Games Workshop wrote:We have a zero tolerance policy in respect of infringement of our intellectual property rights. This includes:
1. Counterfeit models - our products must not be reproduced and sold.
2. Imitation models - our products must not be imitated. Imitators produce models which copy heavily from Games Workshop’s artwork, books or products.
3. Recasting and 3D printing - our products must not be illegally re-cast or scanned, nor should digital designs of our products be illegally produced and distributed.
4. Illegal downloads - our publications, audio books, and other material protected by copyright must not be illegally uploaded, shared, or distributed in any format.
5. Unauthorised use of our trademarks - unauthorised use or registration of our trademarks in respect of similar products or services is not permitted.
6. Fan-films and animations – individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.
7. Games and apps – individuals must not create computer games or apps based on our characters and settings. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.
Point 5 is wonderfully vague. It could mean that everyone here with a GW-derived avatar is in breach of that.
The point I've bolded in 6 is absurd.
And how does point 7 cover mods for games? Someone makes a mod for Dawn of War and they're in violation of GW's IP rules? Some makes a Space Marine skin for Gary's Mod, and it's all over red rover for them?
The last time GW went to court over their IP they found that they didn't actually own a lot of what they thought they did. I'd hate to see them try and start this gak again. Spots the Space Marine, anyone?
I think it's a shame about the fan films. I saw this kind of thing generate nothing but ill-will for the Star Trek fan film community when they clamped down on theirs - you had the whole Axanar debacle that generated lots of bad feeling. Compare that to Star Wars fanfilms, where they embrace the fact that people want to celebrate their love for the subject matter and be creative... I think it's just asking for more irritated fans. Shame.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So how long until that is extended to written works and GW tries to sue Fanfiction.net into the ground?
From the linked page:
Fan-fiction, hobby books and magazines Individuals may write their own stories, hobby books and magazines based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include text, artwork or imagery copied from any official Games Workshop material be non-commercial, with no money being received or paid. This includes all forms of fundraising activity, and generation of any advertising revenue not be publicly distributed, except for no-charge digital distribution make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos, and include the word ‘unofficial’ prominently on the front cover not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
Fan-artwork Individuals may create their own artwork, drawings and designs, based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include artwork or imagery copied from any official Games Workshop material be non-commercial, with no money being received or paid. This includes all forms of fundraising activity, and generation of any advertising revenue not be publicly distributed, except for no-charge digital distribution make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
Fan-sites Individuals may create their own fan sites based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include text, artwork, imagery, footage or animation copied from any official Games Workshop material make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos not post or display rules or stats copied from from any official Games Workshop material not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
Albertorius wrote: I find the second point kind of hilarious, given what they do themselves
Spoiler:
Oh, but I guess it's OK if it's "homage".
It also highlights that they learned nothing from the Chapterhouse suit with regards to how copyright works. It only protects an artistic work from imitation in the same medium as the original work. It is literally the right to copy something, hence the name. Taking something from one medium and transforming it into another is not copying the original, it falls under the derivative work definition.
I wonder how specific they'll be with "material copied from any official Games Workshop material".
If I write "Death Korps of Krieg" in my fanfic, is that allowed?
What if I include an aquila in my fan art? What if I draw one of those Krieg models? Is that copied?
kirotheavenger wrote: I wonder how specific they'll be with "material copied from any official Games Workshop material".
If I write "Death Korps of Krieg" in my fanfic, is that allowed?
What if I include an aquila in my fan art? What if I draw one of those Krieg models? Is that copied?
Probably.
If you drew the Aquila, not it’s not copied. If you took it from a Gw publication, yes it is copied. At least that’s my guess.
They want to control the whole market for animations.
They don't want people going "why would I spend £5 to watch this when I get similar stuff for free on Youtube?"
Albertorius wrote: I find the second point kind of hilarious, given what they do themselves
Spoiler:
Oh, but I guess it's OK if it's "homage".
It also highlights that they learned nothing from the Chapterhouse suit with regards to how copyright works. It only protects an artistic work from imitation in the same medium as the original work. It is literally the right to copy something, hence the name. Taking something from one medium and transforming it into another is not copying the original, it falls under the derivative work definition.
Well, GW is the good guy as we last learned in the thread about an animator, so gw can do no wrong, and its their ip which they absolutely have not stolen bits and pieces all over, nope not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: They want to control the whole market for animations.
They don't want people going "why would I spend £5 to watch this when I get similar stuff for free on Youtube?"
They want to sanitise the hobby, and monetise everything.
No other company gets away with monetising a balance patch, except GW, and somehow their lazyness should be applauded cue 2 W csm... FOMO, blatant cut content DLC, preorder DLC.. etc.
kirotheavenger wrote: They want to control the whole market for animations.
They don't want people going "why would I spend £5 to watch this when I get similar stuff for free on Youtube?"
A market that wouldn't exist without fan animations on YouTube. It's not like people were clamouring for more after Ultramarines The Movie
The bit about imitation models was already there before. It's only the animation bit that is new (or rather it's moved to "zero tolerance").
A lot of this stuff I'm not sure how legally enforceable it actually is. Unfortunately most people simply don't have the money to stand up to GW, and they've only got more money to bury people in since Chapterhouse, so it doesn't really matter.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So how long until that is extended to written works and GW tries to sue Fanfiction.net into the ground?
From the linked page:
Fan-sites
Individuals may create their own fan sites based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include text, artwork, imagery, footage or animation copied from any official Games Workshop material
make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos
not post or display rules or stats copied from from any official Games Workshop material
not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
So... Lexicanum is now illegal? Given how it uses official images and quotes from official material. 1d4chan is definetly illegal, since in addition to also putting official GW artwork on their pages, the tactics pages usually mentions unit stats and rules.. and I'd say the style is very prejudiced to Games Workshop.
I would have understood if GWs attidude towards fan films/animations would had been "you can use it but you can't profit from it" but total ban on it is just bizarre and stupid.
Not Online!!! wrote: IF gw wants to chapterhouse 2.0 itself... again.. I guess we can't stop em.
Reasonable to think that didn’t really cost them all that much, they are doing great considering. They where able to turn people around on there App easy by just offering a plastic mini.
kirotheavenger wrote: The bit about imitation models was already there before. It's only the animation bit that is new (or rather it's moved to "zero tolerance").
A lot of this stuff I'm not sure how legally enforceable it actually is. Unfortunately most people simply don't have the money to stand up to GW, and they've only got more money to bury people in since Chapterhouse, so it doesn't really matter.
This is pretty standard stuff from a corporate IP policy perspective. The big problem with current IP laws is the principle is often secondary to the ability to pay for legal representation. Combine that with a presumption of guilt from places like YouTube when it comes to DMCA takedowns and too much power is with the large corporations. That said, the guidelines that expand on the bullet points actually seem relatively reasonable. We'll need to see just how far GW are willing to go to enforce these rules. That's where the real test will be.
Not Online!!! wrote: IF gw wants to chapterhouse 2.0 itself... again.. I guess we can't stop em.
Reasonable to think that didn’t really cost them all that much, they are doing great considering. They where able to turn people around on there App easy by just offering a plastic mini.
Well, gw did foster an isolated environment, which of cours afects spending and purchasing patterns.
Insofar i am not surprised, just a bit disapointed that the community seems to have took the bait ...
Looks like GW is heading back to the naughty corner to be ignored.
This heavy handedness will reinforce the 3d print market.
Folks will not be thinking, 'is it really ok to print a CSM shoulderplate', and thinking 'the chaos star belongs to Moorcock, GW stole it <print>.'
What stops 3d printing is the good nature of most gamers, but gamers are often aware of the hypocrisy of GW's policies, lose sympathy and thus are more willing to cross the line. Third party manufacture are grey areas, often with caveats for legal distinction, and but custom bitz and characters do not hurt GW's business model. Most gamers will go only so far out of fairness. Buy a GW army, then add a third party legally sold character. When GW gets nasty over that, fine, I will buy a third party legally sold army instead. I am committing no crime for 3d printing or buying from third party manufacturers, but when GW have a no tolerance to activities that are legal but they don't like, then it magnifies all the bad stuff they do and makes it easier to just cut them out of the financial loop when it is convenient to do so. Play fair with me bucko and I play fair with you, go totalitarian on me, and I will take more of my money elsewhere.
I backed a not-Skaven stl file Kickstarter recently. Was going to print a rat or two to back up a projected purchase of GW rats and to have alt models for single pose entities like the A-bomb. But it is not illegal to just print the entire army and have a proxy counts as Skaven that look similar or better to the stuff GW sells at outrageous prices, so why not save some money......
kirotheavenger wrote: The bit about imitation models was already there before. It's only the animation bit that is new (or rather it's moved to "zero tolerance").
A lot of this stuff I'm not sure how legally enforceable it actually is. Unfortunately most people simply don't have the money to stand up to GW, and they've only got more money to bury people in since Chapterhouse, so it doesn't really matter.
This is pretty standard stuff from a corporate IP policy perspective. The big problem with current IP laws is the principle is often secondary to the ability to pay for legal representation. Combine that with a presumption of guilt from places like YouTube when it comes to DMCA takedowns and too much power is with the large corporations. That said, the guidelines that expand on the bullet points actually seem relatively reasonable. We'll need to see just how far GW are willing to go to enforce these rules. That's where the real test will be.
pretty much the core problem, especially with Youtube...
oooh scary let slip the lawyers of IP, whose special skill is more or less failing upwards and falling back on GW having deeper pockets than the target
I don't see how any of these - beyond perhaps point 2, which is quite vague and non-descript - are meant to be "absurd". They're typical copyright and trademark protection stuff. There is nothing here out of the ordinary or something that the majority of other IP holders wouldn't also do, you can't just use someones trademarks and copyrighted material and do whatever you want with it.
