOL star wars actually beat them to that one! Though I do believe a future built in with ancient gothic architecture is one that belongs to them. Even most of battlefleet gothic reminded me of the battlecruiser from aliens.
I wonder if GW forgot they are just the big fish in a small pond. Get into the mainstream media, and the public goes "games...Who??? Woah does blizzard know they are ripping them off?"
Kanluwen wrote: It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
Honest question - do you believe that Games Workshop is the only party that has the right to use the name "Space Marine" in literature?
Of course not, but I think this instance is a bit more complex than simply "GW went after this poor poor woman for using Space Marine in the title of her 'book'."
As I said earlier, the book's Amazon page was full of fake reviews heralding the book as being the "next Starship Troopers" and it kept showing up in the same search results as "Games Workshop" or "Black Library" prior to this whole debacle starting.
Some keep saying this is a result of Amazon's search engine, but it's not like I was searching for "Space Marine" where it would make sense now is it? Someone--I don't know whether it was the author, her friends, or just some jokers on the Internets--kept plugging the search engine so that "Spots the Space Marine" was showing up in searches for GW material on Amazon. That's why I made my remark that the author is looking for her 15 minutes of fame. It's a self-published serialization of her "novel" that she wrote on her LiveJournal years ago. If this whole debacle did not happen, she would just be another self-published "author" who sells maybe one or two of her books a year.
But now with this happening? She's got all these people rallying behind her, wanting to buy the book, etc.
It's awfully convenient and I'm inclined to think the worst for this particular situation--especially considering that it is not really a state secret that Games Workshop aggressively defends what they consider to be their "property" and would likely have no good will engendered towards them if they started a program where they had vans filled with puppies to be given away for free to children all over the world.
None of which matters Kan. It all comes down to GW trying to take ownership of a concept that was not theirs to begin with - everything that has happened since, the rallying cry from the sci-fi/fantasy literature fraternity, the reviews on Amazon, people changing their name on Twitter to 'Space Marine' etc have all come about as a result of that initial act.
Ouze wrote: So if you concur that they don't own the rights to the name "Space Marine", then why does all that unrelated stuff you keep throwing up matter?
Are you saying that other authors can use the phrase and concept of a Space Marine, unless it becomes popular enough that it might cost GW money in potentially lost sales?
I mean, so what if it showed up in related searches?
Also, do you have absolutely any evidence for these claims you keep making about how she or her friends colluded to game Amazon's search somehow or that she had a whole bunch of fake reviews? And is that even actually gaming, if she wrote a book about Space Marines and it showed up with other Space Marine related books? I mean, that sounds like "working as intended" to me.
Well if I wrote a book, I would expect (or at least hope) my followers wrote some positive reviews for me, Which looks to be the case when this book came out.....a while ago. some of those reviews over a year old, and talk about following her live journal. So you should expect to see those from an indie author or fan fictional writer. Though there is one that hit the nail on the head with his "returned" review. But nothing I see shows that her or her fans/friends could make sure that Black Library books would show up as well.
as for the customers who bought also bought section: mine shows everything from mageknight to horus heresy games, other MCA hogarth materials, etc. So after a year of the book being published your saying that when you looked it says nothing but other black library books? possible. which could also explain why the C/D from Games workshop whos legal probably check these things. But I doubt it was socially engineered. Looking at the few reviews, I doubt it sold that many copies. Could be one buyer (likely the "returned" reviewer) made a large purchase of black library novels and it popped up. Heck my amazon.com account still suggests anime when I havent bought one from them in almost a decade.
My wife intentionally looks for messed-up stuff on Amazon when I leave it up on my PC so later I have an annoying "surprise" when I go on Amazon to look for something.
well from the 20% that I was allotted to read for free, Its essentially a Starship Troopers furfanfic (the whole team kitty garbage) instead of bugs she has crabs and instead of skinnies she's got the preying mantis thing. They have power armor, but so does the mobile infantry in the actual Starship Troopers book. It reads like a bad movie script or someones Roleplay description in an MMO more than an actual novel, It was pretty painful to read. She mentions in the articles posted how she's a fan of Heimlein's work, and its pretty obvious.
Kan did hit the nail on the head I think when it comes to what seems to have happened: at some point a Black library reader bought this book and it started showing up with the other novels. This probably sparked the Cease and Disist order with GW legal just seeing someones crappy instant publish book being associated with their stuff. Without reading any context (because they don't get paid for that) they send out the pregenerated email, insert the names and boom...instant fiasco.
I don't agree with Kan in that this was some sort of clever social engineering experiment (I don't feel the author is that clever by any means, she would have written a better story if that was the case), It just happened and she tried to get the mess sorted out, felt hopeless and went public with her frustration. Being the gamers we are (generally hating on GW for its IP bullying these past few years) ate that up and it went viral in a matter of hours. Add that more than a few of her die hard fans proabably waved it in front of the face of a few key figures in the writing community that go "oh hell naw!" and you got a media mess.
Of course GW or Amazon has already put her book back on kindle, so It seems the message of the day is they will back down if you flex back at them.
Now we just need more people to actually do that instead of backing down when they shouldn't and they might get to be respectable again.
As I said earlier, the book's Amazon page was full of fake reviews heralding the book as being the "next Starship Troopers" and it kept showing up in the same search results as "Games Workshop" or "Black Library" prior to this whole debacle starting.
That would suggest she's trying to tie it to Starship Troopers and not Warhammer then.
It's awfully convenient and I'm inclined to think the worst for this particular situation--especially considering that it is not really a state secret that Games Workshop aggressively defends what they consider to be their "property" and would likely have no good will engendered towards them if they started a program where they had vans filled with puppies to be given away for free to children all over the world.
Two points. It isn't their property, so however much you try to justify their aggressive attempts to protect it, it's entirely their fault that they Kay claims to things they don't own. The sooner GW stop this nonsense the more credible your attempts to rationalise their need to 'defend their copyrights' will be.
Secondly, you again refer to their aggression not being a 'state secret'. They are still a niche company and the majority of people are only vaguely acquainted with them at most, and most won't know a thing about their legal activities, many of their customers won't know much of even a 'high profile' case like the Chapterhouse one that has been going two years now.
GW just isn't as big or culturally significant as people want to think, it's barely on the radar of most people, you just don't see that being inside the hobby. How many people play M:tG? Outside those I game with, hardly anyone I know who isn't into SF/ Fantasy has even heard if them. Somethibg with real cultural impact like D&D is only recognised in stereotypical terms; people who dress up as wizards and rolling dice.
How many threads have there been where gamers have described their girlfriends as not knowing anything of the hobby and thinking its just funny that they paint little toy men? No one questions when they show no awareness or any exposure to the hobby. Yet in this thread, a woman writing a book is supposed to know that Space Marines are obviously linked to GW more than anything else, to know that GW claim to own them when they don't, and that GW aggressively defend copyrights on things they don't own.
