Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 12:03:21


Post by: Thairne


Just like Astartes, they possibly browbeat the next good channel into submission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-54J5Pu4bs

He had some very good and lengthy animations, mostly, but not exclusively, involving the DKoK.

If anyone has those saved somewhere...


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 12:15:24


Post by: BertBert


This pastebin was floating around yesterday, but I'm not sure if the vids can still be extracted:

https://pastebin.com/XmYSLpyW


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 12:23:21


Post by: Amishprn86


Theres only like 10 videos on that channel, wtf channel is that lol.

EDIT: I see he removed all his 40k stuff, did GW ask him to?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 12:29:12


Post by: Gert


When was Astartes "browbeaten into submission" by GW? How is someone being given the chance to work for the company that owns the IP they are making content with a bad thing?
I saw Siege, the guy has talent. If they can get paid to work in an official capacity where their work is protected by IP law then I say that's a good thing. You all do remember the Astartes channel got hacked, sold to some random, and took months for the owner to get it back?
A future employer is going to see working for GW more positively than if the guy was doing animation as a hobby.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 13:32:10


Post by: Thairne


POSSIBLY browbeaten. Dont leave out important words.
Rumours are they put a gun to the artists head that left them 2 options - to work for GW and accept their terms or get a C&D. Thats not "given a chance", that's essentially blackmail.
Its just as possible as they offered so much money that they simply HAD to agree to not be stupid, but my money is rather on the first.

Vids unfortunately turned to private... :(


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 14:01:26


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Carrot and stick is a tried and true method of persuasion.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 14:39:18


Post by: Gert


Its not blackmail if someone is making money off of their IP. Its GW exercising its rights as the owner of the IP to prevent others from profiting from it.
As for the rumours, all I ever saw was people wildly speculating about the situation then due to the nature of the Internet, it became a possible truth.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 14:42:44


Post by: fraser1191


I'm pretty sure a C&D can only be handed out if he's making money off the IP.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 14:55:07


Post by: Voss


 Thairne wrote:
POSSIBLY browbeaten. Dont leave out important words.
Rumours are they put a gun to the artists head that left them 2 options - to work for GW and accept their terms or get a C&D. Thats not "given a chance", that's essentially blackmail.

It isn't even vaguely, that's honestly absurd.

Blackmail involves extorting money from someone or ruining them by way of reputation. It doesn't involve offering them a job or only pulling specific content (they're free to keep doing what they do with other properties, or their own).
These videos are essentially the modern equivalent of a demo tape or art portfolio.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 15:05:57


Post by: Wayniac


 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm pretty sure a C&D can only be handed out if he's making money off the IP.
which still wouldn't prevent threatening it to get them to stop, which is usually the point in the first place


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 15:06:07


Post by: beast_gts


 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm pretty sure a C&D can only be handed out if he's making money off the IP.
They make money off their YouTube channel and Patreon.

 Gert wrote:
How is someone being given the chance to work for the company that owns the IP they are making content with a bad thing?
Remember - if you don't hate GW you're a White Knight whale shill (or something like that)...


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 15:15:53


Post by: Thairne


 Gert wrote:
As for the rumours, all I ever saw was people wildly speculating about the situation then due to the nature of the Internet, it became a possible truth.


Thats exactly what a rumour is. Speculation and possible truth.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 15:27:25


Post by: Kanluwen


 Thairne wrote:
 Gert wrote:
As for the rumours, all I ever saw was people wildly speculating about the situation then due to the nature of the Internet, it became a possible truth.


Thats exactly what a rumour is. Speculation and possible truth.

A rumour is neither of those things?
It's people attempting to explain away events, often with little to no knowledge of the situation.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 15:39:02


Post by: Tyran


 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm pretty sure a C&D can only be handed out if he's making money off the IP.

It is YouTube, no need for a C&D when a DMCA complaint will work just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Thairne wrote:
POSSIBLY browbeaten. Dont leave out important words.
Rumours are they put a gun to the artists head that left them 2 options - to work for GW and accept their terms or get a C&D. Thats not "given a chance", that's essentially blackmail.
Its just as possible as they offered so much money that they simply HAD to agree to not be stupid, but my money is rather on the first.

Vids unfortunately turned to private... :(

Probably a combination of both, sticks and carrots work best together.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 16:34:11


Post by: Insectum7


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Carrot and stick is a tried and true method of persuasion.
^This


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 16:57:05


Post by: Karol


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Carrot and stick is a tried and true method of persuasion.


That kind of a depends who holds the stick. Because I can tell you that method was tried with us for over 180 years, and it did not work very well.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 17:04:22


Post by: Thairne


My personal stance on why I dont like this development at all is basically best said in a comment I found:


In general its amazing whenever creators get opportunities with the companies whose products they make content for. But with GW its very dubious when they force said creators to cut off all communication with their fans, and force them to remove all their hard work only for it to be Edited™ and posted on their fringe site where only fans already dedicated to the community will be able to find them, instead of increasing exposure to the fandom like these works of art did and GW never could. GW keeps shooting itself in the foot, and its getting pretty tiring


They
- shut them down, forcing removal from YT
- thereby reduce exposure
- force you on their site where it gets hidden under a bullet point
- seemingly forbid them to communicate with the fans
- dabble in the process and alter the works, as seen in Astartes (not just sound choices via copyright, but speeding up scenes as well)
- probably replace artistic visions with corporate design
- slow down the releases due to meddling from higher ups

and so far we have not seen anything positive come from it. Which might come, but... I doubt it somehow.
Not white/blackknighting, thats just what I see and fear. Yes, it's their IP, but forcing everything under their control is bad for us as consumers.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 17:09:40


Post by: Karol


You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 17:12:14


Post by: Insectum7


Karol wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Carrot and stick is a tried and true method of persuasion.


That kind of a depends who holds the stick. Because I can tell you that method was tried with us for over 180 years, and it did not work very well.
Heh. Not to be glib but they were offering bad or nonexistant carrots.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 17:19:14


Post by: tauist


I don't understand all this fuss tbh. Anyone who deliberately makes a 40K animation is using GW's protected IP.. If they want a sustainable way to do their animations, they should come up with their own IP, it's as simple as that really. If the animation can't stand on its own merits without having "correct" looking weapons and uniforms etc, there was never any substantial story there to begin with.

I think the only "legit" way for these animations to remain available is for GW to "licence" them..



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 18:33:17


Post by: Tyran


 Thairne wrote:
My personal stance on why I dont like this development at all is basically best said in a comment I found:

They
- shut them down, forcing removal from YT
- thereby reduce exposure
- force you on their site where it gets hidden under a bullet point
- seemingly forbid them to communicate with the fans
- dabble in the process and alter the works, as seen in Astartes (not just sound choices via copyright, but speeding up scenes as well)
- probably replace artistic visions with corporate design
- slow down the releases due to meddling from higher ups

and so far we have not seen anything positive come from it. Which might come, but... I doubt it somehow.
Not white/blackknighting, thats just what I see and fear. Yes, it's their IP, but forcing everything under their control is bad for us as consumers.


GW should put these videos in an official 40k YouTube animation channel, in that I agree.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 18:41:32


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Thairne wrote:
My personal stance on why I dont like this development at all is basically best said in a comment I found:


In general its amazing whenever creators get opportunities with the companies whose products they make content for. But with GW its very dubious when they force said creators to cut off all communication with their fans, and force them to remove all their hard work only for it to be Edited™ and posted on their fringe site where only fans already dedicated to the community will be able to find them, instead of increasing exposure to the fandom like these works of art did and GW never could. GW keeps shooting itself in the foot, and its getting pretty tiring


They
- shut them down, forcing removal from YT
- thereby reduce exposure unconfirmed bias, particularly with how YouTube’s algorithm works
- force you on their site where it gets hidden under a bullet point
- seemingly forbid them to communicate with the fans unconfirmed bias
- dabble in the process and alter the works, as seen in Astartes (not just sound choices via copyright, but speeding up scenes as well) unconfirmed bias
- probably replace artistic visions with corporate design unconfirmed bias
- slow down the releases due to meddling from higher ups [unconfirmed bias, particularly in attributing any perceived delays to shadowy higher ups.[/i]

and so far we have not seen anything positive come from it. Which might come, but... I doubt it somehow.
Not white/blackknighting, thats just what I see and fear. Yes, it's their IP, but forcing everything under their control is bad for us as consumers.


There’s a fair amount of bias in your assumptions. I’ve italicised my picks. Particularly the changes to Astartes. We don’t know whether it was the chap behind it taking the chance to spit, polish and rejig scenes he wasn’t happy with.

Remember. The IP belongs to GW. That leaves GW with two options.

1. Take it all down and bury it, never to see the light of day again.
2. Hire the person making it,

They’re going with option 2. Take that win, because the alternative is we get nothing.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 18:45:22


Post by: Thairne


Fair enough.
I'm not writing a doctor's thesis here, I'm expressing, as said, what I see and fear.

And admittedly I've currently a lot of beef with GW with some personal matter with bad communications, bad orders and things you hear from inside guys that just make you shake your head. And last but not least, the entire lack of any and all information about the AdMech Codex. So I am definately VERY inclined to have a negative outlook on GW, yet those fears aren't new, I had them since Astartes got gobbled.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 18:51:59


Post by: BlackoCatto


"You take down all your GW stuff on your channel and work for us.... or we bust your kneecaps, good deal?" -GW probably.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 18:58:31


Post by: BertBert


 BlackoCatto wrote:
"You take down all your GW stuff on your channel and work for us.... or we bust your kneecaps, good deal?" -GW probably.


It would be interesting to know what these kinds of deal actually mean. Do you think this dude and the maker of astartes are actual employees with a fixed salary now, or did they just join a pool of affiliated artists who work on a project-by-project basis?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 19:03:17


Post by: Cronch


 tauist wrote:
I don't understand all this fuss tbh. Anyone who deliberately makes a 40K animation is using GW's protected IP.. If they want a sustainable way to do their animations, they should come up with their own IP, it's as simple as that really. If the animation can't stand on its own merits without having "correct" looking weapons and uniforms etc, there was never any substantial story there to begin with.

I think the only "legit" way for these animations to remain available is for GW to "licence" them..


I fully agree. Fans should stop making fan comics, fan animations, or writing fan fiction in an IP that wholly belongs to GW.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 19:10:02


Post by: Tyran


It is more that fans should be aware that if a fan product gets really popular, it is going to attract GW's attention. The same goes for any other IP and their respective corporations BTW.

Although fan fiction has the dubious advantage that generates no profit (unlike animation on YouTube) and has a very niche reach, so corporations don't bother unless the author really has something against fan fiction.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 19:15:18


Post by: Mr. Grey


Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



I'm getting really, really tired of this argument that just because Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 IP draws inspiration from dozens of different sources means they have no ground to stand on when it comes to defending their IP. I hate to tell you this, but surprise surprise, a LOT of media is at least somewhat derivative and draws its inspiration from things that came before it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 19:35:00


Post by: Karol


I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 19:46:02


Post by: Sterling191


Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 19:46:17


Post by: Mr. Burning


 Mr. Grey wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



I'm getting really, really tired of this argument that just because Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 IP draws inspiration from dozens of different sources means they have no ground to stand on when it comes to defending their IP. I hate to tell you this, but surprise surprise, a LOT of media is at least somewhat derivative and draws its inspiration from things that came before it.



It does get tiresome. IP HAS to be protected through legal means such as C&D'ing the poor little darlings making fan art and videos etc.

It sucks but the upside is some sort of consistency and continued demand for fan based projects.......




SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:11:29


Post by: Karol


Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


No it is not. But I don't like grandstanding on a moral level from people that come from countries that sold us in to slavery 3 times, while getting rich by stealing everything, including nailed down things, now telling us that because of moral reasons we are not allowed to do the same. which more or less turns has the result of turning us in to a part of the world that will never catch up, specially for countries that happen to not sleep on raw materials or oil. It even goes double considering the fact that both okey when Korea and China did the same thing. Why shouldn't we get rich too.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:19:33


Post by: Sterling191


Karol wrote:

No it is not. But I don't like grandstanding on a moral level from people that come from countries that sold us in to slavery 3 times, while getting rich by stealing everything, including nailed down things, now telling us that because of moral reasons we are not allowed to do the same. which more or less turns has the result of turning us in to a part of the world that will never catch up, specially for countries that happen to not sleep on raw materials or oil. It even goes double considering the fact that both okey when Korea and China did the same thing. Why shouldn't we get rich too.


You...understand that Games Workshop isn't the British Empire right?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:20:12


Post by: yukishiro1


Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


It's not "felony theft." Please quit spreading this factually wrong nonsense. IP infringement is not theft; if it was, you wouldn't need to call it IP infringement, you could just call it theft instead. We have IP infringement laws precisely because it is not theft.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:28:59


Post by: Sterling191


yukishiro1 wrote:


It's not "felony theft."


Yes, it is. Selling counterfeit goods and IP theft are both felonies in the EU and US.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:34:14


Post by: yukishiro1


There is no crime of "IP theft."

The reason we have IP infringement laws is because you cannot prosecute someone for theft because, well, it isn't theft. Theft requires the taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner; IP infringement is not theft because there is no taking, merely a reproduction.

If you could walk down the street and point your magic wand at someone's car and duplicate it, it wouldn't be theft to then take the duplicate and drive off in it. This is the same reason that IP infringement isn't theft.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:38:06


Post by: Sterling191


yukishiro1 wrote:
There is no crime of "IP theft."


Yes, there is. 18 USC 1831, Economic espionage. 18 USC 1832, Theft of trade secrets. Two readily identifiable examples in US law.

You're so caught up on copyright infringment as a novelty that you're transferring the notion onto adjacent, and far more serious, acts that you willfully ignore. But just because you don't understand the spectrum doesnt mean it doesnt exist.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:45:38


Post by: yukishiro1


It's hard to tell if you're being serious here. Trade secret laws are not the sort of IP infringement laws we are all talking about, they are trade secret laws. When we talk about IP infringement, nobody's talking about some eastern european sneaking into GW's nottingham HQ and copying the molds or the secret blueprints for 10th edition.

The post you responded to was referring to copyright (or possibly trademark) infringement in the form of someone independently creating infringing miniatures; you stated that was "felony theft," which is factually wrong.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:49:59


Post by: Sterling191


yukishiro1 wrote:
It's hard to tell if you're being serious here.


And it's just as hard to tell why you're so focused on defending blatant theft. I have a few theories.

yukishiro1 wrote:
When we talk about IP infringement, nobody's talking about some eastern european sneaking into GW's nottingham HQ and copying the molds or the secret blueprints for 10th edition.


Except of course that's not what's being discussed here.

yukishiro1 wrote:

The post you responded to was referring to copyright (or possibly trademark) infringement in the form of someone independently creating infringing miniatures; you stated that was "felony theft," which is factually wrong.


Wrong. They were describing individuals who literally use GW products to create counterfeit copies. That squarely falls under anti-counterfeiting laws, and just as readily trade secret protections depending on the method of reproduction.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:53:11


Post by: ERJAK


 Thairne wrote:
Just like Astartes, they possibly browbeat the next good channel into submission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-54J5Pu4bs

He had some very good and lengthy animations, mostly, but not exclusively, involving the DKoK.

If anyone has those saved somewhere...


First of all, this is Fox News meets National Enquirer level reporting. Figure out a way to work 'the libs!' in there and you'll be making the rounds on breitbart by tomorrow.

Secondly, here's the deal:

If they were monetized: "oh no, now he won't be able to make money off of someone else's IP! The horror of not being allowed blatant ripoffs!"

If the weren't monetized: Shadier, but still ultimately their prerogative since there's no way a straight up animated DKoK series would fall under fair use.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:53:50


Post by: yukishiro1


Sterling191 wrote:

Wrong. They were describing individuals who literally use GW products to create counterfeit copies. That squarely falls under anti-counterfeiting laws, and just as readily trade secret protections depending on the method of reproduction.


Wrong both factually and legally. Here is the post:

Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


This is clearly referring to models independently designed, but that infringe on GW's copyright, not on copying miniatures. But even if it was actual copying, copying is not theft of trade secrets. Please read the laws you cited, this is very simple stuff:

(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;


A model is not a trade secret. Stealing GW's molds is theft of trade secrets; making your own molds using GW miniatures is not.

I am not defending anything, I am merely calling out your factually and legally inaccurate claims. Just because IP infringement isn't theft doesn't mean it is ok, but it does mean you shouldn't use the term theft in order to try to make it sound worse.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:57:29


Post by: Sterling191


yukishiro1 wrote:

This is clearly referring to models independently designed, but that infringe on GW's copyright, not on copying miniatures. But even if it was actual copying, copying is not theft of trade secrets. Please read the laws you cited, this is very simple stuff:

(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;


A model is not a trade secret. Stealing GW's molds is theft of trade secrets; making your own molds using GW miniatures is not.


Thanks for highlighting the important section, and for torpedoing your own argument. Making ones own molds from the product firmly meets those definitions, as it is neither generally known to, nor readily ascertainable by proper means how to make an injection molded plastic or resin model by Joe on the street.

You might know how to do that. That doesnt make the legal definition any less clear however.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 20:57:36


Post by: ERJAK


Karol wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


No it is not. But I don't like grandstanding on a moral level from people that come from countries that sold us in to slavery 3 times, while getting rich by stealing everything, including nailed down things, now telling us that because of moral reasons we are not allowed to do the same. which more or less turns has the result of turning us in to a part of the world that will never catch up, specially for countries that happen to not sleep on raw materials or oil. It even goes double considering the fact that both okey when Korea and China did the same thing. Why shouldn't we get rich too.


Wait, when did GW sell you into slavery 3 times? Or did you get so lost in your moralist soapboxing that you completely forgot what the feth is even being discussed?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 21:10:24


Post by: yukishiro1


Sterling191 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:

This is clearly referring to models independently designed, but that infringe on GW's copyright, not on copying miniatures. But even if it was actual copying, copying is not theft of trade secrets. Please read the laws you cited, this is very simple stuff:

(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;


A model is not a trade secret. Stealing GW's molds is theft of trade secrets; making your own molds using GW miniatures is not.


Thanks for highlighting the important section, and for torpedoing your own argument. Making ones own molds from the product firmly meets those definitions, as it is neither generally known to, nor readily ascertainable by proper means how to make an injection molded plastic or resin model by Joe on the street.

You might know how to do that. That doesnt make the legal definition any less clear however.


That's a remarkable misreading of the text. I cited the definition to show that the model itself is not a trade secret. If you take the model itself and create a mold from it, that isn't theft of a trade secret because you aren't stealing or copying anything that is secret. GW's mold is a trade secret, but if you can produce your own mold not through any sort of illegal copying of original mold but merely from the model itself, there is no appropriation of the trade secret. In the same way that stealing GW's STL file would be theft of a trade secret, but making your own STL by looking at a GW model is not. Or that stealing someone's recipe for cake is theft of trade secrets, but buying one of their cakes and reverse engineering the recipe is not.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the Supreme Court of the United States has to say on the subject:

A trade secret law, however, does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is, by starting with the known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture.


Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476, fn. 5. (1974)

IP infringement is not theft. Making your own mold from a miniature is not theft of trade secrets. Please stop making these legally incorrect statements, all they do is confuse the discussion.




SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 21:39:48


Post by: Gert


The only reason GW would have opened a dialog with SODAZ is if they were:
A- Monetising their work through YT.
B- Monetising their work through Patreon/other funding site.
C- They were impressed by the creators work and instead of annihilating it from orbit, gave them a chance to work with the IP at its source.
GW isn't staffed by cavemen who don't know how to use the Internet. Many staff are friendly with popular content creators and will absolutely see any good quality animation work if it's talked about on social media. If a project garners attention then GW will likely find out and either choose to C&D, which btw has been pretty rare recently, or work within their rights as IP owners to make the project work for them.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 21:40:35


Post by: Thairne


ERJAK wrote:


First of all, this is Fox News meets National Enquirer level reporting. Figure out a way to work 'the libs!' in there and you'll be making the rounds on breitbart by tomorrow.


I'm sorry a quick forum post about fan art about plastic men does not satisfy your standards for actual, neutral and professional journalism...


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 21:43:53


Post by: Tyran


 Gert wrote:
The only reason GW would have opened a dialog with SODAZ is if they were:
A- Monetising their work through YT.

Even if SODAZ channel wasn't monetized, there is still the issue that YT gets an income from ads, so still a copyright violation.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 21:51:11


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 Tyran wrote:

Even if SODAZ channel wasn't monetized, there is still the issue that YT gets an income from ads, so still a copyright violation.

Also true.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 22:41:24


Post by: Briancj


Psst.

If you allow unauthorized use of your IP...you can lose your rights to that IP, as lawyers can now successfully argue you allowed people to use it by your inaction. This applies to both Trademarks and Copyright.

You may not like independent fan creators getting roflstomped, but this is the reality of IP law.

Anything else is wishful thinking in a late-stage capitalism world.







SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/13 23:13:12


Post by: yukishiro1


 Briancj wrote:
Psst.

If you allow unauthorized use of your IP...you can lose your rights to that IP, as lawyers can now successfully argue you allowed people to use it by your inaction. This applies to both Trademarks and Copyright.

You may not like independent fan creators getting roflstomped, but this is the reality of IP law.

Anything else is wishful thinking in a late-stage capitalism world.



This is largely another of those pernicious myths people bandy about on the internet and confuse one another with. It is essentially impossible to waive your copyright any way but through explicit words to that effect, and you certainly don't do it by failing to pursue violators. In theory, the amount of damages you can recover for copyright infringement could be diminished if your work is comprehensively infringed by others, but that has nothing to do with your enforcement per se, and when GW acts to protect its copyrights, it's almost always simply about stopping the infringement and almost never about getting a monetary judgment, so this element is largely irrelevant.

Trademarks can theoretically lose their protection if they are not defended, but what GW has to be worried about on that front is not fan videos. If it was, they'd be having their trademarks invalidated simply because youtube channels post battle reports that use the trademarked terms. In general, the way you lose trademark protection is if you fail to stop your term from becoming used generally to refer to other similar products (Kleenex being the best example), not because people use your trademarked term to refer to your products. In other words, a guy making GW-themed youtube videos is not any threat to GW's trademark - what would be (if they were popular enough) is a guy making his own Adeptus Astartes videos that were not set in GW's universe but in their own universe.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 00:06:50


Post by: waefre_1


Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 00:22:56


Post by: Tyran


 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


Without the compliance of the creator, GW cannot "take" whatever Astartes gets, but it can sue the creator for copyright infringement.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 00:38:41


Post by: Galas


 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


We have the big mouse to thank for that.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 01:27:37


Post by: PondaNagura


I have no clue who SODAZ is, but I wish them luck.
*nevermind, now I remember the video of theirs I saw, good stuff.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


What Tyran said.
Even still, GW wasn't an active participants in the production but let's not ignore the literal design of the actual armored characters used.
Interestingly enough ~98% of the rest of that series was original content; from the environments, characters, human/alien soldiers and story, sound and VFX, etc. almost none of it has canonical 40k universe precedence....except for the GW-power armor characters used and maybe one of the ships.
Outside of those armors they could tell the exact same story with proxy not-quite marines and heck, still call it Astarte given it's a millennia old Mesopotamian goddess name, and it'd be harder for GW to have made a legal case against having the content pulled or them wanting to patreon all the effort. It's not like the creator is incapable or lacking the imagination. But would it still have garnered the same kind of fan-reaction/reputation it does? I don't know.
I don't quite remember whether the pervasive rumor of starcraft's origin related to 40k game is true or not, but even with the parallels (or likely common inspirations) that game universe can and does stand on its own. I would have loved to see the fuller story Syama Pedersen wanted to tell, but I'm sure whatever work he does for GW will be damn good too
.I'm also not saying people shouldn't make fan art, regardless of media, but it's hard to pretend one isn't knowingly piggybacking off of established work when they risk monetizing direct copies for their own end (and I plea the 5th).


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 02:00:39


Post by: ClockworkZion


 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm pretty sure a C&D can only be handed out if he's making money off the IP.

He has a Patreon to support his animations and IIRC he uses DoW models which means he's using assets that belong to someone else to make money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
 BlackoCatto wrote:
"You take down all your GW stuff on your channel and work for us.... or we bust your kneecaps, good deal?" -GW probably.


It would be interesting to know what these kinds of deal actually mean. Do you think this dude and the maker of astartes are actual employees with a fixed salary now, or did they just join a pool of affiliated artists who work on a project-by-project basis?

Likely licensed employees with an IP rights clause in their contract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
 Mr. Grey wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



I'm getting really, really tired of this argument that just because Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 IP draws inspiration from dozens of different sources means they have no ground to stand on when it comes to defending their IP. I hate to tell you this, but surprise surprise, a LOT of media is at least somewhat derivative and draws its inspiration from things that came before it.



It does get tiresome. IP HAS to be protected through legal means such as C&D'ing the poor little darlings making fan art and videos etc.

It sucks but the upside is some sort of consistency and continued demand for fan based projects.......

Yeah, worst part about IP law is if you don't try to legally enforce it at all times it can create legal precedent which bites you in the ass when you need to enforce it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 02:24:33


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Thairne wrote:
POSSIBLY browbeaten. Dont leave out important words.
Rumours are they put a gun to the artists head that left them 2 options - to work for GW and accept their terms or get a C&D. Thats not "given a chance", that's essentially blackmail.
Its just as possible as they offered so much money that they simply HAD to agree to not be stupid, but my money is rather on the first.

Vids unfortunately turned to private... :(


Thats neither browbeating nor blackmail, nor is it "having a gun held to your head". A C&D is meaningless, other than being a notice that you're in violation of someones intellectual property and continued violation could result in legal action. Do you know what the consequences and ramifications of receiving a C&D are? N-O-T-H-I-N-G. These creators were given the option to have their skills and talent recognized - probably launching a few peoples careers in the process - and to make some money while doing so, or simply to stop making animations based on GWs IP and go on living their life as normal working on other projects. Theres no gun there, theres no blackmail there, nor is there any "browbeating" there. And that assumes the *RUMOR* is even true in the first place, and not simply some misanthrope idly speculating negative context into something that is otherwise a huge positive in all of these guys lives - every one of these animators has jumped at the opportunity and expressed nothing but excitement about it.

My personal stance on why I dont like this development at all is basically best said in a comment I found:


In general its amazing whenever creators get opportunities with the companies whose products they make content for. But with GW its very dubious when they force said creators to cut off all communication with their fans, and force them to remove all their hard work only for it to be Edited™ and posted on their fringe site where only fans already dedicated to the community will be able to find them, instead of increasing exposure to the fandom like these works of art did and GW never could. GW keeps shooting itself in the foot, and its getting pretty tiring


They
- shut them down, forcing removal from YT
- thereby reduce exposure
- force you on their site where it gets hidden under a bullet point
- seemingly forbid them to communicate with the fans
- dabble in the process and alter the works, as seen in Astartes (not just sound choices via copyright, but speeding up scenes as well)
- probably replace artistic visions with corporate design
- slow down the releases due to meddling from higher ups

and so far we have not seen anything positive come from it. Which might come, but... I doubt it somehow.
Not white/blackknighting, thats just what I see and fear. Yes, it's their IP, but forcing everything under their control is bad for us as consumers.


Ah, I see *YOU* are the misanthrope, and probably also the source of the "rumor". You have a horribly warped and flawed perception of whats going on here - GW gave them a sack of cash, insider access to GWs lore bible, more resources than they ever had access to before, and permission to create official canon within the IP that they were working on, in exchange they had these guys sign the industry standard NDAs that they would have had to sign if they got a job with literally any other animation studio and pull their content so that it can be refined and released through official channels and in accordance with the brands official style guides which ensure tonal and thematic consistency between works by different creators. Again, this is pretty much industry standard, and would be no different than if we were discussing Lucasfilm and Star Wars fanimations or Bandai and Gundam fanimations or basically anything else. As for the "posted on their fringe site where only fans already dedicated to the community will be able to find them" you are incredibly short-sighted if you think thats what this is all going to amount to. GW has hired major film and television studio heavyweights on to its staff - they aren't investing into highly paid film/tv studio execs and content creators to post this gak on Warhammer Community (which even if they did, all the videos are literally hosted on Youtube *eyeroll*). These creators and their shows are going to get way more visibility and exposure than they ever would have sitting on Youtube.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 02:55:31


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



The idea of knowledge as cumulative — a ladder, or a tower of stones, rising higher and higher — existed only as one possibility among many. For several hundred years, scholars of scholarship had considered that they might be like dwarves seeing farther by standing on the shoulders of giants --Sir Isaac Newton


Most pop culture calls back to something that came before. To pretend things are truly original ignores the source material that inspired. And there's literally nothing wrong with that.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 06:16:25


Post by: Apple fox


 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


It should be noted that everything here you list is used under some kind of licence, or agreement of some kind to facilitate it. None of it pops into existence at the persons house to create it, and they should extend that same to GW and there IP.
GW like any business has channels to go through.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 07:00:51


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Would this person have been so successful in the first place if they were not using an established IP? Because I am pretty sure the answer is no. The only reason they became popular enough for us to hear about it is because of using the IP that belongs to GW. It was borrowed popularity from the start.

Now I'm not saying fan content is bad. But this person got first a successful youtube channel then a job from GW in exchange for borrowing their IP without permission and showing them what they could do with it. Pretty sweet fething deal for everyone involved if you ask me.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:00:01


Post by: Cybtroll


I'm with Karol on this one. Once you're the bigger fish in the pond, you should behave like one... you see no shark worried that the pilot fishes are stealing its food.
Sharks that does dies from parasites. Which in this analogy are recasted, not those who created 40k-compatible miniatures or eldar-esque miniature like recently happened.