Part 5 is not "vague". It clearly says trademarks. A GW-derived avatar is not trademarked.
They can claim whatever they want, at least half of what they claim there has no or little legal basis from my (admittedly limited) understanding of these things.
But let's indeed see what action they take in practice. Take down the Warhammer mods for e.g. Rimworld? Seek the removal of 10-15mm scale sculpts matching Warhammer designs from webstores? Take down Wiki/Lexicanum for copying of text and images? Have "If the Emperor had a Text-to-Speech Device" removed from YouTube? GW would gain very little for attempting any of that, but then, that doesn't mean they might not be stupid enough to try...
kodos wrote: Problem is here "setting" which means anything in the grim dark universe as no work that is related to 40k at all
not even CBS was stupid enough to go that far with fan films
and "trademarks" is vague as what GW believe is a valid trademark and what people can still use are 2 different things
is Spot the Space Marine against GWs trademarks?
GW said yes, Court said no
GW does own the trademark to "Space Marine", they were within their rights to try and defend that. Just because GW tried to stop that and it was determined it was fine doesn't mean what GW did was invalid. It was determined that "Spots the Space Marine" didn't count as infringement because of the context the term was used in - that's how trademarks work.
If you're using the term in a context related to W40K/GW products, that could be confused as coming from GW, then that would be the sort of thing that likely counts.
I think everyone could benefit from a nice chill pill. Many companies have this kind of this as their base IP protection and it's all about enforcement.
I saw the example of Roosterteeth's Red VS Blue and Bungie/Microsoft, RVB could have been killed way back in the early 2000s but it wasn't because Bungie/Microsoft recognised it as the useful tool that it was for getting kids into Halo. However, we could have a situation like where Sony tried to trademark "Let's Play". They failed miserably and lost a lot of community standing.
I think we should let the people who have to worry about this do what they need to do and not try to doom-monger or incite fear/hatred.
Probably worth pointing out these are worldwide guidelines rather than limited to a specific jurisdiction.
Someone on Twitter has said that German law doesn't allow transference of IP so GW cannot 'buy' fan-films and take them over, so a blanket ban might be the only way to avoid issues.
I'm not super knowledgeable when it comes to law, but isn't a lot of the things listed by GW protected under the Fair Use copyright law?
Is this GW flexing their muscles as a mega-corporation basically knowing they won't win court battles if it goes there but scaring off little guys who don't have the money to even fight the battles.
In any circumstance it is super unfortunate and definitely is linked to them pushing Warhammer +. "New" GW is starting to act a lot like old GW...
EldarExarch wrote: I'm not super knowledgeable when it comes to law, but isn't a lot of the things listed by GW protected under the Fair Use copyright law?
Is this GW flexing their muscles as a mega-corporation basically knowing they won't win court battles if it goes there but scaring off little guys who don't have the money to even fight the battles.
In any circumstance it is super unfortunate and definitely is linked to them pushing Warhammer +. "New" GW is starting to act a lot like old GW...
kirotheavenger wrote: I wonder how specific they'll be with "material copied from any official Games Workshop material".
If I write "Death Korps of Krieg" in my fanfic, is that allowed?
What if I include an aquila in my fan art? What if I draw one of those Krieg models? Is that copied?
Probably.
If you drew the Aquila, not it’s not copied. If you took it from a Gw publication, yes it is copied. At least that’s my guess.
In fact, if you draw a two-headed Aquila with one eye on one head and angular wings with a certain number of feathers, that's technically infringement of the trademark regardless of whether you photocopy it, scan it, draw it, or sculpt it.
Of course, seeing as the Aquila is a historical symbol, all you have to do is give it a second eye and vary the number of feathers in the wings and GW can go whistle dixie. Which is why...
Mentlegen324 wrote: I don't see how any of these - beyond perhaps point 2, which is quite vague and non-descript - are meant to be "absurd". They're typical copyright and trademark protection stuff. There is nothing here out of the ordinary or something that the majority of other IP holders wouldn't also do, you can't just use someones trademarks and copyrighted material and do whatever you want with it.
Part 5 is not "vague". It clearly says trademarks. A GW-derived avatar is not trademarked.
...these remarks don't track. It's not "typical copyright and trademark protection stuff" to claim the right to control things that even resemble your IP, as this policy does. GW's new policy also has to be viewed in light of GW's own prior behaviour, and that behaviour includes them claiming to own trademarks they never registered, claiming to own original artworks which in fact were created by independent contractors who's rights were never transferred, and various other things which I can only describe within the rules of this forum as "dastardly shenanigans".
Further, by setting such broad, far-reaching criteria for what they consider constitutes infringement, they are setting up a situation where they must go after fanfic writers, people making commission art of RPG characters, wikis of both rules and lore, hell, even r/Grimdank, because if they apply these farcically broad claims of ownership selectively they risk their legal foundation if and when they eventually do bring someone to court, because that person's lawyers will be able to point to huge lists of content that GW must plainly be aware of which breaches their asserted terms but against which GW had taken no action.
All I can say is I very much hope they bring a case against someone in the UK who's willing to fight them, because I look forward to contributing to that person's legal fund in the hope Lucasfilm v Ainsworth will screw GW over for good.
In the meantime, yo ho yo ho etc is doubtless about to become a very common refrain.
People have the legal right to make money from derivative works, though.
Sure, as long as those derivative works fall within the constrains set out by the law.
Yodhrin wrote: It's not "typical copyright and trademark protection stuff" to claim the right to control things that even resemble your IP, as this policy does.
But... that's how IP protection laws work. If you feel something resembles your work past a reasonable point, you challenge it as a potential infringement in the court of law.
It's a shame that GW is ruining the fan friendly reputation they had started repairing a decade prior.
Back then, we had great deals (Start collecting, battle boxes, etc), the return of specialist games, more active communication with the community, made-to-order, etc.
Now, prices are creeping higher, they got rid of start collecting for 40k, their "great deal" boxes are limited supply and its really hit or miss if you can pick one up, made-to-order is pretty much dead, and now this. I get some of it, like protecting IP from third parties, but the animation thing seems like shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder if we'd even have Warhammer+ if Astartes hadn't gotten such a huge reaction.
Using "made to order" as an example is kinda weird, no?
They've done them as waves in the past. It's never been a permanent thing.
Start Collectings were super hit/miss. The value was there but the name was misleading in some cases. I'll definitely agree that the Combat Patrols aren't as good for the most part. The AdMech one is trash compared to the last SC they put out.
Well if content creators start to avoid GW even more, if the + channel is the only place to find GW content and the other official socials are discontinued then it will suck for the current channels that need to restructure themselves to avoid problems but I can live without any GW content... heck I mostly do that now.
Theres almost an infinite amount of alternative and free content today to keep painters and gamers entertained.
GaroRobe wrote: It's a shame that GW is ruining the fan friendly reputation they had started repairing a decade prior.
Back then, we had great deals (Start collecting, battle boxes, etc), the return of specialist games, more active communication with the community, made-to-order, etc.
Now, prices are creeping higher, they got rid of start collecting for 40k, their "great deal" boxes are limited supply and its really hit or miss if you can pick one up, made-to-order is pretty much dead, and now this. I get some of it, like protecting IP from third parties, but the animation thing seems like shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder if we'd even have Warhammer+ if Astartes hadn't gotten such a huge reaction.
Advertising works, when done right it can do a lot for even the worst company. And GW has lots of YouTube channels willing to be exclusive to them.
Other games company only really get the chance on a few channels, and often they are lucky if they can turn there few chances into anything.
It also means that GW can be more direct in how it enforces its IP.
This isn’t really that different from other companies, but i don’t think you would see most others in this industry pushing it ether.
My main concern is the impact this will have on the fan communities, because all it needs is one legal notice and it will cause shockwaves.
For those who were not around last time, during the Chapterhouse court cases and other goings on, it's not possible to overstate what an impact it had on the forum community. It wasn't just Chapterhouse, it was just a sequence of events that took place that made you think the fans (those who cared enough to create and maintain these sites) were pretty far down the pecking order when it came to consideration.
Established figures on one very well known forum were actually supplying names of users it thought were committing IP infringement or re-casting to GW.
Another forum that I was a very active part of actually had to change it name because it was worried the title of the forum was an infringement. Posts that were critical of GW (this was during Finecast) were removed, reference to other websites that were seen to be 'heretical' (and I gak you not - I saw language like that used), such as Beasts of War, was disallowed.
Many forums, including the ones above, were actively deleting user posts and imposing draconian rules over what could or couldn't be posted - I remember actual stock images of GW minis being taken down by mods in one example.
It was a horrible, horrible time to be an active member of that fan community. We all come here because we enjoy posting and the behaviour by GW at that time absolutely sucked the life out of it. In one case with the forums cited above, users unsurprisingly drifted away and it eventually shut down.
I will say that I don't know how much of these forums policies were actively forced by GW - I suspect actually very little, and few C&Ds issued - but the fact was that it created such a climate of fear with the mere threat that a site could be issued with a legal notice (and if I had invested lots of time and money in a community site, I would be worried about it being shut down too and probably impose those draconian measures!)
Let's hope, for all our sakes, it is just an updating of policy, and we don't have the 'Monty Burns legal team' gearing up for round 2.