I hope GW loses this and it proves to be the spark that ignites a wildfire. Such a generic term should not be copyrighted. It could not even be defended on the "confusion" means, as more people would associate Space Marines with Starcraft than with W40K.
Oh, and I just tipped the author 5 USD, simply because I can. It doesn't matter for me if that was a publicity stunt, I like such stories were the little guy stands up to the big bully.
EDIT: Just noticed BBC are getting their dates wrong. It was December 2012, not 2011.
I get a kick out of this:
A spokesman for Games Workshop said it had a "blanket policy" of not talking to the media and had no comment to make about the row or its trademark claim.
Regarding the listing being back on Amazon for this - the question ends up being why? Did Amazon feel the heat from other independent writers and want to demonstrate some level of support that they would get from a real publisher (that would be the bare minimum appearance of a spine...you know, sort of like a cuttlefish)? Did GW relent?
In either case, the author still needs to follow up and seek a declaratory judgement in order to avoid GW attempting to sue in a far flung jurisdiction at a later date.
A spokesman for Games Workshop said it had a "blanket policy" of not talking to the media and had no comment to make about the row or its trademark claim.
That's a 'no' to my previous query then. I really don't that's the best way to handle negative publicity myself.
EDIT: Just noticed BBC are getting their dates wrong. It was December 2012, not 2011.
I get a kick out of this:
A spokesman for Games Workshop said it had a "blanket policy" of not talking to the media and had no comment to make about the row or its trademark claim.
Regarding the listing being back on Amazon for this - the question ends up being why? Did Amazon feel the heat from other independent writers and want to demonstrate some level of support that they would get from a real publisher (that would be the bare minimum appearance of a spine...you know, sort of like a cuttlefish)? Did GW relent?
In either case, the author still needs to follow up and seek a declaratory judgement in order to avoid GW attempting to sue in a far flung jurisdiction at a later date.
Looking at her blog it looks like she and the EFF are talking.
Rainbow Dash wrote: if she was I don't think she would have picked something rather obscure, but something everyone knows, like star wars
you leech on something hugely successful and something that's a household name, not a niche thing that a lot of people don't even know
Spots the Stormtrooper would have been a better move in this case, as Stormtrooper generally refers to First out Marines (storming the beach and all) and can be generic enough to get away with it. Though Lucasfilm would probably let her walk away with it knowing her ebook would never garner that much attention (reading the small bit I did, Its pretty aweful, and yes a ripoff of Starship Troopers, insert Bugs instead of Crabs at every mention and the protagonist is a horrible mary sue, its more or less decent fanfic at best.)
But just because her book is bad, doesnt mean GW gets to unleash the lawdogs on her for using the title. (though I wouldn't blame the Heimlien estate if they did. but while they are at it, go ahead and sue GW for the power armor ripoff) I find it disheartening that someone has the chutzpah to go around with C/D's for trademarks of IPs they have been ripping off for decades. Space marine? not their concept. Power Armor? nope. Dystopian future filled with xenophobic racists? LOL star wars actually beat them to that one! Though I do believe a future built in with ancient gothic architecture is one that belongs to them. Even most of battlefleet gothic reminded me of the battlecruiser from aliens.
I wonder if GW forgot they are just the big fish in a small pond. Get into the mainstream media, and the public goes "games...Who??? Woah does blizzard know they are ripping them off?"
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
A spokesman for Games Workshop said it had a "blanket policy" of not talking to the media and had no comment to make about the row or its trademark claim.
That's a 'no' to my previous query then. I really don't that's the best way to handle negative publicity myself.
Or positive publicity as a blanket policy would seem to indicate - they just choose not to talk to the media at all...
For those who would like to read a rather detailed analysis of the issue at hand, AAron Sanders Law has written up an article covering the case law and various aspects which would come into play (both to where it is now and in the future should a suit actually materialize out of it).
If I remember right, Lego sued Megablok last year on the basis Megablok has copied Lego's brick design. It got thrown out of court on the basis you cannot copyright a brick i.e something which has been around a long time.
I suspect the same may happen to G.W and they are just trying it on.
Also just read the BBC article. Could this be a turning point for GW? There are plenty of bigger players out there than GW and it could force them to wade into the argument. As much as they have the right to protect their IP they do need to roll their neck in abit.
Wolfstan wrote: Also just read the BBC article. Could this be a turning point for GW? There are plenty of bigger players out there than GW and it could force them to wade into the argument. As much as they have the right to protect their IP they do need to roll their neck in abit.
Unless it hits them in the pocket, and hits them hard, I doub't GW will change their current course.
The CHS case could be forcing them to be even more zealous in their protection of their IP.
Kanluwen wrote: It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.
Honest question - do you believe that Games Workshop is the only party that has the right to use the name "Space Marine" in literature?
Of course not, but I think this instance is a bit more complex than simply "GW went after this poor poor woman for using Space Marine in the title of her 'book'."
As I said earlier, the book's Amazon page was full of fake reviews heralding the book as being the "next Starship Troopers" and it kept showing up in the same search results as "Games Workshop" or "Black Library" prior to this whole debacle starting.
Some keep saying this is a result of Amazon's search engine, but it's not like I was searching for "Space Marine" where it would make sense now is it? Someone--I don't know whether it was the author, her friends, or just some jokers on the Internets--kept plugging the search engine so that "Spots the Space Marine" was showing up in searches for GW material on Amazon. That's why I made my remark that the author is looking for her 15 minutes of fame. It's a self-published serialization of her "novel" that she wrote on her LiveJournal years ago. If this whole debacle did not happen, she would just be another self-published "author" who sells maybe one or two of her books a year.
But now with this happening? She's got all these people rallying behind her, wanting to buy the book, etc.
It's awfully convenient and I'm inclined to think the worst for this particular situation--especially considering that it is not really a state secret that Games Workshop aggressively defends what they consider to be their "property" and would likely have no good will engendered towards them if they started a program where they had vans filled with puppies to be given away for free to children all over the world.
None of which matters Kan. It all comes down to GW trying to take ownership of a concept that was not theirs to begin with - everything that has happened since, the rallying cry from the sci-fi/fantasy literature fraternity, the reviews on Amazon, people changing their name on Twitter to 'Space Marine' etc have all come about as a result of that initial act.
@Kan - Actually, Games Workshop's policy of media silence kinda makes it a huge unmoving target. Extremely dangerous move in the age of the internet, when the burden of proof usually lies on the accused rather than on the accuser.
@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.
@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.
Actually, they may well be...
See, that is the problem with a blanket policy of not talking to the media at all...their silence allows us to assume pretty much anything we want to assume - and you know what? Assuming they are asserting a claim to the concept is just as valid of an assumption as assuming they are not (and based on their filings in the CHS case...it wouldn't be too much of a stretch as they are claiming things like Halberds, plasma and other common terms there).