I would love to see the HR Giger Foundation sent a C&D to GW for their ENTIRE Tyranid line (or even for some specific very-derivative design... of GSC for example).


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:29:54


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Cybtroll wrote:
I'm with Karol on this one. Once you're the bigger fish in the pond, you should behave like one... you see no shark worried that the pilot fishes are stealing its food.
Sharks that does dies from parasites. Which in this analogy are recasted, not those who created 40k-compatible miniatures or eldar-esque miniature like recently happened.

I would love to see the HR Giger Foundation sent a C&D to GW for their ENTIRE Tyranid line (or even for some specific very-derivative design... of GSC for example).


Nah.

See that Kickstarter recently hit by GW? The Eldar knock-off one?

Without GW, where is that project’s market? What has that project done to create its own market in the way GW managed all those years ago and continue to expand today? If they weren’t copying GW’s design and aesthetic cues, what would their models (well, stl files) be of?

Granted they’ve taken the effort to do more of it off their own back than straight recasts. But you cannot escape the fact their express aim was to attract sales from GW customers, by making the models irrefutably copies of GW’s style and army.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:30:02


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Cybtroll wrote:
I'm with Karol on this one. Once you're the bigger fish in the pond, you should behave like one... you see no shark worried that the pilot fishes are stealing its food.
Sharks that does dies from parasites. Which in this analogy are recasted, not those who created 40k-compatible miniatures or eldar-esque miniature like recently happened.

I would love to see the HR Giger Foundation sent a C&D to GW for their ENTIRE Tyranid line (or even for some specific very-derivative design... of GSC for example).


Missed opportunity, but then again Giger was not a principless corporatistic donkey-cave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 Cybtroll wrote:
I'm with Karol on this one. Once you're the bigger fish in the pond, you should behave like one... you see no shark worried that the pilot fishes are stealing its food.
Sharks that does dies from parasites. Which in this analogy are recasted, not those who created 40k-compatible miniatures or eldar-esque miniature like recently happened.

I would love to see the HR Giger Foundation sent a C&D to GW for their ENTIRE Tyranid line (or even for some specific very-derivative design... of GSC for example).


Nah.

See that Kickstarter recently hit by GW? The Eldar knock-off one?

Without GW, where is that project’s market? What has that project done to create its own market in the way GW managed all those years ago and continue to expand today? If they weren’t copying GW’s design and aesthetic cues, what would their models (well, stl files) be of?

Granted they’ve taken the effort to do more of it off their own back than straight recasts. But you cannot escape the fact their express aim was to attract sales from GW customers, by making the models irrefutably copies of GW’s style and army.


And let's ignore that GW did it first, nvm, did it far more extensive. In regards to copying.
No GW has no leg to stand on.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:35:53


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Pretty sure HR’s people wouldn’t have much success.

Genestealers. Four arms, upper set with stylised talons. Bulbous head, ovipositor in the mouth, stubby tail. And a very hunched posture.

The Xenomorph. Two arms, both terminating in hands. Long, elongated eyeless head with a secondary gob. Long, prehensile tail. Large vent like structures coming of the back, and a relatively upright posture.

Both are Aliens, it’s true. But their reproductive cycles are very different. Their societies are very different.

Is their inspiration from the Xenomorph in the Genestealer? Sure. But inspiration does not a theft of IP create.

Other than being space bugs with exoskeletons, there aren’t enough similarities where one can be mistaken for the other.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:37:55


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure HR’s people wouldn’t have much success.

Genestealers. Four arms, upper set with stylised talons. Bulbous head, ovipositor in the mouth, stubby tail. And a very hunched posture.

The Xenomorph. Two arms, both terminating in hands. Long, elongated eyeless head with a secondary gob. Long, prehensile tail. Large vent like structures coming of the back, and a relatively upright posture.

Both are Aliens, it’s true. But their reproductive cycles are very different. Their societies are very different.

Is their inspiration from the Xenomorph in the Genestealer? Sure. But inspiration does not a theft of IP create.

Other than being space bugs with exoskeletons, there aren’t enough similarities where one can be mistaken for the other.


Yeah, let's ignore the Art in the GSC dex... Yeah sure. Let's ignore that whole design aspects have basically just been copied.
No. GW has like karol stated no point morally.
And that is the problem inspiration and copyright have devolved to a point where it is a blunt force weapon for the bigger IP holders to the detriment of everyone else.
It's a tool to defend monopolistic market power structures and has actively lowered inspiration and advancements. Take a look at disney and what their chokehold on the enertainment market has done. GW does the same thing to the miniature and TG scene.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:42:55


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There is a world of difference between making clear copies of another company’s product and declaring “all me own work, Guv”, and finding inspiration in the designs of another.

You...you do understand that, yeah?

Folk often point to Starship Troopers and Astartes.

Sure, both are soldiers in suits of powered armour. But....that’s about it. Marines are genetically enhanced using arcane science. A SST is not. Marines carry signature weapons unlike those in SST.

Inspired by, not a copy of. Repeat that phrase. Inspired by, not a copy of.

Example. GW’s Orks have a signature, ramshackle look. But they also have specific patterns of Buggies.

A ramshackle SciFi buggy or light vehicle might take design elements of GW’s Orks, because that isn’t in itself copyrightable. But, things like the Rukkatrukk Squig Wagon can be, as they’re specific interpretations of that design ethos.

And to wrap up how silly “bUt THeY tOoK iNsPiRaTiOn” is as an argument? Point me to any one truly original SciFi or Fantasy work that exists outside of all other media.

No, you can’t have LotR, as that drew heavy inspiration from folk tales.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pretty sure HR’s people wouldn’t have much success.

Genestealers. Four arms, upper set with stylised talons. Bulbous head, ovipositor in the mouth, stubby tail. And a very hunched posture.

The Xenomorph. Two arms, both terminating in hands. Long, elongated eyeless head with a secondary gob. Long, prehensile tail. Large vent like structures coming of the back, and a relatively upright posture.

Both are Aliens, it’s true. But their reproductive cycles are very different. Their societies are very different.

Is their inspiration from the Xenomorph in the Genestealer? Sure. But inspiration does not a theft of IP create.

Other than being space bugs with exoskeletons, there aren’t enough similarities where one can be mistaken for the other.


Yeah, let's ignore the Art in the GSC dex... Yeah sure. Let's ignore that whole design aspects have basically just been copied.
No. GW has like karol stated no point morally.


Xenomorph don’t have hybrids, so what’s the GSC got to do with it? Nor do they seek to supplant authority on a world with the unconscious goal of flagging down a Hive Fleet to a world ready for consumption like some interplanetary drive-thru.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 08:49:22


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There is a world of difference between making clear copies of another company’s product and declaring “all me own work, Guv”, and finding inspiration in the designs of another.

You...you do understand that, yeah?

Stop whiteknighting for the morally objectionability of copyright law done by GW, disney and consorts. Just renaming the catachans as catachans doesn't make them not a coppy of 80s and 90 action films.
They grew big on liberal versions of the law and took" inspiration" from anywhere and everywhere and now deny the same thing to potential rivals.


Folk often point to Starship Troopers and Astartes.

Sure, both are soldiers in suits of powered armour. But....that’s about it. Marines are genetically enhanced using arcane science. A SST is not. Marines carry signature weapons unlike those in SST.

Background should be irrelevant , the issue i take with GW is that GW took the same liberally and then attempted to copyright everything and their mother in the range, cue chapterhouse and has become complacent thanks to it's IP.




Example. GW’s Orks have a signature, ramshackle look. But they also have specific patterns of Buggies.

A ramshackle SciFi buggy or light vehicle might take design elements of GW’s Orks, because that isn’t in itself copyrightable. But, things like the Rukkatrukk Squig Wagon can be, as they’re specific interpretations of that design ethos.

And to wrap up how silly “bUt THeY tOoK iNsPiRaTiOn” is as an argument? Point me to any one truly original SciFi or Fantasy work that exists outside of all other media.

No, you can’t have LotR, as that drew heavy inspiration from folk tales.

Inspiration and copyright right now bite each other thanks to disney and consorts.
What was deemed taking inspiration earlier, something GW did liberally , would nowadays classify as an IP right infringement. That is the issue i take.
Morally, GW has no leg to stand on. the same way btw, why Disney should not have copyright on any of their tales which are nothing more than brother grimm collections, from poland and germany.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Xenomorph don’t have hybrids, so what’s the GSC got to do with it? Nor do they seek to supplant authority on a world with the unconscious goal of flagging down a Hive Fleet to a world ready for consumption like some interplanetary drive-thru.


Background is irrelevant. Simply put there are text breakers that are nothing more than Gigers work.
Just because right now GW is protected because GIger didn't at the time intervene against GW doesn't make their taking "inspiration" not hypocritical compared to the behaviour they show torwards the smaller fish they bludgeon to death with ip law.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:09:06


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Your talking nonsense.

Morally? Don’t copy other people’s IP, knowing the consequences, then claim “oh noes, the bully are tea mi stuff”.

And yeah, background does make a difference. There are bare reflections of the Xenomorph in Genestealers. And even less so in Tyranids.

Go back and look at the very first art of each. They look nothing like a Xenomorph. At all.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:10:30


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Your talking nonsense.

Morally? Don’t copy other people’s IP, knowing the consequences, then claim “oh noes, the bully are tea mi stuff”.

And yeah, background does make a difference. There are bare reflections of the Xenomorph in Genestealers. And even less so in Tyranids.

Go back and look at the very first art of each. They look nothing like a Xenomorph. At all.


No, i won't it seems you need to look into the actual GSC dex and tell me the page stopper art doesn't look like giger.

And no the background doesn't make a lick of a difference if i just copy something, add an arm and call it totes something diffrent.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:17:22


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Different body shape. Lacking specific details (no prehensile tail, no second jaw, the presence of eyes, completely different posture and head shape).

You’ve literally got “they’re both imaginary aliens with exoskeletons” in terms of commonalities of design. That’s it. Nothing more. Especially when even the design of said exoskeleton is notably different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, art style cannot be copyrighted.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:20:24


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Different body shape. Lacking specific details (no prehensile tail, no second jaw, the presence of eyes, completely different posture and head shape).

You’ve literally got “they’re both imaginary aliens with exoskeletons” in terms of commonalities of design. That’s it. Nothing more. Especially when even the design of said exoskeleton is notably different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, art style cannot be copyrighted.


Sure, then how come GW can copyright their artstyle for miniatures?

Do you see the problem?

It's not necessarily a GW problem it's a general problem of copyrightlaw.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:24:17


Post by: Lord Zarkov


Tbf the 2nd Ed hormagaunt did look rather like a Xenomorph (other than the arms) and the 3rd Ed Hive Tyrant looked rather like the queen in Aliens (again, less the arms).

Notably though GW moved sharply away from that on the next iteration- with the former being made to look more like the termagants and the latter reverting to be more like the 2nd Ed one as part of the 3-4th Ed drive to make the nids have more consistent design cues.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:27:53


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Different body shape. Lacking specific details (no prehensile tail, no second jaw, the presence of eyes, completely different posture and head shape).

You’ve literally got “they’re both imaginary aliens with exoskeletons” in terms of commonalities of design. That’s it. Nothing more. Especially when even the design of said exoskeleton is notably different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, art style cannot be copyrighted.


Sure, then how come GW can copyright their artstyle for miniatures?

Do you see the problem?

It's not necessarily a GW problem it's a general problem of copyrightlaw.


This is why copyright law is confusing and complex.

Genestealers. Yes there’s some Xenomorph DNA in there. Enough for Disney (who now own the movie rights) or Giger to claim them as derivative works? Not even close.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:30:20


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Different body shape. Lacking specific details (no prehensile tail, no second jaw, the presence of eyes, completely different posture and head shape).

You’ve literally got “they’re both imaginary aliens with exoskeletons” in terms of commonalities of design. That’s it. Nothing more. Especially when even the design of said exoskeleton is notably different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, art style cannot be copyrighted.


Sure, then how come GW can copyright their artstyle for miniatures?

Do you see the problem?

It's not necessarily a GW problem it's a general problem of copyrightlaw.


This is why copyright law is confusing and complex.

Genestealers. Yes there’s some Xenomorph DNA in there. Enough for Disney (who now own the movie rights) or Giger to claim them as derivative works? Not even close.


i'd argue no, it's technically close enough, however since Giger didn't intervene at the time GW could manifest their claim and make it foolproof for them.
However that doesn't make them morally any less hypocritical when they took that and did run with it meanwhile they are bludgeoning everyone else.
It's the problem right now that big fishes like GW, or the house of a certain rodent that should be burnt to the ground, have waaaaayyyy too many rights on their side comparatively to the small companies.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 09:32:10


Post by: kirotheavenger


The problem with IP laws is that small creators (so small as to be ignored by larger companies) have proliferated to the point where they are viewed as normal, and therefore acceptable.
This means people have become entitled to IP infringement and view any such enforcement as wrong.

I've also noticed a fair amount of shifting the goal posts - Yes the Catachans are basically 80's action heroes. This goes pretty well for the entire Imperial Guard, and as such GW doesn't have much of a leg to stand on were they to claim IP infringement of some Catachan-esque miniatures.
This is why sites like Victoria miniatures and Anvil Industries are so common and untouched by GW, because they don't directly copy any uniquely GW IP.
The claim that GW is bludgeoning everyone that even comes close to their IP falls apart when you consider these companies.

Astartes, on the other hand, was expressly a direct copy of GW's IP. There could be no argument that the super soldiers in that were the creator's own design. GW had every right to pull them up on that.

In fact, they not only had the right to do so, they had the obligation to do so. If you don't enforce your copyright you risk losing it. If GW knowingly allowed Astartes to continue another company could easily claim in court that Space Marines should be in the public domain because GW allowed Astartes and you're not allowed to play favourites with the application of the law.

The law is equal, not only is GW not allowed to play favourites (so they can't allow Astartes but block Disney) but it protects everyone equally.
Imagine you're a small artist named Steve, you create your own sci-fi world called Farglebargle. You'd cry foul if someone else took Farglebargle and created a popular animation that was earning them thousands, and didn't give you a penny.
That same law protects GW just as much as it protects Steve. Being a big company doesn't waive your rights to IP ownership.

So, GW is fully within their rights both legally and morally as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, hiding them on their community site is less convenient than allowing them to remain on youtube and/or moving them to GW's own youtube channel.
But really that's a minor complaint.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 10:32:36


Post by: Thairne




A nice theory. But just as valid as any others.
"They did everything right and everything is gonna be awesome" has just the same basis as "this sucks and its horrible."
We have NO insider info, so berating and insulting someone on speculation while speculating yourself is hypocritical.
Also, a C&D is not "meaningless" - but it is enough to scare single guys into submission if you dont want to fight a multi-million dollar company in a lawsuit about your hobby. Because they cant afford to fight that legal battle and have to afford it.
THAT is the consequence and by any means not "meaningless". As an author on BS, I know what would happen if our group received a C&D. We talked about it. We'd have to shut down because we could not afford to fight a battle for work we do for free.

Did it also ever occur to you what happened if they said "well, I was forced to agree the terms because otherwise my livelyhood would be ruined with a lawsuit I cannot afford to fight?" Do you think GW would accept such negative PR and would not drop the hammer on said person?
I might be a misanthrope, but you appear to live in some kind of corporate utopia where only gentle philantropic beings lead companies.

Way more visibility how? You need to visit WarCom to view and stumble upon them. Means you know about Warhammer and have an interest in Warhammer in the first place. YT might just recommend those things to you because you like scifi animations and not even know Warhammer exists.
I have my rumour. You have yours. It is ok to disagree, it is not ok to call people misanthropes, short-sighted, and warped.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 10:56:33


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


You’re still ascribing malice for your version though.

Remember. As the owner of the IP, GW (whether one likes it or not) had every right to just shut it down entirely.

A grey area for my knowledge is whether they could then claim the entirety of the work and publish it themselves, keeping all the money. Perhaps someone can provide fact rather than opinion and reckons to this one, as I for one would be interested in the answer whatever it is.

Instead, we’ve seen them clearly defend their IP whilst not being dicks about it, as they’ve hired the guy. They absolutely, categorically, did not have to do that. Indeed it’s the more expensive option for them.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:03:01


Post by: kirotheavenger


As far as I'm aware, the fact that it's based on GW's work doesn't entitle to the entire work. Only to prevent it's continuation.

So I'm sure GW taking the animations under their own site is a part of whatever agreement they've come to with the creators.

I'm not sure what they're entitled to in regards to payment though. The creator of Astartes made quite a bit of money off of it, whether or not GW would be entitled to any of that, and if so how much, I have no idea.
I'm sure they could sue for lost profits though if they can prove any.

I agree GW has handled this fairly well though. They certainly could have done a lot worse.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:06:11


Post by: Gert


The YT argument is a load of nonsense. The YT algorithm isn't recommending Astartes or SODAZ work to anyone who doesn't already watch 40k videos because they don't fall into the categories the algorithm pushes i.e. FTOM gaming videos, lifestyle stuff and TikToks. Was Astartes ever on the trending page? Unlikely, which means the audience for Astartes was almost exclusively going to be 40k fans.

As for the rumours, if you hate GW because of their prices/fixation on SM/rule writing thats fine you can have that opinion and back up a lot of that with hard evidence. But has anyone who ACTUALLY knows either Astartes or SODAZ said that they were given an ultimatum? The rumour you're spreading isn't like "Amazon workers don't get bathroom breaks" because whistle-blowers came forward about that and Amazon tried to nuke the story out of existence.

Lets look at this from a different perspective. You're a guy who is making 40k animations on the side of your full time job. People are saying they're good quality and it's gaining social media traction. At this point you might start getting ads on the YT video or more people might be singing up to your Patreon or Twitch. At this point money starts coming off your side projects and you make more 40k animations. At this point GW contacts you with an offer to join their animation team to produce content for them. The caveat is your 40k work must be removed from your channel and given to them. You can now choose to believe this is a veiled threat that you have overstepped the mark (read as no longer fair use) and will be sued into oblivion if you refuse OR you have the opportunity to get paid a wage to do your hobby as a job. So far people have only chosen the latter but it is important to remember that they CHOSE to make 40k animations that they 100% knew would grab the attention of the 40k community. More people are interested in SM than "Generic Space Trooper". This isn't "GW kills animator for making videos similar to 40k", it's "GW protects it's IP but also hires the creators to make more things under the official Warhammer trademark".


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:09:22


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


I do know that YouTube are renowned for an all or nothing approach to DMCA.

Let’s say I make a video, and include a 5 second video clip with the corresponding audio. Strictly speaking I can do that under fair use. But, a DMCA would see the owner of that clip and audio get all income from that video. Not just a percentage related to how much of the content the clip and audio contributed to the video’s run time.

YouTube’s rep is even worse because they don’t seek to validate DMCA’s.

Eckhart’s Ladder has trouble with this. Not from Disney (he’s predominantly a Star Wars content creator), but from a music house claiming the music he plays at the beginning and end of his vids. Except....Eck knows the musician, and the musician said the company in question was sod all to do with him.

Here’s the video in which he explains it all should anyone care to watch.




SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:13:53


Post by: Gert


Exactly. Anyone on YT can send a claim to a video, at which point the video is demonitised and taken out of recommended feeds. YT also doesn't like to promote videos that use certain terms because it's a dumb algorithm that has no shades of grey. Using the word "War" can get a video flagged for promoting violence and a channel I watch, who makes videos on ww2 game, has the use words like "kerfuffle" to avoid the YT kill hammer. YT is a terrible platform, let's stop pretending it isn't.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:14:15


Post by: Thairne


I wouldnt call it malice as much as a very strong scepticism/pessimism. Its not that I think GW does it because its EVIL, but because they do not consider anything else but their own gains - which is just standard corporate stuff. So they're... lawful neutral.
That this so far turned into a net negative for me makes me salty, true.
So GW gave, in my mind, two options to the creator - take the job or get shut down. That is a possibility and legal. That classifies as browbeating of the legal kind. The big one threatened the small one and the small one had to comply. I admit browbeating is a poor choice of words since that is actually a term used for a crime - yet as a non-native speaker I do not know of another term that could convey the same.

Having the right to it legally is one thing - actually doing it can be questionably morally.
As an extreme example, it is legal to transfer your profits to the Cayman Islands, but morally that is just corrupt, yet in the best interest of the company.

It turned from a free work of art where the creator communicated with his fan base on patreon and updates via newsletters into what I have to assume a signed NDA disclosure. The changes made to Astartes on the WarCom site made it, in my oppinion, an inferior product. Which is mostly where my original joy of Astartes being pulled in and having the team and financial support of GW was turned sour.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:26:38


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Except the small one started off piggybacking the big one’s IP.

This isn’t GW seeking to dominate the SciFi market, or stifle upcoming competition. This is as close to an equitable compromise.

You can use their IP, and they’ll pay you for it (turning an amateur to a professional overnight by definition). But, that means they’ll have inevitable oversight - because it’s their product and their IP.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 11:44:38


Post by: Gert


NGL Astartes was good BUT I don't remember enough of the original to notice the differences between it and the one currently on WarCom.
Browbeating is generally used in a sense of telling someone off for doing something wrong, which technically both Astartes and SODAZ did if/when they started making money off of their 40k projects.

The thing people seem to be forgetting is that GW itself is trying to break out into the "tv show" business with their animation studio and Eisenhorn show. They are never going to compete with Netflix, Prime TV, Disney+, or Crunchyroll because their product base is too small and has no backlog outside of the Ultramarines movie, which I hope to God is put in their archive. However, this streaming service is absolutely going to be paid and the more people they get working on projects the more likely GW will be able to sell this service to its customer base. Launching with 1 or 2 titles at what will probs be something like £4.99/month if not less isn't going to work.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 12:16:49


Post by: kirotheavenger


The creator of Astartes made some comments about his new employment, it was quite vague because he's obviously had to sign an NDA of some sort, but he basically said he was fully on board with the opportunity and liked that his work was now entirely "above board" rather than profiting off the legally grey (at best) Astartes Patreon.

I also don't think these creators were co-erced into joining GW. I think the offer of employment was a genuine offer.

I do however think they were pressured into removing their content and transferring it to GW.
"You will take down this content, you have no right to use it, but we can work out a deal that better suits both parties".

I think that's entirely fair, and characterising it as blackmail is a bit unfair.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 12:57:44


Post by: Karol


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Would this person have been so successful in the first place if they were not using an established IP? Because I am pretty sure the answer is no. The only reason they became popular enough for us to hear about it is because of using the IP that belongs to GW. It was borrowed popularity from the start.

Now I'm not saying fan content is bad. But this person got first a successful youtube channel then a job from GW in exchange for borrowing their IP without permission and showing them what they could do with it. Pretty sweet fething deal for everyone involved if you ask me.


But that is more or less what you can say about w40k. GW took material that inspired them, build a game around it, it become popular because people had contact with stuff they knew and presto the game is huge all around the world. In no small part to people that were doing free advertisment for them in all the parts of the world where there were no GW stores, GW adds on TV etc

Yet somehow it is not okey for people to make something like Astartes or Cosmic Knight Crusader Marshal.

I'm getting really, really tired of this argument that just because Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 IP draws inspiration from dozens of different sources means they have no ground to stand on when it comes to defending their IP. I hate to tell you this, but surprise surprise, a LOT of media is at least somewhat derivative and draws its inspiration from things that came before it.

Yet when Artel or Kromlech do they stuff, GW tries or tried to take them down, that is bad. But when GW does the same thing it is okey. Sorry, but I have more in common with the prior, then the later. And when I understand the law and why it is enforced, I do not like the moralising part of it. Stealing is bad, because it is GW IP. When the idea of Hives, marines arbites are copy pasted from stuff like Judge Dredd.
I mean they litteraly named the word bearer primarch the Aurelian, copying the same religious reforms the historical Aurelian did, all we need for him to be a full copy paste is for him to say in a BL book "one truth, one faith, one empire".


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 13:26:55


Post by: Gert


A couple of points Karol:
1 - GW evolved from some guys who made some games in their shed/living room. The corporation today is not the same as those guys and I'm pretty sure not a single one even works for the company. In the 70's it was just a distribution point for D&D and other traditional board games. It was only in the late 80's it started to fully focus on the Warhammer brand.
2 - There is a difference between taking inspiration from a previous product and fully copying an existing one. Someone making an animation called "Centurions" about "Space Warriors with Void Armour" who makes something similar to a SM but distinctly not a SM isn't getting GW's attention. Someone who makes an animation called "Astartes" with specific GW designs implemented and starts making money off of it, IS going to get GW's attention.
3 - "Aurelian" is a historical name and as such cannot be protected under IP. "Lorgar Aurelian" can because it is a separate entity and the name of a character that can be copyrighted. The name "Luke" is not copyrightable and anyone can use it. "Luke Skywalker" is a Star Wars copyrighted character so it cannot be used in another IP's product.
4 - "Big City with lots of people" is not a copyrightable idea. The term "Hive City" is because it is distinct. Likewise, the design of the Arbites might be similar to the Judges but they are not the 2000 AD Judges. Also, GW tends to favour the use of Enforcers in its publications so it can avoid issues with an older OOP product sharing similarities with another brand.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 13:43:00


Post by: Slipspace


Karol wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Would this person have been so successful in the first place if they were not using an established IP? Because I am pretty sure the answer is no. The only reason they became popular enough for us to hear about it is because of using the IP that belongs to GW. It was borrowed popularity from the start.

Now I'm not saying fan content is bad. But this person got first a successful youtube channel then a job from GW in exchange for borrowing their IP without permission and showing them what they could do with it. Pretty sweet fething deal for everyone involved if you ask me.


But that is more or less what you can say about w40k. GW took material that inspired them, build a game around it, it become popular because people had contact with stuff they knew and presto the game is huge all around the world. In no small part to people that were doing free advertisment for them in all the parts of the world where there were no GW stores, GW adds on TV etc

Yet somehow it is not okey for people to make something like Astartes or Cosmic Knight Crusader Marshal.


You're massively oversimplifying the scenario. GW's IP has enough distinctive elements both in specifics and generalities to stand as its own set of background universes. There are a lot of elements that are homages to (or direct rip-offs of, depending on your level of salt) certain other IPs. the concept of a genetically engineered super soldier is not unique to GW and wasn't when 40k was released. The same concept plus all the imagery and background material surrounding it since the concept was truly solidified in 2nd edition is. That's all work GW has put into building their IP. If you look at the Spartans from the Halo video game and background they are pretty much Astartes - genetically engineered from the best genestock, equipped with power armour and the best weapons their military has to offer. But they're distinct enough that GW isn't going after them to get them shut down. That's due to a combination of many factors including the look of the two things and the background IP too.

Almost any sci-fi or fantasy race, weapon, idea etc can be reduced to a superficial comparison with existing ideas. The importance is more often than not in the details. Astartes is obviously not some superficially similar IP to what GW produces. It's a direct copy down to almost every last detail. That's the difference and it's why GW can make genuine legal attempts to have it shut down but an identical show without any of GW's IP involved would be absolutely fine. I'd also wager that other show wouldn't be even one tenth as popular as Astartes was. The reason why is precisely the reason IP protections are not automatically bad and immoral.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 13:46:55


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


2000AD and 40K also share a common breeding ground - late 70’s early 80’s Britain, a politically and economically tumultuous time as it was transformed from Imperial and Industrial Decline.

A backdrop of glittering (and expensive) New Builds and decaying industrial infrastructure. Disaffected youths and punk rock with the hedonism of New Romantic etc. A time of a widening gap between the Haves and the Have Nots.

Both are satirical takes on it, both ramped things up to 11.5.

Both have fed off each other over the years. Neither is a carbon copy of the other. At all.

Example? Insurrection. Written by Dan Abnett, same artist as Blood Quest.



Dates to around 2010ish, takes place in the Dreddiverse. Ships look familiar, no?

Now, compare them to Justice-1 from the Judge Child epic which was published in 1980. Couldn’t find a decent sized, clear pic of the original Brian Bolland art, but here’s a more modern 3D model based on its appearance.



A very different look, no?

Crucially, neither company is trying to pass off their work as the other’s work. That is the difference. And remember. GW used to do licensed games for 2000ad properties. If 2000ad had an issue with any of it, one suspects they’d have done something about it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 14:06:30


Post by: catbarf


 kirotheavenger wrote:
In fact, they not only had the right to do so, they had the obligation to do so. If you don't enforce your copyright you risk losing it.


This has never, ever been true. If you don't enforce a trademark you risk losing it. As a copyright holder I am free to enforce my copyright as selectively as I wish- let someone I like make derivative content, while sending C&Ds to others who infringe on my work.

GW is under no legal obligation to sue, C&D, or assimilate anyone using their IP. Full stop. It's their choice.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 14:10:50


Post by: Daedalus81


Looks like it's time for this video again.




SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 14:14:40


Post by: Tygre


 Gert wrote:
A couple of points Karol:
1 - GW evolved from some guys who made some games in their shed/living room. The corporation today is not the same as those guys and I'm pretty sure not a single one even works for the company. In the 70's it was just a distribution point for D&D and other traditional board games. It was only in the late 80's it started to fully focus on the Warhammer brand.
GW original founders were Steve Jackson and Ian Livingston. They were also did the Fighting Fantasy book series.
2 - There is a difference between taking inspiration from a previous product and fully copying an existing one. Someone making an animation called "Centurions" about "Space Warriors with Void Armour" who makes something similar to a SM but distinctly not a SM isn't getting GW's attention. Someone who makes an animation called "Astartes" with specific GW designs implemented and starts making money off of it, IS going to get GW's attention.
Using the term Astartes would actually be Trademark infringement. And making money off it (I think. I am not a lawyer) would mean its not fair use.
3 - "Aurelian" is a historical name and as such cannot be protected under IP. "Lorgar Aurelian" can because it is a separate entity and the name of a character that can be copyrighted. The name "Luke" is not copyrightable and anyone can use it. "Luke Skywalker" is a Star Wars copyrighted character so it cannot be used in another IP's product.
That would be Trademark infringement. You can't Trademark generic terms or terms that have become generic (like Scotch Tape)
4 - "Big City with lots of people" is not a copyrightable idea. The term "Hive City" is because it is distinct. Likewise, the design of the Arbites might be similar to the Judges but they are not the 2000 AD Judges. Also, GW tends to favour the use of Enforcers in its publications so it can avoid issues with an older OOP product sharing similarities with another brand.
Again that would be Trademark


Most of what we think of as Copyright law is actually Trademark law. Distribute copies of a digital White Dwarf is copyright infringement. Use small excerts for review/commentary etc, that's fair use. Make fan art/stories etc, that's fair use. Sell or make money from fan art that's trademark infringement (When GWs lawyers say "Ahem. Stop it."). I think, I am not a lawyer, copyright or otherwise. Its law so of course its stupid complicated. But I generally agree with the above.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 14:55:17


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Thairne wrote:


Also, a C&D is not "meaningless" - but it is enough to scare single guys into submission if you dont want to fight a multi-million dollar company in a lawsuit about your hobby. Because they cant afford to fight that legal battle and have to afford it.
THAT is the consequence and by any means not "meaningless". As an author on BS, I know what would happen if our group received a C&D. We talked about it. We'd have to shut down because we could not afford to fight a battle for work we do for free.


A C&D is not a lawsuit, receipt of a C&D is not a guarantee that legal action will be pursued against you. Its a warning that if activity identified in the notice does not cease, that you *may* be sued or suffer further legal action pursuant to further investigation by the entity issuing you the notice. C&D notices are always fairly clear that legal action is not automatic, because the person issuing the C&D could otherwise be countersued for attempted coercion, likewise they could otherwise be countersued if they said that they would pursue legal action and then didn't.

I wouldnt call it malice as much as a very strong scepticism/pessimism. Its not that I think GW does it because its EVIL, but because they do not consider anything else but their own gains - which is just standard corporate stuff. So they're... lawful neutral.


Which is why these creators are about to have it made for them. Rumors are that GW will either be partnering with a major streaming service (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, etc.) in order to monetize the content. GW isn't paying these guys to bury their work, they are paying these guys because they want to make a lot of money, and these guys are going to make a lot of money with them in the process and build a resume that they can take to other studios in the future.

I do however think they were pressured into removing their content and transferring it to GW.
"You will take down this content, you have no right to use it, but we can work out a deal that better suits both parties".


More likely GW approached them with an offer that included transfer of ownership of whatever they created up front rather than demanding they remove it and then saying "but we'll hire you if you play nice".


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 14:59:47


Post by: SamusDrake


 tauist wrote:
I don't understand all this fuss tbh. Anyone who deliberately makes a 40K animation is using GW's protected IP.. If they want a sustainable way to do their animations, they should come up with their own IP, it's as simple as that really. If the animation can't stand on its own merits without having "correct" looking weapons and uniforms etc, there was never any substantial story there to begin with.

I think the only "legit" way for these animations to remain available is for GW to "licence" them..



Exalted.

These people were prepared to go through all that effort to create quality animations, yet couldn't be bothered to send a quick email to GW to first ask for permission and guidence.

Considering they took without asking, GW is being pretty decent about it. They get to upgrade their project to an official level which will be seen by a larger audience, claim credit for their work, probably get paid and add GW to their resume which helps in obtaining other professional work.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 15:45:22


Post by: catbarf


SamusDrake wrote:
These people were prepared to go through all that effort to create quality animations, yet couldn't be bothered to send a quick email to GW to first ask for permission and guidence.


As long as you're not trying to make money off someone else's IP, there is no obligation to ask for permission. Making a Youtube video is no different from writing a fanfic as far as copyright is concerned. You don't chastise fanfic writers for not approaching GW for permission and guidance, do you?

People thinking that they're not allowed to make any sort of content featuring IP owned by a big corporation is a Disney lawyer's wet dream, but that's not how it works.

Using copyrighted material for profit is another matter entirely and that's where GW will come down on you and have a legitimate case.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 15:45:38


Post by: vipoid


Something I haven't seen mentioned thus far is the question of what harm stuff like the Astartes videos actually inflict upon GW.

In the case of people either making models very similar to theirs (or outright stealing their designs) I understand the complaint because those models are directly competing with GW's and thus potentially stealing away their sales.

Likewise, I could see the complaint against people posting GW's rules/rulebooks online (even if they're not making money from it) - as it saves people having to buy their overpriced rulebooks and codices.

However, I'm far less clear on what harm or loss is inflicted on GW by someone making a fan video. It seems fair to say that the video isn't competing with any GW equivalent. Also, since it was entirely fan-made, GW spent no resources to produce it, so (unlike with rulebooks) it's not as if a product they normally sell is being given away for free. Given that it's free to watch, it's also not competing for customer revenue in the same way that copycat models might.

If anything, it seems like fans doing GW's job for them and making videos that get people interested in Space Marines and in the 40k universe.

Quick, shut them down before it's too late!


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 15:53:21


Post by: a_typical_hero


 vipoid wrote:
Quick, shut them down before it's too late!

The guy was not shut down, he was employed. Small difference, I know.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 15:54:21


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There’s also something we need to consider.

40K and indeed all of GW’s fare is distinctive, yes? And that goes beyond the look. It’s also the feel of it.

You can’t make a Space Marine “League of Super Best Friends” type show, because that’s beyond the feel of it. It doesn’t matter how good the animation, art direction and voice acting is if it doesn’t feel 40K.

Astartes nailed all of it. Every last bit. It realised Marines in the right way, and in a visually striking manner. It’s absolutely brilliant in every conceivable way.

GW aren’t just looking to bring their stuff to the big or small screen. They’re looking to do it as a solid translation.

Hiring the guy behind Astartes was an absolute no-brainer. He has the skills and a clear love and understanding for the source material. Their approach here absolutely is the right one.

It is possibly slightly mercenary, as had Astartes not been brilliant, they probably just would’ve buried it. But what better way to find the right talent?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 15:57:30


Post by: yukishiro1


 kirotheavenger wrote:


In fact, they not only had the right to do so, they had the obligation to do so. If you don't enforce your copyright you risk losing it. If GW knowingly allowed Astartes to continue another company could easily claim in court that Space Marines should be in the public domain because GW allowed Astartes and you're not allowed to play favourites with the application of the law.


This is 100% false. Already been over this earlier in the thread. Please stop spreading this particular nonsense, it's just not true. You cannot lose your copyright by not enforcing it. That applies solely to trademarks, and even then, not in a way that would be compromised by someone making fan videos - the threat to a trademark is the name being applied to *other* similar products (e.g. Kleenex for all tissues), not from fan videos that use the trademarked term to refer to the actual trademarked product.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 16:04:48


Post by: Mezmorki


I'm not an expert, but I've done some digging on these topics.

There is a difference between copyright violations and trademark (i.e. brand) violations.

Discussions about a company needing to issue C&D and the like in order to "protect their brand" relate to trademarks. If I start a company called Games Dorkshop and sell a game called WarMonger 49,000 and use imagery and iconography that creates confusion among the product buyers and audience as to whose they are buying, that is a trademark violation and requires direct action to resolve.

Copyright violations apply to the replication of exact wording or works of art. Copying a rulebook line by line, reusing GW images directly without obtaining permission is a copyright violation.

Creating your own fan art or writings or videos that is wholly original artwork and that does not use any trademarked language or imagery is neither a copyright or a trademark violation.

I don't believe "astartes" is a trademarked term (it was the name of a greek goddess IIRC).

But of course, none of this might matter in the heat of the moment when you're faced with either complying with GW's wishes or else would need to hire your own legal team in order to reasonably fight back.







SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 16:07:09


Post by: Tyran


 catbarf wrote:

As long as you're not trying to make money off someone else's IP, there is no obligation to ask for permission. Making a Youtube video is no different from writing a fanfic as far as copyright is concerned.

Not it is not, because Youtube videos make money. Youtube doesn't exist out of good will, but because it is extremely profitable.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 16:21:23


Post by: catbarf


 Tyran wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

As long as you're not trying to make money off someone else's IP, there is no obligation to ask for permission. Making a Youtube video is no different from writing a fanfic as far as copyright is concerned.

Not it is not, because Youtube videos make money. Youtube doesn't exist out of good will, but because it is extremely profitable.


First, Youtube videos only make money for the uploader if monetization is enabled. There's a secondary concern of Youtube's on-page monetization, but that's not the uploader's concern.

Second, copyright infringement is concerned with whether a product is depriving the copyright holder of income. The easiest way to prove this is to demonstrate that a for-sale infringing item is competing with a for-sale item from the rightsholder.

Want to go to court and argue that a fan-made video that isn't competing with any of your products is costing you money because they uploaded it to a website that happens to show ads? Good luck.

There are plenty of fanfics posted to websites that run banner ads.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 16:50:03


Post by: NinthMusketeer


This is seeming more and more like black knights who have decided to hate on GW for this and the actual facts or logic are arbitrary since the conclusion was already reached.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 17:02:31


Post by: Tyran


 catbarf wrote:


First, Youtube videos only make money for the uploader if monetization is enabled. There's a secondary concern of Youtube's on-page monetization, but that's not the uploader's concern.


No, it is Youtube's, but that can be solved with a DCMA complaint, because YouTube doesn't want to get in such legal fights.

Second, copyright infringement is concerned with whether a product is depriving the copyright holder of income. The easiest way to prove this is to demonstrate that a for-sale infringing item is competing with a for-sale item from the rightsholder.

Want to go to court and argue that a fan-made video that isn't competing with any of your products is costing you money because they uploaded it to a website that happens to show ads? Good luck.

GW does have its animation department. It is not their main product, but they do have products that are technically competing with fan-made videos. After all, Astartes is now their product.


There are plenty of fanfics posted to websites that run banner ads.


And such websites make it clear that if there is any issue with the IP holder, the fanfic is getting dropped. Just like with YouTube, fanfic websites don't want to get in legal fights with IP holders.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 17:24:23


Post by: kirotheavenger


I'm pretty sure it's illegal regardless of whether you cause damage/loss of income for the creator.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 18:32:43


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


This is what I had to say when the crreator of Astartes announced his cooperation with GW and the subsquent removal of the video's from Youtube:

Whether predomenantly coercion or incentive was involved in this development we'll likely never know unless either party is willing to disclose the terms of their agreement with the broader public (...) I do not, however, disaprove of official recogniation of such an awesome fan project, certainly that very fact will have placed some role in the creator's decision.

My personal contention is that companies like GW should not have the abillity to legally act against individual content creator of the kind that are discussed thread, as their demonstration of craftsmanship and fan commitment decisively weigh heavier than the banal material losses sufferd by GW.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 19:30:22


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
This is what I had to say when the crreator of Astartes announced his cooperation with GW and the subsquent removal of the video's from Youtube:

Whether predomenantly coercion or incentive was involved in this development we'll likely never know unless either party is willing to disclose the terms of their agreement with the broader public (...) I do not, however, disaprove of official recogniation of such an awesome fan project, certainly that very fact will have placed some role in the creator's decision.

My personal contention is that companies like GW should not have the abillity to legally act against individual content creator of the kind that are discussed thread, as their demonstration of craftsmanship and fan commitment decisively weigh heavier than the banal material losses sufferd by GW.


And yet these creators are piggybacking on the work of GW. It's their decades of work that has built the brand to the point a project like Astartes can gain instant "mass" appeal. The creator is effectively profiting from the brand awareness that they did nothing to create themselves. You also need to consider that individuals and companies need to be able to protect their IP from what they see as misuse or inappropriate depictions of their IP.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 19:31:56


Post by: yukishiro1


They obviously didn't see it as misuse or inappropriate depictions, given they hired the guy (and IIRC had highlighted his work in the past).


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 19:45:49


Post by: Slipspace


yukishiro1 wrote:
They obviously didn't see it as misuse or inappropriate depictions, given they hired the guy (and IIRC had highlighted his work in the past).


Correct. Which is why I mentioned it as one reason why IP protection exists and not the only one.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 20:02:40


Post by: yukishiro1


Well, if we're talking real reasons, the main reason we have the copyright laws we do is because it's good for the mouse, and what the mouse wants, it usually gets.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 20:17:44


Post by: Insectum7


A more interesting question to me is what if the "fanfic" was satyrical or making commentary on the GW product? Would it start to fall into the fair use category and thus become immune to potential GW takedown?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 20:23:15


Post by: Thairne


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOOJPdymEj4

A few minutes in the video, it seems that the guy that made The Last Church disclosed a few things about the process.

Carrot and stick and, ofc, the threat of a C&D.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/14 20:57:33


Post by: chaos0xomega


 vipoid wrote:
Something I haven't seen mentioned thus far is the question of what harm stuff like the Astartes videos actually inflict upon GW.

In the case of people either making models very similar to theirs (or outright stealing their designs) I understand the complaint because those models are directly competing with GW's and thus potentially stealing away their sales.

Likewise, I could see the complaint against people posting GW's rules/rulebooks online (even if they're not making money from it) - as it saves people having to buy their overpriced rulebooks and codices.

However, I'm far less clear on what harm or loss is inflicted on GW by someone making a fan video. It seems fair to say that the video isn't competing with any GW equivalent. Also, since it was entirely fan-made, GW spent no resources to produce it, so (unlike with rulebooks) it's not as if a product they normally sell is being given away for free. Given that it's free to watch, it's also not competing for customer revenue in the same way that copycat models might.

If anything, it seems like fans doing GW's job for them and making videos that get people interested in Space Marines and in the 40k universe.

Quick, shut them down before it's too late!


Did you miss the part where GW has been hiring TV and Film studio execs and working on its own slate of animated and live action content? The "harm" is that these independent animations are and will be directly competing with GWs own official content for visibility and attention (Astartes basically broke the internet and got visibility farther outside of the fandom than anything GW has over produced itself). The last thing you ever want to hear as a creator is "This unofficial fanfilm is better than anything you ever produced", and thats especially true when you're aiming to be a major media studio like GW is. The flip side of that though is that because Astartes was so damned successful, GW now has added something with proven market penetration to its roster - when the full length whatever-it-is is released the internet will go nuts about it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s also something we need to consider.

40K and indeed all of GW’s fare is distinctive, yes? And that goes beyond the look. It’s also the feel of it.

You can’t make a Space Marine “League of Super Best Friends” type show, because that’s beyond the feel of it. It doesn’t matter how good the animation, art direction and voice acting is if it doesn’t feel 40K.

Astartes nailed all of it. Every last bit. It realised Marines in the right way, and in a visually striking manner. It’s absolutely brilliant in every conceivable way.

GW aren’t just looking to bring their stuff to the big or small screen. They’re looking to do it as a solid translation.

Hiring the guy behind Astartes was an absolute no-brainer. He has the skills and a clear love and understanding for the source material. Their approach here absolutely is the right one.

It is possibly slightly mercenary, as had Astartes not been brilliant, they probably just would’ve buried it. But what better way to find the right talent?


This guy gets it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This is seeming more and more like black knights who have decided to hate on GW for this and the actual facts or logic are arbitrary since the conclusion was already reached.


This guy gets it too.

 Thairne wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOOJPdymEj4

A few minutes in the video, it seems that the guy that made The Last Church disclosed a few things about the process.

Carrot and stick and, ofc, the threat of a C&D.


thats not really what the guy actually said, this is the actual post: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxvVOGv5ueoY2crbilUTS5g/community

"The Last Church Update

Hey everyone! I’d like to let you all know, from the team and myself, that the release of The Last Church has been a dream come true. The outpour of support from the community has been remarkable and we can never express how wonderful an experience this was for us.

Being now conscious of the fact that we were acting beyond our rights when we made this film and that we used an IP (and story!) that wasn’t ours to use, I can’t help but feel I’m obligated to take our animation down. .

But fret not! The good folks at Games Workshop have reached out to us and offered the possibility of collaboration on future projects. I’m sure you all understand how exciting that prospect is for us and how eager we are to pursue this opportunity. Although the cooperative process with GW has only just begun, I believe it may be the start of an exciting future for our team and the content we produce. We’ll make sure to keep you all posted!

I would like to emphasize that we were not just given a C&D and told to pack it up. GW very graciously took the time to meet with us, tell us how much they enjoyed our adaptation of The Last Church and explain how many liberties we really took with our film. They acted with the utmost kindness and consideration. (And Warhammer Animation offered us the chance to collaborate! That’s pretty awesome.) In fact, it’s possible that The Last Church may one day find a new home in GW’s media library. But that’s for the future to decide. What comes next can’t yet be said but rest assured we’ll make something great.

To all those who subscribed to our Patreon: thank you. Your support means the world to us and demonstrates the very real demand for the sort of films our team can create. The realization that so many were so excited to see more from us drives us to improve our skills and continue as a team. That being said, I’ll shut down the Patreon immediately.

Tony, Aaron and I can never truly express what this project meant to us. That meaning was illimitably amplified by the thousands of comments and messages we received in support. Thank you all. With some good grace and a pinch of fortune, we’ll be back with more films for you soon!

V/R, Tyber Portoghese"


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/15 04:44:37


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Gee, that sounds like they acted in the most upfront and professional manner possible.












Gunna grab some popcorn to watch the black knights hate on it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 05:03:21


Post by: Seabass


Wait, so GW hires the guy, and people here are pissed? Peak Dakka.

Peak.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 05:09:00


Post by: ClockworkZion


Seabass wrote:
Wait, so GW hires the guy, and people here are pissed? Peak Dakka.

Peak.

Grimdank was also equally conspiritorial and upset, so apparently the community's trust issues have gotten a bit nuts.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 05:18:12


Post by: Seabass


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Wait, so GW hires the guy, and people here are pissed? Peak Dakka.

Peak.

Grimdank was also equally conspiritorial and upset, so apparently the community's trust issues have gotten a bit nuts.


I just can't wrap my head around it. We should be celebrating this! This guy gets to work on animations with the people that created the source material, with vastly more resources, and now gets paid to do it. I mean, I'm happy for him and hope it works well. He was doing a great job before and I can't wait to see what he does with some real support.

I just can't wrap my head around it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 06:58:33


Post by: Jarms48


 kirotheavenger wrote:

I also don't think these creators were co-erced into joining GW. I think the offer of employment was a genuine offer.

I do however think they were pressured into removing their content and transferring it to GW.
"You will take down this content, you have no right to use it, but we can work out a deal that better suits both parties".

I think that's entirely fair, and characterising it as blackmail is a bit unfair.


This whole thing reminds me of Valve, they would hire promising mod developers into their teams. If I recall games like Counter Strike and Team Fortress were once mods to the original Half-Life.

GW is just bringing in talented 3D artists to churn out their own animations. Though it does annoy me that they don't seem to reupload anything to their own Warhammer channel. They reuploaded Astartes after they took out any potential copyright issues onto Warhammer Community. Surely reuploading back to Youtube would generate more traffic on a much larger social media platform.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 07:30:58


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
And yet these creators are piggybacking on the work of GW. It's their decades of work that has built the brand to the point a project like Astartes can gain instant "mass" appeal. The creator is effectively profiting from the brand awareness that they did nothing to create themselves. You also need to consider that individuals and companies need to be able to protect their IP from what they see as misuse or inappropriate depictions of their IP.

I don't fully agree, it's all relative in my optics: Creations made by individuals or small to medium sized enterprises should recieve a very good degree of intellectual protection. But wealthy organisations should not have te ability to legally act against indviduals who, in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedications, create content derived from said company's creations. Outside of principal reasons I also fail to see how animations like Astartes or the Last Church cause any 'harm' for GW or society at large.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 07:41:25


Post by: a_typical_hero


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
And yet these creators are piggybacking on the work of GW. It's their decades of work that has built the brand to the point a project like Astartes can gain instant "mass" appeal. The creator is effectively profiting from the brand awareness that they did nothing to create themselves. You also need to consider that individuals and companies need to be able to protect their IP from what they see as misuse or inappropriate depictions of their IP.

I don't fully agree, it's all relative in my optics: Creations made by individuals or small to medium sized enterprises should recieve a very good degree of intellectual protection. But wealthy organisations should not have te ability to legally act against indviduals who, in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedications, create content derived from said company's creations. Outside of principal reasons I also fail to see how animations like Astartes or the Last Church cause any 'harm' for GW or society at large.


The harm is that GW wants to start their own animation series and artists like SODAZ are free, high quality competitors (who use GWs IP). Instead of starting from 0 you just hire the most talented artists of your fanbase. You acquire their work and experience, take out competition, they get to do what they did with more ressources and a proper salary.

GW isn't doing this out of pure charity, but at the end it is still a win-win situation for both sides.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 08:09:54


Post by: Apple fox


The harm can also be that the person or brand is not someone they want to promote, or be associated with.
If they are, then it’s probably worth looking at a licence anyway. Or some kind of deal so they at least follow some brand guide lines.

This is not even that heavy handed, just read up on how controlling Coke and Pepsi can get over the years :-0


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 08:16:01


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
And yet these creators are piggybacking on the work of GW. It's their decades of work that has built the brand to the point a project like Astartes can gain instant "mass" appeal. The creator is effectively profiting from the brand awareness that they did nothing to create themselves. You also need to consider that individuals and companies need to be able to protect their IP from what they see as misuse or inappropriate depictions of their IP.

I don't fully agree, it's all relative in my optics: Creations made by individuals or small to medium sized enterprises should recieve a very good degree of intellectual protection. But wealthy organisations should not have te ability to legally act against indviduals who, in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedications, create content derived from said company's creations. Outside of principal reasons I also fail to see how animations like Astartes or the Last Church cause any 'harm' for GW or society at large.


How small do you have to be to be classed as "small or medium sized enterprises"? Is that determined by the number of people working on something, the size of the audience, the amount of money they make? Companies also need to be able to act to remove anything that uses their IP in a way they don't approve of. The most obvious example would be somebody using GW IP to make racist videos, or pornographic content but there could be other less obvious depictions that GW doesn't want made public. Since they created the IP that decision is entirely on them, or are you arguing that once a company gets to a certain size it should lose the right to defend its IP? If so, what size? Compared to the money GW is currently earning from its animation department literally any content creator who makes any money from a GW-related animation is making more profit than GW are in that specific area. It's not unreasonable for GW to argue such things could directly effect their ability to make profit in that area.

If you don't think GW have any claim against things like Astartes or the Last Church I would ask if you believe either of those things would be even one tenth as popular as they are if they were original creations rather than based on GW's IP?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 08:26:52


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There’s also the oddness of “over a certain size, you shouldn’t have control over your goodies”

I mean....why? What’s the thinking behind that?

GW have built up their background for over 30 years. That’s cost money, especially when we factor in Black Library and the hundreds of books they’ve farted out over the years.

Why should anyone just be able to leverage that and the community’s love for it, without GW getting at least their slice of the proceeds?

They’re the sole curator of the background. It’s for GW and GW alone (as with any content creator) to draw their own line in the sand.

And again. This isn’t a C&D Jamboree, is it? It’s the person being hired by GW to do what they’re doing on GW’s dollar.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 09:00:31


Post by: Koveras


Apple fox wrote:
The harm can also be that the person or brand is not someone they want to promote, or be associated with.
If they are, then it’s probably worth looking at a licence anyway. Or some kind of deal so they at least follow some brand guide lines.

This is not even that heavy handed, just read up on how controlling Coke and Pepsi can get over the years :-0


Yep. Imagine someone like Arch begins making animation using 40k IP. The company wants nothing to do with him. If it reached mass appeal and trades dig into his opinions it can harm their brand and future content.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 09:13:17


Post by: ccs


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
And yet these creators are piggybacking on the work of GW. It's their decades of work that has built the brand to the point a project like Astartes can gain instant "mass" appeal. The creator is effectively profiting from the brand awareness that they did nothing to create themselves. You also need to consider that individuals and companies need to be able to protect their IP from what they see as misuse or inappropriate depictions of their IP.

I don't fully agree, it's all relative in my optics: Creations made by individuals or small to medium sized enterprises should recieve a very good degree of intellectual protection. But wealthy organisations should not have te ability to legally act against indviduals who, in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedications, create content derived from said company's creations.


Why should smaller companies enjoy more protection than larger ones?



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 09:49:27


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Because otherwise not GW bad.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 11:30:46


Post by: Mr. Grey


But wealthy organisations should not have te ability to legally act against indviduals who, in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedications, create content derived from said company's creations.


Ok, now define "in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedication". Who decides that? The company who owns the IP? An independent panel of judges? A legal counsel?

If someone had done an animated short at the high quality level of Astartes, showing a squad of space marines rampaging through an "insurgent" civilian population, killing innocents and smashing babies to the ground, would that still count as "with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedication"? From what we know the the Warhammer 40,000 universe and the Imperium of Man, this is a possible scenario. Does Games Workshop want that scenario shown in animated form? Probably not.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 11:42:37


Post by: Darsath


 Mr. Grey wrote:
But wealthy organisations should not have te ability to legally act against indviduals who, in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedications, create content derived from said company's creations.


Ok, now define "in good and faith and with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedication". Who decides that? The company who owns the IP? An independent panel of judges? A legal counsel?

If someone had done an animated short at the high quality level of Astartes, showing a squad of space marines rampaging through an "insurgent" civilian population, killing innocents and smashing babies to the ground, would that still count as "with the utmost craftsmanship and fan dedication"? From what we know the the Warhammer 40,000 universe and the Imperium of Man, this is a possible scenario. Does Games Workshop want that scenario shown in animated form? Probably not.

Ironically, it would be more likely to support a short like that in court, depending on how it was made. You could easily portray it as a parody of how extreme the 40k Universe is. Not saying it would be legal or illegal, since Trademark and Copyright infringement is always a case-by-case basis, but you would find it easier to defend.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:27:14


Post by: ClockworkZion


While it might be a little early for SODAZ, we're getting animation stuff on Sat:



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:36:29


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Didn't they do the same thing to that Web Comic that was about the junior Commissar and how inept he was? I forget the title, but it was very well done. Then GW "acquired" them and the comic was stopped altogether, with the artist saying on their personal blog they honestly proffered getting paid to do comics about what they are interested in, as opposed to working for donations on patreon, essentially. Then it was revealed that the original comic violated GW's copyright, and it now impossible to find, and the artist said they can't even discuss that project anymore. They can only discuss their current GW comic about a inept rogue Trader?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:52:52


Post by: chaos0xomega


This communities take on intellectual property is disgusting. "wealthy organisations should not have the ability to legally act against indviduals who create content derived from said company's creations."

What?? Excuse me?? What kind of self-entitled talentless hack do you have to be to feel that you have the right to free ride on someone elses work? How do you justify thinking that you are entitled to derive work from someone elses creation or piggyback profits for yourself off of it?

feth that. If I were to launch my own IP, invest years of my own blood, sweat, and tears, as well as the efforts of my hired labor into developing it, and one day that IP becomes a multi-billion dollar property with a publicly traded corporation behind it, you bet your ass that I'm C&Ding every Tom, Dick, and Harry that threatens or infringes on my ability to maintain total control over the property or disrupts and damages my ability to profit from it, and no amount of "nuh-uh, you're too wealthy to be entitled to the fruits of your labor" is ever going to change that.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:53:05


Post by: ClockworkZion


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Didn't they do the same thing to that Web Comic that was about the junior Commissar and how inept he was? I forget the title, but it was very well done. Then GW "acquired" them and the comic was stopped altogether, with the artist saying on their personal blog they honestly proffered getting paid to do comics about what they are interested in, as opposed to working for donations on patreon, essentially. Then it was revealed that the original comic violated GW's copyright, and it now impossible to find, and the artist said they can't even discuss that project anymore. They can only discuss their current GW comic about a inept rogue Trader?

Never heard of that one.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:55:05


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


How small do you have to be to be classed as "small or medium sized enterprises"? Is that determined by the number of people working on something, the size of the audience, the amount of money they make? Companies also need to be able to act to remove anything that uses their IP in a way they don't approve of. The most obvious example would be somebody using GW IP to make racist videos, or pornographic content but there could be other less obvious depictions that GW doesn't want made public. Since they created the IP that decision is entirely on them, or are you arguing that once a company gets to a certain size it should lose the right to defend its IP? If so, what size? Compared to the money GW is currently earning from its animation department literally any content creator who makes any money from a GW-related animation is making more profit than GW are in that specific area. It's not unreasonable for GW to argue such things could directly effect their ability to make profit in that area.

If you don't think GW have any claim against things like Astartes or the Last Church I would ask if you believe either of those things would be even one tenth as popular as they are if they were original creations rather than based on GW's IP?

Firstly, allow me to reframe my position: I believe with the utmost sincerity that the removal of projects such as Astartes and The Last Church from the platform of YouTube is wrong because the loss of such pieces of craftsmanship and fan dedication to a large internet going audience weighs greater than whatever damages or harm GW might have received.

Again, all is relative, I might have come to a different conclusion if different parties or other pieces of content were involved. In this case I won't subscribe to any school of reasoning that states GW is disadvantaged by the content produced.

Fundamentally, I genuinely believes that large, wealthy organisations and institutions (obviously to be further defined in legislation) should have less options to 'go after' individuals or smaller, less well funded entities. They don't have to be completely shut out of course, but the advantage should lie decisively with the smaller party.