All I can say is I very much hope they bring a case against someone in the UK who's willing to fight them, because I look forward to contributing to that person's legal fund in the hope Lucasfilm v Ainsworth will screw GW over for good.
In the meantime, yo ho yo ho etc is doubtless about to become a very common refrain.
Is the Lucasfilm vs Ainsworth case the reason I ended up with a delightful Marks and Spencers chocolate 'Original Stormtrooper' helmet at Easter in a box that did not say Star Wars anywhere on it?
The two things that really stand out to me about this are the stuff about recasting and imitation models. They just cannot enforce that crap. If I make a model that is similar to a GW model, how exactly are they going to sue me for it? They'd lose in court because it only needs to have minor differences to not be a direct copy, and as long as I don't advertise it as a GW model and give it a different name they can do nothing about it.
And as to recasting, I can recast any of my models. They're mine. I fully own them after I buy them. I can recast any object I own, make copies of anything I have bought. I can scan them and make 3D prints. Of course I can. And then I can sell them as well, they're my property and I can go to a car boot sale or flea market or sell them to any other individual.
There's obviously a difference if I set up an online shop selling GW recasts and so on. That's fair enough. But any hobbyist can recast, scan, or 3D print whatever the hell they want, and yeah, they can go sell their army on ebay afterwards if they want to. GW cannot enforce that and look stupid for trying.
As for fan animations and creations, well, I hope people stop creating them then. Less advertisement for a stupid company with an asinine approach to their IP, most of which is stolen from Michael Moorcock or folklore in any case.
Fan-artwork
Individuals may create their own artwork, drawings and designs, based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include artwork or imagery copied from any official Games Workshop material
be non-commercial, with no money being received or paid. This includes all forms of fundraising activity, and generation of any advertising revenue
not be publicly distributed, except for no-charge digital distribution
make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos
not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
How does this work? GW encourage their customers to copy the box art on their miniatures. Is copying the box art "artwork or imagery copied from any official Games Workshop material"?
What about battle reports? Are they illegal if they have advertising or paid subscriptions if the miniatures are painted in official colour schemes?
Fan-artwork
Individuals may create their own artwork, drawings and designs, based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include artwork or imagery copied from any official Games Workshop material
be non-commercial, with no money being received or paid. This includes all forms of fundraising activity, and generation of any advertising revenue
not be publicly distributed, except for no-charge digital distribution
make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos
not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
How does this work? GW encourage their customers to copy the box art on their miniatures. Is copying the box art "artwork or imagery copied from any official Games Workshop material"?
What about battle reports? Are they illegal if they have advertising or paid subscriptions if the miniatures are painted in official colour schemes?
Little bit of blutac over any GW image it must be from now on, decals GW owned.
Battle report should be fine, as derivative work. And I not sure even GW would be crazy enough to cut that off. Painting your minis is intended, so they would eventually be telling people in a legal document that painting GW miniatures is bad.
kodos wrote: Problem is here "setting" which means anything in the grim dark universe as no work that is related to 40k at all
not even CBS was stupid enough to go that far with fan films
and "trademarks" is vague as what GW believe is a valid trademark and what people can still use are 2 different things
is Spot the Space Marine against GWs trademarks?
GW said yes, Court said no
GW does own the trademark to "Space Marine", they were within their rights to try and defend that.
they do not
they own the trademark in context of 40k, as soon as 40k is out, it is not within their rights to defend it and they just hope that the other has not the money to go to court
(other companies have fallen for that too, like thinking if they trademark their logo/banner/icon they can defend against anyone who uses the same combination of colours)
that GW now goes hard against fan-fiction which would be usually fall under fair use says a lot
as I wrote, even CBS did not try to shut down fan-films at all but just put very specific restrictions on them
It was a horrible, horrible time to be an active member of that fan community.
I remember that time very well, topics like now in the News would be deleted because of fear GW would send a letter or shut down the forum for embedded pictures and discussing rules or points
the time 3rd party online shops were not allowed to list GW products with pictures and GW wanted people to add "copyright by GW" to any picture of painted miniatures
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: And I not sure even GW would be crazy enough to cut that off.
they once were that crazy, hope to learned something from the past
kirotheavenger wrote: I wonder how specific they'll be with "material copied from any official Games Workshop material".
If I write "Death Korps of Krieg" in my fanfic, is that allowed?
What if I include an aquila in my fan art? What if I draw one of those Krieg models? Is that copied?
...these remarks don't track. It's not "typical copyright and trademark protection stuff" to claim the right to control things that even resemble your IP, as this policy does.
....Yes, it is. If something actually infringes is another matter but that is broadly how copyright and trademarks work. I've seen quite a few seemingly wrong interpretations of what this sort of thing involves ever since the Chapterhouse lawsuit. It's always "GW lost so they were wrong!" without looking into just what they lost on and why.
There is nothing out of the ordinary here, this is all just what copyright and trademark law says. They own the copyright to the miniatures, designs, artwork, text, pictures and all the rest, so that means no counterfeit or recast models and no illegal downloading of their material which are the obvious copyright breaches. Fan-animations, use of artwork, making games etc that use IP without permission of the copyright holder can be stopped if they choose to do so, because you simply don't have the rights to use those (depending on the specific circumstance). Neither of those are something GW has just decided should now be the case, the law already said those.
Imitation models are the one that's a bit more difficult to determine. This is the one that mainly relates to the chapterhouse lawsuit the most - which many people seem to forget GWdid win on with some of the copyright stuff, about 1/3 of the copyright claims were won by GW. Things like the underlaying shapes and design ethos are not copyrightable, while some miniatures that imitated GW products closely like the Doomseer were determined to be infringing.
This is how copyright works - you can't use someone elses IP to do whatever you like. They haven't written anything here that is different from what copyright already covered.
All I can say is I very much hope they bring a case against someone in the UK who's willing to fight them, because I look forward to contributing to that person's legal fund in the hope Lucasfilm v Ainsworth will screw GW over for good.
In the meantime, yo ho yo ho etc is doubtless about to become a very common refrain.
Is the Lucasfilm vs Ainsworth case the reason I ended up with a delightful Marks and Spencers chocolate 'Original Stormtrooper' helmet at Easter in a box that did not say Star Wars anywhere on it?
Possibly, or it could just be a licensed product - they'll slap Star Wars branding on anything. Basically Ainsworth worked on the production of the OT and still had original Stormtrooper armour molds, he made and sold suits for 501st cosplayers, Disney tried to have him sued out of existence but the whole thing fell apart for them because his team argued that, as the basis for film props, the Stormtrooper fell under Design Rights rather than Copyright(which is only for artistic works) and they realised that concept might extend even to designs that had subsequently been used to mass-produce anything - toys, for instance - and could lose control of basically the whole back catalogue as Design Rights only last for a limited period of time and even some of that period is highly conditional.
So if GW push things and went up against the right lawyer with the right judge...well, at least they'd still have Age of Sigmar and Primaris...
Da Boss wrote: The two things that really stand out to me about this are the stuff about recasting and imitation models. They just cannot enforce that crap. If I make a model that is similar to a GW model, how exactly are they going to sue me for it? They'd lose in court because it only needs to have minor differences to not be a direct copy, and as long as I don't advertise it as a GW model and give it a different name they can do nothing about it.
And as to recasting, I can recast any of my models. They're mine. I fully own them after I buy them. I can recast any object I own, make copies of anything I have bought. I can scan them and make 3D prints. Of course I can. And then I can sell them as well, they're my property and I can go to a car boot sale or flea market or sell them to any other individual.
There's obviously a difference if I set up an online shop selling GW recasts and so on. That's fair enough. But any hobbyist can recast, scan, or 3D print whatever the hell they want, and yeah, they can go sell their army on ebay afterwards if they want to. GW cannot enforce that and look stupid for trying.
As for fan animations and creations, well, I hope people stop creating them then. Less advertisement for a stupid company with an asinine approach to their IP, most of which is stolen from Michael Moorcock or folklore in any case.
Pretty much none of this is correct. Recasting, 3D scanning and printing or any other reproduction of a model is a copyright infringement in exactly the same way photocopying a book and selling it at your local flea market would be. It doesn't matter if there's an online shop or not. It gets a bit more complicated with miniatures over something like a book because having two copies of a miniature is a potential financial gain, while having a back-up copy of a book you own is not. Anything that isn't a direct copy also gets into the grey area of derivative works. One of the standard tests often applied in that situation is the concept of whether there may be confusion about which is the original and which is the derivative work. It's all very subjective and each case needs to be taken on its own merits so you can't really definitely say you can or can't do something.
Of course, there's always the related issue of how likely you are to get caught, but that's separate form the legal position of what you're doing. I agree enforcement can often be difficult or near-impossible, depending on what the infringement is.
In general I think people are getting a little hyperbolic in their reactions to this. GW's policy is not that different to any other large corporation with its own extensive IP. The language is fairly similar and the expanded info they give over and above the bullet points sets out their position fairly well to try to avoid confusion. I know it's fashionable to hate GW but this is not something specific only to them and is a fairly unremarkable policy change in light of them setting up their own animation studio.
I'm glad to see the armchair IP lawyers have joined forces with the armchair business consultants to once again tell us that a business issuing a fairly normal statement on IP is somehow overstepping it's legal bounds and ruining it's business. IT's not doing either, and we need to stop pretending that it is.