When Marvel/DC filed to prevent the registration of a competing "super hero" mark - they had their PR person come out and talk to the media. They explained their position and why they were doing what they were doing. The told everyone the scope of their claim... With that information you could determine if you agreed or disagreed - but you were not left with much room for assuming things not in the record.
Oh, Wikipedia's list missed this use of the term...
o/~ Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
High adventure, higher pay, join the Space Marines today
And you'll get to be a hero in the sky.
— Julia Ecklar and Anne Prather, "Space Hero"
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
another generic term that's been around a long time, first time I heard of that word was in books about WW1 where the Germans called Canadians Stormtroopers, if I write a WW1 novel called, I donno The Canadian Stormtroopers, or a book about the norse Valkyrie's called, Valkyrie... there are so many generic old terms GW I guess thinks they own (wouldn't be surprised if they think they own goblin or empire)
they wouldn't go after, say Star Wars 7 for using the empire but might after me... lol
@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.
Actually, they may well be...
See, that is the problem with a blanket policy of not talking to the media at all...their silence allows us to assume pretty much anything we want to assume - and you know what? Assuming they are asserting a claim to the concept is just as valid of an assumption as assuming they are not (and based on their filings in the CHS case...it wouldn't be too much of a stretch as they are claiming things like Halberds, plasma and other common terms there).
When Marvel/DC filed to prevent the registration of a competing "super hero" mark - they had their PR person come out and talk to the media. They explained their position and why they were doing what they were doing. The told everyone the scope of their claim... With that information you could determine if you agreed or disagreed - but you were not left with much room for assuming things not in the record.
Well, the Chapterhouse lawsuit covered a wholly different ground. It's not that GW sought to ban all third party use of the word "Plasma", but the word as applied to the specific design of a miniature weapon. Other than that, I agree. By keeping silent they are allowing wild speculation and prejudice to fill in the information gap.
My point is, they might be trying to extend their trademark on the "Space Marine" term to their "X of the Space Marines" series of novels, thus banning any novels using the phrase "Space Marine" in its title. Dumb, really, as the phrase has uses and meanings beyond the brand, but hardly the "banned from being used in literature forever" it's being made look like.
Really, I doubt GW would have attempted to ban a novel called "Spots the Space Warrior" that depicted a soldier of the Space Marine Corps, even if the exact words "space marine" were used. (Ironically, the phrase isn't used in the 130-something pages of "Spots" I've read!)
Sean_OBrien wrote: For those who would like to read a rather detailed analysis of the issue at hand, AAron Sanders Law has written up an article covering the case law and various aspects which would come into play (both to where it is now and in the future should a suit actually materialize out of it).
o/~ Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
Do you wanna be a hero in the sky?
High adventure, higher pay, join the Space Marines today
And you'll get to be a hero in the sky.
— Julia Ecklar and Anne Prather, "Space Hero"
I can't place a date on it, but it's at least the early 90's...
1983 according to the magazine article I have here...distributed by Off Centaur Publications, I probably have a tape of it stuffed in a box someplace with the insert and all that too.
Kilkrazy wrote: You certainly can patent the engineering design of an innovative type of brick, and LEGO did so with their brick design.
However the patents expired, allowing the design concept to be copied by other companies. Hence Megabloks, and other similar products.
I don't now if LEGO sued Megabloks for anything.
Megabloks has been out ages so I am not sure when the patent expired. Lego did attempt to sue Megablok if I remember right, though it gone thrown out because it's just a brick and you can't copyright a brick.
@Pacific, Ouze -Yep, neither is GW claiming to hold the trademark to the "Space Marine" CONCEPT. Amazon didn't unlist Spots because it portrays some future soldier fighting a war in outer space, Actually, we know nothing of GW's claim other than Hogarth's word on it and the accompanying internet rage.
Actually, they may well be...
See, that is the problem with a blanket policy of not talking to the media at all...their silence allows us to assume pretty much anything we want to assume - and you know what? Assuming they are asserting a claim to the concept is just as valid of an assumption as assuming they are not (and based on their filings in the CHS case...it wouldn't be too much of a stretch as they are claiming things like Halberds, plasma and other common terms there).
When Marvel/DC filed to prevent the registration of a competing "super hero" mark - they had their PR person come out and talk to the media. They explained their position and why they were doing what they were doing. The told everyone the scope of their claim... With that information you could determine if you agreed or disagreed - but you were not left with much room for assuming things not in the record.
Well, the Chapterhouse lawsuit covered a wholly different ground. It's not that GW sought to ban all third party use of the word "Plasma", but the word as applied to the specific design of a miniature weapon. Other than that, I agree. By keeping silent they are allowing wild speculation and prejudice to fill in the information gap.
My point is, they might be trying to extend their trademark on the "Space Marine" term to their "X of the Space Marines" series of novels, thus banning any novels using the phrase "Space Marine" in its title. Dumb, really, as the phrase has uses and meanings beyond the brand, but hardly the "banned from being used in literature forever" it's being made look like.
Really, I doubt GW would have attempted to ban a novel called "Spots the Space Warrior" that depicted a soldier of the Space Marine Corps, even if the exact words "space marine" were used. (Ironically, the phrase isn't used in the 130-something pages of "Spots" I've read!)
The implications of asserting an unfairly broad trademark against a very particular product (as is happening in the Spots case) is rather the same regardless of the specific facts of the case. The only difference would be the product category in which the mark were used, unless of course it was also paired with a claim of trademark dilution...
Copyright relates to a particular work of art, whereas a trademark relates to an entire class of goods and potentially far beyond that. And even in the case of a copyright claim, overly broad enforcement can have a seriously deleterious impact on free expression.
How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms
swampyturtle wrote: How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms
To me the term Space Marine is too generic, it's an obvious way to describe Marines of the future. It's an easy layman's term for it. I did wonder about Colonial Marines and wondered how safe that was, but I would say that will be ok as Colonial isn't a word that would come straight to mind when referring to Marines of the future. Well in my mind it doesn't.
You know what would make an interesting campaign would be to buy paperback copies and have them all shipping to GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From Facebook:
Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.
To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.
Trademarks as opposed to use of a word in prose or everyday language are two very different things. Games Workshop is always vigilant in protecting the former, but never makes any claim to owning the latter.
swampyturtle wrote: How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms
or stormtroopers, heard GW owns that one too
Yeah, they beat the Nazi's in the original copyright case.
swampyturtle wrote: How does Lucas get away with calling his rebel commandos "space marines" ? I see this as GW going after the author because they can. It's stupid and wrong. I'm still waiting for then to take on the unholy alliance of Disney / Lucasfilms
or stormtroopers, heard GW owns that one too
Yeah, they beat the Nazi's in the original copyright case.
~
Actually Stormtroopers is derived from the German WW1 trench raider specialists called Sturmtruppen. The Nazis had nothing to do with it.