In practical terms, some form of government oversight would be necessary to enforce these relations. As you mentioned, unacceptably abusive content should be removed, though that can all be achieved under the respective ordinances outlawing such content.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:55:07


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 ClockworkZion wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Didn't they do the same thing to that Web Comic that was about the junior Commissar and how inept he was? I forget the title, but it was very well done. Then GW "acquired" them and the comic was stopped altogether, with the artist saying on their personal blog they honestly proffered getting paid to do comics about what they are interested in, as opposed to working for donations on patreon, essentially. Then it was revealed that the original comic violated GW's copyright, and it now impossible to find, and the artist said they can't even discuss that project anymore. They can only discuss their current GW comic about a inept rogue Trader?

Never heard of that one.


Just found it on an archive. "Eagle Ordinary"


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:57:22


Post by: beast_gts


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Didn't they do the same thing to that Web Comic that was about the junior Commissar and how inept he was? I forget the title, but it was very well done. Then GW "acquired" them and the comic was stopped altogether, with the artist saying on their personal blog they honestly proffered getting paid to do comics about what they are interested in, as opposed to working for donations on patreon, essentially. Then it was revealed that the original comic violated GW's copyright, and it now impossible to find, and the artist said they can't even discuss that project anymore. They can only discuss their current GW comic about a inept rogue Trader?


Eagle Ordinary? IIRC not all of them went to work for GW, they did Vhane Glorious then left GW.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 16:59:56


Post by: ClockworkZion


beast_gts wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Didn't they do the same thing to that Web Comic that was about the junior Commissar and how inept he was? I forget the title, but it was very well done. Then GW "acquired" them and the comic was stopped altogether, with the artist saying on their personal blog they honestly proffered getting paid to do comics about what they are interested in, as opposed to working for donations on patreon, essentially. Then it was revealed that the original comic violated GW's copyright, and it now impossible to find, and the artist said they can't even discuss that project anymore. They can only discuss their current GW comic about a inept rogue Trader?


Eagle Ordinary? IIRC not all of them went to work for GW, they did Vhane Glorious then left GW.

Vhane Glorious looks like it was going to be good and then just kind of petered off pretty fast. Shame because it was definitely one of the higher end comics they had going on WHC.

EDIT: Looking into it further they took the job of Lead UX Design & Illustrator back in 2018 at GW. They even did the art for the video where Sigmar mashes the "OPEN ANOTHER CHAMBER" button to announce Stormcast Wizards. So they've moved onto bigger and better things which is good.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 17:52:05


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Man. There’s people so desperate to be all butthurt, I’m worried about my Cactii.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 18:07:43


Post by: Mr. Grey


Firstly, allow me to reframe my position: I believe with the utmost sincerity that the removal of projects such as Astartes and The Last Church from the platform of YouTube is wrong because the loss of such pieces of craftsmanship and fan dedication to a large internet going audience weighs greater than whatever damages or harm GW might have received.


For what it's worth, Astartes is still all over Youtube in the form of "Pro gamer/former marine/animation expert/housewife/military veteran/etc Reacts to Astartes" videos. I've seen probably close to ten different variations of that pop up as lately on my homepage, so I'm fairly certain that Astartes is still getting exposure on Youtube, regardless of whether or not the original channel took it down.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 19:28:29


Post by: kirotheavenger


You don't even need to put up with some muppet yelling to watch it.
There's "full edits" and similar uploaded to YouTube which are easy to find with a search.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/17 19:32:34


Post by: ClockworkZion


 kirotheavenger wrote:
You don't even need to put up with some muppet yelling to watch it.
There's "full edits" and similar uploaded to YouTube which are easy to find with a search.

I mean if you know about WHC then spotting the "videos" tab is pretty easy: https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-animation-astartes

That said, we do need a Warhammer Animations channel.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 08:30:33


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Firstly, allow me to reframe my position: I believe with the utmost sincerity that the removal of projects such as Astartes and The Last Church from the platform of YouTube is wrong because the loss of such pieces of craftsmanship and fan dedication to a large internet going audience weighs greater than whatever damages or harm GW might have received.


Why? At what point does the person/group/company that created the IP in the first place get to have a say about how it's used? There was an example earlier about having a depiction of a group of Space Marines destroying a Chaos cult and also every last man woman and child in a city to make sure the heresy has been expunged. That's certainly lore-accurate, and has been hinted at many, many times in the background though very rarely (if ever) explicitly shown/described. If GW decide that's not a depiction they want in the public domain why do they not have the right to have that removed just because the person that created it is a one-man band?

Who decides what level of craftsmanship is required for something to be allowed to stay over the IP owners wishes? Who decides if a piece of content is artistically "good" in the first place. Personally I think Astartes was pretty good and captured a lot of the feel and character of Space Marines very well. In the grand scheme of all human artistic endeavour though it could never have existed and the vast majority of people's lives would be no worse for it. There's also a weird dichotomy here where apparently a company that is too large should lose control of its IP but a content creator who has a large audience has no extra responsibilities. So being big is bad for companies but is a key factor in determining the worthiness of a work using that company's IP?

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Again, all is relative, I might have come to a different conclusion if different parties or other pieces of content were involved. In this case I won't subscribe to any school of reasoning that states GW is disadvantaged by the content produced.

Fundamentally, I genuinely believes that large, wealthy organisations and institutions (obviously to be further defined in legislation) should have less options to 'go after' individuals or smaller, less well funded entities. They don't have to be completely shut out of course, but the advantage should lie decisively with the smaller party.

In practical terms, some form of government oversight would be necessary to enforce these relations. As you mentioned, unacceptably abusive content should be removed, though that can all be achieved under the respective ordinances outlawing such content.


This is just some vague, poorly defined "all companies bad!" justification that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny or thought. How big are you allowed to be while still being counted as a "smaller party"? A lot of the core, most influential background and aesthetics for 40k were created at a time when you could argue GW was still a medium-sized company back in the late 80s and early 90s. People like John Blanche and Jes Goodwin did a lot to establish the feel of the 40k universe back then at a time when presumably you might have argued they should be protected from other company's interfering with their vision. But now those same people's work and vision doesn't deserve protection because that very vision has, at least in part, propelled the company to the position it's in now?

How does the whole "less well funded entities" thing work? By your definition pretty much anyone other than a few of the very largest companies in the world would get this protection. Compared to, say, Disney or Activision/Blizzard the vast majority of companies in those industries are much smaller. When do you become big enough that you become worthy of less protection according to you? What if one of these small creators becomes so successful that they're now no longer a "smaller. less well funded" entity? What happens to their old content then?

In the end the biggest question I have is why? Why does the hard work and effort a company put into building up their own IP mean nothing? Why does it paradoxically mean less the more successful that IP lets them become? Also, why is Astartes as popular as it is? Do you believe it would be even one tenth as popular without the use of GW IP? If not, why does the creator get a free boost to their audience without having to do the hard work of creating and nurturing that audience in the first place? If they're so creative and talented couldn't they create their own IP instead?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 11:41:18


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:


Why? At what point does the person/group/company that created the IP in the first place get to have a say about how it's used? There was an example earlier about having a depiction of a group of Space Marines destroying a Chaos cult and also every last man woman and child in a city to make sure the heresy has been expunged. That's certainly lore-accurate, and has been hinted at many, many times in the background though very rarely (if ever) explicitly shown/described. If GW decide that's not a depiction they want in the public domain why do they not have the right to have that removed just because the person that created it is a one-man band?

Who decides what level of craftsmanship is required for something to be allowed to stay over the IP owners wishes? Who decides if a piece of content is artistically "good" in the first place. Personally I think Astartes was pretty good and captured a lot of the feel and character of Space Marines very well. In the grand scheme of all human artistic endeavour though it could never have existed and the vast majority of people's lives would be no worse for it. There's also a weird dichotomy here where apparently a company that is too large should lose control of its IP but a content creator who has a large audience has no extra responsibilities. So being big is bad for companies but is a key factor in determining the worthiness of a work using that company's IP?

This is just some vague, poorly defined "all companies bad!" justification that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny or thought. How big are you allowed to be while still being counted as a "smaller party"? A lot of the core, most influential background and aesthetics for 40k were created at a time when you could argue GW was still a medium-sized company back in the late 80s and early 90s. People like John Blanche and Jes Goodwin did a lot to establish the feel of the 40k universe back then at a time when presumably you might have argued they should be protected from other company's interfering with their vision. But now those same people's work and vision doesn't deserve protection because that very vision has, at least in part, propelled the company to the position it's in now?

How does the whole "less well funded entities" thing work? By your definition pretty much anyone other than a few of the very largest companies in the world would get this protection. Compared to, say, Disney or Activision/Blizzard the vast majority of companies in those industries are much smaller. When do you become big enough that you become worthy of less protection according to you? What if one of these small creators becomes so successful that they're now no longer a "smaller. less well funded" entity? What happens to their old content then?

In the end the biggest question I have is why? Why does the hard work and effort a company put into building up their own IP mean nothing? Why does it paradoxically mean less the more successful that IP lets them become? Also, why is Astartes as popular as it is? Do you believe it would be even one tenth as popular without the use of GW IP? If not, why does the creator get a free boost to their audience without having to do the hard work of creating and nurturing that audience in the first place? If they're so creative and talented couldn't they create their own IP instead?


I am no legislator (though I am active in local politics), nor am any in way an expert on this peculiar branch of legal rights. I cannot give you the specifics on legislation that I am not likely to draft in the near future or alone. That said, the 'why' question appeared multiple times in your post, so I'll once again attempt to answer with the utmost sincerity.

With regards to the specific cases that are discussed in thread (Astartes, etc.) I make the following observations:

1. An individual makes a piece of animated content and posts it on YouTube.
2. Said content is set in the Warhammer 40k universe, created by GW.
3. Said content is broadly well regarded by the YouTube audience and the dedicated 40k fan community.
4. (My appraisal) Said content must have taken significant amounts of craftsmanship, effort and fan dedication to be made (this is often confirmed by the creator's themselves)
5. (Also my appraisal) GW is not noticeably inconvenienced or harmed by said content.

The final two points are the source of our conflict in this specific instance. I do not believe GW should interfer with the several dozen content creators as discussed in this thread because the content itself justifies it's own existence independent of GW's stake. Whatever kind of loss or damages they are supposed to experience from this very small pool of content is negligible in light of the company's operations and I believe they should own it and move on.

You obviously will not agree with the above but it is my genuine take. I am not even unsympathetic to the idea that creators should always remain some degree of control over their creations, yet at the minimum I also think laws should be relaxed to provide legal protection to the 'crumb cases' we discuss here. Again I am no legislator, but I am confident enough that such exemptions will not adversely affect owners of fictional universes. Let's not forget that the internet is already full of tributes, fan art etc. A small protection of animated fan content is nothing outrageous.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 12:45:29


Post by: kirotheavenger


So you believe that companies cannot defend their IP if you enjoy the offending content more than you believe the company is inconvenienced?

That seems very unfair.
The world isn't a charity, you have no right to enjoy Astartes. You are allowed to enjoy it because the creator lets you. Except in this case the creator the universe its set in doesn't. And that's up to them, entirely.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 14:23:39


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
So you believe that companies cannot defend their IP if you enjoy the offending content more than you believe the company is inconvenienced?

That seems very unfair.
The world isn't a charity, you have no right to enjoy Astartes. You are allowed to enjoy it because the creator lets you. Except in this case the creator the universe its set in doesn't. And that's up to them, entirely.

And this is what I fundamentally dispute, I do not see the content in question as 'offending' in any way. Unfair is what I would use to describe the practice of removing such content from the acces of the public. Fan creations can exist all over the internet undisturbed. Animated content by at most several dozen creators should be so as well. After all, what is the fundamental difference between them if we disregard the platform they're published on?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 14:45:21


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
So you believe that companies cannot defend their IP if you enjoy the offending content more than you believe the company is inconvenienced?

That seems very unfair.
The world isn't a charity, you have no right to enjoy Astartes. You are allowed to enjoy it because the creator lets you. Except in this case the creator the universe its set in doesn't. And that's up to them, entirely.

And this is what I fundamentally dispute, I do not see the content in question as 'offending' in any way. Unfair is what I would use to describe the practice of removing such content from the acces of the public. Fan creations can exist all over the internet undisturbed. Animated content by at most several dozen creators should be so as well. After all, what is the fundamental difference between them if we disregard the platform they're published on?


The public has no inherent right to access the material in the first place, even less so once you start hosting on another company's website (like YouTube). Fan creations often go undisturbed but that's usually because the company whose IP they infringe hasn't noticed them or doesn't care enough because the audience is so small. That's not to say the company doesn't have the right to request they be removed in some cases, it just often isn't worth the effort. The reality is the more successful you become the more likely it is the IP holder will notice and the more likely it is you'll be asked to remove your work.

I notice you still haven't answered the question I've posed a couple of times now. Do you believe Astartes would have been anywhere near as popular as it was if it had been based on a new IP developed by the creator rather than being set in the 40k universe?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 14:51:26


Post by: kirotheavenger


I used "offending" to mean it's breaching the copyright.

As mentioned, these animations are being targeted because they get popular enough to be noticed and/or cared about.

Small animations flying below the radar doesn't mean animations should beyond copyright law.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 15:22:35


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
The public has no inherent right to access the material in the first place, even less so once you start hosting on another company's website (like YouTube). Fan creations often go undisturbed but that's usually because the company whose IP they infringe hasn't noticed them or doesn't care enough because the audience is so small. That's not to say the company doesn't have the right to request they be removed in some cases, it just often isn't worth the effort. The reality is the more successful you become the more likely it is the IP holder will notice and the more likely it is you'll be asked to remove your work.

I notice you still haven't answered the question I've posed a couple of times now. Do you believe Astartes would have been anywhere near as popular as it was if it had been based on a new IP developed by the creator rather than being set in the 40k universe?

Once again I dispute the notion that the public has 'no right' to fan content. Or that such content inherently constitutes an 'infringement'. My belief on the matter very relative and context dependent.

Again I am not wholly denying to right of a company to retain some say over their creations. Just that at the minimum 'crumb cases', as in fan content should be protected to a certain degree. In practice all I propose is to formalize the precedent of not going after 'unnoticed' fan content in while also applying said protection to 'noticed' fan content. I don't make legislation however, so of course I won't know the exact wording and conditions, just the general tenor.

Finally, with regards to your question, I most definitely believe that Astartes' popularity was boosted by it's choice of setting. Does that change my appraisal of the situation? No, it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I used "offending" to mean it's breaching the copyright.

As mentioned, these animations are being targeted because they get popular enough to be noticed and/or cared about.

Small animations flying below the radar doesn't mean animations should beyond copyright law.

To avoid a prolonged discussion and to preserve civility I think we must conclude that our appraisals on what copyright law should constitute is irreconcilable different.

I still have one last question about the 'unnoticed' content though. If in practice such content is already protected from legal action by virtue of not being significant enough, what practical objections remain against formalising such protection if enacted through the appropriate democratic channels?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:05:45


Post by: kirotheavenger


The creator of Astartes was making over $20,000 a month on Patreon before he had to stop.
Does that change your opinion of it being a 'crumb case'?

Unnoticed content isn't protected, at all.
So no, I don't see anything to formalise, let alone needing a reason to justify not doing it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:07:44


Post by: Kanluwen


Wait, seriously $20k a month?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:09:34


Post by: ClockworkZion


The creator of Astartes still has a Patreon, though no one is sure if he's going to use it for non-GW stuff.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:11:40


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
The creator of Astartes was making over $20,000 a month on Patreon before he had to stop.
Does that change your opinion of it being a 'crumb case'?

I don't see why it would.

Unnoticed content isn't protected, at all.
So no, I don't see anything to formalise, let alone needing a reason to justify not doing it.

Allow me to reframe the question then: Replace 'protected' with 'not being actively legally threatened'. Can you answer the question now?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:13:31


Post by: Karol


chaos0xomega wrote:
This communities take on intellectual property is disgusting. "wealthy organisations should not have the ability to legally act against indviduals who create content derived from said company's creations."

What?? Excuse me?? What kind of self-entitled talentless hack do you have to be to feel that you have the right to free ride on someone elses work? How do you justify thinking that you are entitled to derive work from someone elses creation or piggyback profits for yourself off of it?

feth that. If I were to launch my own IP, invest years of my own blood, sweat, and tears, as well as the efforts of my hired labor into developing it, and one day that IP becomes a multi-billion dollar property with a publicly traded corporation behind it, you bet your ass that I'm C&Ding every Tom, Dick, and Harry that threatens or infringes on my ability to maintain total control over the property or disrupts and damages my ability to profit from it, and no amount of "nuh-uh, you're too wealthy to be entitled to the fruits of your labor" is ever going to change that.


But they based it on Judge Dread and other IPs, with AoS at least one can say it is wierd enough to be completly theirs. Why should GW had an adventage over other people, just because they could even legaly have private companies in the 80s? GW can keep their wealth, have their fans buy their stuff, they build a gigantic company and a market. Great for them and cross for the road, as we say it here. And now Kromlechs, Artels and other comapnies are going to make their models. And if people like those models, they are going to buy them. And I guess if GW wants to convince people to not buy from those companies , then I guess they are going to have to make better models, that people like more. We ain't some south american hell hole here, no table top gaming version of AT&T is going to force us to obey, and if they want, they sure as hell can come and try. They can get the polish or russian court expiriance first hand.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:24:42


Post by: kirotheavenger


$20,000 a month means he's making serious money with something that wasn't his to use (the 40k IP).
It's little different to someone stealing your car and running an Uber business at night.
It was at night so you weren't using it anyway, no harm done right?

I still fail to see the issue even with your updated wording.
Just because something isn't worth the time to enforce doesn't mean it should be defacto legal.
Most litterers never get caught or fined, does that mean littering should be legalised?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:38:35


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
$20,000 a month means he's making serious money with something that wasn't his to use (the 40k IP).
It's little different to someone stealing your car and running an Uber business at night.
It was at night so you weren't using it anyway, no harm done right?

Once again, I believe him using the 40k universe should not be of any legal relevance, it was a good decision for him, he should be free to use it and that's all.

I will reiterate that there is no point in further arguing this subject as our positions on this are clear an we are unlikely to be persuaded by one another.

I still fail to see the issue even with your updated wording.
Just because something isn't worth the time to enforce doesn't mean it should be defacto legal.
Most litterers never get caught or fined, does that mean littering should be legalised?

Because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, because the vast majority of fan content constitutes an enrichment for the setting? As well being impressive displays of skill, creativity and dedication in their own right? None of this applies to litter, I might add.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 16:41:49


Post by: catbarf


 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's little different to someone stealing your car and running an Uber business at night.


Well, it is completely different, given that at the most basic level one constitutes a criminal offense and the other a civil offense.

I thought we got past 'YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR' like fifteen years ago. Copyright infringement literally isn't theft, the concerns and ramifications are different. There's certainly a lot more leeway when it comes to copyright infringement- there's no 'fair use' doctrine for stealing cars, for example.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 17:12:39


Post by: kirotheavenger


But in my example they give the car back.
It may not be a perfect anaology but I feel it gets the point across. You're using something that isn't yours (and is in fact owned by someone else). You're also profiting from it.

40k isn't an open source program, it should be up to the owners whether they want their world to be open source or not.
"I like what people produce with it, so it should be legal to use someone else's property" is an incredibly selfish and entitled viewpoint, imo.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 17:21:39


Post by: Mr. Grey


Because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, because the vast majority of fan content constitutes an enrichment for the setting? As well being impressive displays of skill, creativity and dedication in their own right? None of this applies to litter, I might add.


So your argument is that it's perfectly, absolutely ok for fans to create whatever content they want based off of existing IP's without any legal repercussion whatsoever, correct?

Let's take it a step further then, and create a scenario where someone creates fan content that features Noise Marines sexually assaulting someone. And maybe some kid's mom stumbles across this content and knows that her kid has some miniatures from this hobby company. What happens then? Games Workshop has a BIG problem, because now their IP is associated with this content whether or not they want it to be. Regardless of what you think, I guarantee that GW does not want to be thought of as "that company that's ok with hardcore sexual violence" if they don't shut down this hypothetical fan content.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 17:30:27


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
"I like what people produce with it, so it should be legal to use someone else's property" is an incredibly selfish and entitled viewpoint, imo.


I said wanted to cease this discussion but I feel compelled to respond once again.

For one, it is not just 'I', ideally an independent panel of experts should judge on a case to case basis whether or not a piece of content is legally permissible. Again the vast majority of fan content is already tolerated so such a panel would only be called upon in borderline cases. Also again , I am not a legislator so I can't give you the specific duties or processes of the panel, just that it should guarantee some form of independent oversight.

I see selfish and entitled motives only by those arguing that fan content such as Astartes should be impermissible because a setting needs to be within the iron grasp of a creative company.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 17:39:24


Post by: catbarf


kirotheavenger wrote:But in my example they give the car back.
It may not be a perfect anaology but I feel it gets the point across.


It's a bad analogy because the basis for why stealing a car and using it without permission is wrong- and illegal- has no direct corollary in IP. They're completely different things. Using IP does not deprive anyone of a physical possession; it's parallel reuse of an abstract idea. It's an extremely important distinction and they're treated totally differently under the law.

To address it anyways: If you're taking my car at night, I can't use it if I have an emergency. I have no guarantee that you will return it. I have no guarantee that you won't damage it. You'll incur wear and tear as you use it. There is liability involving my property being used by you. The fact that you're using it for Uber is irrelevant- the laws that protect my physical property against your use are based on the risk you pose to my property and my ability to use it, and have nothing to do with what you're using it for. Whereas with intellectual property nothing is being taken, only reproduced, and your exact intentions with my IP matter a lot.

And for what it's worth, I don't agree that anyone should be free to profit off copyrighted material, and the Astartes guy was clearly doing it as a commercial venture (see: Patreon); but comparing it to theft is completely wrong.

Mr. Grey wrote:Let's take it a step further then, and create a scenario where someone creates fan content that features Noise Marines sexually assaulting someone. And maybe some kid's mom stumbles across this content and knows that her kid has some miniatures from this hobby company. What happens then? Games Workshop has a BIG problem, because now their IP is associated with this content whether or not they want it to be. Regardless of what you think, I guarantee that GW does not want to be thought of as "that company that's ok with hardcore sexual violence" if they don't shut down this hypothetical fan content.


I want to point out that under current copyright law, there are fair use protections specifically for use of copyrighted material in ways that cause damage to the copyright holder- criticism, for example.

The amount of material used, its nature (transformative or not), and intentions (commercial vs non-commercial) are what matters in a copyright infringement suit, not whether the use of copyrighted material makes the copyright holder look bad. No US court has ever ruled against a work of transformative, non-commercial fan work, and there's plenty of horrendous (and/or explicit) fan fiction that reflects poorly on the IP.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 17:41:03


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 Mr. Grey wrote:
So your argument is that it's perfectly, absolutely ok for fans to create whatever content they want based off of existing IP's without any legal repercussion whatsoever, correct?

Let's take it a step further then, and create a scenario where someone creates fan content that features Noise Marines sexually assaulting someone. And maybe some kid's mom stumbles across this content and knows that her kid has some miniatures from this hobby company. What happens then? Games Workshop has a BIG problem, because now their IP is associated with this content whether or not they want it to be. Regardless of what you think, I guarantee that GW does not want to be thought of as "that company that's ok with hardcore sexual violence" if they don't shut down this hypothetical fan content.


This is a reasonable question, the obvious answer is no.

I am not arguing that any person should be able to anything they want with an established setting owned by another party. I am arguing that with regards to fan content the legal tenor should weigh much more towards 'allow' than to 'deny'.

In my previous post I mentioned an independent panel that could act as judge in contentious cases, it might even be some form of judicial unit, just one that has the appropriate expertise and clearance to make a meaningful conclusion.

I am actually coming around to the idea that an inhibition on the pecuniary gain with regards to the creative work of others is mostly desirable. Still artist doing commissioned pieces of a large variety of settings will prove practically impossible to halt.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 18:18:05


Post by: PenitentJake


I think everyone is overthinking GW's motives for this purchase. Honestly, I think GW probably just took their cues from Kim Mitchell on this one:

Might as well go for sodaz
It's better than slander, it's better than lies
Might as well go for sodaz
Nobody hurts and nobody cries
Might as well go for sodaz


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 18:32:22


Post by: NinthMusketeer


What was GW really supposed to do here? Let a guy make 20k a month using their IP? That doesn't seem fair.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 19:06:19


Post by: chaos0xomega


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

4. (My appraisal) Said content must have taken significant amounts of craftsmanship, effort and fan dedication to be made (this is often confirmed by the creator's themselves)


Irrelevant. A forgery made with love, care, and dedication is still a forgery. The creator of the original still has a right to protest the existence of the forgery no matter how well intentioned or dedicated the bootlegger was in creating it.

5. (Also my appraisal) GW is not noticeably inconvenienced or harmed by said content.


Thats not for you to decide.

To avoid a prolonged discussion and to preserve civility I think we must conclude that our appraisals on what copyright law should constitute is irreconcilable different.

Just because your perspective is "different" doesn't mean its valid or ethical.

But they based it on Judge Dread and other IPs


Sourcing inspiration from something doesn't constitute theft or infringement. 40k pulls a lot of inspiration from a lot of things, just as a lot of the things that 40k pulls inspiration from were in turn inspired by other things. A lot of people have "flanderized" the idea that GW is heavily inspired by other works into this idea that GW wholesale ripped off everything under the sun and copy-pasted gak into their own setting with complete disregard for IP law, etc. While there are some things that they definitely went too far on (Michael Moorcock would like to have a word, I'm sure) and which they probably would not have gotten away with today given the greater visibility of the industry and nerd media/pop culture in general, for the most part this is more of meme and in actuality not really relevant. Adeptus Arbites may have started out as a Judge Dredd ripoff, but they make up one tiny small fragment of the broader lore and recent depictions have moved them slowly away from that original concept. While some aspect of 40k is inspired by Judge Dredd, the totality of it is not, and it stands alone as a fairly distinct work greater than the sum of its parts.

These creations, on the other hand, are pretty far and away a different case entirely. The Last Church is a *literal* 40k/Horus Heresy story that was converted into an animation. Astartes is literally presented as a 40k space marine doing 40k space marine things. These aren't the same as what you're trying to compare them to. These animations aren't "hey I was really inspired by Space Marines so I created my own universe with these power-armored genetically engineered super soldiers called 'Star Rangers'", they are "hey I really like Space Marines, so heres a video of Space Marines doing things" - and in the case of The Last Church it was literally a case of "Hey, I really like this story that this other dude wrote, watch these moving pictures I drew while I read it to you!" In the case of The Last Church, its particularly problematic, as its literally ripping off a story written by a guy who is not "a large wealthy organization" - Graham McNeill probably got a couple thousand dollars total in royalties to write that story, and he doesn't get a penny of profit from the guy who made The Last Church animation, whereas depending on the terms of the contract he might have made a hell of a lot more if GW made an official monetized film/tv adaptation of it. The existence of the fanimation actually jeopardizes Grahams potential to cash in on it, as GW could now be sued (assuming they didn't purchase the rights from the animator) if they themselves created an official film/animated adaptation of the story for infringing on the IP of the fanimation - it would be a contentious case, but other much larger companies than GW have literally had this same exact scenario occur to them, and in several cases the fan-creator actually won damages from the actual IP owner (though only under very specific/limited circumstances).

And now Kromlechs, Artels and other comapnies are going to make their models. And if people like those models, they are going to buy them. And I guess if GW wants to convince people to not buy from those companies , then I guess they are going to have to make better models, that people like more. We ain't some south american hell hole here, no table top gaming version of AT&T is going to force us to obey, and if they want, they sure as hell can come and try. They can get the polish or russian court expiriance first hand.


lol, those companies are ultimately a bunch of parasites that would collapse overnight if GW and 40k ceased to exist. It amazes me how so many in this "fandom" seem to think that 40k, etc. are self-created and self-perpetuating, i.e. the game, lore, and minis just will themselves into existence as if flowing from a well-spring or crowing from a tree, and GW just so happened to be the lucky corporate entity that found it and took ownership of it. Newsflash: if you want more stories and books, more minis, films, artwork, game rules, etc. etc. etc. you have to feed the beast. All of this takes money and resources, none of it comes from nothing, none of it is free. Every penny you direct to companies like Kromlech or Artel or whatever is a hit on GWs ability to provide you with more of the content that you profess to love, ultimately you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by supporting them. And no, if GW were to go out of business and the game were to disappear, the community would not somehow "keep it alive".

The only reason these companies, and others like them, haven't effectively killed GWs existence is because IP laws exist in the first place, even in Poland and Russia there are effective limitations on how far these companies can go before running afoul of these laws, and even if that wasn't the case the fact that the core markets for their products are in countries with very strict IP laws limits the amount of harm they can cause.

Once again, I believe him using the 40k universe should not be of any legal relevance, it was a good decision for him, he should be free to use it and that's all.
I will reiterate that there is no point in further arguing this subject as our positions on this are clear an we are unlikely to be persuaded by one another.


Its not his to use. He isn't entitled to it. Nobody is. Its not their creation, its not their setting, its not their story. Period. End of. Fan works existence largely by the grace of the owners of the IP, if the owner of the IP says "no, you can't play with my imaginary spaceships and genetically engineered supersoldiers, create your own instead" then thats their right to do so. Its unethical to suggest otherwise. The concept of "fair use" exists to protect what are legally deemed fair uses of copyright material, fan-works are only loosely covered by it.

Because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, because the vast majority of fan content constitutes an enrichment for the setting? As well being impressive displays of skill, creativity and dedication in their own right? None of this applies to litter, I might add.