As a few posters have noted, GW operates in a variety of markets with significantly different frameworks of IP law, but based on my limited understanding of US law, nothing in here seems out of place or overly broad. Even point five is limited to commercial use. Unauthorised use of our trademarks - unauthorised use or registration of our trademarks in respect of similar products or services is not permitted. (emphasis added)
People point out that this hurts the GW fan community, which it does, but it forgets the one key thing: GW doesn't want fans, it wants customers.
To me, a fair bit of my annoyance is that GW's IP is a deeply derivative series of rip offs, some blatant, some not. And they take an extremely high handed approach for a company based on ripping off other people's ideas and smushing them together.
Wha-Mu-077 wrote: So how long until that is extended to written works and GW tries to sue Fanfiction.net into the ground?
From the linked page:
Fan-sites
Individuals may create their own fan sites based on our characters and settings, but these must:
not include text, artwork, imagery, footage or animation copied from any official Games Workshop material
make it clear that they are unofficial, without using any Games Workshop logos
not post or display rules or stats copied from from any official Games Workshop material
not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property
So... Lexicanum is now illegal? Given how it uses official images and quotes from official material. 1d4chan is definetly illegal, since in addition to also putting official GW artwork on their pages, the tactics pages usually mentions unit stats and rules.. and I'd say the style is very prejudiced to Games Workshop.
Yeah that’s the first thing I thoUght when reading that.
I wonder how much they’re gonna have to trawl through their pages and change.
My big worry is how this affects - invaluable - fan resources like Yaktribe, Battlescribe, playing group blogs, etc. That mention of 'stats' is a bit worrying.
It just makes me worry so much, but I don't know enough about this to know if it will lead to a return to the bad old days?
People point out that this hurts the GW fan community, which it does, but it forgets the one key thing: GW doesn't want fans, it wants customers.
This is astonishingly ignorant. Without loyal fans obsessing over the setting and collecting up every scrap of detail they wouldn't, for example, have sold half so many Horus Heresy books. Steps that have a chilling effect on fandom will absolutely lose them customers and hurt the bottom line. It's funny reading someone dragging on "armchair" experts while simultaneously saying something so boneheaded themselves
It'd be incredibly funny if due to sudden dearth of fan-created materials warhammer r34 would end up on top of google searches. Unlikely, but it'd be funny as heck.
Polonius wrote: I'm glad to see the armchair IP lawyers have joined forces with the armchair business consultants to once again tell us that a business issuing a fairly normal statement on IP is somehow overstepping it's legal bounds and ruining it's business. IT's not doing either, and we need to stop pretending that it is.
As a few posters have noted, GW operates in a variety of markets with significantly different frameworks of IP law, but based on my limited understanding of US law, nothing in here seems out of place or overly broad. Even point five is limited to commercial use. Unauthorised use of our trademarks - unauthorised use or registration of our trademarks in respect of similar products or services is not permitted. (emphasis added)
People point out that this hurts the GW fan community, which it does, but it forgets the one key thing: GW doesn't want fans, it wants customers.
And yeah, look at any other big companies IP statements. Marvel or DC for instance and others.
You can’t make stuff off their IP is the general takeaway with most big companies properties..
GW's "new rules" are extremely standard IP protection. I'm not really seeing the issue, other than rehashing the fact they've been over-litigious and overly-threatening in the past and they generally suck as a company.
People should realize that their new animation shows mean they're working with other companies now. I don't know how the deals went down, who's paying who, who gets what profits, but it doesn't really matter, these animation companies are spending their money to make money with GW's IP, and they're going to expect to receive standard market protection from that IP's holder.
Imagine buying the rights to make a TV show from some famous author's book, and then somebody else goes, "I'm going to make a TV show based off that book too, but I'm not asking permission and I'm not paying rights," and the author was like, "Yeah that's cool too." That just doesn't fly for obvious reasons.
How much of this IP rules is new, and how much is what has always been there?
I get that they need to protect their IP, and as a business obviously don't want people 3D printing their designs, or getting rules for free.
I also wonder how fiercely they intend to enforce these rules, or if it's a case of "We'll leave it alone, until it's an issue and then we have these guidelines to back us up".
I'm not going to get on a soapbox and claim the sky is falling just yet. Although, I know how much fun it is to hate on GW.
jaredb wrote: How much of this IP rules is new, and how much is what has always been there?
I get that they need to protect their IP, and as a business obviously don't want people 3D printing their designs, or getting rules for free.
.
None of this is new. It's all just part of what copyright and trademarks laws say and how things worked even before this was posted, despite what some people here seem to be claiming.
You cannot use someone elses trademarks or copyright, outside of certain contexts, without their permission.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal". I wonder if they'll say the same if GW decides to sue or C&D an artist who drew a 40k drawing on commission or something. Or Emperor's Text To Speech. Though on the upside I suppose it means less furry space marine art.
I'm not quite ready to say things might be as bad as they were HBMC.
I think saying that fails to do credit to how awful things were in the early 10's, when it was dubbed the 'summer of terror' on this very forum I believe. Still have a ways to go!
PetitionersCity wrote: My big worry is how this affects - invaluable - fan resources like Yaktribe, Battlescribe, playing group blogs, etc. That mention of 'stats' is a bit worrying.
It just makes me worry so much, but I don't know enough about this to know if it will lead to a return to the bad old days?
Yes right that is my fear too. Can you imagine if Yaktribe, with their community edit versions of Necromunda, got taken offline?
It would wreck the pastime of hundreds (if not thousands) of hobbyists that rely on that resource and that cornerstone of that game community would be gone.
The same with the Epic communities on FB who keep the Epic Space Marine and Armageddon rules going (and derivative rules like NetEpic).
You would like to think they are too small fry but it only needs one C&D on a similar site, one nervous site owner, and off they go. The threat would sometimes be enough.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal". I wonder if they'll say the same if GW decides to sue or C&D an artist who drew a 40k drawing on commission or something. Or Emperor's Text To Speech. Though on the upside I suppose it means less furry space marine art.
It is completely normal. This is what copyright and trademark law covers. This was all in place even before they said all this.
Whether you like it or not or whether it would be a good idea for GW enforce it without any semblance of nuance is another matter. What's written here is still just how IP law works regardless.
People point out that this hurts the GW fan community, which it does, but it forgets the one key thing: GW doesn't want fans, it wants customers.
This is astonishingly ignorant. Without loyal fans obsessing over the setting and collecting up every scrap of detail they wouldn't, for example, have sold half so many Horus Heresy books. Steps that have a chilling effect on fandom will absolutely lose them customers and hurt the bottom line. It's funny reading someone dragging on "armchair" experts while simultaneously saying something so boneheaded themselves
Pacific wrote: I think saying that fails to do credit to how awful things were in the early 10's, when it was dubbed the 'summer of terror' on this very forum I believe. Still have a ways to go!
To be fair, I hadn't thought about the stuff you wrote in quite some time. I do remember pictures being taken down in N&R because of GW's brain-dead policies (or, at the very least, the fear of said moronic policies).
It might also be the origin of those mind-numbing rules posts where we'd be told that this unit costs "one rhino minus 3 Gretchin in points" and other such asinine nonsense. Glad we're past that... or are we?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal". I wonder if they'll say the same if GW decides to sue or C&D an artist who drew a 40k drawing on commission or something. Or Emperor's Text To Speech. Though on the upside I suppose it means less furry space marine art.
It is completely normal. This is what copyright and trademark law covers. This was all in place even before they said all this.
Whether you like it or not or whether it would be a good idea for GW enforce it without any semblance of nuance is another matter. What's written here is still just how IP law works regardless.
Every time an artist does a commission piece based on another IP, they have left themselves open to action. That's just how IP law works. You may have a super cool take on Darth Vader that's unique and creative, but it's still Darth Vader, and using him is a breach.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal". I wonder if they'll say the same if GW decides to sue or C&D an artist who drew a 40k drawing on commission or something. Or Emperor's Text To Speech. Though on the upside I suppose it means less furry space marine art.
Well it is kinda normal, Fine is probably where the Debate is.
Personally I am in the middle, defending your rights to a creation is a huge pain in the ass.
Especially when bigger creators can just copy wholesale your idea and effectively bury you.
It’s a big reason why people are happy to sell ideas to places like Disney, you may lose some creative freedom.
But they can protect it as well.
There is a big deal with art theft and it will often be talked about when ever it happens quite wide in the community’s.
But it’s crazy to think how often a YouTube personality will make video after video on how bad art theft is, why using someone else’s music without permission.
Too many twitch/YouTube streams trying to be radio stations as well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal".
As others have pointed out, this is completely normal. It's actually more helpful than GW technically need to be. All these guidelines are outlining is what is currently enshrined in the law (with maybe a small amount of GW spin in their favour) but they're not obligated to publish these guidelines in order to enforce their rights.
We can judge how ridiculous things get when and if GW take action against people they think are infringing their rights. Until then, everyone getting bent out of shape over this is just coming across as naive, IMO.
beast_gts wrote: Probably worth pointing out these are worldwide guidelines rather than limited to a specific jurisdiction.
Someone on Twitter has said that German law doesn't allow transference of IP so GW cannot 'buy' fan-films and take them over, so a blanket ban might be the only way to avoid issues.
It's a bit more complicated, but yes, under German law a creator cannot sell or transfer ALL rights to their work, aside from inheritance. They can license it out, but always retain certain rights, including the right to be identified as the author.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
You should ask yourself, why do you have 3d printed models and rules on battlescribe? Cause to me sounds like the company isn't fulfilling your needs then.
Pacific wrote: I think saying that fails to do credit to how awful things were in the early 10's, when it was dubbed the 'summer of terror' on this very forum I believe. Still have a ways to go!