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
Kilkrazy wrote: You certainly can patent the engineering design of an innovative type of brick, and LEGO did so with their brick design.
However the patents expired, allowing the design concept to be copied by other companies. Hence Megabloks, and other similar products.
I don't now if LEGO sued Megabloks for anything.
Megabloks has been out ages so I am not sure when the patent expired. Lego did attempt to sue Megablok if I remember right, though it gone thrown out because it's just a brick and you can't copyright a brick.
That's pretty much what happened. LEGO has failed quite a few times to enforce their ownership of the brick, specifically the studs and tube interior construction.
The plot thickens when one realizes that the original LEGO brick (before stud and tube construction) is an unlicensed copy of the construction bricks made by Englishman Hillary Page of KiddiKraft. LEGO ordered a batch of samples, rounded the dimensions down to metrics and sold them with no license!
http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/ LEGO finally bought the patents to kiddiecraft bricks for a rediculusly low sum nearly 40 years later a few years before failing against TYCO and their "Superbricks". (LEGO won initially, but it was overturned.
Sorry to get all off topic, but I'm a nut for anything LEGO related, even the darker side of the story.
Well - maybe this post by GW on thier facebook page will help clear things up - maybe.
Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.
To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.
Trademarks as opposed to use of a word in prose or everyday language are two very different things. Games Workshop is always vigilant in protecting the former, but never makes any claim to owning the latter.
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
There is a big difference between having a legitimate claim and staking a claim to something. For example, in the front of the last IG Codex - they have listed for their trademarks "Rough Rider", "Devil Dog" and "Sentinel". Haven't bothered to look them up to see if they are registered or just claimed though... In either case, Sentinel has been used for decades for a variety of different items, many of which have been produced in miniature. One of the biggest names which they would be up against would be Marvel Comics and their parent company Disney (no one messes with the Mouse and lives to tell about it). Rough Riders of course have an even older history - and if you ask anyone in the US what first comes to mind, they wouldn't say Warhammer...rather something about a cavalry group that one of our Presidents was connected with (depending on their level of knowledge it may or may not get much more specific than that). And of course, Devil Dogs goes back to WWI again and has been used since as a nickname for the USMC. In the Space Marine Codex they lay claim to "Land Speeder" (LucasArts - now owned by the Mouse), "Predator" (various scout vehicles in the last 90 or so years), "Whirlwind" (common name for a BM-30) and "Chaos" (really?)
While they claim a term - it doesn't actually give them the term legally. I could claim I am 8 feet tall and can bench press a VW with my pinky finger...that doesn't make it a fact. However, until it is legally proven - current IP laws hold the specter over the artists of dealing with C&D letters, take-down orders or lawsuits.
Sean_OBrien wrote: There is a big difference between having a legitimate claim and staking a claim to something. For example, in the front of the last IG Codex - they have listed for their trademarks "Rough Rider", "Devil Dog" and "Sentinel". Haven't bothered to look them up to see if they are registered or just claimed though... In either case, Sentinel has been used for decades for a variety of different items, many of which have been produced in miniature. One of the biggest names which they would be up against would be Marvel Comics and their parent company Disney (no one messes with the Mouse and lives to tell about it). Rough Riders of course have an even older history - and if you ask anyone in the US what first comes to mind, they wouldn't say Warhammer...rather something about a cavalry group that one of our Presidents was connected with (depending on their level of knowledge it may or may not get much more specific than that). And of course, Devil Dogs goes back to WWI again and has been used since as a nickname for the USMC. In the Space Marine Codex they lay claim to "Land Speeder" (LucasArts - now owned by the Mouse), "Predator" (various scout vehicles in the last 90 or so years), "Whirlwind" (common name for a BM-30) and "Chaos" (really?)
While they claim a term - it doesn't actually give them the term legally. I could claim I am 8 feet tall and can bench press a VW with my pinky finger...that doesn't make it a fact. However, until it is legally proven - current IP laws hold the specter over the artists of dealing with C&D letters, take-down orders or lawsuits.
Unfortunately that's not uncommon. Most big companies throw out everything they can (il)legally and then hope some of it sticks if they're ever challenged to it in court.
I'd also think Games Workshop would know better than to pick on someone their own size (or larger).
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.
This actually means "If we don't do this, the next stock meeting results in our termination followed by replacement by some jerk who cares even LESS about the product than is currently in place."
since all the shareholders are either GW or investment firms, It pretty much comes down to pure cold business.
While it sucks to be in GWs position, I have no sympathy. This is what you get for trying to trademark something that is simple and then be expected to enforce it later. The moment people are tired of your crap they cry foul and you get a mess. Now its getting larger international attention in areas they are not the king of. Looks like they may end up being the little guy on this one if the Writing community wants to push forward anyways.
Looks like they realized all that though as they are trying to back away peacefully. In the bigger picture, Its reasons like this they should not (including anyone) be capable of putting a trademark on any word commonly associated with something. (i.e. Warhammer, which is a medieval weapon). Copywriting a loco that uses the name Warhammer, and I feel thats fine, its your art. Trademarking a name you invented (like Jell-o) but trademarking something like Space marine, and your just asking for trouble later. Its damn near juvenile to think you can copyright the and actually expect people to pay you or ask your permission to put it into written works.
Of course its not like GW is the first or only, So truthfully I hope both this case, and the current Marvel/DC case both win out in the end, as corporations are starting to put too much strain on new ideas. Of course these also stem from companies trying to take ownership over something that is inherently not theirs. I'm almost certain they knew the risk of this biting them in the ass somewhere down the road if they had to enforce it. In GW's case I figure they probably didn't concieve having to actually enforce it as strongly as they do these days and just wanted some IP protection from blatant rip-offs.
Does that mean that one could in theory, find a way to contact Lucasarts about the 'Land Speeder' thing, which could, in theory, get GW utterly "in deep trouble."
that would be humorous
if I make a Norse Valkyrie, and not a plane Valkyrie, I wonder if GW would come after me since they probably feel they own that word (along with Norse)
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.
Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?
Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?
It would be a bit of an unfair statement, considering some may have backed down without a fight or word. Also their statement mentions in the title, not body of text, which I have yet to see any taken down or mentioned. But be fair, GW isn't gakked in the head and going to sue Heinlein for Starship Troopers. Since this has gotten the EFF involved, and even GW has made an official statement, I would say that yes they did try to take her down, and now they are putting the blame on "duty to the faceless corporations that own our sorry tail"
Yeah but people won't take that as GW hopes, there are masses of unhappy customers and such waiting to pounce on GW, and they are I would assume since they have no net presence or feedback options, have no clue what people at large think of them, and expect everyone to blindly accept everything they say and that they have no competition...
This actually means "If we don't do this, the next stock meeting results in our termination followed by replacement by some jerk who cares even LESS about the product than is currently in place."