Irrelevant. Theft is still theft, no matter how "enriching" or entertaining it might be to witness or how amicable the thieves might be. *eyeroll*

For one, it is not just 'I', ideally an independent panel of experts should judge on a case to case basis whether or not a piece of content is legally permissible. Again the vast majority of fan content is already tolerated so such a panel would only be called upon in borderline cases. Also again , I am not a legislator so I can't give you the specific duties or processes of the panel, just that it should guarantee some form of independent oversight.


Whats it like living in an idealized paradise where things work the way you want them to because you think they should work that way? Must be nice. A panel of elders is no more entitled to decide what constitues permissable ownership of someone elses property than you are as an individual.

I see selfish and entitled motives only by those arguing that fan content such as Astartes should be impermissible because a setting needs to be within the iron grasp of a creative company.


If I make the investment of resources and labor into creating the setting, let alone the *emotional* labor involved with it, why shouldn't that setting be in my iron grasp? What entitles you to step in and start meddling with the things that I created?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 19:27:49


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


I disagree with so many of the assessments made in the post above that I'll decline to comment on them individually.

What I'll leave here is that everything I've posted so far is my sincere personal belief, yes I favour radical and unprecedented changes to how we appraise creative content, but always through the appropriate democratic channels. Anybody is free to disagree with me if they wish.

You can even accuse me of having unethical standpoints if you truly so desire, however, I doubt I'll agree with you on what constitutes ethical policy however.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 20:33:54


Post by: ClockworkZion


PenitentJake wrote:
I think everyone is overthinking GW's motives for this purchase. Honestly, I think GW probably just took their cues from Kim Mitchell on this one:

Might as well go for sodaz
It's better than slander, it's better than lies
Might as well go for sodaz
Nobody hurts and nobody cries
Might as well go for sodaz

Attributing malice to everything GW does is just par for the course at this point.

At this point GW could save a kitten from a tree and someone would claim Roundtree probably put it up there first.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 20:44:57


Post by: RaptorusRex


Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 20:48:50


Post by: ClockworkZion


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

When you start making money on someone else's IP is where it gets morally murky. And let'a be honest: they were making money on GW's IP.

Honestly I feel GW hiring them is a step in the right direction. We still need a GW animations youtube page, but considering where the compamy was even 5 years ago I'll take the small steps I can. Especially when the company is still run by Boomer era old men who are scared of the internet.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 20:55:18


Post by: beast_gts


 ClockworkZion wrote:
We still need a GW animations youtube page

I agree, but it's possible they've signed an "exclusive contract" with someone to distribute (HBO has been rumoured in regard to Eisenhorn, for example) so they can't just dump everything on there.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 20:57:13


Post by: ClockworkZion


beast_gts wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
We still need a GW animations youtube page

I agree, but it's possible they've signed an "exclusive contract" with someone to distribute (HBO has been rumoured in regard to Eisenhorn, for example) so they can't just dump everything on there.

Quite possible. Then they need the animators to redirect people to a WHC animations page and make it easier to find stuff there.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 21:53:26


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.
As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 21:56:23


Post by: RaptorusRex


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.
As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.


Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 22:09:16


Post by: kirotheavenger


"The artists need the patreons to continue to work and sustain themselves"
What gives them the right to make a living off IP that isn't there's?

This opinion honestly baffles me, it's just do incredibly selfish and entitled to believe that you have more right to someone else's property than the actual property owner.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 22:23:15


Post by: RaptorusRex


 kirotheavenger wrote:
"The artists need the patreons to continue to work and sustain themselves"
What gives them the right to make a living off IP that isn't there's?

This opinion honestly baffles me, it's just do incredibly selfish and entitled to believe that you have more right to someone else's property than the actual property owner.


You ignored my first point. What gives GW more of a right to an idea than Moorcock or Tolkien or Giger? "Nothing" is the obvious and truthful answer. GW should, in your view, pay Moorcock for every time they use the Chaos Star he designed. Yet they don't, because these laws are not made to protect property, they're to protect large corporations' control over ideas.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 22:39:03


Post by: Mr. Grey


 RaptorusRex wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.
As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.


Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.



Riiight. And as chaos0xomega pointed out HERE:


Sourcing inspiration from something doesn't constitute theft or infringement. 40k pulls a lot of inspiration from a lot of things, just as a lot of the things that 40k pulls inspiration from were in turn inspired by other things. A lot of people have "flanderized" the idea that GW is heavily inspired by other works into this idea that GW wholesale ripped off everything under the sun and copy-pasted gak into their own setting with complete disregard for IP law, etc. While there are some things that they definitely went too far on (Michael Moorcock would like to have a word, I'm sure) and which they probably would not have gotten away with today given the greater visibility of the industry and nerd media/pop culture in general, for the most part this is more of meme and in actuality not really relevant. Adeptus Arbites may have started out as a Judge Dredd ripoff, but they make up one tiny small fragment of the broader lore and recent depictions have moved them slowly away from that original concept. While some aspect of 40k is inspired by Judge Dredd, the totality of it is not, and it stands alone as a fairly distinct work greater than the sum of its parts.


People love to yell and scream "OMG Games Workshop DIRECTLY copied all of these ideas from other places!!", when in fact, that's pushing it a bit. Pull up the Tyranids section of the GW website and show me exactly where I can find an Alien xenomorph mini. Show me where on the GW website I can find a Dune sandworm or a "House Atreides" commander miniature. Go on. I'll wait.

Or maybe you'd like to produce evidence of a Games Workshop Judge Dredd mini. Oh... that's right. You can't. Because while Games Workshop may have drawn inspiration from all of these sources, over the past 30+ years of the company's existence they've kind of turned into this wonderful IP that we all love to use as our playground.

You may as well shout about Wizards of the Coast producing Magic cards with orcs, goblins, dragons, and wizards on them, and claim that they're ripping off Dungeons and Dragons(or Tolkien for that matter).


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 23:05:36


Post by: ClockworkZion


 RaptorusRex wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.
As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.


Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.

Yes, GW has room to protect its IP because it took those ideas and themes and sufficiently changed them to be a new IP. The animators did not change them as they are still 100% in GW's IP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note on the GW Juge Dreds minis: they had a license to produce them in the 80s.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/18 23:35:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 Kanluwen wrote:
Wait, seriously $20k a month?


At a minimum yes.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 00:15:09


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 RaptorusRex wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.
As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.


Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.
So;
-It was not wrong when GW did it, thus it is not wrong now.
-It was wrong when GW did it, thus it is also wrong now.

Where do you stand?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 00:38:39


Post by: Mezmorki


I'm not sure there is a clear legal direction as to how exclusive ownership of IP can be regulated. Rather than a criminal matter of right/wrong I think it's more of a civil matter of personal impact.

Consider a few examples...

As an artist, say I made original paintings of cars, quite specifically a Lamborghini, driving through the country side, which I sold to earn a living. What if anything do I owe the car manufacturer for having made this creative work based on their design?

Consider another case where I am an author and have created a series of sci-if novels set in a universe of my own invention called Dark Galaxy. What if someone else starts writing and selling stories clearly set in my universe, but titles the books a little differently and doesn't explicitly used the same terms of words?

What if I start my own car company called Rambourghini and sell cars that look like the real thing but are much cheaper quality?

All of these reflect different cases of relative impact and possible harm and I'm not sure IP law has anything clear cut to say about it.

In the first case - it would be pretty difficult to win a civil suit claiming that someone selling a painting of my car is causing me harm. If anything, it's free advertising. If the painting somehow depicted the car in a negative light, eg it was shown running over people, there might be a case but I'd be hard pressed to see how it wouldn't be allowed under creative expression.

In the second case, it's kinda close to what is going on with the videos. But the authors aren't using the IP's trademarked logos, aren't directly copying a visual art, aren't directly reproducing the text (ie stuff that falls under copyright), and so on. I think it would need to be a civil case and the initial author would have to claim that the other author was depriving them of money. Would be quite difficult.

The last example is the most likely to be illegal - and is perhaps clearly a case of counter fitting and intending to deceive a consumer and sell a fake product.

All of this gets murky when the product is available for free for the taking (ie youtube videos) and the artists revenue source is based on voluntary patron support.

Does GW have a right to seek a civil case for damages? Yes - but it would be pretty hard to prove that Astartes videos were someone how damaging the brand. I see these videos falling between the first two examples I presented.

The reality is that it would likely be too difficult to try and take on GW in a legal case. Easier to take the money and whatever deal they offer.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 00:42:34


Post by: ClockworkZion


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.
As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.


Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.
So;
-It was not wrong when GW did it, thus it is not wrong now.
-It was wrong when GW did it, thus it is also wrong now.

Where do you stand?

You fail to understand the concept of a derevitive work. Games Workshop took basic premises from thise creators and put a fresh spin on it to create a new IP. The animators took GW's IP wholesale and played in the sandbox (and in some cases used 3d assets they didn't own to animate with), not made a new sandbox with a couple scoops of GW mixed in.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 01:55:39


Post by: Voss


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
The creator of Astartes was making over $20,000 a month on Patreon before he had to stop.
Does that change your opinion of it being a 'crumb case'?

I don't see why it would.

Since your beliefs are entirely relative and context dependent, it doesn't shift your context? Your whole argument is based around the idea that small people are free to take whatever they want, but anyone over a certain threshold automatically loses any rights they have because of... unclear reasons.

So if they're not the 'small earner' you thought, I can't see how it wouldn't change your opinion.

Unnoticed content isn't protected, at all.
So no, I don't see anything to formalise, let alone needing a reason to justify not doing it.

Allow me to reframe the question then: Replace 'protected' with 'not being actively legally threatened'. Can you answer the question now?


Either way, the answer is hard no. Intentionally creating a tiered & segregated legal system for different classes of people is extraordinarily messed up.

It reminds me a lot of one of the weird aspects of the fanfic community. They assume they've got free use of any character and story ever created by anyone, but if they use fanart, there's a huge backlash if they don't credit the artist. Its amazingly hypocritical, but no one involved seems to grasp the irony.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 04:25:54


Post by: Galas


I'm the definition of a fan author that writtes a ton of stuff for Warcraft.

If I was making money with any of this stuff I would absolutely expect Blizzard to come down on me.

I'm all for bashing our trademark policies and how copyright is too invasive and many times used by big conglomerates to just stop everyone else to do something until they, maybe, in some point in the future, make it.

But is easy: As a fan you can do everything. But the moment you gain money with it, or it affects something the proper company is gonna do (All the nintendo fan remakes ,etc...), you are told to stop. Is not computer science.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 04:57:02


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Galas wrote:
I'm the definition of a fan author that writtes a ton of stuff for Warcraft.

If I was making money with any of this stuff I would absolutely expect Blizzard to come down on me.

I'm all for bashing our trademark policies and how copyright is too invasive and many times used by big conglomerates to just stop everyone else to do something until they, maybe, in some point in the future, make it.

But is easy: As a fan you can do everything. But the moment you gain money with it, or it affects something the proper company is gonna do (All the nintendo fan remakes ,etc...), you are told to stop. Is not computer science.

Doubly so if you use assets that don't belong to you to make your work. Helsreach for example used models from Space Marine. Honestly the fact they're being hired is the best case scenario and the conspiracies about being C&Ded with more steps are ridiculous.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 06:28:02


Post by: kodos


 Galas wrote:

But is easy: As a fan you can do everything.

this is the main problem of this thread, with US law you can not, while in most EU countries you can

making money from it is not the main point, but the basic copyright law of the US does not allow fan-fiction by default were for example German law does allow it

the main point in the US is fair use, which is decided case by case rather than a generic guide that works for everyone (fair use vs derivative work)
and with YouTube being a US company they enforce US law


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 06:48:44


Post by: ccs


chaos0xomega wrote:

lol, those companies are ultimately a bunch of parasites that would collapse overnight if GW and 40k ceased to exist. It amazes me how so many in this "fandom" seem to think that 40k, etc. are self-created and self-perpetuating, i.e. the game, lore, and minis just will themselves into existence as if flowing from a well-spring or crowing from a tree, and GW just so happened to be the lucky corporate entity that found it and took ownership of it. Newsflash: if you want more stories and books, more minis, films, artwork, game rules, etc. etc. etc. you have to feed the beast. All of this takes money and resources, none of it comes from nothing, none of it is free. Every penny you direct to companies like Kromlech or Artel or whatever is a hit on GWs ability to provide you with more of the content that you profess to love, ultimately you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by supporting them. And no, if GW were to go out of business and the game were to disappear, the community would not somehow "keep it alive".



And how exactly is it that I'm hurting myself by purchasing 6 packs of Kromlech cacti & some scenic bases this evening?





SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 07:40:49


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

In my previous post I mentioned an independent panel that could act as judge in contentious cases, it might even be some form of judicial unit, just one that has the appropriate expertise and clearance to make a meaningful conclusion.


So I can have an original IP that I created and developed myself and have complete control over that I worked hard to build up to some nebulous, poorly defined level of success until I wake up one morning to find the right to decide what I want to happen with that IP has been taken out of my hands and given to some faceless body of people who have no idea about the IP in question.

WTF?

You previously admitted that the choice of setting boosted the popularity of Astartes so it's just really weird to me that you're acknowledging the importance of the setting to the popularity and success of a fan creation but not willing to allow the people who created that success and popularity any say in how it's used because the person using it is so creative and beloved by the community. It just comes across as a really naive example of "corporations bad, little guy good".


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 11:36:20


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
So I can have an original IP that I created and developed myself and have complete control over that I worked hard to build up to some nebulous, poorly defined level of success until I wake up one morning to find the right to decide what I want to happen with that IP has been taken out of my hands and given to some faceless body of people who have no idea about the IP in question.


This is a misunderstanding, I do not propose transferring any rights from creators away to some committee or the like. What I intended with the panel is that the some form of expertise will be needed in borderline cases of fan content and abuse. Such a panel would do research to the content in question independently of both parties. I only intend for such a panel to be called upon in a rare number of situations, preferably new laws should make the distinction between fan content and unlawful action quite clear.

Again, I'm no lawmaker or an expert on the existing laws, so I am not able to give you the specifics you might ask for. All I have is a belief that it is desirable for fan content to broadly exist undisturbed, I don't think that is an outrageous standpoint.

You previously admitted that the choice of setting boosted the popularity of Astartes so it's just really weird to me that you're acknowledging the importance of the setting to the popularity and success of a fan creation but not willing to allow the people who created that success and popularity any say in how it's used because the person using it is so creative and beloved by the community. It just comes across as a really naive example of "corporations bad, little guy good".

When forming my opinion, I judge content like as Astartes in a holistic manner and it needs no saying that I belief Astartes to be awesome project. The setting is not the creators own, but the videos themselves are.
No piece of fan content would exist without the setting, but fan content in my opinion has a quality of it's own, the setting is part of that quality, often majorly so.

In the end it comes to if fan content is valued as something desirable or not. I believe such a judgement is not just for a setting holder to make. Lots of contemporary western laws exist to protect communal interests from private ones. And lots of laws are designed to ensure that the individual/smaller/less well of party is legally better facilitated.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 13:53:09


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Lots of contemporary western laws exist to protect communal interests from private ones. And lots of laws are designed to ensure that the individual/smaller/less well of party is legally better facilitated.


I think this is where the heart of the problem lies. The 40k setting is not some publicly owned piece of community property. It belongs to the company that built it up over decades and their right to control its use is one of the things that encourages the sort of creativity required to produce it in the first place. Treating IP as communal property leads to some weird outcomes, like trying to adjudicate how popular something has to be before its creators lose control over it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 14:54:06


Post by: chaos0xomega


ccs wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

lol, those companies are ultimately a bunch of parasites that would collapse overnight if GW and 40k ceased to exist. It amazes me how so many in this "fandom" seem to think that 40k, etc. are self-created and self-perpetuating, i.e. the game, lore, and minis just will themselves into existence as if flowing from a well-spring or crowing from a tree, and GW just so happened to be the lucky corporate entity that found it and took ownership of it. Newsflash: if you want more stories and books, more minis, films, artwork, game rules, etc. etc. etc. you have to feed the beast. All of this takes money and resources, none of it comes from nothing, none of it is free. Every penny you direct to companies like Kromlech or Artel or whatever is a hit on GWs ability to provide you with more of the content that you profess to love, ultimately you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by supporting them. And no, if GW were to go out of business and the game were to disappear, the community would not somehow "keep it alive".


And how exactly is it that I'm hurting myself by purchasing 6 packs of Kromlech cacti & some scenic bases this evening?




Talk about a strawman. You know damned well the point of discussion was about Kromlech et. als. alt-GW kits free-riding on their IP, and not about their "generic" products like bases.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

This is a misunderstanding, I do not propose transferring any rights from creators away to some committee or the like. What I intended with the panel is that the some form of expertise will be needed in borderline cases of fan content and abuse. Such a panel would do research to the content in question independently of both parties. I only intend for such a panel to be called upon in a rare number of situations, preferably new laws should make the distinction between fan content and unlawful action quite clear.


But you *ARE* transferring rights away from the creator. A creator has exclusive rights to their own work, and exclusive rights to the creation and distribution of derivative works, and the right to pursue action against those who infringe on that right. By appointing your panel of wise men to act as arbitrators with regards to when a fan is subjectively entitled to utilize something they don't own, you have stripped the creator of their rights to exclusivity and control over their own creation.

Again, I'm no lawmaker


Thank the gods for that.

All I have is a belief that it is desirable for fan content to broadly exist undisturbed, I don't think that is an outrageous standpoint.


It absolutely is. Fans are not entitled to fan content. Especially not when it comes at the expense and against the wishes of the original creator.and ownership granted to their creators against infringement by both well-meaning fans and malicious free-riding parasites who would otherwise view it as "communal" property.


The setting is not the creators own, but the videos themselves are.
No piece of fan content would exist without the setting, but fan content in my opinion has a quality of it's own, the setting is part of that quality, often majorly so.
In the end it comes to if fan content is valued as something desirable or not. I believe such a judgement is not just for a setting holder to make.


So you admit and understand that fan content is reliant upon the product of someone elses investment and labor and cannot stand on its own two feet? Why then, do you feel that a fan-creator is entitled to free-ride and piggyback - parasitically I might add - upon someone elses work? You might enjoy and value fan content, but not everyone does, and if a creator doesn't then they should *absolutely* have the right to render judgement on whether something that belongs *to them* is available for someon uses it use - plenty of creators are fine with it, which is why you have things like the Open Game License and Creative Commons. Others *want* to control their own work, who its used, and how its used, and are entitled to do so - because they fething created it in the first place. Advocating that a fan should be entitled to the use of someone elses property isn't far removed form arguing that an employer is entitled to their employees labor (aka slavery).

Lots of contemporary western laws exist to protect communal interests from private ones.


Slipspace put it more directly and succinctly than I could (have an exalt Slipspace, very well put). 40k is not communal property. Fiction, franchises, etc. are not communal property. You don't have a communal interest in it, you don't have ownership in it. You are a consumer of someone elses product and nothing more.

The simple truth of the matter is that the franchises and settings you seem to value so much as a "fan", like 40k, Star Wars, and Star Trek, etc. exist precisely because of laws which advantage their creators and owners and allow them to have "iron fisted" control over the IP and to seek restitution and damages from those who infringe on it - which includes passionate and (often) well-intentioned fans producing work which disrupts the creators own ability to keep creating. These things cost money and resources to create, produce, maintain, and grow, and those laws exist to allow their creators the exclusive economic advantages needed to ensure that they are able to access and acquire the money and resources needed to allow that to occur.

There is a reason why major media franchises and pop culture commodities (and really the "industry" as a whole) are centered around places with very strong pro-creator IP and copyright protection laws, like the US, UK, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, and not in places with historically weak and lax IP and copyright laws like Russia, China, or much of Eastern Europe. Its because they give creators ownership and control, which in turn allows these creators to profit from their intellectual creations in a manner which is conducive to encouraging further development of them, unlike the "communal" approach you are advocating for. The "communal" view of IP is precisely why China - a nation of a billion plus souls which has produced some amazingly talented and skilled artists, designers, and creatives - has largely struggled to develop any sort of meaningful domestic media franchises or pop culture fixtures and largely imports its pop culture from abroad (principally the UK, US, Japan, and Taiwan, even in spite of the geopolitical rivalries that exist between it and these nations). Not only do lax protections harm the ability of a creator to develop their creation, but it encourages creators to travel overseas to other places where stricter protections exist so they can pursue them more effectively - China in particular has had quite a bit of a "brain drain" in this sense as talented creatives have largely traveled overseas for better opportunities that arise in connection with these IP protections.

This isn't really hyperbole, its a well studied and researched topic, and IP is increasingly being viewed as the next "gold rush" with major geo-political and strategic implications (moreso in the sense of technology, but media is also relevant as a way of exercising soft power and influence on a global scale). China is increasingly aware and understanding of this this and has spent the last few decades drastically improving their IP and copyright laws and encouraging stricter enforcement of them to give primacy and exclusivity to creators - this has coincided with a growing rise of Chinese based media franchises and pop culture commodities, etc. Likewise, as various eastern european nations joined the EU and tightened their copyright and IP laws there has been a growth in creative output and the slow development of domestic media streams (books, novels, games, films, etc.) attributed to protections and ownership granted to their creators against infringement by both well-meaning fans and malicious free-riding parasites who would otherwise view it as "communal" property.

No matter how well-intentioned you think you are, the reality is that your "system" basically dis-incentives the existence and development of properties like 40k, Star Wars, etc. There wouldn't *be* a 40k for people to make fan content of if you took away GWs rights to exclusivity over its creation.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 16:17:11


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
I think this is where the heart of the problem lies. The 40k setting is not some publicly owned piece of community property. It belongs to the company that built it up over decades and their right to control its use is one of the things that encourages the sort of creativity required to produce it in the first place. Treating IP as communal property leads to some weird outcomes, like trying to adjudicate how popular something has to be before its creators lose control over it.

To clarify, I do not believe 40k or any other setting should be communal property. What I believe is that communities have a large numbers of desires and needs, fan content is an expression of that, hence I want it to be legally recognized and protected as such. De facto fan content already does exists undisturbed in large number so it wouldn't practically entail a situation so different from the status quo.

Chaos, I'll again decline to comment on your points individually, rest assured I disagree with the vast majority of them, as well the mindset I sense behind them.

Instead allow my respond by posing a series of questions: What is it you desire of me? Are you trying to dissuade me of my views? And can you fanthom me having a different set of beliefs than you do?

If nothing else we can at least agree to disagree.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 16:30:00


Post by: Voss


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I think this is where the heart of the problem lies. The 40k setting is not some publicly owned piece of community property. It belongs to the company that built it up over decades and their right to control its use is one of the things that encourages the sort of creativity required to produce it in the first place. Treating IP as communal property leads to some weird outcomes, like trying to adjudicate how popular something has to be before its creators lose control over it.


To clarify, I do not believe 40k or any other setting should be communal property. What I believe is that communities have a large numbers of desires and needs, fan content is an expression of that, hence I want it to be legally recognized as such.


Fan content is recognized as fan content (unless the fans in question are running a scam). But it doesn't give fans any rights to profit off it, or any measure of control over it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 16:43:22


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Voss wrote:
Fan content is recognized as fan content (unless the fans in question are running a scam). But it doesn't give fans any rights to profit off it, or any measure of control over it

For clarification I've added *protected* to my earlier post.

See, I believe fan content to have a complementary value, it is the setting as well as the dedication and craftsmanship that constitute the whole product. It is that wholeness gives me the opinions I expressed in this thread, and why I believe creators of fan content should deserve to be protected by law.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 16:54:34


Post by: kirotheavenger


"I don't believe it should be communal property, I just believe the community should be able to use it as and when they please".
That just sounds like a distinction without a difference.

The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it.
If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 17:00:04


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it

I agree.


If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

Again, I agree.

So what do we disagree on?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 17:26:10


Post by: chaos0xomega


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Chaos, I'll again decline to comment on your points individually, rest assured I disagree with the vast majority of them, as well the mindset I sense behind them.



ooooh wow, the "mindset that you sense" - what, pray tell, is that?

Instead allow my respond by posing a series of questions: What is it you desire of me? Are you trying to dissuade me of my views? And can you fanthom me having a different set of beliefs than you do?


I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it

I agree.

If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

Again, I agree.
So what do we disagree on?


If you agree on these two points, then why are you advocating for change in policy that would allow others to use something that is not theirs to use just because you or others like it?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 17:33:40


Post by: Karol


I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

Really you think in order to have an opinion people have to explain why they are suppose to be allowed to have one ? Well how about this one. The good armies and the bad armies, and the armies that GW does not fix, all cost money, same with their rule , the rule updates etc. You don't get a bad army for free, you don't get paints to paint it for free. you don't get a pass to not pay for table time at the store just because your army is bad and you have a much higher chance to lose. And if they cost similar money, then what you get out of them should also be similar. If bad army costs 100$ and a good army cost 1000$, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Pay 100$, get 100$ expiriance. But if you pay 700-800$ and your army does not work, well then I think that people are very much entitled to voice their concern about the state of things. Specially if the state does not get fixed.

If Hyndai produced a car that would just not work, then just because people driving other models of Hyundai cars or BMWs are happy, it doesn't remove the right of the Hyundai owners to be rather upset about the state things. Specially if Hyundai way of fixing the problem, was something kin to hook up a horse to pull it or concentrate on making the hood more artsy, instead of focusing on the driving.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 17:44:05


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


chaos0xomega wrote:
I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

All I can say is that I will not being satisfying your wish.

Really, my unanswered question sums it up well, it's not a matter of accepting but of understanding. Now, if that is absent, how is this exchange supposed to be anything other than a constant repeat of our convictions. Ironically as I see it, we both are compelled to post them over and over again. Despite our differences, we're alike in some ways.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 17:49:07


Post by: kirotheavenger


chaos0xomega wrote:
.
Caradman Sturnn wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
The reality is you're not entitled to be able to use or do something just because you/others like it

I agree.

If its not yours to use, it's not yours to use, simple as.

Again, I agree.
So what do we disagree on?


If you agree on these two points, then why are you advocating for change in policy that would allow others to use something that is not theirs to use just because you or others like it?

I agree with this sentiment.
Why advocate for the policy you do if you agree with my points?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 18:04:51


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I agree with this sentiment.
Why advocate for the policy you do if you agree with my points?

Isn't it clear by now though? I simply do not belief that my policies entail what you belief they entail.

Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining them properly, and if so I'd be willing to attempt to do so again if asked. If your response to that explanation will be broadly similar to our previous exchanges then I'd best to just affirm my point above.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 18:06:19


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

To clarify, I do not believe 40k or any other setting should be communal property. What I believe is that communities have a large numbers of desires and needs, fan content is an expression of that, hence I want it to be legally recognized and protected as such.


Your second sentence directly contradicts the first. You don't think anything should be communal property but you want people to be able to use IP for fan works. That makes it communal property because you've taken control away from the owner. Your argument seems to be getting less and less coherent.

Your opinion still seems to boil down to "I like fan content so screw the big companies". What would be your position if, say, Apple decided to make a 40k Space Marine movie without permission. Should that be allowed? If not, why not? What if the writer and director were huge fans of 40k, effectively making this a fan project or labour of love?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 18:10:31


Post by: Cybtroll


Ideas aren't sandwiches.

If two people have a sandwich each, and they exchange them, they still leave with a sandwich.

If two people have and idea each, and they exchange them, both leave with two ideas.

It's not rocket science. IP is a modern (and relatively unnatural) invention that we needed at the beginners of the industrial age to force scientific research to merge with the economic system.

And, honestly, I don't really understand why all the third party miniature provider should be ashamed. They're doing derivative work, exactly as GW did. Maybe they are the next GW, who knows?
As long as it's not recasting, is legit. The example of a Lamborghini painting is pretty clear.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 18:55:15


Post by: Voss


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
Voss wrote:
Fan content is recognized as fan content (unless the fans in question are running a scam). But it doesn't give fans any rights to profit off it, or any measure of control over it

For clarification I've added *protected* to my earlier post.


Your 'clarifications' are making your position far less clear.

See, I believe fan content to have a complementary value, it is the setting as well as the dedication and craftsmanship that constitute the whole product. It is that wholeness gives me the opinions I expressed in this thread, and why I believe creators of fan content should deserve to be protected by law.

What?

Complementary value to what?

How does 'dedication' become a constituent of a product? Fan work isn't part of the craftmanship of a product. It is, by definition, something that comes afterwards.

Your opinion seems more and more to be made of pieces that shift around. There's no wholeness to them or to your definitions- it certainly makes your arguments difficult to follow.

I'm not sure why fan creators need legal protection. Or who they need legal protection from. The owners? Does a pickpocket deserve legal protection from me if he takes cash out of my wallet?


Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining them properly

It definitely is. Editing older posts piecemeal after people have responded to them makes you much less coherent.



Cybtroll wrote:Ideas aren't sandwiches.

If two people have a sandwich each, and they exchange them, they still leave with a sandwich.

If two people have and idea each, and they exchange them, both leave with two ideas.

Except, of course, that isn't the relationship being discussed.
Party #2 isn't interested in _exchanging_ ideas, and doesn't have any ideas of their own.

They're using the idea of Party #1 and offering nothing in return. They're, metaphorical speaking, nibbling on someone else's sandwich and wandering off.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 19:01:20


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
Your second sentence directly contradicts the first. You don't think anything should be communal property but you want people to be able to use IP for fan works. That makes it communal property because you've taken control away from the owner. Your argument seems to be getting less and less coherent.

I've reiterated this point multiple times, I don't intend to remove all creators' right on intellectual creations, just to institutions leniency with regards to fan creation (that evidently already exists in practice) in a legislative manner. Now the exact conditions and terms will have to be described specifically in the legislation, in instances that it doesn't suffice experts should be available to form an opinion on a case by case basis.