To be fair, I hadn't thought about the stuff you wrote in quite some time. I do remember pictures being taken down in N&R because of GW's brain-dead policies (or, at the very least, the fear of said moronic policies).
It might also be the origin of those mind-numbing rules posts where we'd be told that this unit costs "one rhino minus 3 Gretchin in points" and other such asinine nonsense. Glad we're past that... or are we?
We shall use abstract colours and shapes to represent numbers, to avoid GW saying we're copying them from their publications! It's brilliant!
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
Even that hypothetical person, who gets their rules online and 3D prints their own models, GW could be selling paint, brushes, scenery, gaming accessories, books and merch to, not to mention they're promoting 40k to their friends/family and thus creating new customers. Why you'd want to litigate that person out of your ecosystem is totally beyond me, sorry.
CBS/Paramount:
CBS and Paramount Pictures will not object to, or take legal action against, Star Trek fan productions that are non-professional and amateur and meet the following guidelines.
[…] These guidelines are not a license and do not constitute approval or authorization of any fan productions or a waiver of any rights that CBS or Paramount Pictures may have with respect to fan fiction created outside of these guidelines.
Lucasfilm:
Sponsor grants you a non-exclusive license to create the Video using Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products for the purposes of creating a Video for this Contest only, provided that such license shall be conditioned upon your assignment to Sponsor of all rights in and to the Video (if such rights are not assigned to Sponsor, your license to create the Submission using Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products shall be null and void).
At all times, as between Sponsor and Contestant, Sponsor shall retain all right, title and interest in the Lucasfilm IP and officially licensed Star Wars® products as well as all copyrights therein; this grant of a license is not intended to transfer any ownership rights in the Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products or the copyrights therein. This grant of license is made contingent upon the Contestant maintaining all copyright and trademark notices included in the Lucasfilm IP in the Pack The licensed rights will automatically expire at the end of the Contest. Any other use of the Lucasfilm IP in the Pack is strictly prohibited and constitutes an actionable violation of Sponsor’s rights.
GW:
Individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
So GW should throw the baby out of the bathwater and lose that person's money because they kick them out of the hobby?
I don't know of any modern, healthy company that operates this way. As GabeN famously said, -fiddle-de-dee- is a service problem... meet the consumer where they are and pull them into the ecosystem, don't blacklist somebody like the above strawman who obviously is a great candidate for at least some extraction of funds.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
Even that hypothetical person, who gets their rules online and 3D prints their own models, GW could be selling paint, brushes, scenery, gaming accessories, books and merch to, not to mention they're promoting 40k to their friends/family and thus creating new customers. Why you'd want to litigate that person out of your ecosystem is totally beyond me, sorry.
Because selling models is their core business.
Because a lot of 3d models looks slightly off, and they don't want people thinking that dodgy 3d prints are what GW actually sells.
Because why would a person who prints GW models buy GW terrain?
Sunno wrote: I swear if they go after people like Lutein or good bat rep channels like StrikingScorpion, people will get very very angry.
GW would likely lose if they went after any that have money to fight it, and do people really think GW are insane.
That would be a huge dust up of the YouTube landscape for 40k. It would probably be rather funny to see all the bat rep channels switch to infinity,warmachine, legion and every other game at the exact same time.
Just until it blow over.
I have a 3D resin printer, multiple Patreon subscriptions to sculptors that create stuff in a grim dark sci-fi setting, a Battlescribe subscription (best app ever!), a profound love for a Russian website that collects all 40K rules in the best possible way and a lot of hobby material (paints, brushes, tools, ...) made from a whole range of different companies.
Yet I have more than 20k points of official, legit, non-recasted, ... GW models across five different armies, too many GW rulebooks and a ton of Citadel paints, brushes, tools.
This idea that you're either a GW customer that lives and breathes only inside the GW environment or you're a pirate that has no say on what happens in this hobby is silly, to keep it mildly.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
Even that hypothetical person, who gets their rules online and 3D prints their own models, GW could be selling paint, brushes, scenery, gaming accessories, books and merch to, not to mention they're promoting 40k to their friends/family and thus creating new customers. Why you'd want to litigate that person out of your ecosystem is totally beyond me, sorry.
Because selling models is their core business.
Because a lot of 3d models looks slightly off, and they don't want people thinking that dodgy 3d prints are what GW actually sells.
Because why would a person who prints GW models buy GW terrain?
This doesn't feel like it's in good faith. Lots of 3d prints look great. And GW sells Warp Spiders, you can't tell me that not-Warp Spiders look better than those current finecast abominations.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
and as long as you active play the game in public you have a value to GW as you provide the most important resource: easy to find player/opponents
how many good games out there get overlooked because "I cannot find anyone that plays it"
this is one if the main selling points for the game
while the one who buys the models to put on the shelf for display and buys the books for the fluff but never plays the game gives GW money, he does not help them growing the game and get other to play it
for the very same reason other companies give away their rules for free, to get enough people playing it so that those that buy their products have a reason to do so
if GW would remove all sources of free rules, I don't know of the games would still be that popular because from a lot of groups clubs I know the only reasons why they play it is because they can get the rules for free
This is tripple astounding as they could just sponsor the content, throw the creators a bone, still maintain IP integrity and get free advertisement.
But paid advertisement makes more money from the gullible i guess.
I hate to be that guy, but I called it. May all the copyright crusaders gnash their teeth as they prostrate themselves before me.
There was a burgeoning scene of fan film and fan art creators, all made possible by the monetization of their work. It seemed like there was a new, high-quality fan film every week. GW has effectively killed that in one fell swoop. Chilling effects will keep artists from making art that, by and large, was high-quality and reflected the setting well. This is not a new story; companies effectively destroy the metaphorical commons out of their own greed all the time.
That said, everything GW does is *legal*. And we must remember that it doesn't mean it is *moral*.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
and as long as you active play the game in public you have a value to GW as you provide the most important resource: easy to find player/opponents
how many good games out there get overlooked because "I cannot find anyone that plays it"
this is one if the main selling points for the game
while the one who buys the models to put on the shelf for display and buys the books for the fluff but never plays the game gives GW money, he does not help them growing the game and get other to play it
for the very same reason other companies give away their rules for free, to get enough people playing it so that those that buy their products have a reason to do so
if GW would remove all sources of free rules, I don't know of the games would still be that popular because from a lot of groups clubs I know the only reasons why they play it is because they can get the rules for free
It has long since been established, that Piracy, is first and foremost a service problem, (including unreasonable conversion rates for money for certain countries: Cries in CHF and i am sure some folk from down under will join me in that chorus....):
It has also been established that individual piracy rarely actively hurts a game developper but rather seems to lead to increased sales in some way.
CBS/Paramount:
CBS and Paramount Pictures will not object to, or take legal action against, Star Trek fan productions that are non-professional and amateur and meet the following guidelines.
[…] These guidelines are not a license and do not constitute approval or authorization of any fan productions or a waiver of any rights that CBS or Paramount Pictures may have with respect to fan fiction created outside of these guidelines.
Lucasfilm:
Sponsor grants you a non-exclusive license to create the Video using Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products for the purposes of creating a Video for this Contest only, provided that such license shall be conditioned upon your assignment to Sponsor of all rights in and to the Video (if such rights are not assigned to Sponsor, your license to create the Submission using Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products shall be null and void).
At all times, as between Sponsor and Contestant, Sponsor shall retain all right, title and interest in the Lucasfilm IP and officially licensed Star Wars® products as well as all copyrights therein; this grant of a license is not intended to transfer any ownership rights in the Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products or the copyrights therein. This grant of license is made contingent upon the Contestant maintaining all copyright and trademark notices included in the Lucasfilm IP in the Pack The licensed rights will automatically expire at the end of the Contest. Any other use of the Lucasfilm IP in the Pack is strictly prohibited and constitutes an actionable violation of Sponsor’s rights.
GW:
Individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop
CBS saying as long as you only make entirely amateur, single 15 minute or 30min (in 2 segments) fan film that must in no way infringe on their "Star Trek" trademark, must not copy what they've done, you cannot pay anyone working on it or profit at all, where you cannot own the rights to any of it, you probably won't be sued but they can change their mind at any time and still might go after anything outside of that specific guideline?
Lucasfilm having a contest that people would obviously have to make stuff for, giving people the rights to specifically make stuff for that contest and that after doing you loose the license and cannot use it to do other things?
Neither of those are anywhere near the same context as "do whatever you want with our IP without even getting permission". There's also that, those two examples are them giving a limited-use license temporarily...and the "These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop" is the part that's relevant to that sort of thing in GWs context.
For anyone wondering, this does NOT affect all Fan-made films. There's a bit of a misunderstanding when it comes to what is actually covered by Fair Use. This includes Review and Parody. Ironically, making something super in-appropriate or sexual, and using Games Workshop characters in said animation, would likely be legal under Fair Use laws and the Fair Dealings laws in the UK. Still, Games Workshop would probably not want something like that to be seen by a lot of people, but there's nothing they can do. Also, any animations that were created BEFORE the recent Trademarks that were created by Games Workshop on development of Warhammer+ would also be protected, as they were established first and still retain their right to produce.
40k's IP is decades old at this point, that's when these protections started, not this morning when they added their stance to their website.
Although I absolutely agree that what GW can legally claim is infringement and what their website claims is infringement are not necessarily the same.
But in reality that distinction only matters if challenged in court, which will be an expensive legal battle few will be able to fight, resulting in them being forced to cave anyway.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
I would make a fair-sized bet that anyone that is into the hobby enough to own a 3D printer, has probably gone some way in the past to help fund Tom Kirby's yacht in the past..