Do you really think a hedge fund manager gives are rats butt if GW slaps around some little guys with C&D letters and lawsuits? Nope - most of them wouldn't be able to tell you what GW does, let alone what their IP was. All they care about is that the stock performs. It would perform just as well or better if GW didn't do this sort of thing, as this sort of thing is generally bad for business - unless the whole of your business is licensing.
The "failing our duty to our shareholders" is a cop out - it gives them something to hide behind when these issues come up.
If they really were not trying to be turds and were interested in maintaining their tenuous grasp on their IP - they would have written up a contract for the author to sell her book as is for a $1 license fee. Takes 15 minutes to do, everyone is happy. Instead, they act the part of turds or imbeciles (not sure which, I leave that for you to decide) and attempt to have the book removed from sale. They even managed to succeed for a couple months time - now to see if they extend their fecalness even further by following up with an actual lawsuit, or if they remove their head from their butt and either drop it...or do the sensible thing and provide the $1 contract.
Do you really think a hedge fund manager gives are rats butt if GW slaps around some little guys with C&D letters and lawsuits? Nope - most of them wouldn't be able to tell you what GW does, let alone what their IP was.
I was kindof putting it out there as sarcasm, but it got missed. and you would be suprised what they take interest in. Its a long term investment firm, so they are a lot more scrupulous than comparitively a day trader. I've sat in (or rather phone in) on a stockholder meeting before, they have people who do nothing but stay on this stuff.
Its easier to shift the blame on the faceless corps that actually run the show. In a way they do care, as losing trademarks and copyrights will result in future sales decreses when everyone and thier dog can make a space marine mini legally. So yes, if they fail to protect thier IP a la chapterhouse, it can go bad for them in the shareholders department. and yes, the CEO/CFO/president, whatever you want to be called today fails to protect something as simple as the IP fails to do so and its public, you better believe they will move to have him removed. Shareholder meetings are generally about keeping updated on sales figures and increases, but also about important moves in business.
Does anyone think it would be interesting to have a conversation with say the operator of their local gw store, for me that would be the chicago battle bunker. The manager seems in general like a pretty nice guy, I think it would be interesting to have a beer with him outside of "GW" and hear what he really thinks of the company. Ive been a disgruntled hobbist for a while. I still love the game and ficitional setting, however I dont buy much anymore.
I mean as far as I can tell, every single person on the planet that I have spoken to about this in the past day or so, has agreed that it is absolute nonsence.
In the realm of all seriousness, I understand the right to protect intellectual property. But I think scope of said property should be part of the context, we aren't talking about the cure for cancer here.
I find it laughable that the lawyers would even entertain the idea.
lawyers are paid to do this kind of fighting, so they will entertain whatever keeps their 350/hr paycheck rolling in. Your local manager may feel the same way about GW as my local FLGS owner does. He loves GW because it keeps him in cash pretty well. They also give him good rates because he sells more, which no other mini company is even willing to do, so naturally he sells even more! so GW treats the business side pretty good.
Im sure even Matt Ward is facepalming on this one thinking it was a pretty dumb move on the legal department. Your manager will probably feel the same as well as any other grunt working for the company, but this isn't the first time any company has made a purely boneheaded move and you really cant do more than chuckle at it.
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.
Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?
Obviously, none. But you knew that anyway.
I would imagine that in this instance a self published authour would have GW's legal team salivating while going after a publishing house would leave them in the corner whining with pee dribbling out of their doggy whatsits.
If this author is lying in anyway about the take down, which I do not think is the case btw, GW could rightfully pursue them for making malicious claims and maybe libel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote: GW is pretty ballsy considering they use terms such as power armour and stormtrooper.
Your IRS is in serious trouble if they trademark the timelines.
Paitryn wrote: They also give him good rates because he sells more, which no other mini company is even willing to do, so naturally he sells even more! so GW treats the business side pretty good.
Bit off topic - but most companies give you a better rate if you sell more. If you sell enough to justify ordering direct from the manufacturer as opposed to using a distributor...they will often give you distributor pricing as well, but even discounting that - Alliance uses tiered pricing on their wholesale prices and two others will also give you an increased discount for volume.
Harriticus wrote: GW is pretty ballsy considering they use terms such as power armour and stormtrooper.
well given that the IP infringement "courts" are really just trial by correspondance for the most part, the fact that they do wont be part of the question most likely. It will come down to pure facts of the Word usage at hand.
GW coming in to swat people using anything like their copyright is pretty old actually. Look at when they went in full
l force on people using the title 'dark future' even after it was out of print.
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.
I think they have managed to do so this far because their targets in the tabletop wargames industry are usually so small and weak. It is easy to win fights if your opponent daren't even step into the ring. (Not that this invalidates GW's claims.)
The Chapter House case is the first time GW have come up against someone with the guts and legal support to come to the scratch, and GW's case looks to be in significant trouble.
GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.
If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.
Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.
GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.
Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?
Obviously, none. But you knew that anyway.
I would imagine that in this instance a self published authour would have GW's legal team salivating while going after a publishing house would leave them in the corner whining with pee dribbling out of their doggy whatsits.
If this author is lying in anyway about the take down, which I do not think is the case btw, GW could rightfully pursue them for making malicious claims and maybe libel.
Spot on, though I don't think it's just a case of GW playing bully the indie - Back when Starcraft was published Blizzard wasn't the media giant it is now. If GW was claiming said "broad trademark" over Space Marines then they wouldn't have missed the chance to litigate over it. Thing is, for every similarity between a Terran Marine and an Astartes, Blizzard's IP lawyers would have pointed at least ten features where the designs diverge or draw from common sources. GW hasn't been holding back their lawyers out of fear of or benevolence to other companies - GW's trademark claims are not so broad. They can't ban portrayals of power armored future soldiers, called "Space Marines" or not, in every media, and they know it. But then, there are few products out there that pose a direct challenge to GW's IP.
But yea, some moron probably thought an upstart writer with her inopportunely named book would be an easy picking. Wrong idea.
As for Hogarths' lying... well. The takedown notice is real, that's for sure. However, she omitted mentioning in her blog posts that GW had only complained about her book's TITLE. Furthermore, she made it appear like GW was claiming an ownership to the idea, the very concept of space marines. Without these claims her story would have gathered sympathies -independent writers, IP freedom advocates would have surely rallied to her cause- but wouldn't have generated such an echo amongst the sci-fi community. Again, she hasn't lied outright, but she has let the rage wave lift her to the top (currently ranked #13 amongst Amazon's military sci-fi athors). She has seen people flying her flag make false claims and hasn't move a finger to stop them or clarify the situation at the very least. Not the most honest thing to do.
BTW, Weeble, sorry if I sounded harsh. No offense intended.
@Kilkrazy They are not, but only if they don't conflict with an existing trademark, and even in those cases you may get a pass if you manage to prove your title holds artistic significance or is integral to the book's contents.