In the end creators will lose some rights to the community, which I deem to be acceptable. Especially because for the most part it will be rights they don't seem to have much interest in exercising how. (Again the evidence of this abundantly available on the internet on this very for. Hell, part of my user name is lifted straight from a 40k videogame)

I used 'crumb cases' earlier to refer to the ventures I wish to protect, such a concept exists in certain Dutch laws. It's by no means a perfect comparison, but there is a reason why companies don't go against pieces of fan art why the have the practical ability and legal right to do so. In fact there must be creators out there who don't know that the instant they draw an imperial aquila they are committing a civil offence. I don't want that burden to exist, once again if properly demarcated in legislation.

Your opinion still seems to boil down to "I like fan content so screw the big companies". What would be your position if, say, Apple decided to make a 40k Space Marine movie without permission. Should that be allowed? If not, why not? What if the writer and director were huge fans of 40k, effectively making this a fan project or labour of love?

Well, I like fan content and I am distrustful of certain corporate entities. Yet I earnestly do not believe that is why I hold the opinions that I do. More likely both my general beliefs and the one expressed in this thread are downstream from a very fundamental set of values I cannot eloquently describe here. However I see the opinions I expressed here return in other beliefs I hold, maybe it is a form of David versus Goliath sympathy. Other returning motifs are 'craftsmanship', 'community's and 'fairness'. These words I've used repeatedly but everytime I see them interpreted in a manner In don't, in this with regard I approach the aforementioned words in an much more immaterial and a non universal sense.

This obviously won't satisfy everything, but I hope it makes it clear I don't form my opinions out just self interest.

Lastly, I don't think Apple should be able to make a 40k movie, even when it's free, qualitivly good and produced my genuine fans.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 19:05:19


Post by: ccs


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining them properly, and if so I'd be willing to attempt to do so again if asked.


Please don't. We understand what your PoV is well enough & we completely disagree with it.
I. E.; no one is buying the crap idea your peddling.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 19:08:28


Post by: Voss


Well, I like fan content and I am distrustful of certain corporate entities. Yet I earnestly do not believe that is why I hold the opinions that I do. More likely both my general beliefs and the one expressed in this thread are downstream from a very fundamental set of values I cannot eloquently describe here. However I see the opinions I expressed here return in other beliefs I hold, maybe it is a form of David versus Goliath sympathy. Other returning motifs are 'craftsmanship', 'community's and 'fairness'. These words I've used repeatedly but everytime I see them interpreted in a manner In don't, in this with regard I approach the aforementioned words in an much more immaterial and a non universal sense.

This obviously won't satisfy everything, but I hope it makes it clear I don't form my opinions out just self interest.


It doesn't at all. It makes it clear that you aren't will to explain what your ideas are, or engage in an actual discussion about them.

It doesn't seem like self-interest as much as just being argumentative for the sake of it. Reiterating that you can't or won't explain makes it fairly pointless.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 19:13:09


Post by: Unit1126PLL


"I know I made 12 quadrillion dollars when I made Caradman Sturnn's creation into a film, your Honor. I'm just a devoted fan who wanted to further show off his work, and I'm flattered that my creation made it to the big screen. Of course, I don't owe him any money or royalties because I'm just that devoted of a fan, and much dedication and effort went into copying his designs and narrative ideas."

- Disney, probably.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 19:54:16


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Voss wrote:

Your 'clarifications' are making your position far less clear.

What?

Complementary value to what?

How does 'dedication' become a constituent of a product? Fan work isn't part of the craftmanship of a product. It is, by definition, something that comes afterwards.

Your opinion seems more and more to be made of pieces that shift around. There's no wholeness to them or to your definitions- it certainly makes your arguments difficult to follow.

I'm not sure why fan creators need legal protection. Or who they need legal protection from. The owners? Does a pickpocket deserve legal protection from me if he takes cash out of my wallet?

It definitely is. Editing older posts piecemeal after people have responded to them makes you much less coherent.

I'll apologize upfront if my posts' are lacking coherency, looking back I certainly can't disagree entirely.

I'll attempt to explain my position as concisely as I can:

Fan content displays varying degrees of craftsmanship and dedication in addition to the setting it uses (that is not of the creator's making). As such fan content is a product of two complimentary creators, the content creator and the holder of setting.

From my observations I have determined that fan content is broadly a desirable phenomenon, an enrichment of the setting as it were. I also observe that fan content thrives in large numbers, this despite the fact that the owners of the settings have broad authority to deny much if not all fan content from existing, they do not opt to so in many cases, though.

I see it as good thing if content creators were in a position in which their works are enabled to exist undisturbed, which is the status quo in many instances already, but not all as discussed in this thread. Doing this via democratic means that legislation with the precise demarcation of allowed content will be necessary.

I do not advocate for a complete butchering of copyright laws or a carte blanche for individuals to use third party settings for any purpose they desire.

The last paragraph exist because I noticed many posters have an 'all or none' attitude with regards to this subject. I do not believe well defined legal leniency for fan content is tantamount to an intellectual apocalypse.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 19:56:56


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Fan creators do have a place where their works can exist undisturbed, and that place is "for free and not for profit."

The moment someone starts making money off of someone else's idea is the moment IP law should kick in. Till then? Draw or write whatever you want.

My snide quote from Disney loses all of it's meaning if the work were free and Disney only lost money.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 20:05:58


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Voss wrote:
It doesn't at all. It makes it clear that you aren't will to explain what your ideas are, or engage in an actual discussion about them.

It doesn't seem like self-interest as much as just being argumentative for the sake of it. Reiterating that you can't or won't explain makes it fairly pointless.

Actually, I have explained myself multiple times, not perfectly, mind you, which I was trying to address in the quoted post, but that was also to refute the argument that my position are give in by self interest.

Frankly, this discussion has been exhausting, In a nutshell I argue that fan content should be able to exist undisturbed, I got so much flak that we're now deep down in a discussion of legislation and technicalities. I was compelled to continue do so because I wanted to stand up for my ideals, but it has worn me out, in no small part due to ever aggressive tone of my opposition, even as I'm striving to be ever civil.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 20:06:20


Post by: Voss


I'll attempt to explain my position as concisely as I can:

Fan content displays varying degrees of craftsmanship and dedication in addition to the setting it uses (that is not of the creator's making). As such fan content is a product of two complimentary creators, the content creator and the holder of setting.

Ok. Sure the fan creator is doing some work (at least sometimes, I've seen way too many fanfics where the author just runs through entire episodes with minor changes and 'fanart' that consist of just screen captures).

How is this helpful for the original content creator? (the phrase 'holder of the setting' is oddly passive and implies they aren't doing any work) In what way is it complimentary for the original artist? Most shows/writers/companies have a 'don't send us ideas' policy, because they don't want to get into legal wrangles about how they 'owe' someone who sends in suggestions.

From my observations I have determined that fan content is broadly a desirable phenomenon, an enrichment of the setting as it were.

Desirable for who? Is it anyone beyond fans that want more, but for free?

I also observe that fan content thrives in large numbers, this despite the fact that the owners of the settings have broad authority to deny much if not all fan content from existing, they do not opt to so in many cases, though.

That's a _really_ broad spectrum. From a twelve year old that doodles a logo on their backpack to someone trying to mass-sell t-shirts of IP material as quickly as possible before they get shut down. There isn't much reason to go after the former, and lots to go after the latter.

I see it as good thing if content creators were in a position in which their works are enabled to exist undisturbed, which is the status quo in many instances already, but not all as discussed in this thread.

Yeah, but why though? What's the reasoning?

Doing this via democratic means that legislation with the precise demarcation of allowed content will be necessary.

OK, but what is the precise demarcation? And how is legislation (and enforcement) magically going to turn into a democratic process? And an international one?


I do not advocate for a complete butchering of copyright laws or a carte blanche for individuals to use third party settings for any purpose they desire.

So where are the latter getting cut off, and how is the former surviving if its getting replaced by 'democratic' legislation with new demarcation for allowed content?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 20:11:27


Post by: kirotheavenger


It really sounds like your argument boils down to "I like the stuff, so it should be allowed it ignore property rights".

The IP isn't theirs to use. It doesn't matter how much work they put behind it, it's not their IP and if the IP owner doesn't want them using it, that's all there is to it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 20:15:38


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


ccs wrote:
Please don't. We understand what your PoV is well enough & we completely disagree with it.
I. E.; no one is buying the crap idea your peddling.

I appreciate you being forthright with your disagreement even if I disapprove of your choice of words.

I am slightly disturbed you feel compelled to use 'we', in your disagreement but you can observe as well as I that I'm practically alone in the this discussion, so I am going to assume good faith here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss, I'll give a detailed response some time later, I've been on a tablet the last few days and it hasn't been an ideal platform for in depth discussion so far, it probably won't be before weekend until I have a normal PC to work on.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It really sounds like your argument boils down to "I like the stuff, so it should be allowed it ignore property rights".

No, I have vehemently denied that self interest is my motivator just a few posts ago and I'll do so again.

The IP isn't theirs to use. It doesn't matter how much work they put behind it, it's not their IP and if the IP owner doesn't want them using it, that's all there is to it.

Gotcha, it's this exact point that clashes with my sense of fairness and view of good policy, there should be an undisturbed environment for fan content to exist. I can't state my core position any more concise. This apparently disgusts may of my fellow participants here but it is my view in earnest and I do not feel tempted to readjust them by the given arguments.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 21:02:57


Post by: chaos0xomega


Karol wrote:
I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

Really you think in order to have an opinion people have to explain why they are suppose to be allowed to have one ? Well how about this one. The good armies and the bad armies, and the armies that GW does not fix, all cost money, same with their rule , the rule updates etc. You don't get a bad army for free, you don't get paints to paint it for free. you don't get a pass to not pay for table time at the store just because your army is bad and you have a much higher chance to lose. And if they cost similar money, then what you get out of them should also be similar. If bad army costs 100$ and a good army cost 1000$, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Pay 100$, get 100$ expiriance. But if you pay 700-800$ and your army does not work, well then I think that people are very much entitled to voice their concern about the state of things. Specially if the state does not get fixed.

If Hyndai produced a car that would just not work, then just because people driving other models of Hyundai cars or BMWs are happy, it doesn't remove the right of the Hyundai owners to be rather upset about the state things. Specially if Hyundai way of fixing the problem, was something kin to hook up a horse to pull it or concentrate on making the hood more artsy, instead of focusing on the driving.


I'm really not understanding what point you're trying to make here or what any of this has to do with anything?

All I can say is that I will not being satisfying your wish.
Really, my unanswered question sums it up well, it's not a matter of accepting but of understanding. Now, if that is absent, how is this exchange supposed to be anything other than a constant repeat of our convictions. Ironically as I see it, we both are compelled to post them over and over again. Despite our differences, we're alike in some ways.


The difference here is that I'm actually supporting my convictions with an actual argument - at best you are simply restating that you "believe xyz" to be true and that you're "no lawmaker" but you have an approach that you think will work if someone else figures it out for you, and at worst you're simply declining to debate any evidence-based arguments against your stance. If you are making any sort of evidence-based argument to support your stance, its being lost on myself and evidently a lot of other posters here, as I am thankfully not the only one who is finding your arguments incoherent, unclear, nonsensical, wishy-washy, etc. Basically what Voss said:

"It doesn't at all. It makes it clear that you aren't will to explain what your ideas are, or engage in an actual discussion about them.
It doesn't seem like self-interest as much as just being argumentative for the sake of it. Reiterating that you can't or won't explain makes it fairly pointless."

Ideas aren't sandwiches.
If two people have a sandwich each, and they exchange them, they still leave with a sandwich.
If two people have and idea each, and they exchange them, both leave with two ideas.


Neither the sandwich nor the idea analogy are accurate to what is occurring. GW is not receiving an idea sandwich from a fan in exchange for the fan borrowing GWs idea sandwich, its in fact a lopsided exchange because one person has an idea sandwich (GW), and the other person is taking a piece of it without giving GW anything in return. You could argue that GW might gain an idea sandwich from the content of what the fan creates with the piece of GWs idea sandwich - but its actually legally objectionable for GW to do so, and the fan can in fact sue GW if they were to do so. A more accurate analogy would be to say that one person has an idea, and the other person has nothing, and the person with nothing takes the idea and leaves to make a sandwich, while the person with the idea is left with just the idea.

And, honestly, I don't really understand why all the third party miniature provider should be ashamed. They're doing derivative work, exactly as GW did. Maybe they are the next GW, who knows?
As long as it's not recasting, is legit. The example of a Lamborghini painting is pretty clear.


Theres a difference between a third party miniature provider like, say, Dreamforge Games or Wargames Atlantic, who design minis according to their own concepts, artwork, and designs which can also be used for 40k - which is reflective of how GW got its own start (though I will note that the majority of the minis GW produced in its early days were *LICENSED* for D&D and other games/properties, so attempting to argue that GW did it too so others should be able to do so falls flat), and businesses that are producing minis that are very undeniably centered primarily on GWs miniatures, artworks, and concepts. One creates something new by drawing inspiration from something existing, the other one is parasitically attempting to profit off of someone elses work.

I've reiterated this point multiple times, I don't intend to remove all creators' right on intellectual creations, just to institutions leniency with regards to fan creation (that evidently already exists in practice) in a legislative manner. Now the exact conditions and terms will have to be described specifically in the legislation, in instances that it doesn't suffice experts should be available to form an opinion on a case by case basis.

In the end creators will lose some rights to the community, which I deem to be acceptable. Especially because for the most part it will be rights they don't seem to have much interest in exercising how. (Again the evidence of this abundantly available on the internet on this very for. Hell, part of my user name is lifted straight from a 40k videogame)

I used 'crumb cases' earlier to refer to the ventures I wish to protect, such a concept exists in certain Dutch laws. It's by no means a perfect comparison, but there is a reason why companies don't go against pieces of fan art why the have the practical ability and legal right to do so. In fact there must be creators out there who don't know that the instant they draw an imperial aquila they are committing a civil offence. I don't want that burden to exist, once again if properly demarcated in legislation.


And this is part of why your argument makes no sense. The existing system is just fine, you can draw an imperial aquila and GW isn't going to sue you (and if they did try to sue you every court in the US, UK, and the EU would throw the case out and possibly even award *you* damages for GWs predatory litigiousness for how unreasonable such a lawsuit would be), you can lift part of your username from a 40k game, and GW isn't going to sue you, etc. It doesn't require change, it doesn't require a creator losing rights to their own creation to "the community", etc. So either you're not comprehending how actual IP law works, or you're actually very much in favor of taking away a creators right to their own creation, because theres no other explanation for what you're proposing. GW isn't having these animations taken down because it feels like it or because it wants to be a bully, they're doing it because its utilizing GWs IP in a manner which is harmful and damaging to GWs own business operations - the fact that GW hasn't yet actually launched its own shows is irrelevant, the fact that they have been announced and are soon forthcoming is enough. Notice that even despite the removal of the animation there is still plenty of other fan-created content like videos, artwork, video game mods, fanfiction, etc. out there that aren't being removed.

From my observations I have determined that fan content is broadly a desirable phenomenon, an enrichment of the setting as it were. I also observe that fan content thrives in large numbers, this despite the fact that the owners of the settings have broad authority to deny much if not all fan content from existing, they do not opt to so in many cases, though.


If I create an IP and have a very specific view of what it is and what it shall be and where its going, and a passionate fan misunderstands my work and produces fan content which I find not only disagreeable to me but antithetical to the setting, then the fan content is not desirable and as the creator of the IP upon which this fan has built upon I have the right - and indeed an imperative - to remove it in order to preserve the integrity of the original work.

If I create an IP and have a very specific idea for a story that will be told in the IP, and a passionate fan takes it upon themselves to right that same/similar story and put it out into the world for mass consumption - whether paid or for free, then that fan content is not desirable to me as a creator because it has robbed me of my ability to tell that story as I envisioned it because any attempt to do so will be met with accusations of theft and/or misappropriation of the fan work - even if it was something that I developed independently and in advance of the fans publication - and in fact I can then be held liable and be forced to award damages to said fan if I proceed with my original intentions. The only thing that protects me, my work, and the broader setting from being so irreparably harmed and damaged is that IP law does provide me the legal recourse to protect myself from fans doing exactly that, and the mere existence of that potential threat of legal recourse likewise disincentives fans from pursuing such activities in the first place - allowing me to continue to operate safely in the process. This allows *me* as a creator to *actually* provide enrichment to the setting, whereas fan content potentially eliminates enrichment of it.

Even if none of that was true, the fact of the matter is that if I build a sandbox and fill it with sand, its my right to tell the other kids in the neighborhood that they can't play in my sandbox, nor can they build annexes onto my sandcastles, nor can they build their own sandcastles using my sand. Its *my* sandbox, and if I find it undesirable for other people to use it, then it doesn't matter that you have "observed" it to be broadly desirable - as a creator I can reserve the right to find it undesirable for others to use what I have created, and what you might see as "enrichment" I might see as stifling my own creativity and limiting my own ability to create more sandcastles using my own sandbox and my own sand (this is no doubt part of what caused GW to do away with WHFB and bring in AoS, but I digress).

And even as a non-creator, I often find fan works far and away from being anything approaching desirable. I often find fan works of franchises and IPs I truly enjoy to be low-effort, embarrassing, painful, etc. and distracting to my enjoyment of the actual official work. I simply choose not to engage with most fan content because I believe in peaceful coexistence so long as it isn't actively harmful to myself or others, but if your personal enjoyment of fan works justifies you arguing that fan produced content should be somehow protected or encouraged, etc. surely my own distaste and dislike for fan work would thus serve as sufficient justification for fan produced content to be suppressed and eliminated? The only actual fair arbiter of the resulting impasse, then, isn't to bring in a fourth party in the form of a council of independent wise men, but rather allowing the entity which created the original content to determine whether or not they feel the fan content actually does enrich their creation and is deserving of being allowed to exist. No amount of "expertise" will ever match a creators own judgement as to whether or not a piece of fan content is appropriate, enriching, or desirable to their own artistic vision or the intended message of a setting. An outside council can only interpret the content presented to them, if they interpret incorrectly then they have actually damaged and harmed the creator and their creation to the detriment of the entire fanbase - including the fan-creator who created the offending work and is now left with a false impression and understanding of the thing which they profess to love.

I see it as good thing if content creators were in a position in which their works are enabled to exist undisturbed, which is the status quo in many instances already, but not all as discussed in this thread. Doing this via democratic means that legislation with the precise demarcation of allowed content will be necessary.


OR - it should be left to the original creator and owner of the property to decide whether they welcome other kids playing in their sandbox. Again, this is what things like Creative Commons and OGL already exist for, they are a legal mechanism which exists to indicate "hey other kids, come build sandcastles with me in this sandbox I built and filled with sand!". Sometimes they come with stipulations, sometimes anything goes - again, thats all for the person who built the sandbox and filled it with sand to decide, not the person who wants to play in it. This is the *proper* fair and democratic means to resolving the issue, not forcing someone who wants to play in the sandbox they built for themselves to share it with others. Stealing someone elses property because a group of people democratically decided by a majority vote to allow it is still theft. Killing someone because a group of people democratically decided by a majority vote to allow it is still murder. feth, I'm not even what most people would consider to be a capitalist and even I think what you're proposing is wrong and unethical.

Fan creators do have a place where their works can exist undisturbed, and that place is "for free and not for profit."
The moment someone starts making money off of someone else's idea is the moment IP law should kick in. Till then? Draw or write whatever you want.


One distinction that needs to be made clear is that damages and "profit" exists beyond the realm of money. A creator can still be damaged and harmed by fan work even if the fan/work doesn't generate any profit or financial cash flows. A fan can still "profit" from fan work without cash flows being involved if they can derive some other non-monetary benefit from the work.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 21:39:06


Post by: Voss


Gotcha, it's this exact point that clashes with my sense of fairness and view of good policy, there should be an undisturbed environment for fan content to exist. I can't state my core position any more concise. This apparently disgusts may of my fellow participants here but it is my view in earnest and I do not feel tempted to readjust them by the given arguments.


'Fairness' is apparently losing something in translation here. Because the way you use it, the original content creators lose (money, time control) and 'fan' copycats/exploiters are granted largess, just because.

It seems the polar opposite of fair, and detrimental to the act of creating anything, or even trying to create. It establishes an environment where it's better to live off of someone else's creations, rather than create your own and lose it to anyone who cares to trace over your work.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 21:43:54


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Chaos, at it core I simply do not share your absolutist views on intellectual creations, that's all, really, That is a pure opinion based in deeply held believes and desires.

If you don't think I have provided arguments than I guess I did not. in the same vein what you bring for arguments doesn't do anything for me.

One thing I will single out is that you finally acknowledged a case were fan content can exist were the all powerful content holder should not be able to smash it's hammer down on the little guy (the aquila example), that's heartening to know, actually. Now if only we could just slightly broaden the scope of those cases. If only...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Fairness' is apparently losing something in translation here. Because the way you use it, the original content creators lose (money, time control) and 'fan' copycats/exploiters are granted largess, just because.

It seems the polar opposite of fair, and detrimental to the act of creating anything, or even trying to create. It establishes an environment where it's better to live off of someone else's creations, rather than create your own and lose it to anyone who cares to trace over your work.

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/19 22:02:15


Post by: Overread


Caradman, consider the situation where you allow free enterprise or regulated, but mandated, enterprise to be undertaken upon a persons IP regardless of that creators wishes. What is to stop the fan created content being superior? What happens when someone comes out with a better Warhammer than Games Workshop?

What happens when the fan content eclipses the original content? Do you then cap the fan content and say "you can only sell X copies and then nothing?"




What happens when big firms take over? When Disney ends up hiring 50 "independent fan content creators" so that they can sub-manage huge amounts of now free IP because its free for them to do so? Even mandated to be smaller or restricted they'd still do it.






I can see where you come from, but I think what you want is near impossible whilst society lives based upon our resources and skills. When things like Games Workshop aren't just hobbies but actual bread-on-the-table jobs for people. When Harry Potter allows an author to live comfortably and provide for themselves and their family.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.


So you sort of answered my post with an edit whilst I was writing it.

But still you've not really answered it, you've sort of said that it should be regulated, you've acknowledged the problem. But you've presented no real viable solution. Furthermore what happens when Astartes is followed by Xenos. Suddenly is Astartes allowed, but Xenos crosses the random fan-earnings-limit and suddenly one good fan creation prevents another. By which point you're just drawing a random line in the sand and allowing some and not others. It's not so much resolving the issue, but instead just kicking it down the road and imposing a rough value of allowed free enterprise on any created IP


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 02:41:26


Post by: Voss


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Fairness' is apparently losing something in translation here. Because the way you use it, the original content creators lose (money, time control) and 'fan' copycats/exploiters are granted largess, just because.

It seems the polar opposite of fair, and detrimental to the act of creating anything, or even trying to create. It establishes an environment where it's better to live off of someone else's creations, rather than create your own and lose it to anyone who cares to trace over your work.

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.

But its still not clear why they should accept any loss, nor why there should be any. You don't answer these questions, and they're really basic to the problems you're proposing to create.

My imagination can draw a lot of lines, but I've no idea what you mean by a 'good degree' of protection for the original creator. Vague statements of intent aren't illustrative of what direction you'd go.
Take some actual real life examples, and I don't know if you'd protect them or not. So how do you deal with these:
The most popular (or common) type of NCIS fanfiction for quite a while was rape fics.
My Little Pony has a problem with Nazi fan art. Swastika cutie marks, unicorn superiority standing in for Aryan crap, etc.

Some authors make decrees about an absolute ban on fanfiction at all (GRR Martin is one, partially because of a previous experience of his when he wrote up the Githyanki in an early book, which were put together in the British Fiend Folio book by TSR (largely fan submissions) and George decided because it was published, he didn't own the IP anymore, because he's kinda a crazy man who doesn't understand things).


More generally, using art or concepts, to sell other products. That the creators may or may not approve of. Are recasters suddenly OK under your system? (Cheap copies of actual products?) Is it OK if the proceeds are going to a non-profit? What if its a bad one? (assign a theoretical creator some politics, assume the fan wants to donate to the opposite of that)

Actually draw some actual lines so you're taking an actual position rather than just musing aimlessly. 'limited domain,' 'good protection,' etc are all functionally meaningless.
Overread has a good example: companies like Disney, Activision, Hasbro, etc can and will start farming 'fan creators' to get around restrictions- how would a 'democratic body' even begin to deal with that? They don't even have to own them to start with (though that's a possibility too), they can just buy them up when they're worth 'enough')


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 03:59:28


Post by: Jarms48


What was SODAZ using to make their videos? Was it source filmmaker? That's what it always reminded me of. Not sure how the legalities for that kind of content would work.

Because while the IP might be GW's isn't the program used Valves?

I don't know, I know nothing about this kind of thing.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 04:12:49


Post by: ClockworkZion


Jarms48 wrote:
What was SODAZ using to make their videos? Was it source filmmaker? That's what it always reminded me of. Not sure how the legalities for that kind of content would work.

Because while the IP might be GW's isn't the program used Valves?

I don't know, I know nothing about this kind of thing.

The program is merely the medium. If I did an oil painting of Cato Sicarius and sold prints of it I'd be infringing on their IP even though they don't sell oil paintings nor own the means to produce them.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 04:30:05


Post by: Aszubaruzah Surn


Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.

It's not the same, though. Nobody stops you from making your own setting inspired by 40k. People turning making fanart into career is something different.
Also, I wish these Eastern European producers would actually make something for us that is inspired by 40k that we could affordably play instead of making GW knockoffs. Maybe even in 15mm or 20mm or 6mm.

Removed - BrookM


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 04:32:47


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.

It's not the same, though. Nobody stops you from making your own setting inspired by 40k. People turning making fanart into career is something different.
Also, I wish these Eastern European producers would actually make something for us that is inspired by 40k that we could affordably play instead of making GW knockoffs. Maybe even in 15mm or 20mm or 6mm.

I have a friend who has really gotten into playing Apoc using 6mm models (all inch ranges are turned into cm as a rough conversion) and swears by it, so if they made a small scale game like the old Epic I'm sure it'd catch on with the right crowds.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 09:19:10


Post by: AngryAngel80


For all the people who think GW " offering " these people to work for them is done as a good thing, I wish I could see the world that way. Considering the canned statements they all give out this is simply them offering to " work " for them or get crushed, they won't say that however. It's all about being a shark with a smile these days.

Yeah sure GW can do whatever they want with their IP, but lets not say they are good for it, they are simply greedy sods, losing no money at all with these videos out there but not being able to stand anyone else getting recognition for them.

Unless you are telling me these video makers were somehow robbing from the poor little orphan boy GWs tills.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 09:27:30


Post by: Overread


 AngryAngel80 wrote:
For all the people who think GW " offering " these people to work for them is done as a good thing, I wish I could see the world that way. Considering the canned statements they all give out this is simply them offering to " work " for them or get crushed, they won't say that however. It's all about being a shark with a smile these days.

Yeah sure GW can do whatever they want with their IP, but lets not say they are good for it, they are simply greedy sods, losing no money at all with these videos out there but not being able to stand anyone else getting recognition for them.

Unless you are telling me these video makers were somehow robbing from the poor little orphan boy GWs tills.


As noted earlier in the thread, Astartes person was making around $20K a month from patreon money generated by those supporting the creation of Astartes.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 09:58:33


Post by: JohnnyHell


Make money off someone else’s IP, they’ll getcha.

It’s not rocket surgery.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 10:02:26


Post by: kodos


question is why there are still many that make money by creating STL files for models based on that IP


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 10:22:23


Post by: beast_gts


 kodos wrote:
question is why there are still many that make money by creating STL files for models based on that IP

Because GW hasn't gotten round to them yet.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 10:51:01


Post by: kirotheavenger


People making direct STL copies of stuff is definitely infringement.
In fact it's infringement that arguably hurts GW more than something like Astartes does.

I'm not at all surprised or angry when I see them taken down.
But there's so many and they're so niche they fly below GW's radar.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 12:00:44


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.


There are many problems here, but the main one is that I believe one side of the debate has outlined the problems in your position with reasoned examples but every time you respond it's always in really vague terms like "certain terms" being met or "use your imagination".

You've said above that you want to reduce content-holder loss to a minimum, which is perhaps a useful starting point to define what we're talking about. One problem then becomes what you mean by loss. We could argue there are maybe three areas to consider (I'll assume we're talking about GW here for the sake of examples but it equally applies to other IP creators):

1. Financial loss. Pretty self-explanatory - the fan work is in competition with something GW sells or intends to sell.
2. Reputational loss. The fan work goes against GW's core values in some way. Obvious examples are things people generally find abhorrent such as racism, misogyny etc, but could also apply to the political views of a creator.
3. Thematic loss. Bit of a vague definition here, but I'm thinking of something like somebody producing an epic romantic saga set in the 40k universe while GW has decided to double-down on the grimdark so don't want that diluted by other works that aren't fully on-theme.

In all cases we also need to consider the possibility that the loss could be due to things GW is planning to do but has not yet done - projects or ideas they have in the pipeline.

First of all, the "minimum loss" in each case is clearly zero so I assume you don't literally mean that. What you probably mean is something like "minimum loss while still allowing fan-created works of some type". Yet again we come back to who decides that. Even in terms of financial loss it's not always easy to quantify, especially if you take into account projects that may not have been released to the public yet. How is a panel of experts better at deciding that than the company itself? They may not even be in full possession of the facts. You also haven't said when a creator becomes big enough for these rules to apply versus still being seen as the plucky little guy. When, for example, did GW flip from being a small-medium creative studio fully in control of their IP to an evil corporation who must now submit to the will of this mysterious panel of experts? That's a genuine question, not rhetorical. Is it based on audience size (how are you measuring that), annual turnover, annual profit, number of employees?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 13:23:32


Post by: Karol


2. Reputational loss. The fan work goes against GW's core values in some way. Obvious examples are things people generally find abhorrent such as racism, misogyny etc, but could also apply to the political views of a creator.