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal".
As others have pointed out, this is completely normal. It's actually more helpful than GW technically need to be. All these guidelines are outlining is what is currently enshrined in the law (with maybe a small amount of GW spin in their favour) but they're not obligated to publish these guidelines in order to enforce their rights.
We can judge how ridiculous things get when and if GW take action against people they think are infringing their rights. Until then, everyone getting bent out of shape over this is just coming across as naive, IMO.
I'ts not naive I'm afraid when some of us can remember the wreckage from last time around..!
I am still hoping that these updates are for the genuine threats to GW - the massive re-casting operations in China and Russia etc making knock-off goods - not designed to take out some part-time garage seller who makes bespoke bits to use with 30k miniatures on his weekends, or an artist who has posted some cool marine art on Deviant Art, issuing C&D notices to forums or the communities that keep 'dead' games going with rules available online etc.
Those things listed above and worse have happened to the fan community in the past, with the old, ugly, belligerent GW that let their legal team run riot in the late 00's and early 10's (culminating in the Chapter House case).
GW have shown they are willing to give longtime fans what they want over recent years - the re-releases of the Specialist Games, making WD into more than an advertising pamphlet once more to name just a couple of examples - lets hope that holds true here and they don't start wielding a flamethrower unnecessarily.
kirotheavenger wrote: 40k's IP is decades old at this point, that's when these protections started, not this morning when they added their stance to their website.
Although I absolutely agree that what GW can legally claim is infringement and what their website claims is infringement are not necessarily the same.
But in reality that distinction only matters if challenged in court, which will be an expensive legal battle few will be able to fight, resulting in them being forced to cave anyway.
Trademarks do not apply to all mediums. When a trademark is being applied for, it must state what it covers, and must be relevant to the material and medium the company is producing for. This is also the reason why it's possible to trademark colours as well. They only apply within the domain of their medium.
Because selling models is their core business.
Because a lot of 3d models looks slightly off, and they don't want people thinking that dodgy 3d prints are what GW actually sells.
I am still hoping that these updates are for the genuine threats to GW - the massive re-casting operations in China and Russia etc making knock-off goods - not designed to take out some part-time garage seller who makes bespoke bits to use with 30k miniatures on his weekends, or an artist who has posted some cool marine art on Deviant Art, issuing C&D notices to forums or the communities that keep 'dead' games going with rules available online etc.
Who's easier to go after? A professional recaster in a country that doesn't give two bits about UK IP rights, or "small bespoke 3D printer"?
RaptorusRex wrote: I hate to be that guy, but I called it. May all the copyright crusaders gnash their teeth as they prostrate themselves before me.
There was a burgeoning scene of fan film and fan art creators, all made possible by the monetization of their work. It seemed like there was a new, high-quality fan film every week. GW has effectively killed that in one fell swoop. Chilling effects will keep artists from making art that, by and large, was high-quality and reflected the setting well. This is not a new story; companies effectively destroy the metaphorical commons out of their own greed all the time.
That said, everything GW does is *legal*. And we must remember that it doesn't mean it is *moral*.
GW hasn't "killed" anything unless and until they decide to actually go after and shut down any fan-created content with an iron hammer.
That said, are you really surprised that GW would go after fan films that profit off the monetization of GW's own IP? It's not like you can monetize and sell your My Little Pony fanfiction either. The Astartes guy was making bank off his Patreon - ie profiting pretty nicely off the back of decades of GW's design work - so it came down to two choices: hire the guy and pay him to produce the awesome fan work he's been doing using their IP, or shut it down entirely and let it never see the light of day again. Guess which one results in a better net reaction from the existing GW customer base?
Lucasfilm:
Sponsor grants you a non-exclusive license to create the Video using Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products for the purposes of creating a Video for this Contest only, provided that such license shall be conditioned upon your assignment to Sponsor of all rights in and to the Video (if such rights are not assigned to Sponsor, your license to create the Submission using Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products shall be null and void).
At all times, as between Sponsor and Contestant, Sponsor shall retain all right, title and interest in the Lucasfilm IP and officially licensed Star Wars® products as well as all copyrights therein; this grant of a license is not intended to transfer any ownership rights in the Lucasfilm IP or officially licensed Star Wars® products or the copyrights therein. This grant of license is made contingent upon the Contestant maintaining all copyright and trademark notices included in the Lucasfilm IP in the Pack The licensed rights will automatically expire at the end of the Contest. Any other use of the Lucasfilm IP in the Pack is strictly prohibited and constitutes an actionable violation of Sponsor’s rights.
This is what's basically known as "spec work", and most artists hate it. In effect, you get to play around(for free) in Lucasfilm's Star Wars universe and make whatever the hell you want for the purposes of this content, and then if you're lucky enough to "win", Lucafilm gets to claim any and all rights to your creative work and ideas and use them as their own. You're effectively working for free and seeing no actual benefit to all your hard work beyond maybe a pat on the back and a paltry prize. A lot of companies do this kind of thing regularly in the form of "Design a new slogan / logo for our brand and you could see your art on cereal boxes nationwide!" or "Make a dance track that embodies this movie and you could hear your music in our movie trailer!".
Mentlegen324 wrote: Neither of those are anywhere near the same context as "do whatever you want with our IP without even getting permission"
which no one ever said it should?
you argue that "not allowing anything at all" is normal, while 2 other big companies with popular franchise and a tight IP, allow fan-films
they have certain restrictions what is allowed and how it need to look like, but you can use the setting to create your own films within that setting
and Lucasfilm even gives you a license for that if you participate in a fan-film contest
if you can't see the difference here and that not banning everything does not automatically mean that everyone can use the setting to do whatever he wants, I don't know
and this is before we argue about fair use and how 5 minute 40k animations on YT are free advertising for GW and not something that will hinder their sales
Well, it's obvious that hysteria gonna hysteria. And we can all mark this on our calendars as yet another day Games Workshop died, before people realize the world isn't jumping to attention over this issue either and they just move on.
Mentlegen324 wrote: Neither of those are anywhere near the same context as "do whatever you want with our IP without even getting permission"
which no one ever said it should?
you argue that "not allowing anything at all" is normal, while 2 other big companies with popular franchise and a tight IP, allow fan-films
they have certain restrictions what is allowed and how it need to look like, but you can use the setting to create your own films within that setting
and Lucasfilm even gives you a license for that if you participate in a fan-film contest
if you can't see the difference here and that not banning everything does not automatically mean that everyone can use the setting to do whatever he wants, I don't know
and this is before we argue about fair use and how 5 minute 40k animations on YT are free advertising for GW and not something that will hinder their sales
No, this is "normal" in the sense of it's what IP law already says. This is what is enshrined and established by the law regardless of what they wrote here and would have been already in place protecting their IP even if they had not written this article.
Only 1 of those examples you gave was allow fan-films under certain guidelines. The 2nd one was a very specific, limited duration license for the purpose of a contest and not a comparable situation.
It's good to see GW having a nervous breakdown again. No not really. This from a company that stole their space marines from Robert Heinlien and the old world from Tolkien. The same company that used Sean Connery as a comissar. If they stopped charging 60 dollars for three guys people might just stop pirating them. If you had free rules on your website more people would buy more models. GW you caused this problem fix it! Until then I just buy more Star Wars Legion. Good luck
Mentlegen324 wrote: No, this is "normal" in the sense of it's what IP law already says. This is what is enshrined and established by the law regardless of what they wrote here and would have been already in place protecting their IP even if they had not written this article.
Only 1 of those examples you gave was allow fan-films under certain guidelines. The 2nd one was a very specific, limited duration license for the purpose of a contest and not a comparable situation.
Not a lawyer or experienced in regards to this stuff at all, but given the highlighted part ist true, then - so far - nothing changed compared to last week when it wasn't written on GW's website.
We have to see if and how this is going to be enforced. That one guy (sorry, forgot the name, but we had a thread about it) who recently got contacted by GW and he declined the offer to join them on their animation team. He said he was allowed to continue with 40k animations, as long as he is not earning any money with it. Would be a weird move to tell him that and then shut him down a week after only because the rights that GW already had are now written on their website, too.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Wow and I thought Chapter House was a mess. I guess GW is still GW.
They never stopped. They just got a nice shiny coat of fresh paint and a Facebook page.
And the people here lapped it up.
It's ridiculous to me that even in this thread people are like "its completely fine and normal". I wonder if they'll say the same if GW decides to sue or C&D an artist who drew a 40k drawing on commission or something. Or Emperor's Text To Speech. Though on the upside I suppose it means less furry space marine art.
Give it 6 months to a year. We'll be back to Chapterhouse era GW and all us "haters" will be proven right. That's not a prediction, that's a
Mentlegen324 wrote: They're typical copyright and trademark protection stuff.
You (and others) keep saying that. But well-known exceptions to the copyright of derivative works are e.g. reviews and parodies. Several elements of both of these (quoting text, using images and symbology derived from GW sources) would be disallowed following GW's rules, but are most certainly legal for these purposes. Claiming otherwise is most certainly not "typical copyright and trademark protection stuff". Not to mention the fact that GW obviously seems to believe it owns many concepts they didn't invent themselves anyway.
Yes, some people think fair use extends far beyond what it really covers, and yes, some people were up in arms recently when Disney allegedly tried to copyright the character of Loki. (They didn't.) Games Workshop however still seems to believe they can control and have ownership of far more than they really do. Again, the only remaining question now is whether they'll try to act on this.