Of course, I think GW would have failed miserably had this case been taken to court. Mostly because Games Workshop's trademark claims are quite weak - Their registered trademark applies to miniatures, videogames and "printed matter"(?) only, and they haven't been stamping the "Space Marine" brand on ebooks long enough to establish a goodwill.
As for Hogarths' lying... well. The takedown notice is real, that's for sure. However, she omitted mentioning in her blog posts that GW had only complained about her book's TITLE. Furthermore, she made it appear like GW was claiming an ownership to the idea, the very concept of space marines. Without these claims her story would have gathered sympathies -independent writers, IP freedom advocates would have surely rallied to her cause- but wouldn't have generated such an echo amongst the sci-fi community. Again, she hasn't lied outright, but she has let the rage wave lift her to the top (currently ranked #13 amongst Amazon's military sci-fi athors). She has seen people flying her flag make false claims and hasn't move a finger to stop them or clarify the situation at the very least. Not the most honest thing to do.
BTW, Weeble, sorry if I sounded harsh. No offense intended.
We don't actually know that. If it were simply a question of the title - I would presume that an amicable agreement would likely have been able to have been achieved between now and back in December when it was first removed from the Kindle listing. We actually know next to nothing about what GW may or may not have claimed during their discussions with her and likely will not unless she releases copies of the letters/emails or if it goes to court and they are entered into evidence.
Now, GW did make a statement that they are just an innocent victim of circumstance, having to take action against the author...however, that was a CYA move based on a story they thought would die down (which is why they ignored the initial request for comment from the BBC) and didn't (so someone tossed something on Facebook).
@Sean - Occam's razor. You can't claim trademark to anything but a brand or, in this case, a title. Hogarth herself made it clear: The book had been taken down over allegations of trademark infringement.
But then...
I used to own a registered trademark. I understand the legal obligations of trademark holders to protect their IP. A Games Workshop trademark of the term “Adeptus Astartes” is completely understandable. But they’ve chosen instead to co-opt the legacy of science fiction writers who laid the groundwork for their success. Even more than I want to save Spots the Space Marine, I want someone to save all space marines for the genre I grew up reading. I want there to be a world where Heinlein and E.E. Smith’s space marines can live alongside mine and everyone else’s, and no one has the hubris to think that they can own a fundamental genre trope and deny it to everyone else.
... she goes on to suggest that GW's claim would result in them OWNING the idea, thus robbing science-fiction of one of its most beloved tropes. Basically she confuses trademark with copyright.
As for modifying the title... I think she never intended to, and I personally don't have a problem with that. She has all the right to challenge GW's trademark in court if she believes it's bogus or weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This just came up on her site...
we must continue to protect common terms by refusing to reshape our creations to placate over-zealous legal teams
Basically right. But, see, common terms CAN be trademarked. "The Avengers" is as common as "Space Marine" can be. Still, the movie was renamed "Marvel Avengers Assemble" in the UK
That the GW hate squad have rallied to the 'Defense of the Fiddler'.
Because no matter what Games Workshop does, if you criticize them, you're a "hater".
Someday Tom Kirby is going to walk onto a stage in Nottingham, and eat a live puppy; knowing full well somewhere on the internet, someone will be beating feet to post how that puppy was a jerk, and that's totally acceptable in some cultures, etc.
That the GW hate squad have rallied to the 'Defense of the Fiddler'.
Because no matter what Games Workshop does, if you criticize them, you're a "hater".
Someday Tom Kirby is going to walk onto a stage in Nottingham, and eat a live puppy; knowing full well somewhere on the internet, someone will be beating feet to post how that puppy was a jerk, and that's totally acceptable in some cultures, etc.
and some won't believe it even after all the evidence, some will blame the puppy's parents for trying to get famous
GW's motives for all this are rather suspect. They can't take on the big boys but they seem to want to have exclusivity on generic terms like Space Marine on products. So they target tiny people who can't fight back, in this case they rely upon Amazon wanting to avoid hassle and taking the book down without investigating or fighting the matter.
If GW were allowed to succeed in this strategy of claiming on something they don't own for long enough then they really would appear to be unique in using it. Then in what seems almost like circular logic, they might attempt a claim that they have the right to true sole ownership of the term on the basis that they are apparently the only person using it, never mind that they've bullied anyone else away from the term with false claims prior to this.
It's actually quite concerning when any person or company start making claims over generic language and start by picking on the smallest people they can to lay some precedent. Where's it all heading? The statement on the GW Facebook page is pathetic, they hand wave the situation claiming they need to serve shareholders. They say they don't claim ownership of the term 'space marine' but don't then explain their right to target this woman's book.
"In mid-December, Games Workshop told Amazon that I’d infringed on the trademark they’ve claimed for the term “space marine” by titling my original fiction novel Spots the Space Marine. In response, Amazon blocked the e-book from sale [original post and update]. Since then, I’ve been in discussion with Games Workshop, and following their responses, with several lawyers."
"In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats. If they choose to proceed on that belief, science fiction will lose a term that’s been a part of its canon since its inception. Space marines were around long before Games Workshop. But if GW has their way, in the future, no one will be able to use the term “space marine” without it referring to the space marines of the Warhammer 40K universe."
Then Games Workshop may want to talk to James Cameron since back in 1986 he had "Colonial Space Marines" running around kiling stuff. Though I'm pretty sure James could take GW in a lawsuit.
Normaly when GW throws its weight about, only us 'in the niche hobby' seem to find out.
But as this effected something more in the public domain, EG AMAZON BOOKS.
Lots of people use Amazon to buy books.(Compared to those that play 40k anyway.)
And even the BBC has asked GW for comment on trying to claim copyrite on general words that were used together to describe soldiers in space since 1932...
Oh dear , GW did not want to speak about it..
This results in wider negative publicity than normal 'geek whine', and so some share holders get a bit 'nervous' perhaps.
Just because T.Kirby thinks he knows best, and all his yes men want to keep their jobs . GW towers appears to be mutating into a isolated, and some could say deluded, dictatorship .With little interest-understanding of how the real world works.
Lets hope this last pubilc display of indifference/arrogance, brings King Kirby to his overdue expulsion/retirement.
T.Kirby mutating my favorite game settings into his own personal pension fund since 2002...
There's always Beyond The Gates of Antares. The best bits of Games Workshop - Rick Priestley, Bob Naismith and Paul 'Fat Bloke' Sawyer, without all the annoying corporate rubbish...
A lot of shares have been sold yesterday and the price offered was low because people did not want strongly to buy.
However, without knowing the normal volume of trading (number of shares sold per day) we cannot tell if it is merely a blip -- Kirby selling enough for his summer holiday -- or a general bailout of investors.
Another way to look at it could be, that the negative press of this has wiped out any short term gain the Warriors of Chaos release at the start of the month got them...
That the GW hate squad have rallied to the 'Defense of the Fiddler'.