How the hell can you have w40k without racism and why would GW be against it in related materials? The whole core of the system world building is about telling the story of humanity defending itself from the enemy outside.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 13:34:20


Post by: kirotheavenger


You're allowed to hate aliens because they're aliens. They're aliens, it's fine.
Hating black people because they're black; not so much.
Particularly in the last years GW has been sure to make sure they're race and gender inclusive. Not only have they put out a public statement declaring as such, they make sure to showcase female figures and/or those painted with darker skin tones.
So it's reasonable to conclude racism is not a value they want associated with themselves.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 13:36:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.

Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).

Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:14:48


Post by: Mr. Grey


Karol wrote:
2. Reputational loss. The fan work goes against GW's core values in some way. Obvious examples are things people generally find abhorrent such as racism, misogyny etc, but could also apply to the political views of a creator.


How the hell can you have w40k without racism and why would GW be against it in related materials? The whole core of the system world building is about telling the story of humanity defending itself from the enemy outside.



...humanity defending itself from the enemy outside."

Right. There's a huge difference between the Imperium of Mankind fighting off waves of tentacled, many-mouthed alien horrors whose sole purpose is to subjugate and destroy the human race, vs. say, the Astra Militarum committing genocide on a planet populated largely by Black people. Which scenario do you think would actually ever be depicted in an official GW publication? I can tell you for sure it's not the second one.

One of the key points of the entire Warhammer 40,000 universe is that at it's core, one of the main plot points is "the Imperium of Man vs the Outside Other" - meaning the influences of Chaos, the Warp, and all the xenos entities that are constantly waging war against Mankind.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:24:57


Post by: kodos


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyrands as 2 different races)


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:35:01


Post by: Voss


 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyrands as 2 different races)


It could... but... not really? That has been a real problem with fantasy settings for decades now, but various companies are starting to move away from it (sometimes in awkward ways).

But in sci-fi and sci-fi adjacent settings (ie, 40k and star wars), those aren't used as adjacent, let alone related, concepts. 40k at its worst barely acknowledged the modern concept of racism exists, and focused on actual aliens (and almost exclusively hostile aliens). If its actually a linguistic translation problem, someone needs to tell the companies involved to keep a sharper eye on their translators, because that isn't even vaguely what's meant.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:37:25


Post by: Tyran


In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

Hence the "most bloody regime imaginable" in the standard 40k intro, plus all the examples of stupid dogmatism and backstabbing.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:38:58


Post by: Karol


 Mr. Grey wrote:



...humanity defending itself from the enemy outside."

Right. There's a huge difference between the Imperium of Mankind fighting off waves of tentacled, many-mouthed alien horrors whose sole purpose is to subjugate and destroy the human race, vs. say, the Astra Militarum committing genocide on a planet populated largely by Black people. Which scenario do you think would actually ever be depicted in an official GW publication? I can tell you for sure it's not the second one.


I don't really understand the difference, if they break the law or oppose the Imperial Authority then of course they would be destroyed. Why would something like skin colour somehow offer protection from Imperial Retribution or Law?

The Shaffers Last Chancers, I read about, had a one member who was an ex member of a Venusian all female Imperial Guard regiment and it was judged to be breaking imperial and church law for adding unacceptable elements in to the imperial cult. If sex doesn't protect you from the prosecution, then skin colour wouldn't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

/quote]

Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:45:51


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Tyran wrote:
In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

Hence the "most bloody regime imaginable" in the standard 40k intro, plus all the examples of stupid dogmatism and backstabbing.

I feel they need to work some of that back into the codexes and core books since it's so easilly missed if you're newer to the game and don't touch Black Library's stuff. That said Fifteen Hours does a good job showing how the Imperium shoots itself in the foot and should be up there on the reading list.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:49:44


Post by: Tyran


Karol wrote:
Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


There are no good guys, and if there were the Tau would be them (but not really because they still are an extremely aggressive empire).


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 15:52:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah the Tau would be the villains in any other setting as an expansionist oppressor-state.

The real Good Guy is Slaanesh, for through Her pleasure can be found in all things. If suffering is inevitable, might as well learn to enjoy it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:03:20


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Tyran wrote:
Karol wrote:
Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


There are no good guys, and if there were the Tau would be them (but not really because they still are an extremely aggressive empire).

This. I actually appreciate this aspect of 40k as it doesn't let stuff get hidden under flimsy justifications like "the ends justify the means" or "hard men make hard decisions".


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:03:49


Post by: kodos


Voss wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyranids as 2 different races)


It could... but... not really? That has been a real problem with fantasy settings for decades now, but various companies are starting to move away from it (sometimes in awkward ways).

But in sci-fi and sci-fi adjacent settings (ie, 40k and star wars), those aren't used as adjacent, let alone related, concepts. 40k at its worst barely acknowledged the modern concept of racism exists, and focused on actual aliens (and almost exclusively hostile aliens). If its actually a linguistic translation problem, someone needs to tell the companies involved to keep a sharper eye on their translators, because that isn't even vaguely what's meant.

well, GW has a history of bad translations and falling for "false friends" that find their way into other products because the people grew up with that and use it as they have learned it from GW
(famous one is with the German Warhammer books were Spear was translated as Speer, the German word for Javelin while Spear is actually Spieß and a lot of people grew up with this and it flew over into other settings as the translators of those learned it from those books)

the setting being Xenophobic and Species-ism and translated into racism as the other languages missing the words for it while the words for species and race are used interchangeable (so orks and elves become just another fantasy race) and racism in real live is there different as well (more about origin and culture)

so just don't get angry if non-native speakers are taking it as "racism" when Mankind hates Xenos in 40k


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:07:18


Post by: Karol


 Tyran wrote:
Karol wrote:
Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


There are no good guys, and if there were the Tau would be them (but not really because they still are an extremely aggressive empire).

No by definition a tau can not be considered good, the same way a bear or a dog can't be good. And in each moment where the choice is between camp 1 with humans, and camp 2 not humans. The camp 1 is right. For it to be different one would have to , I don't know hate the human race or something, and that is plain insanity considering people are humans.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:21:55


Post by: Tyran


Karol wrote:

No by definition a tau can not be considered good, the same way a bear or a dog can't be good. And in each moment where the choice is between camp 1 with humans, and camp 2 not humans. The camp 1 is right. For it to be different one would have to , I don't know hate the human race or something, and that is plain insanity considering people are humans.


There are two ways to approach this. Either we accept it is a fictional setting, in which case 40k humans are worth less than real bear and dogs. After all bear and dogs actually exists while 40k humanity is fictional.

Or we take the setting at face value, in which case Tau are sapient beings and fully equivalent to humans.

Either way, human in 40k do not get to be right just for being humans.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:25:03


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Tyran wrote:
Karol wrote:

No by definition a tau can not be considered good, the same way a bear or a dog can't be good. And in each moment where the choice is between camp 1 with humans, and camp 2 not humans. The camp 1 is right. For it to be different one would have to , I don't know hate the human race or something, and that is plain insanity considering people are humans.


There are two ways to approach this. Either we accept it is a fictional setting, in which case 40k humans are worth less than real bear and dogs. After all bear and dogs actually exists while 40k humanity is fictional.

Or we take the setting at face value, in which case Tau are sapient beings and fully equivalent to humans.

Either way, human in 40k do not get to be right just for being humans.

It's canon that dogs are worth more than your average person:

Source: https://regimental-standard.com/2018/09/26/managing-your-canid/


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:28:15


Post by: Tyran


I forgot about that.

The hilarious/terrifying part of the IoM is that it doesn't care about humans as individuals or as people, it only cares about humanity as a species.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:29:44


Post by: Racerguy180


Karol wrote:
For it to be different one would have to , I don't know hate the human race or something, and that is plain insanity considering people are humans. [/quote

You don't? You should hate the human race.
Especially playing in the meta you do...


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 16:33:38


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Tyran wrote:
I forgot about that.

The hilarious/terrifying part of the IoM is that it doesn't care about humans as individuals or as people, it only cares about humanity as a species.
"Human resources" taken a bit too literally is the 40k method.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 17:02:33


Post by: Racerguy180


Adeptus Bureaucratus takes it very seriously!


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 17:19:12


Post by: Voss


 kodos wrote:
Voss wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyranids as 2 different races)


It could... but... not really? That has been a real problem with fantasy settings for decades now, but various companies are starting to move away from it (sometimes in awkward ways).

But in sci-fi and sci-fi adjacent settings (ie, 40k and star wars), those aren't used as adjacent, let alone related, concepts. 40k at its worst barely acknowledged the modern concept of racism exists, and focused on actual aliens (and almost exclusively hostile aliens). If its actually a linguistic translation problem, someone needs to tell the companies involved to keep a sharper eye on their translators, because that isn't even vaguely what's meant.

well, GW has a history of bad translations and falling for "false friends" that find their way into other products because the people grew up with that and use it as they have learned it from GW
(famous one is with the German Warhammer books were Spear was translated as Speer, the German word for Javelin while Spear is actually Spieß and a lot of people grew up with this and it flew over into other settings as the translators of those learned it from those books)

the setting being Xenophobic and Species-ism and translated into racism as the other languages missing the words for it while the words for species and race are used interchangeable (so orks and elves become just another fantasy race) and racism in real live is there different as well (more about origin and culture)

so just don't get angry if non-native speakers are taking it as "racism" when Mankind hates Xenos in 40k


Angry isn't the word for it.
Puzzled by trying so hard, maybe, because the context is pretty clear. Even, or especially, with a history of poor translations.


---
Regimental standard isn't canon, folks. Its an on-the-nose joke website.
Unless you really think the imperium is encouraging people to sign on with Magnus or join genestealer cults.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 17:27:50


Post by: Gert


Wait have people been taking it as a serious publication rather than in-universe propaganda leaflets? Apart from the very good canids being higher up in the command chain, it's all silly nonsense.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 17:54:11


Post by: ClockworkZion


Voss wrote:

Regimental standard isn't canon, folks. Its an on-the-nose joke website.
Unless you really think the imperium is encouraging people to sign on with Magnus or join genestealer cults.

Regimental Standard started as a continuation of the Infantryman's Uplifting Primer amd most consider it canonical as it matches that tone very well.

Let's be honest: the Imperium is amazingly good at shooting itself in the foot in the setting and should we should see that represented in the canon more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
Wait have people been taking it as a serious publication rather than in-universe propaganda leaflets? Apart from the very good canids being higher up in the command chain, it's all silly nonsense.

In universe propoganda would still make it canon as it's what the Imperium would be actually telling it's own military force.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 18:02:06


Post by: kodos


Voss wrote:
Angry isn't the word for it.
Puzzled by trying so hard, maybe, because the context is pretty clear. Even, or especially, with a history of poor translations.

it might be clear for some but for others you really need to point it out is they never thought about it in a different context in the first place (also because that kind of context is not there in real in their region/culture)



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 18:10:35


Post by: Arbitrator


 Gert wrote:
Wait have people been taking it as a serious publication rather than in-universe propaganda leaflets? Apart from the very good canids being higher up in the command chain, it's all silly nonsense.

A lot of people think 1d14chan memes are true lore, including Failbaddon and Angry Marines. Don't forget how often Text-to-Speech Device is touted as a great introduction to the lore.

As for SODAZ most of his stuff is just DoW assets ripped into Source Film Maker right? I expect they'll pay him for one consultancy gig, tell him "Don't call us, we'll call you" and ignore him from then on whilst soaking in the "Waow! Wholesome Chungus GW totally love their fanbase and want to nurture creative talent, not like Kirby at all!"


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/20 20:46:25


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Arbitrator wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Wait have people been taking it as a serious publication rather than in-universe propaganda leaflets? Apart from the very good canids being higher up in the command chain, it's all silly nonsense.

A lot of people think 1d14chan memes are true lore, including Failbaddon and Angry Marines. Don't forget how often Text-to-Speech Device is touted as a great introduction to the lore.


And this is another strong argument against fan-works. Fans often totally misunderstand lore or aspects of the lore on a fairly fundamental level (arguably this is a failure of communication on the creators fault, i.e. someone is a gakky author/writer/filmmaker, etc. or they spend too much time focusing on some aspects of lore while others are left barely covered resulting in misconstrued perceptions), or have their perceptions of lore heavily colored by fan commentary which is sometimes woefully inaccurate, failbaddon being an excellent example of this. Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote a pretty great piece on the subject:

Sometimes... things go too far.

My son, Shakes, is 5.

Someone in the house will say something funny. Like, the baby, Annah, will say something adorable, or Katie will laugh at something I say, or whatever else. Normal stuff. And Shakes will repeat it once, at an opportune moment, and it's genuinely funny.

Then he'll do it again, because he's 5 and because he doesn't know how humour works. He thinks irreverence and repetition are humour, rather than ways to present humour. So he says something 100 times, it loses all context, and you just want him to shut up.

Also, if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes truth. You see that with a lot of 40K memes. People still insist to me that I'm changing Abaddon's lore by having him win a few battles. Christ, the lore in 2nd and 3rd Edition explained his themes and agenda and successes in delicious detail, but the common online perception is Failbaddon the Armless. I've talked to so many peeps at GW HQ who are completely unaware or mystified by the idea that Abaddon sucks, because they only know the lore. They don't know the memes. And that says a lot.

It's not that memes aren't funny. Some of them so, so are. But it's that many of them take the core of something funny, tear it out, repeat it ad infinitum, and call it profound. Then if you point out that it's boring, stupid, or wrong, well, that rarely goes down well. I've seen it happen.

And that's not even going into all the political nonsense. In addition to most of those entirely missing the point of the lore they claim to understand, it always amuses me to see Andy Chambers or one of the other classic overlords bemused by those memes, and commenting on their own wonder at how the point of 40K was so soundly missed.


If I were a creator, I would consider such things to be incredibly damaging to my creation, no matter how "enriching" some people might feel about it otherwise - a creator should have a right to shut such things down when it violates the spirit or nature of their work, thats not something that a panel of wise men can determine for them.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 02:43:39


Post by: Mr. Grey


Are there any interviews with Chambers, or Rick Priestley, or any of the other original designers that touch on that subject(ie "the point of 40k" as you put it)? I think that would be pretty fascinating to read, honestly.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 03:55:04


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Tyran wrote:
In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

Hence the "most bloody regime imaginable" in the standard 40k intro, plus all the examples of stupid dogmatism and backstabbing.


And the whole “you will not be missed” bit at the end.

Such are the straits humanity finds itself in, nobody has time for racism or sexism. If you can fight, you fight. If you can work, you work. There’s no escape. There’s no respite. The Imperium will chew you up and spit you out just as much as a rabid Ork would. The Imperium is no more caring of its citizens than a Hive Fleet. You all get wiped out? So long as your planet is standing, they’ll ship in a new populace, because it’s the infrastructure that matters.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 07:34:28


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Overread wrote:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
For all the people who think GW " offering " these people to work for them is done as a good thing, I wish I could see the world that way. Considering the canned statements they all give out this is simply them offering to " work " for them or get crushed, they won't say that however. It's all about being a shark with a smile these days.

Yeah sure GW can do whatever they want with their IP, but lets not say they are good for it, they are simply greedy sods, losing no money at all with these videos out there but not being able to stand anyone else getting recognition for them.

Unless you are telling me these video makers were somehow robbing from the poor little orphan boy GWs tills.


As noted earlier in the thread, Astartes person was making around $20K a month from patreon money generated by those supporting the creation of Astartes.


And how much of that money was somehow going to go to GW ? Just because I don't spend 20 dollars on lunch today doesn't mean I'm promised to then spend it at GW stores. If I support an independent creator who is making what GW doesn't give a crap to do on its own with a similar quality, or even a care to customer desires, why would that money then go to them ? To assume he's taking a nickle away from GW is a bit silly. Recasters, yes they are directly taking sales away from GW, third party markets for bits, sure they are as well to some degree, pirated codex, of course they are. GW isn't selling content like these fan movies I'm aware of. We can agree to disagree, but assuming that money would have gone to GW otherwise is a little silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Make money off someone else’s IP, they’ll getcha.

It’s not rocket surgery.


How much rocket surgey have you had ? I can't wait for them to trademark skulls and come for my inborn IP infringement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Arbitrator wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Wait have people been taking it as a serious publication rather than in-universe propaganda leaflets? Apart from the very good canids being higher up in the command chain, it's all silly nonsense.

A lot of people think 1d14chan memes are true lore, including Failbaddon and Angry Marines. Don't forget how often Text-to-Speech Device is touted as a great introduction to the lore.

As for SODAZ most of his stuff is just DoW assets ripped into Source Film Maker right? I expect they'll pay him for one consultancy gig, tell him "Don't call us, we'll call you" and ignore him from then on whilst soaking in the "Waow! Wholesome Chungus GW totally love their fanbase and want to nurture creative talent, not like Kirby at all!"


This is exactly what GW is doing I think. Just a nicer way to toss some coins to the creator ( maybe as we can't even be sure they paid them a dime ) handed them a canned response to put out and they don't come out as the bad guy they'd be if they C and Ded them into oblivion. It's simple PR so the friendly face on the same ol bad GW.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 08:02:54


Post by: Cybtroll


As someone said, a potential purchase is not a purchase, a potential damage is not a damage, an intellectual property is not a physical property.
If you really believe in economy, then ideas shouldn't have any prices (only industrialization of them would matter: an idea can be freely and indefinitely replicated: that's the quintessential definition of something worthless by the standard definition of price, based on scarcity. By the way, already the copyright laws only serves the bigger interest (because, if you really would be at the side of content creator, you would advocate for personal recognition of their authorship... ) Instead you conflate the idea of intellectual property with a corporate entity that - by definition - do not have intellect at all (that's why it need to rent it from real people). That's even before taking into consideration that we require money in order to register an idea: so if I'm poor I can't have original idea?

Today we wouldn't know who Blanche or Chambers are if we really thought that is GW as a corporation that "creates" anything....and you're trying to sustain that this is the proper way to support content creator.
It's funny, but a little sad.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 10:43:06


Post by: Slipspace


 Cybtroll wrote:
As someone said, a potential purchase is not a purchase, a potential damage is not a damage, an intellectual property is not a physical property.
If you really believe in economy, then ideas shouldn't have any prices (only industrialization of them would matter: an idea can be freely and indefinitely replicated: that's the quintessential definition of something worthless by the standard definition of price, based on scarcity. By the way, already the copyright laws only serves the bigger interest (because, if you really would be at the side of content creator, you would advocate for personal recognition of their authorship... ) Instead you conflate the idea of intellectual property with a corporate entity that - by definition - do not have intellect at all (that's why it need to rent it from real people). That's even before taking into consideration that we require money in order to register an idea: so if I'm poor I can't have original idea?

Today we wouldn't know who Blanche or Chambers are if we really thought that is GW as a corporation that "creates" anything....and you're trying to sustain that this is the proper way to support content creator.
It's funny, but a little sad.


Copyright absolutely is not just a means to serve bigger interests. I know scores of people who have benefitted as individuals from the UK's copyright laws, ranging from small amounts of money to very large indeed. It's basically what allows anyone to make money as a freelance creative working with larger businesses since without copyright any work submitted would be in danger of being exploited against the creator's wishes. It's also not true that only rich people can benefit from these laws. In the UK (and all of Europe, I believe) copyright is an inherent right of the creator that costs nothing and a trademark costs as little as £170 to register in the UK. I do think there are problems with the way IP and copyright laws are enforced and the legal system that surrounds them too often advantages people with more money rather than those who have legitimate claims but I see that as more of an issue with the legal system in general than the concept of IP.

Your point about us only knowing who Chambers or Blanche are because of GW seems to make the opposite point to the one you're going for. What that shows is that the corporation does have some positive effect on the distribution of ideas. Basically, if GW isn't successful the content creators don't have a means of support and we don't get to enjoy these IPs. It follows that the corporation should then be able to gain some benefit from this. They take the risks, both financially and creatively and wouldn't do so without at least the prospect of some reward at the end of it. The ability to profit from the ideas of the people they paid for those ideas is one of the ways they can get that reward.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 12:18:36


Post by: Overread


 Cybtroll wrote:
As someone said, a potential purchase is not a purchase, a potential damage is not a damage, an intellectual property is not a physical property.
If you really believe in economy, then ideas shouldn't have any prices (only industrialization of them would matter: an idea can be freely and indefinitely replicated: that's the quintessential definition of something worthless by the standard definition of price, based on scarcity. By the way, already the copyright laws only serves the bigger interest (because, if you really would be at the side of content creator, you would advocate for personal recognition of their authorship... ) Instead you conflate the idea of intellectual property with a corporate entity that - by definition - do not have intellect at all (that's why it need to rent it from real people). That's even before taking into consideration that we require money in order to register an idea: so if I'm poor I can't have original idea?



And under such a system what reason would anyone have to create and release anything new? Right now if you release something you've got your copyright as a default protection in most nations (I think the only one that doesn't agree is China, who do have their own version of copyright within China, but don't honour international treaties on it). You can sell it at whatever price you want and you are protected; its your entity. Under what you propose anyone could steal it. Big firms would just hoover up popular ideas and mass market sell them for their own gains. Small start up firms would have no hope as even if their prices were cheaper, they'd never have the manufacturing base nor the marketing to outreach to the mass public. Big firms would just slap their logo on it and sell it mass market at whatever price they wanted.

It would create an environment where new creations and ideas would be hidden away. Where there'd be no reason or protection for people to develop a new IP or a new idea because the money, the time and the effort they put into it would have a very limited to no chance of returning that investment to them in a financial way. Worse than that, other entities would have free reign to make those profits. You'd have legions of creators watching as others made a fortune from their work. Meanwhile big firms would simply grow fat on whatever they'd take.



Also fun fact - the same copyright laws that protect GW and allow them to shut down things like Astartes, if they want, also protects Astartes. The creator of Astartes owns Astartes. GW can have it shut down because of copyright infringement, but GW also cannot just steal it and use it for themselves. It's one reason a lot of authors won't read or go to fanfiction sites, because they don't want to later get a copyright claim from a fan fiction writer claiming that a sequel book used their ideas.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 12:34:08


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


chaos0xomega wrote:
And this is another strong argument against fan-works. Fans often totally misunderstand lore or aspects of the lore on a fairly fundamental level (arguably this is a failure of communication on the creators fault, i.e. someone is a gakky author/writer/filmmaker, etc. or they spend too much time focusing on some aspects of lore while others are left barely covered resulting in misconstrued perceptions), or have their perceptions of lore heavily colored by fan commentary which is sometimes woefully inaccurate, failbaddon being an excellent example of this. Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote a pretty great piece on the subject.

If I were a creator, I would consider such things to be incredibly damaging to my creation, no matter how "enriching" some people might feel about it otherwise - a creator should have a right to shut such things down when it violates the spirit and nature, thats not something that a panel of wise men can determine for them.

A creator is powerless to oblige others to interpret and value their work in a specific way, that would amount to a private thought police. Creators can't control how other will appraise their work (unless in a distant future, entertainment can be directly planted in the brain and force the reciever to experience the content in exactly the manner the creator intends (would this be a desirable development, I might ask?)).

More importantly, creators are to an extent required to tolerate views about the work being spread in the form of reviews, analysis, parodies and satire, depening on your view those items can be considerd fan-content. Such content could include representations and interperations that violate the 'spirit and nature' of the author's intent. So creators also can't fully control how others spread appraisals of their work. (If not, negative reviews would become a prime target for misintepertating the creator's intent, as a start).

1d4chan illustrates rather well that a twisted version of Warhammer 40k exists in a realm that is independent from GW's direct input (even if you do not agree that it should!). How many would argue that 1d4chan falls within the 'spirit and nature' of what GW intends?

The ability of GW to excerise total control over the setting already is impaired both practically and legally, (as you admitted with the aquila drawing case). This does alter the nature of our disagreement. You belief that creators should be able to shut down derived-content at their wishes, but also that there is some form of boundary beyond which legal action cannot be taken (aquilla drawings, again). I can actually more or less agree with that belief, but with a different boundary for legal actions.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 12:38:36


Post by: kirotheavenger


People say the aquila isn't protected; are you sure that's right?

Two headed eagles clearly aren't protected, eagles are an extremely common motif and two heads is also fairly common.

But the aquila is something very specific. Only one of the heads has an eye, one foot is hard and angular, the other more curved. This exact interpretation of a two headed Eagle I'm sure is protected.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 12:47:09


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


 kirotheavenger wrote:
People say the aquila isn't protected; are you sure that's right?

Two headed eagles clearly aren't protected, eagles are an extremely common motif and two heads is also fairly common.

But the aquila is something very specific. Only one of the heads has an eye, one foot is hard and angular, the other more curved. This exact interpretation of a two headed Eagle I'm sure is protected.

No, this relates to a post I made a few pages where I proposed that the moment I were to draw the imperial aquila (the exact one ) GW could start a legal procedure (and request me to destroy my drawing and pay them damages).

Chaos' reply was that no court will acquiesce to GW's request and through the suit out, I read this as him understanding that there is a some form of limit beyond which legal action can't be taken.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 12:51:57


Post by: Dai


I think what people object to Caradman is profiting from others IP.

I'm not fan of large corporations and I do understand where you are coming from, you want a fair world where the little guy can do this and not be penalised but that would be incredibly difficult in practice.

I think anyone or company that c and d's fan works is unbelievably petty until the creator starts making cash. At that point allowance of it will have several knock on affects that others have pointed out.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 12:52:24


Post by: beast_gts


Since I don't think it's been posted yet - here is GW's Intellectual Property Policy.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 13:15:38


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

A creator is powerless to oblige others to interpret and value their work in a specific way, that would amount to a private thought police. Creators can't control how other will appraise their work (unless in a distant future, entertainment can be directly planted in the brain and force the reciever to experience the content in exactly the manner the creator intends (would this be a desirable development, I might ask?)).


This isn't about policing thought. It's literally about actions. Obviously an IP creator can't and shouldn't police what people think about their IP, nor can they do anything about someone writing down their private thoughts about it unless they publish it somewhere. Once something is published it's no longer purely a thought and has become an action.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

More importantly, creators are to an extent required to tolerate views about the work being spread in the form of reviews, analysis, parodies and satire, depening on your view those items can be considerd fan-content. Such content could include representations and interperations that violate the 'spirit and nature' of the author's intent. So creators also can't fully control how others spread appraisals of their work. (If not, negative reviews would become a prime target for misintepertating the creator's intent, as a start).


Reviews, analysis, satire and parody all fall under the purview of copyright. All of those things are protected by copyright law. A content creator cannot use copyright law to force a negative review to be removed, for example, because that's deemed a fair use of the content. It's almost like these things have actually been thought about and tested before. You'll notice those categories are fairly specific, though, and there are criteria that exist for evaluating whether use of copyrighted material falls under one of those categories. Your category of "fan-created content", OTOH, is ridiculously vague and basically encompasses anything any fan may ever create. That's unworkable. That's at the core of this disagreement, I think. Maybe there's some sub-category of "fan content" that should be protected but you need to show how you would define it while still protecting the IP creator's rights to not have their creation used in ways they don't approve of or that might damage them.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 13:28:07


Post by: chaos0xomega


Caradman Sturnn wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
And this is another strong argument against fan-works. Fans often totally misunderstand lore or aspects of the lore on a fairly fundamental level (arguably this is a failure of communication on the creators fault, i.e. someone is a gakky author/writer/filmmaker, etc. or they spend too much time focusing on some aspects of lore while others are left barely covered resulting in misconstrued perceptions), or have their perceptions of lore heavily colored by fan commentary which is sometimes woefully inaccurate, failbaddon being an excellent example of this. Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote a pretty great piece on the subject.

If I were a creator, I would consider such things to be incredibly damaging to my creation, no matter how "enriching" some people might feel about it otherwise - a creator should have a right to shut such things down when it violates the spirit and nature, thats not something that a panel of wise men can determine for them.

A creator is powerless to oblige others to interpret and value their work in a specific way, that would amount to a private thought police. Creators can't control how other will appraise their work (unless in a distant future, entertainment can be directly planted in the brain and force the reciever to experience the content in exactly the manner the creator intends (would this be a desirable development, I might ask?)).


You're arguing something completely different. While a creator can't force an individual to interpret their work in a particular way, they can certainly exercise their influence to shape public perception within the community at large to ensure it is consistent with their intent.

More importantly, creators are to an extent required to tolerate views about the work being spread in the form of reviews, analysis, parodies and satire, depening on your view those items can be considerd fan-content. Such content could include representations and interperations that violate the 'spirit and nature' of the author's intent. So creators also can't fully control how others spread appraisals of their work. (If not, negative reviews would become a prime target for misintepertating the creator's intent, as a start).


All of which are protected as fair-use of an IP. The difference here, however, is that its made clear that these works are *not* official content and nobody interprets them as such (and if they are presented otherwise then they can be hit for damages by the IP owner). A lot of fan content outside of these protected categories are easily confused as being official content and as a result are often more influential, and thus more damaging. The Warhammer Armies Project is a good example of this - a lot of people often confuse those unofficial army books for being the real thing and will cite those books when they are discussing things like Cathay or Kislev, this is especially true among people who are new to the warhammer fantasy setting, especially those who entered into the hobby through Total War. These completely unofficial documents created by loving and well-intentioned fans have completely colored peoples perceptions of how things should or shouldn't be, and at times it has caused arguable harm to GW and/or Creative Assembly when peoples perceptions and expectations are not met by the reality of officially produced content which differs. Likewise, I have seen people in discussions and debates cite fanfic as though they were official sources - at times even the 40k wiki has cited and referenced fanfic.