Pointer5 wrote: It's good to see GW having a nervous breakdown again. No not really. This from a company that stole their space marines from Robert Heinlien and the old world from Tolkien.
Please show me where I can find Bretonnia or Kislev on a map of Middle-earth. Or where in the Lord of the Rings I can find Tomb Kings, or Skaven. Or Imperial battle-wizards, for that matter. Or where Tolkien's estate alleges that the Old World is a direct and shameless copy of Middle-earth.
I hate this stupid claim so much. I hate to tell you this, but just because Games Workshop took some inspirational cues from a variety of previous fantasy and sci-fi settings doesn't mean that the Warhammer 40,000 universe hasn't turned into its own distinct setting over the past thirty years. People love to bellow "GWclearly stole the Alien/xenomorph from Giger and Ridley Scott to make their Tyranids and should be sued into the ground for it!!". Well, if Giger's estate and Mr. Ridley Scott had believed that to be true then surely they would have taken legal action by now?
GW constantly shoots itself in the foot with their fears of IP retention and monopolizing the "hobby".
I created an 11 page single day aeronautica imperalis campaign that had ground assests represented by epic 40k miniatures. That was not allowed. So instead of allowing me to revitalize a local scene with a fun expansion on the base rules, no one is playing at all. Great idea. It sends a signal that the product is more important than the players.
I fully expect this thread to be locked by the time I get up tomorrow morning. I'll take solace in the fact that I have not one but two friends who own 3D printers.
Grimtuff wrote: Give it 6 months to a year. We'll be back to Chapterhouse era GW and all us "haters" will be proven right. That's not a prediction, that's a
Spoiler:
spoiler!
proven right about what?
I can be, and have been, highly critical of GW. I've also stopped playing/buying for stretches. I play (and to a lesser extent buy) now for two simple reasons: I enjoy the game, and I want to collect the models. GW's morality, as judged by the peanut gallery (or myself), isn't a factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: GW constantly shoots itself in the foot with their fears of IP retention and monopolizing the "hobby".
I created an 11 page single day aeronautica imperalis campaign that had ground assests represented by epic 40k miniatures. That was not allowed. So instead of allowing me to revitalize a local scene with a fun expansion on the base rules, no one is playing at all. Great idea. It sends a signal that the product is more important than the players.
Why was that not allowed? I don't see anything in those guidelines that would prohibit a homebrew campaign.
Grimtuff wrote: Give it 6 months to a year. We'll be back to Chapterhouse era GW and all us "haters" will be proven right. That's not a prediction, that's a
Spoiler:
spoiler!
proven right about what?
I can be, and have been, highly critical of GW. I've also stopped playing/buying for stretches. I play (and to a lesser extent buy) now for two simple reasons: I enjoy the game, and I want to collect the models. GW's morality, as judged by the peanut gallery (or myself), isn't a factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sledgehammer wrote: GW constantly shoots itself in the foot with their fears of IP retention and monopolizing the "hobby".
I created an 11 page single day aeronautica imperalis campaign that had ground assests represented by epic 40k miniatures. That was not allowed. So instead of allowing me to revitalize a local scene with a fun expansion on the base rules, no one is playing at all. Great idea. It sends a signal that the product is more important than the players.
Why was that not allowed? I don't see anything in those guidelines that would prohibit a homebrew campaign.
Uncertainty from the manager and a fear of breaking guidelines. I could tell he was hesitant. Gw corporate definitly was placing pressue on him in one way or another. He said it was one of those "grey areas". I've heard of people being denied the ability to play older systems like epi in GW stores as well.
At the end of it I was forthcoming and told him that my epic minis were 3rd party, but honestly no one would have ever known and I prefer to have a clean conscience and not get my friend in trouble. But by disallowing stuff like that, the company stopped a scene fron coming back and getting more people to engage with their brand and products.
Grimtuff wrote: Give it 6 months to a year. We'll be back to Chapterhouse era GW and all us "haters" will be proven right. That's not a prediction, that's a
Spoiler:
spoiler!
proven right about what?
Um, what HBMC (and others) has been saying for quite some time. Nu-GW is the same as old GW just with a new coat of paint.
But... but they have a Facebook page! They reference memes! They've changed guys! Honest!
Sledgehammer wrote: Why was that not allowed? I don't see anything in those guidelines that would prohibit a homebrew campaign.
Uncertainty from the manager and a fear of breaking guidelines. I could tell he was hesitant. Gw corporate definitly was placing pressue on him in one way or another. He said it was one of those "grey areas". I've heard of people being denied the ability to play older systems in GW stores as well.
At the end of it I was forthcoming and told him that my epic minis were 3rd party, but honestly no one would have ever known and I prefer to have a clean conscience and not get my friend in trouble. But by disallowing stuff like that, the company stopped a scene fron coming back and getting more people to engage with their brand and products.
so, it was a GW store manager who made that call? I agree that sucks, but that's a local decision by a local manager, not a corporate wide statement of principles.
Sledgehammer wrote: Why was that not allowed? I don't see anything in those guidelines that would prohibit a homebrew campaign.
Uncertainty from the manager and a fear of breaking guidelines. I could tell he was hesitant. Gw corporate definitly was placing pressue on him in one way or another. He said it was one of those "grey areas". I've heard of people being denied the ability to play older systems in GW stores as well.
At the end of it I was forthcoming and told him that my epic minis were 3rd party, but honestly no one would have ever known and I prefer to have a clean conscience and not get my friend in trouble. But by disallowing stuff like that, the company stopped a scene fron coming back and getting more people to engage with their brand and products.
so, it was a GW store manager who made that call? I agree that sucks, but that's a local decision by a local manager, not a corporate wide statement of principles.
GW store managers aren't left to their own devices, they're very answerable to people higher up the chain.
Mentlegen324 wrote: They're typical copyright and trademark protection stuff.
You (and others) keep saying that. But well-known exceptions to the copyright of derivative works are e.g. reviews and parodies. Several elements of both of these (quoting text, using images and symbology derived from GW sources) would be disallowed following GW's rules, but are most certainly legal for these purposes. Claiming otherwise is most certainly not "typical copyright and trademark protection stuff". Not to mention the fact that GW obviously seems to believe it owns many concepts they didn't invent themselves anyway.
Yes, some people think fair use extends far beyond what it really covers, and yes, some people were up in arms recently when Disney allegedly tried to copyright the character of Loki. (They didn't.) Games Workshop however still seems to believe they can control and have ownership of far more than they really do. Again, the only remaining question now is whether they'll try to act on this.
Nothing GW has said in those guidelines is technically incorrect, even more so because they're not legally binding anyway. It's also true to say that those guidelines are fairly meaningless as legal guidance and anyone looking to create derivative works would do well to familiarise themselves with what is and isn't allowed by law. What companies think they can do and what they try to do in the realm of copyright is often not legally sound and when GW actually try that I'll be the first to criticise. Until then this is all just classic, typical GW hate.
Sim-Life wrote: GW store managers aren't left to their own devices, they're very answerable to people higher up the chain.
I'm sure, but I really doubt this guy got on the horn with GW Legal to hash out the IP ramifications. I think a lot of store managers, FLGS or GW, would be a little taken aback by an 11 page campaign, and might not be excited about it.
Grimtuff wrote: Give it 6 months to a year. We'll be back to Chapterhouse era GW and all us "haters" will be proven right. That's not a prediction, that's a
Spoiler:
spoiler!
proven right about what?
Um, what HBMC (and others) has been saying for quite some time. Nu-GW is the same as old GW just with a new coat of paint.
But... but they have a Facebook page! They reference memes! They've changed guys! Honest!
Could you please reference what good guys there are in terms of companies in our hobby? The ones that still exist and have more than 1 person operating the whole thing, like an amazing bloke that does Reloc Blade. And what makes them good?
As soon as you reference one, I’m sure someone will bring up “that 1 time or numerous times” those examples were aholes.
Are there any other wargaming companies that have their IP leeched? Be it by making proxies, bits or other such things. I can’t think of one. No one is doing alternative sculpts for warmachine or infinity. Because not nearly as much people care about their IP. As soon as PP or Corvus Beli start seeing alternative sculpts for their systems, they’ll start scratching their head about how to stop that competition.
For the sake of the argument - sure, GW hasn’t changed its ways and still keeps its IP close. So? You are right, you win? What makes you revel at the idea, that you’d be right in that scenario?
GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing.
Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
As far as I can tell the new stuff is just the purported complete ban on fan films and animations, which is an obvious attempt to boost Warhammer+. I wouldn't be worried about anything else, all that stuff was pretty much there before and yet they still send review copies to "guy reads book" guy to read page by page on youtube so you can read every letter of text if you want to.
I mean who knows, maybe this does signal some big change and they're going to start trying to enforce all this stuff they didn't before...but I really wouldn't assume it does. This is about kneecapping the competition for Warhammer+, there's no reason to think it's about anything else.
Grimtuff wrote: Give it 6 months to a year. We'll be back to Chapterhouse era GW and all us "haters" will be proven right. That's not a prediction, that's a
Spoiler:
spoiler!
proven right about what?
Um, what HBMC (and others) has been saying for quite some time. Nu-GW is the same as old GW just with a new coat of paint.
But... but they have a Facebook page! They reference memes! They've changed guys! Honest!