That GW have sought to defend the earning potential of Black Library by targetting a title that by the authors own admission was not making money.
Roll dice and tie.
still was nice to see GW get taken down a peg
Only if you are a teenage bedroom revolutionary high on Adderol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: There's always Beyond The Gates of Antares. The best bits of Games Workshop - Rick Priestley, Bob Naismith and Paul 'Fat Bloke' Sawyer, without all the annoying corporate rubbish...
Pacific wrote: Not really understanding much about that kind of thing, what is that indicative of?
A lot of shares have been sold yesterday and the price offered was low because people did not want strongly to buy.
However, without knowing the normal volume of trading (number of shares sold per day) we cannot tell if it is merely a blip -- Kirby selling enough for his summer holiday -- or a general bailout of investors.
And why would they not strongly want to buy? Because the stock has been performing exceptionally well until the bad publicity hit. It could be a coincidence but it's unlikely.
I doubt someone like Kirby would have chosen that day to sell off his stock, as he'd be much better off waiting for it to normalise, the same with anyone else looking to cash in who is able to wait a couple of weeks. The only people willing to sell stock so far below the current asking price are those that just want rid of it for some reason.
You can specify limits on stock transactions, so whoever sold the stock was presumably happy with what they got for it. I can't imagine many people would normally accept sales for £26.50 less than the market price.
Putting it in perspective, if the value of GW dropped by ~£8M overnight, and Kiby owns 6% of the shares, he lost £480,000 in stock value since this thing dropped. It'll come back up but that's got to hurt.
After a considerable spike before, so shareholders went:
"Good dog, kill the bunny, go for it!"
Noticing the crowd gathering. "Erm ... I meant... bad dog ... let go at once!"
Compel wrote: There's always Beyond The Gates of Antares. The best bits of Games Workshop - Rick Priestley, Bob Naismith and Paul 'Fat Bloke' Sawyer, without all the annoying corporate rubbish...
... and without any restricting concepts except "Give us half a million dollar, send us ideas and we will fix something for you".
i lite this part :So Games Workshop is heartless. But Amazon is cowardly. Abjectly so. If you’d like, you can call it “extreme risk aversion” combined with a kind of extreme laziness. But cowardice fits the facts better.
Great article. What I understamd (sorry if I did the wrong conclusion, my brain is sleeping) GW did a good move to see if they have a case of copyright violation even they have no solide case. Amazone was scare to go in legal action and remove the ebook. The author got a free publicity.
IMO, nobody is the big EVIL. That just a legal move to clarify a trademark situation
There's a good phrase - not sure of its origins:
Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence. Or words to that effect.
GW have here a weak trademark, contest to which is largely inevitable. It's not that they are trying to defend it (they must), it's that some idiot thought it would be protectable in the first place. GW actually have a fairly large number of similarly weak. 'trademarks' which I can't see lasting if challenged as invalid.
winterdyne wrote: There's a good phrase - not sure of its origins:
Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence. Or words to that effect.
GW have here a weak trademark, contest to which is largely inevitable. It's not that they are trying to defend it (they must), it's that some idiot thought it would be protectable in the first place. GW actually have a fairly large number of similarly weak. 'trademarks' which I can't see lasting if challenged as invalid.
They don't have the trademark to be obliged to try and defend it though. They are hoping to expand their trademark to cover it and issued a copyright violation notice to remove something they felt violated their trademark.
The fact is, even in genres for which they do have 'Space Marine' as a registered trademark, because those exact words are in common use the mark is weak, to the point of being indefensible.
winterdyne wrote: There's a good phrase - not sure of its origins:
Never ascribe to malice that which can be ascribed to incompetence. Or words to that effect.
GW have here a weak trademark, contest to which is largely inevitable. It's not that they are trying to defend it (they must), it's that some idiot thought it would be protectable in the first place. GW actually have a fairly large number of similarly weak. 'trademarks' which I can't see lasting if challenged as invalid.
They don't have the trademark to be obliged to try and defend it though. They are hoping to expand their trademark to cover it and issued a copyright violation notice to remove something they felt violated their trademark.
This actually is the crux of the matter: right now GW believes that they are entitled to protection on a number of marks, covering a variety of images and terms that (IMO) they have no ability to protect. But as long as they continue to only enforce/issue C&D letters to companies that don't have the capacity to dispute them, they won't get to the stage of actually having these things stripped from them.
Which is, of course, why they will never intentionally involve themselves in an action with, say, Blizzard-Activision, despite the similarities and origins of materials. GW's stance relies on picking on the little guys.
To add, this is worth a read. Specifically, bearing in mind the usage in SF related literature and games of the words 'space marine'.
Read part 1, section 1, paragraphs 3c and 3d. Page 8.
As I have stated in the past I dot not and will not buy shares in any company that I deemed, have a suspect financial history.
40000 shares is a drop in a bucket compared to 1995900 shares traded on Jan 24th 2013 at 655 per share.
And the trading session was flat as far as price per share on that day.
People who are the financial professionals should look at the large trade on that day and see which hedge fund made the trade.
As far as GW and the way they do business? This is not the first time that they have done this and it won't be the last.
There are smart and easy ways for corporations to work with the cottage industry and make a profit. The problem is that the mindset of today's society is short term profits/gratification and "screw the future" mentality.
It might be your first thought, but it isn't the only use of the term.
That the term can be used to explicitly describe a product is the key point. Coca-Cola cannot trademark the term 'Cola Drink', it is simply too descriptive. So they don't. GW However have tried to hold a trademark on a generic term, which you can do in only a few limited ways.
That the GW hate squad have rallied to the 'Defense of the Fiddler'.
That GW have sought to defend the earning potential of Black Library by targetting a title that by the authors own admission was not making money.
Roll dice and tie.
still was nice to see GW get taken down a peg
Only if you are a teenage bedroom revolutionary high on Adderol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: There's always Beyond The Gates of Antares. The best bits of Games Workshop - Rick Priestley, Bob Naismith and Paul 'Fat Bloke' Sawyer, without all the annoying corporate rubbish...
Yet.
no because I don't like them, but disliking GW is a crime to some of you, so you resort to childish name calling and call me a teenager high on adderol (whatever that is) because I like to see GW fail
you truly took the high road here
hellpato wrote: Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.
Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.
Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!
Confusion.....maybe?
As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.
Games Workshop and their creations have a significantly smaller degree of name recognition that you might believe.
My previous D&D group consisted of eight people; I was the only person who played any sort of table top wargame and the only one who knew anything about GW. This was a group of people that had been playing D&D and other RPG's since the early 1990's when we were in college together.
If you do not regularly patronize a table top gaming store, the only likely way you're going to have heard of GW is from a friend telling you about it. GW doesn't advertise outside of their own stores and White Dwarf. A person might have discovered GW from their black library books if they happened to wander down to the end of the bookstore shelving to get to the serial novels and pick one up at random.