Hell - the 40k wiki has an entire page that basically started as a result of what was basically fanon which resulted from someones misinterpretation of the lore - it was only recently that the disclaimer went up on the top of the page ("Note: All dates from this point forward are provisional due to errors in the Imperial Calendar, meaning these events could actually have occurred at any time from the early 41st Millennium to the early 42nd Millennium."). This fanon misinterpretation has arguably been directly damaging to GW and its employees, as I've seen several Black Library authors on twitter receiving some pretty disturbing levels of verbal abuse and harassment as a result of this specific topic, and invariably when they say "you won't find us reference a single date in any official publication by Black Library or the design studio as being in M42" people would link to this page as though it were proof otherwise, etc. There are a number of valid reasons why GW wouldn't (and probably couldn't, legally speaking) issue a takedown notice for something on a wiki, but in a different context and presentation (i.e. if it were part of a really popular fan animation instead) this would be something that GW might want to consider C&Ding if it was resulting in a damaged perception of GWs branding based on a setting in the 41st Millennium.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
People say the aquila isn't protected; are you sure that's right?
Two headed eagles clearly aren't protected, eagles are an extremely common motif and two heads is also fairly common.
But the aquila is something very specific. Only one of the heads has an eye, one foot is hard and angular, the other more curved. This exact interpretation of a two headed Eagle I'm sure is protected.


It is protected, our friend here is misconstruing a few different arguments and presenting them as linked. You can't put an Aquila on a t-shirt and sell it (legally - you can try and probably make a few hundred bucks on it before you were hit with a C&D though), etc. but you can make a drawing/image of one, post it on dakka, print it out and hang it on the wall of your room - technically speaking doing so would fall into a grey area within IP law (which in general is largely defined by grey areas), but GW won't pursue action against you for doing so nor would any court or judge take them seriously if they attempted to do so because (at least in this context) theres no actual harm or damages involved with this and GW would have to clear some very high hurdles to prove otherwise.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 13:41:21


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
Caradman Sturnn wrote:

A creator is powerless to oblige others to interpret and value their work in a specific way, that would amount to a private thought police. Creators can't control how other will appraise their work (unless in a distant future, entertainment can be directly planted in the brain and force the reciever to experience the content in exactly the manner the creator intends (would this be a desirable development, I might ask?)).


This isn't about policing thought. It's literally about actions. Obviously an IP creator can't and shouldn't police what people think about their IP, nor can they do anything about someone writing down their private thoughts about it unless they publish it somewhere. Once something is published it's no longer purely a thought and has become an action.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

More importantly, creators are to an extent required to tolerate views about the work being spread in the form of reviews, analysis, parodies and satire, depening on your view those items can be considerd fan-content. Such content could include representations and interperations that violate the 'spirit and nature' of the author's intent. So creators also can't fully control how others spread appraisals of their work. (If not, negative reviews would become a prime target for misintepertating the creator's intent, as a start).


Reviews, analysis, satire and parody all fall under the purview of copyright. All of those things are protected by copyright law. A content creator cannot use copyright law to force a negative review to be removed, for example, because that's deemed a fair use of the content. It's almost like these things have actually been thought about and tested before. You'll notice those categories are fairly specific, though, and there are criteria that exist for evaluating whether use of copyrighted material falls under one of those categories. Your category of "fan-created content", OTOH, is ridiculously vague and basically encompasses anything any fan may ever create. That's unworkable. That's at the core of this disagreement, I think. Maybe there's some sub-category of "fan content" that should be protected but you need to show how you would define it while still protecting the IP creator's rights to not have their creation used in ways they don't approve of or that might damage them.

I pretty much agree agree with all of the above.

Though, I still have many thoughts about things like fair use exemptions though. Think of the following example: A prominent opinionmaker writes a scathing review about a product which leads to potential customers turning away, although the company is arguably harmed that's still considerd fair use right? But now what if said review leads to a cascade of events (think about demonstrations and boycotts) that would harm the company even further? To what extent does does the wording of a review matter? If it containts outright falsehoods, a court case would be likely, right? But what if it's not so clear, what if the review contain misrepresentation of the creator's intent? How many is changed if the author didn't or couldn't now that he was misrepresenting the creator's intent? And what if he could know, but genuinly didn't? How much does the tone of review matter? Or the previously expressed opinons by the reviewers, or comments that he made outside the review?

Crucially, what is the motivation to protect a negative review, but not let's say a questionable meme if, and only if, it can be determined that the former causes more harm for the creator, like customers turning away, than the latter? I have several explanations of my own, but they mostly come down to value judgement of reviews over memes, and the quality, meaning tone they're generally associated with.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 14:08:55


Post by: Gert


It would depend on what the review said.

If someone said "I think GW products are too expensive and you shouldn't buy them", GW doesn't care because it's meaningless. Oh no some adults aren't going to buy your product and are boycotting until you make it cheaper, oh wait twenty kids just bought starter sets, oh there's another fifteen, etc.

If someone were to say "GW keeps its manufacturing costs down because it uses slave labour", then GW is going after them for libel/slander/whatever else because that is a serious allegation.
A load of prominent UK news sources did pieces on GW's recent success and most if not all were bottom-tier, "give it to the intern" type stories that made numerous factual errors. Now, it's not libel/slander/lies that these sources were printing when they said GW paint could cost £10 or that the range was mostly metal/resin, it was just really bad journalism that with two seconds of research anyone with half a brain could see was untrue. It's not going to hurt GW's business if the Guardian writes a rubbish article because their primary market, kids and teens, aren't going to read that article.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 14:34:55


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


chaos0xomega wrote:
You're arguing something completely different. While a creator can't force an individual to interpret their work in a particular way, they can certainly exercise their influence to shape public perception within the community at large to ensure it is consistent with their intent.

But of course, I specifically used the word 'oblige' to make that distinction, creators, authors and storytellers use narrative and context to ensure that their work is interpreted as close as possible to the original vision, this is very much fine. I did in fact want argue, that a responsibility for how a work of fiction is interpreted is very much shared between both the customer and the creator.

All of which are protected as fair-use of an IP. The difference here, however, is that its made clear that these works are *not* official content and nobody interprets them as such (and if they are presented otherwise then they can be hit for damages by the IP owner). A lot of fan content outside of these protected categories are easily confused as being official content and as a result are often more influential, and thus more damaging. The Warhammer Armies Project is a good example of this - a lot of people often confuse those unofficial army books for being the real thing and will cite those books when they are discussing things like Cathay or Kislev, this is especially true among people who are new to the warhammer fantasy setting, especially those who entered into the hobby through Total War. These completely unofficial documents created by loving and well-intentioned fans have completely colored peoples perceptions of how things should or shouldn't be, and at times it has caused arguable harm to GW and/or Creative Assembly when peoples perceptions and expectations are not met by the reality of officially produced content which differs. Likewise, I have seen people in discussions and debates cite fanfic as though they were official sources - at times even the 40k wiki has cited and referenced fanfic.

Hell - the 40k wiki has an entire page that basically started as a result of what was basically fanon which resulted from someones misinterpretation of the lore - it was only recently that the disclaimer went up on the top of the page ("Note: All dates from this point forward are provisional due to errors in the Imperial Calendar, meaning these events could actually have occurred at any time from the early 41st Millennium to the early 42nd Millennium."). This fanon misinterpretation has arguably been directly damaging to GW and its employees, as I've seen several Black Library authors on twitter receiving some pretty disturbing levels of verbal abuse and harassment as a result of this specific topic, and invariably when they say "you won't find us reference a single date in any official publication by Black Library or the design studio as being in M42" people would link to this page as though it were proof otherwise, etc. There are a number of valid reasons why GW wouldn't (and probably couldn't, legally speaking) issue a takedown notice for something on a wiki, but in a different context and presentation (i.e. if it were part of a really popular fan animation instead) this would be something that GW might want to consider C&Ding if it was resulting in a damaged perception of GWs branding based on a setting in the 41st Millennium.

I agree that it should be made clear wherever possible that fan content is in no way offical and many fan-creators actually do use such disclaimers in an effective manner. I applaud that, very much, if it can alleviate some the original creator's concerns, that by all means it should become more widespread and refined in fan creations.

It's horrible to see authors being verbally abused on twitter because of information on a wiki, and it would be equally horrible if a fan animation leads to the same kinds of abuse or even worse. Now you argue that taking down the wiki in such an isntance is reasonably speaking close to unachievable, but not that does not go for the fan animation, With the given reason being context and presentation. I think we may be finally getting somewhere, those who commit the absues should obviously be punished, but I believe that the context and presenation argument should be weighed differently. In fact, I may hypothetically sympathize more with the animator than with the wiki-editor depending on the circumstances.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 14:53:43


Post by: catbarf


I just want to reiterate that no US court has ever ruled against a non-commercial, transformative fan work. Not sure about the UK.

The fair use provisions of education, criticism, and parody are very important if you are commercializing your use of copyrighted content, but if you are making non-commercial use of copyrighted material that is transformative in nature (eg you're making an animation of your own, not just posting videogame cutscenes to Youtube), you would have to do something particularly egregious to bring the force of law down on you even if your work isn't strictly fair use.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 15:01:18


Post by: Viterbi


beast_gts wrote:
Since I don't think it's been posted yet - here is GW's Intellectual Property Policy.


Thanks for the link! It seems to cover most of the stuff people are complaining about. You absolutely can create fan work, if you don't say it's official and don't make money off it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 15:04:46


Post by: Slipspace


Caradman Sturnn wrote:


Crucially, what is the motivation to protect a negative review, but not let's say a questionable meme if, and only if, it can be determined that the former causes more harm for the creator, like customers turning away, than the latter? I have several explanations of my own, but they mostly come down to value judgement of reviews over memes, and the quality, meaning tone they're generally associated with.



The principle behind fair use is to prevent rights holders using it as a blunt instrument to stifle things like criticism and education. That's why exceptions exist in IP law for those purposes. It's generally accepted that criticism is valid free speech and allowing it is an overall good thing for society, mainly because the consequences of not allowing it are so bad. However, in order to claim fair use you would have to demonstrate the thing you have written/filmed is actually a review or parody, or genuinely for educational purposes and there are other criteria you need to meet, such as only using as much of the source material as is necessary to review or critique it. Reproducing an entire book or movie then tacking on a comment at the end saying "10/10, would totes recommend" doesn't get you a free pass to do what you want. It's possible some memes may be protected under satire/parody fair use but they have to be satirising the thing depicted. This is all a legally well-tested, if grey and murky, area. A very important point in IP law is that generally the creator of a thing holds all the rights to that thing unless stated otherwise (either in a legal contract or through existing law like the fair use doctrine). It's not the case that a creator has no rights and then gets a long list of rights assigned to them.

The crucial difference is the scope of the fair use definitions above are very small and refer to very specific things. They're also seen as being reasonable limitations on the rights of IP creators. None of your suggestions fall into those categories, either objectively or subjectively. Objectively you've not explained how allowing free rein for anyone to create anything based on another's IP is a reasonable limitation of the creator's rights. The reasons why you shouldn't allow this have been gone over before, but all revolve around the rights of a creator to control how their content is used in order to preserve its quality or their own reputation. From a subjective viewpoint you've not clearly explained what fan content would and wouldn't be permissible and how that determination is made. I think that's why a lot of people are viewing your arguments as "I like some stuff, I don't want it to be taken away", which isn't the best basis for formulating laws.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 18:09:29


Post by: Caradman Sturnn


Slipspace wrote:
The principle behind fair use is to prevent rights holders using it as a blunt instrument to stifle things like criticism and education. That's why exceptions exist in IP law for those purposes. It's generally accepted that criticism is valid free speech and allowing it is an overall good thing for society, mainly because the consequences of not allowing it are so bad. However, in order to claim fair use you would have to demonstrate the thing you have written/filmed is actually a review or parody, or genuinely for educational purposes and there are other criteria you need to meet, such as only using as much of the source material as is necessary to review or critique it. Reproducing an entire book or movie then tacking on a comment at the end saying "10/10, would totes recommend" doesn't get you a free pass to do what you want. It's possible some memes may be protected under satire/parody fair use but they have to be satirising the thing depicted. This is all a legally well-tested, if grey and murky, area. A very important point in IP law is that generally the creator of a thing holds all the rights to that thing unless stated otherwise (either in a legal contract or through existing law like the fair use doctrine). It's not the case that a creator has no rights and then gets a long list of rights assigned to them.

I agree, the argument that concepts like criticism and education are protected because they are universally and socially desirable is exactly mine but only with different concepts. Again this is not self-interest but rather an affirmation of the status quo, fan communities thrive and produce all sorts of fantastic and not so fantatsic content. when the community produces a product of critical value (like a thematic analysis of 40k) it is very much safe (unless it contains abject lies, slander, etc.) even when the setting's creator has misgivings. Now when out of the community comes aproduct of craftsmanship such as piece of visual art (like a portrait of a Rogal dorn) that is not commerical, it is mostly safe as the setting's creator we'll likely not acknowledge it, Still, there's a chance that for whatever reason the owner's ire will be drawn to them. When it comes to legal protection I'd much rather be author than the painter. My main issue is that their trades are being valued differently, if not in practice than at least in law.

The crucial difference is the scope of the fair use definitions above are very small and refer to very specific things. They're also seen as being reasonable limitations on the rights of IP creators. None of your suggestions fall into those categories, either objectively or subjectively. Objectively you've not explained how allowing free rein for anyone to create anything based on another's IP is a reasonable limitation of the creator's rights. The reasons why you shouldn't allow this have been gone over before, but all revolve around the rights of a creator to control how their content is used in order to preserve its quality or their own reputation. From a subjective viewpoint you've not clearly explained what fan content would and wouldn't be permissible and how that determination is made. I think that's why a lot of people are viewing your arguments as "I like some stuff, I don't want it to be taken away", which isn't the best basis for formulating laws.

And here is were we split. I'm not advocating for an intellectual wasteland. Creators are many cases already impaired in their ability to take legal action against content that is not strictly fair use. The reality is that I'd be content for now if the laws were updated to reflect the status quo. Differently put, I belief that in principle painting a portrait of Rogal Dorn and displaying it non commerically is as reasonable thing to do as writing and publishing a critical thematic analysis of the 40k setting.



SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/21 19:28:17


Post by: chaos0xomega


Caradman Sturnn wrote:

And here is were we split. I'm not advocating for an intellectual wasteland. Creators are many cases already impaired in their ability to take legal action against content that is not strictly fair use. The reality is that I'd be content for now if the laws were updated to reflect the status quo. Differently put, I belief that in principle painting a portrait of Rogal Dorn and displaying it non commerically is as reasonable thing to do as writing and publishing a critical thematic analysis of the 40k setting.



Both of these things are already allowed though. The only time at which the portrait of Rogal Dorn becomes a problem is if that portrait begins to benefit someone commercially (such as by way of youtube advertising revenue or a Patreon that collects $20,000 monthly from subscribers) or if it proves harmful to the IP creators business (i.e. it achieves unprecedented levels of viewership and aligns itself in direct competition with a product that the IP holder has on offer/will soon have on offer) - even then there are certain criteria that said portrait would need to meet for a takedown notice to actually be seen as legitimate and upheld by the courts (e.g., if the non-commercial display of the portrait of Rogal Dorn was occurring at a free public art gallery across the street from a paid-admission art gallery operated by GW which housed a portrait of Lion'El Johnson). The existing legal system is more than equipped to manage and settle these matters without needing to convene a special panel of experts. If the fan in question disagrees with the C&D then they simply refuse to comply and wait to be served legal notice and have the courts hear the case, or even proactively serve legal notice to GW under certain conditions if they are so inclined.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/22 19:04:59


Post by: beast_gts


And GW is launching their own channel / platform - Warhammer+

Warhammer Animation Preview WarCom article and Dakka thread.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/22 22:47:35


Post by: BlackoCatto


O God, it is worse than I thought.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/22 23:07:09


Post by: RaptorusRex


I hope all the copyright crusaders are proud of their warring for the faith in the name of Disney, GW, and the family of Sonny Bono.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/22 23:16:50


Post by: chaos0xomega


I am.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/23 02:47:53


Post by: Voss


 RaptorusRex wrote:
I hope all the copyright crusaders are proud of their warring for the faith in the name of Disney, GW, and the family of Sonny Bono.


Screw them and your loaded religious language. I'm happy to support creators (artists, writers, musicians, etc) in being able to hold on to their own work, regardless of who they are or how I feel about them.

Its one thing to have short ownership limits on scientific or engineering breakthroughs. Innovating on science benefits everyone.

It does NOT matter if 'everyone' can suddenly profit off drawings of a cartoon mouse, Superman or anybody can write stories about Sigmar or Picard or Gandalf. Do your own fething legwork and sell your own ideas. Artistic works belong solely to their creator, or whoever they willingly agreed to contract with. Nobody else gets it. Not strangers, not fans, not even their own kids (like the talentless Herbert brat).


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/23 04:12:27


Post by: RaptorusRex


Voss wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
I hope all the copyright crusaders are proud of their warring for the faith in the name of Disney, GW, and the family of Sonny Bono.


Screw them and your loaded religious language. I'm happy to support creators (artists, writers, musicians, etc) in being able to hold on to their own work, regardless of who they are or how I feel about them.

Its one thing to have short ownership limits on scientific or engineering breakthroughs. Innovating on science benefits everyone.

It does NOT matter if 'everyone' can suddenly profit off drawings of a cartoon mouse, Superman or anybody can write stories about Sigmar or Picard or Gandalf. Do your own fething legwork and sell your own ideas. Artistic works belong solely to their creator, or whoever they willingly agreed to contract with. Nobody else gets it. Not strangers, not fans, not even their own kids (like the talentless Herbert brat).


Who do you think you’re protecting by defending the way things are? It ain’t Tolkien or Herbert. It’s profit-seekers like the Herbert brat.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/23 04:29:51


Post by: Apple fox


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Voss wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
I hope all the copyright crusaders are proud of their warring for the faith in the name of Disney, GW, and the family of Sonny Bono.


Screw them and your loaded religious language. I'm happy to support creators (artists, writers, musicians, etc) in being able to hold on to their own work, regardless of who they are or how I feel about them.

Its one thing to have short ownership limits on scientific or engineering breakthroughs. Innovating on science benefits everyone.

It does NOT matter if 'everyone' can suddenly profit off drawings of a cartoon mouse, Superman or anybody can write stories about Sigmar or Picard or Gandalf. Do your own fething legwork and sell your own ideas. Artistic works belong solely to their creator, or whoever they willingly agreed to contract with. Nobody else gets it. Not strangers, not fans, not even their own kids (like the talentless Herbert brat).


Who do you think you’re protecting by defending the way things are? It ain’t Tolkien or Herbert. It’s profit-seekers like the Herbert brat.


And all the creators Disney has in employment just thrown under the tracks? There work should not be protected since they work for Disney?
One of the big reasons people choose to work for these company’s is for there work to be protected, and the support a big company can provide. Even with the current laws, it can be a hell to keep your work protected.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/05/23 09:42:00


Post by: Overread


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Voss wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
I hope all the copyright crusaders are proud of their warring for the faith in the name of Disney, GW, and the family of Sonny Bono.


Screw them and your loaded religious language. I'm happy to support creators (artists, writers, musicians, etc) in being able to hold on to their own work, regardless of who they are or how I feel about them.

Its one thing to have short ownership limits on scientific or engineering breakthroughs. Innovating on science benefits everyone.

It does NOT matter if 'everyone' can suddenly profit off drawings of a cartoon mouse, Superman or anybody can write stories about Sigmar or Picard or Gandalf. Do your own fething legwork and sell your own ideas. Artistic works belong solely to their creator, or whoever they willingly agreed to contract with. Nobody else gets it. Not strangers, not fans, not even their own kids (like the talentless Herbert brat).


Who do you think you’re protecting by defending the way things are? It ain’t Tolkien or Herbert. It’s profit-seekers like the Herbert brat.




Who are we protecting?

Photographers, authors, artists, sculptors, poets, musicians, composers. We are protecting the people who make the music we listen too; write the books we read; the models we buy; the stls we print; the computer games we play; the board games we play with the family. We are protecting the individual creators and the industries within which they work. We allow firms like Disney and Ghibli to grow to a size where they can invest serious money into animations. Where we can have films like Avatar. To provide an income to the point where people like the person behind Astartes, have an industry which means they can get training and earn an income enough that they've the skill and the disposable time to even consider investing into creating a fan project like Astartes in the first place.

You want fan creations? You want quality fan creations? Then how are you going to establish the skill base if there is no value in creativity?



And yes right now the general rough rule is that copyright extends 70years past the creators death (rough value it might vary a bit nation to nation). Granted its big firms like Disney pushing for that and if they could they've have it perpetual, however there is also value in allowing creative works to continue to provide for families. An author who dies at 30 who supported their family with their writing, whilst rare in the writing world, is none the less a thing. It's good that their family can continue to benefit from those creative works. Sure it also means big firms like Disney get a stranglehold on some concepts and ideas too and perhaps in time copyright will have to be adapted to service both the need for protection at the small end and release of rights at the top end. It's a fine line to walk, but at its core the overall concept is sound.


It provides a safety net that permits creators to benefit from what they have created and prevents people from openly and outright stealing those ideas and creations. It prevents rampant greed being the only driving force in creativity. You argue that its "protecting the Herbert brat" ; but it was also protecting Brian Herbert throughout his life. It allowed him to make Dune and its sequels. It allowed him to spend the time and energy creating that book and then to share it with the world at large. If there was no protection chances are he might never have spent the days writing it; nor shared it with the world if he did.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 05:45:24


Post by: Bago


Seen on reddit:

Sodaz has been bullied out of 40k due to toxic fans

I honestly wish I was exaggerating but it is truly a sad day for the 40k community. As many of you know 2 months ago sodaz, a great animator who has done some of the best 40k animations to date, was offered to work at gw. He also took down all his 40k videos. Sadly a minor but very vocal part of the community took it upon themselves to continually harass him for 2 months for “betraying them and working for gw”. Sodaz having put up with the huge amount of harassment decided to call it quits, turned down the offer from gw, and announced he was moving away from warhammer. He will be missed. (Valrak video for more context) https://youtu.be/ZWWOKBw_KVs





SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 06:12:14


Post by: drbored


Bago wrote:
Seen on reddit:

Sodaz has been bullied out of 40k due to toxic fans

I honestly wish I was exaggerating but it is truly a sad day for the 40k community. As many of you know 2 months ago sodaz, a great animator who has done some of the best 40k animations to date, was offered to work at gw. He also took down all his 40k videos. Sadly a minor but very vocal part of the community took it upon themselves to continually harass him for 2 months for “betraying them and working for gw”. Sodaz having put up with the huge amount of harassment decided to call it quits, turned down the offer from gw, and announced he was moving away from warhammer. He will be missed. (Valrak video for more context) https://youtu.be/ZWWOKBw_KVs





This is despicable. Those trolls don't represent the warhammer community, they're straight scum. How dare they.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 06:16:41


Post by: Galas


They maybe dont represent It but the truth IS that the amount of debate and vitriol that this brought over the por Guy surely enabled them to do It.

Not evej with the astartes or HELLSREACH Guy dos the community became so toxic about It.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 07:17:25


Post by: kodos


guess that vocal minority were the ones who paid him before he got the offer from GW and fell betrayed because the videos were removed


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 07:25:42


Post by: Gert


Not an excuse to harrass someone for doing what's best for them. Freelance work is never as good as a consistent job, especially when that freelance work might not even get you the same amount of money each month.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 07:31:12


Post by: kirotheavenger


Isn't Patreon's whole shtick that it's not technically payment it's just donations, honest.

Unless that's been challenged in court at some point in that last few years?

I can understand why someone would be mad about the situation when they've (as they see it) been paying for it. But that's not excuse to be so cruel.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 08:01:00


Post by: Apple fox


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Isn't Patreon's whole shtick that it's not technically payment it's just donations, honest.

Unless that's been challenged in court at some point in that last few years?

I can understand why someone would be mad about the situation when they've (as they see it) been paying for it. But that's not excuse to be so cruel.


Patreon provides everything needed for it as a business, maybe people say it is otherwise. But even donations often need to be reported as income unless for specific circumstance in most places I have looked into it.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 08:04:15


Post by: kirotheavenger


Maybe the donation thing isn't important then, but I think the core issue is/was employment protections and such.
Youtube was being looked at the same, I remember there was a class action lawsuit started, haven't heard from it since, anyone know anything more?


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 08:17:03


Post by: Apple fox


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Maybe the donation thing isn't important then, but I think the core issue is/was employment protections and such.
Youtube was being looked at the same, I remember there was a class action lawsuit started, haven't heard from it since, anyone know anything more?


You would be employed by yourself, patreon/YouTube have always been effectively a payment provider. It could be people thinking donations are not payment, but I cannot really think patreon or YouTube would.
Unless you are a nonprofit, it’s income for the most part.

I had a quick look, and if it’s the sorta big one that was on in 2020. It’s mostly false or BS driven by groups of people that want to create a narrative. Little to do with this but it could be something seperate you are thinking.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 08:17:10


Post by: kodos


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Isn't Patreon's whole shtick that it's not technically payment it's just donations, honest.

Unless that's been challenged in court at some point in that last few years?

I can understand why someone would be mad about the situation when they've (as they see it) been paying for it. But that's not excuse to be so cruel.


people not understand that their payment was a donation and that the own nothing

same way as so many companies using Kickstarter as pre-order platform that people forget that they are investing in a business with the risk of failure (and they end with nothing for their money)

and of course those people get angry because they thought they own something wth the person they donated to being the target

I don't know him so don't know what he advertised or communicated, but that a minority is so vocal about it is usually related to people being upset because they lost money (and it does not matter if it was their own fault or not)


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 08:23:42


Post by: kirotheavenger


 kodos wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Isn't Patreon's whole shtick that it's not technically payment it's just donations, honest.

Unless that's been challenged in court at some point in that last few years?

I can understand why someone would be mad about the situation when they've (as they see it) been paying for it. But that's not excuse to be so cruel.


people not understand that their payment was a donation and that the own nothing

same way as so many companies using Kickstarter as pre-order platform that people forget that they are investing in a business with the risk of failure (and they end with nothing for their money)

and of course those people get angry because they thought they own something wth the person they donated to being the target

I don't know him so don't know what he advertised or communicated, but that a minority is so vocal about it is usually related to people being upset because they lost money (and it does not matter if it was their own fault or not)

I agree.
Patreon I think really presents itself as more than donations though, at least all the patreons I've seen have "tiers" that "unlock" stuff, to me that's straight up purchasing a benefit.

Kickstarter at least has reasonably prominently displayed small print, but people abuse the hell out of kickstarter with outright scams.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 08:33:28


Post by: Apple fox


 kirotheavenger wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Isn't Patreon's whole shtick that it's not technically payment it's just donations, honest.

Unless that's been challenged in court at some point in that last few years?

I can understand why someone would be mad about the situation when they've (as they see it) been paying for it. But that's not excuse to be so cruel.


people not understand that their payment was a donation and that the own nothing

same way as so many companies using Kickstarter as pre-order platform that people forget that they are investing in a business with the risk of failure (and they end with nothing for their money)

and of course those people get angry because they thought they own something wth the person they donated to being the target

I don't know him so don't know what he advertised or communicated, but that a minority is so vocal about it is usually related to people being upset because they lost money (and it does not matter if it was their own fault or not)

I agree.
Patreon I think really presents itself as more than donations though, at least all the patreons I've seen have "tiers" that "unlock" stuff, to me that's straight up purchasing a benefit.

Kickstarter at least has reasonably prominently displayed small print, but people abuse the hell out of kickstarter with outright scams.


Donations for rewards are fine, even if you get donations it’s still a income. It just depends what those donations are for, if you say you are giving rewards then you have to do that. Just another way for business and after concluded each month a new payment is taken for what ever that month.
They can remove you if you don’t hold up your side of the donation.
In this case, people seem to think there payments though donations can hold him on patreon it seems.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 09:02:32


Post by: a_typical_hero


Not impressed and not surprised either. It's too easy and mostly free of repercussions to be human trash on the internet.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 11:24:26


Post by: chaos0xomega


Wholly unsurprised by this - also wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the individuals posting in this thread were part of the community of harassers that drove SODAZ away, given their apparent feelings of entitlement to those animations and the anger displayed over SODAZ getting a job at GW.

Looks like the outrage blew up in their face though, not only are they not getting the animations from GW any longer, but they are also not getting them from youtube either since they called it quits on the Warhammer IP entirely.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 16:04:59


Post by: Bago





Some people are just unbelievable


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 16:20:16


Post by: Overread


Wow that is horrible

Then again I recall some of the authors who wrote those kids warhammer books also got death threats and other insults. There is indeed a vocal and abusive small group (and I truly hope its small) who do this; but their impacts can be huge and only ever make things worse for everyone.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 16:32:25


Post by: Insectum7


Oh the internetz . . . that's so dumb. What a shame.


SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW @ 2021/07/16 16:37:54


Post by: G00fySmiley


chaos0xomega wrote:
Wholly unsurprised by this - also wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the individuals posting in this thread were part of the community of harassers that drove SODAZ away, given their apparent feelings of entitlement to those animations and the anger displayed over SODAZ getting a job at GW.

Looks like the outrage blew up in their face though, not only are they not getting the animations from GW any longer, but they are also not getting them from youtube either since they called it quits on the Warhammer IP entirely.


some almost certainly are here, i'm willing to bet they were some of the more vocal ones in the female space marine threads that got locked down .