In the larger Sci-Fi/Fantasy world, GW is literally a blip on the radar. For example, I did a bit of research, and some of the iconic science fiction titles, like Orwell's 1984, have sold more copies by themselves than the Black Library has sold in years and years, all titles combined.
By best estimates, there are only a few million players of GW games in the entire planet. The last major world-wide campaign that GW held, The Eye of Terror campaign, had approximately a half million people participate, world wide. World of Warcraft, in comparison, peaked at somewhere around 11 million subscribers at one point, and that was just a single one of the MMO's that were out there at the time, and didn't include all the people who liked reading Sci-Fi/Fantast, but didn't want to play an MMO (like myself).
Don't know how many times I have to repeat this: A trademark does not give its owner any rights to an idea. Thinking that by taking down Spots GW was claiming ownership over half the military sci-fi genre is mostly male bovine droppings.
"Homeworld" is a trademark owned by THQ, now possibly Sega, covering novels amongst many others. Does this mean we can't mention the word "Homeworld" in any works of fiction? NO.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: Don't know how many times I have to repeat this: A trademark does not give its owner any rights to an idea. Thinking that by taking down Spots GW was claiming ownership over half the military sci-fi genre is mostly male bovine droppings.
"Homeworld" is a trademark owned by THQ, now possibly Sega, covering novels amongst many others. Does this mean we can't mention the word "Homeworld" in any works of fiction? NO.
GW tried and have failed to "take down" Spots. It is back on sale following pro bono legal intervention by the EFF.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: Don't know how many times I have to repeat this: A trademark does not give its owner any rights to an idea. Thinking that by taking down Spots GW was claiming ownership over half the military sci-fi genre is mostly male bovine droppings.
"Homeworld" is a trademark owned by THQ, now possibly Sega, covering novels amongst many others. Does this mean we can't mention the word "Homeworld" in any works of fiction? NO.
GW tried and have failed to "take down" Spots. It is back on sale following pro bono legal intervention by the EFF.
Yes I know, I've keeping track of this. But I'm still amazed to see that the underlying falsehood under all this keeps popping up over and over again.
I see two totally different things behind the "Spots" affair.
1) GW's absurd attempt to establish an IP beachhead on the ebook category by threatening an inde on extremely weak legal grounds.
2) Said indie author's claim that GW's trademark would forbid any science-fiction writers from using the space marine trope.
GW have failed to assert their claim, but mostly because, as many have said, their trademark doesn't extend to ebooks and their presence on the ebook market is marginal. Not because the trademark was diluted (dilution requires many trademarks in non-competing markets) nor because common terms and phrases cannot be trademarked.
Also, the fact that GW has failed does not make the autor's statement any true. She could just have defended her legitimate right to use the "space marine" phrase in a field where no conflicting trademarks existed.
FInally, It may seem that I'm a GW fanboy whiteknighting for them. Kinda not. It's just that Twitter-spawned instant consensus scares me. No matter how many times you tweet a false statement doesn't make it true.
SPECIAL EDITION*** On-Air Episode #4: Maggie Hogarth & Games Workshop Maggie Hogarth does an exclusive interview with Gamers on Games about the "space marine" trademark situation with Games Workshop.
A lot of shares have been sold yesterday and the price offered was low because people did not want strongly to buy.
However, without knowing the normal volume of trading (number of shares sold per day) we cannot tell if it is merely a blip -- Kirby selling enough for his summer holiday -- or a general bailout of investors.
I sold about half my holdings in GW yesterday; dumped it in a nice little bio-tech stock and ended the day up a fair amount.
A lot of shares have been sold yesterday and the price offered was low because people did not want strongly to buy.
However, without knowing the normal volume of trading (number of shares sold per day) we cannot tell if it is merely a blip -- Kirby selling enough for his summer holiday -- or a general bailout of investors.
I sold about half my holdings in GW yesterday; dumped it in a nice little bio-tech stock and ended the day up a fair amount.
Smart. Very smart in investing in the biotech industry. I'm dabbling in the health care stocks myself (as well as other kinds of stock). Not too much though as my specialty is in real estate.
I invest small amounts into companies just because I can (A) Go to a casino and gamble my "play money" away or (B) I can invest in the stock market, which to me is a form of legalized gambling. . Keeps my mind in shape so to speak.
Back on topic. Every corporation has a right to defend their IP's and trademarks. But there is a line between defending and out right aggression.
GW has a tendency to cross that line a lot.
Kroothawk wrote: SPECIAL EDITION*** On-Air Episode #4: Maggie Hogarth & Games Workshop Maggie Hogarth does an exclusive interview with Gamers on Games about the "space marine" trademark situation with Games Workshop.
Wow well at least if something comes from all of this, she'll have enough money to get that beard dealt with.
hellpato wrote: Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.
Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.
Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!
Confusion.....maybe?
As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.
In a small niche sub-genre of sci-fi where GW is king, maybe...but GW is not well known outside of gaming. I work at a library and when I asked the old sci-fi grognards what they thought of when I said space marine they immediately did not say 40k or anything related to it; in fact they didn't even know about this whole fiasco. Granted, your mileage may vary but I doubt it.
Amusingly, the extra news associated with discovering that 40K is in fact a minor niche may have enhanced its profile more than the past 25 years of assiduous (cof cof) marketing by GW.
Sadly, in a negative way, though they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Kilkrazy wrote: Amusingly, the extra news associated with discovering that 40K is in fact a minor niche may have enhanced its profile more than the past 25 years of assiduous (cof cof) marketing by GW.
Sadly, in a negative way, though they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity.
True.
Yeah, I would imagine this is not the kind of publicity a company wants; and I do think there is such a thing as bad publicity. I know upon hearing of this news from me the librarian who handles the sci-fi section has decided to not order anymore GW novels until this dies down. They don't want to purchase books that will not circulate.
Lanceradvanced wrote: I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..
So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..
Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..
Lanceradvanced wrote: I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..
So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..
Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..
But does that affect "Inferno Blast?"
"Inferno" is likely a reference to the now defunct magazine of the same name published by Games Workshop which was used for short stories and novellas, not the template.
If you watch that interview with her you can tell see is holding back, which spells "here's some money, please shut up" and they allowed the book to be sold. Guess GW didnt like the attention of the BBC showing up to their door.
Lanceradvanced wrote: I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..
So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..
Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..
Fun fact: The Dark Angels Chapter and their primarch owe their names to the 19th century poet Lionel Pigot Johnson, whose literary masterpiece was a poem called "Dark Angel."
Lanceradvanced wrote: I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..
So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..
Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..
Fun fact: The Dark Angels Chapter and their primarch owe their names to the 19th century poet Lionel Pigot Johnson, whose literary masterpiece was a poem called "Dark Angel."
I wrote the entire poem on my local GW's facebook page when the Dark Angels were redone... no one understood why