Could you please reference what good guys there are in terms of companies in our hobby? The ones that still exist and have more than 1 person operating the whole thing, like an amazing bloke that does Reloc Blade. And what makes them good? As soon as you reference one, I’m sure someone will bring up “that 1 time or numerous times” those examples were aholes. Are there any other wargaming companies that have their IP leeched? Be it by making proxies, bits or other such things. I can’t think of one. No one is doing alternative sculpts for warmachine or infinity. Because not nearly as much people care about their IP. As soon as PP or Corvus Beli start seeing alternative sculpts for their systems, they’ll start scratching their head about how to stop that competition.
For the sake of the argument - sure, GW hasn’t changed its ways and still keeps its IP close. So? You are right, you win? What makes you revel at the idea, that you’d be right in that scenario?
Wyrd seems pretty good. Good pricing, free rules for everything, good first party app. Can't see why anyone would have a problem with them as a company. Corvus Belli get criticised for their pricing sometimes but their games use way less models than GW. Privateer Press however are widely criticised (and rightly so) for almost all the exact same things GW get flak for, strangely from the insider talk I've seen its the same problem GW has of terrible upper management. You don't have to go far to find someone with an axe to grind over how PP killed their game with terrible decisions, but they haven't killed the fan made Brawlmachine method of play yet so thumbs up for that.
In any case the reason you don't see third party sculpts/pirated/alternative sculpts stuff from these companies is partly because its hard to steal something the companies give away for free (rules) and as far as I'm aware they don't head down to FLGSs and slap 3rd party minis out of your hand and ban you from the shop. But also because people have a LOT more good faith and so are willing to support the companies. Its almost like treating your customers well makes them less likely to steal/avoid your stuff.
It's mainly that there isn't a market for them. Why would you make clones of PP models when they have only 1/10th the market share or less than GW? X-Wing, Star Was Legion etc do have recasters, they spring up anywhere there's enough demand to be worth the set-up investment.
Gert wrote: GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing.
Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
Which is kind of my point. Those are the actions you'd take if you're actively trying NOT to create a fanbase or community that engages with your games. This downward pressure that GW exhibits on its managers, content creators, and players all sends a message that disincentivizes creativity and engagement.
Gert wrote: GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing.
Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
Which is kind of my point. Those are the actions you'd take if you're actively trying NOT to create a fanbase or community that engages with your games. This downward pressure that GW exhibits on its managers, content creators, and players all sends a message that disincentivizes creativity and engagement.
Or they want the engagement to focus on the stuff they're actually selling. Having 30k night at the local GW, which seem chronically short of board space, cuts into the games that are on the shelves. So even if people walk in, and want to start a Lunar Wolves army, they can't!
Again, GW wants to engage with buying customers, not just fans.
Gert wrote: GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing.
Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
Which is kind of my point. Those are the actions you'd take if you're actively trying NOT to create a fanbase or community that engages with your games. This downward pressure that GW exhibits on its managers, content creators, and players all sends a message that disincentivizes creativity and engagement.
Or they want the engagement to focus on the stuff they're actually selling. Having 30k night at the local GW, which seem chronically short of board space, cuts into the games that are on the shelves. So even if people walk in, and want to start a Lunar Wolves army, they can't!
Again, GW wants to engage with buying customers, not just fans.
They're selling Aeronautica!!! They're selling 30k!!! It seems self defeating to me.
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Gert wrote: GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing. Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
Which is kind of my point. Those are the actions you'd take if you're actively trying NOT to create a fanbase or community that engages with your games. This downward pressure that GW exhibits on its managers, content creators, and players all sends a message that disincentivizes creativity and engagement.
Or they want the engagement to focus on the stuff they're actually selling. Having 30k night at the local GW, which seem chronically short of board space, cuts into the games that are on the shelves. So even if people walk in, and want to start a Lunar Wolves army, they can't!
Again, GW wants to engage with buying customers, not just fans.
They're selling Aeronautica!!! They're selling 30k!!! It seems self defeating to me.
It comes down to the individual manager. A lot of GW stores don't allow Forge World because you can't buy it via the store (except Warhammer World). They don't want someone to see a Heresy game or a Leviathan, ask about it, have to tell them they can't grab it off the shelf and will need to go online. That'd still be a sale for the company, but not the store itself. "Well I know I'm a few thousand pounds short of my target, but it's because a lot of my customers are 30k players and all their money went to the Forge World website" probably won't go over well on a performance call.
If they start releasing a lot of plastic Heresy kits that may change.
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
Gert wrote: GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing.
Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
Which is kind of my point. Those are the actions you'd take if you're actively trying NOT to create a fanbase or community that engages with your games. This downward pressure that GW exhibits on its managers, content creators, and players all sends a message that disincentivizes creativity and engagement.
Or they want the engagement to focus on the stuff they're actually selling. Having 30k night at the local GW, which seem chronically short of board space, cuts into the games that are on the shelves. So even if people walk in, and want to start a Lunar Wolves army, they can't!
Again, GW wants to engage with buying customers, not just fans.
They're selling Aeronautica!!! They're selling 30k!!! It seems self defeating to me.
It comes down to the individual manager. A lot of GW stores don't allow Forge World because you can't buy it via the store (except Warhammer World). They don't want someone to see a Heresy game or a Leviathan, ask about it, have to tell them they can't grab it off the shelf and will need to go online. That'd still be a sale for the company, but not the store itself. "Well I know I'm a few thousand pounds short of my target, but it's because a lot of my customers are 30k players and all their money went to the Forge World website" probably won't go over well on a performance call.
If they start releasing a lot of plastic Heresy kits that may change.
My point is that GW applies undue pressure which hurts both them and their customers.
Gert wrote: GW stores not allowing old editions or different games isn't necessarily a new thing.
Playing Horus Heresy in store was a huge point of contention between some of the staff and customers at my local GW just before Betrayal at Calth was released. Some tried to argue that since it wasn't a core GW game that we weren't allowed to play it despite people using plastic vehicles or conversions from regular GW stuff. Heck, even when Calth came out one of the guys tried to argue that we still couldn't because we weren't playing BaC but still a non-GW game. The store manager wasn't on their side since they were a huge 30k fan and told them to stop in case the regulars all got driven away to a different game store.
Which is kind of my point. Those are the actions you'd take if you're actively trying NOT to create a fanbase or community that engages with your games. This downward pressure that GW exhibits on its managers, content creators, and players all sends a message that disincentivizes creativity and engagement.
Or they want the engagement to focus on the stuff they're actually selling. Having 30k night at the local GW, which seem chronically short of board space, cuts into the games that are on the shelves. So even if people walk in, and want to start a Lunar Wolves army, they can't!
Again, GW wants to engage with buying customers, not just fans.
They're selling Aeronautica!!! They're selling 30k!!! It seems self defeating to me.
It comes down to the individual manager. A lot of GW stores don't allow Forge World because you can't buy it via the store (except Warhammer World). They don't want someone to see a Heresy game or a Leviathan, ask about it, have to tell them they can't grab it off the shelf and will need to go online. That'd still be a sale for the company, but not the store itself. "Well I know I'm a few thousand pounds short of my target, but it's because a lot of my customers are 30k players and all their money went to the Forge World website" probably won't go over well on a performance call.
If they start releasing a lot of plastic Heresy kits that may change.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you (I've had that same conversation plenty of times in the past with GW staffers when trying to play Epic or something roughly a decade ago...), but any FW/BL (even GW site online exclusive) purchases can be made in store on the store's touch screen and you pay for it at the till just like any other purchase.
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
For GW to not stop people from being creative. For GW to stop punishing people from being fans of the game. For GW to not treat the hobby as their personal monopoly where the filthy customers only exist at the behest of the GW overlords.
GW don't make a Carcharadons upgrade kit. They have no intention of ever doing so, so if someone wants to provide that for people the person making it shouldn't be slapped with the threat of legal action for making something GW has no intention if making themselves. Its not protecting their IP, they just don't want anyone else making money from it. It's just a crap way to treat people who love the setting and want to support it in a way that GW doesn't.
TBH, it is very difficult to enforce GW's rules given the nature of social media platforms, innumerable fan content, the ubiquity of manufacturing tech and yup...camera phones. Everyone who is anyone wants to be an influencer and will do whatever it takes to get known through content (bad or good).
The only way to enforce these measures is with gobs of money with their GW lawyers. Good luck with that. For every person you sue, ten more will pop up.
The smarter move, which I have seen many brands do, is to embrace 3rd parties with interesting content builds. Of course, it must be reasonable. I can see how GW wishes to avoid outright product infringement. But fan films? C'mon, such a rich area for them to explore and promote. Mattel, J&J, Paramount, WB, Universal, AMC, and other Interbrand companies encourage fans to join the conversation.
I deal with company IPs all day long. Company over reach almost always leads to disaster with your fan base.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
First of all: 'Their IP' as defined by GW, or 'Their IP' as defined under the law? Because the two things are not the same, as we found out last time. And to be blunt, calling most of it 'GW's IP' is questionable at best, considering how much of it is openly stolen from other IPs.
Second: I don't speak for everyone, but I'd appreciate policies ''less' draconian than, say, Marvel or LucasFilm. Or just plain learn the lessons of other companies failures when they tried similar gambits.
At least they appear to have dropped the claim that they own the copyright and trademark on you, as a person, if you have a chaos star tattoo.
By the logic of them arbitrarily deciding that fan films and animations are now infringing on their copyright, we as a community can reasonably assume they could at any time choose to consider any and all of the following infringement as well:
cosplay
fan art
Batreps/strategy guides
Painting and modeling videos
Lore videos
So basically, GW has now sent the message that they can and will arbitrarily decide that the thousands of hours of content made that provides free advertisement for their products is in conflict with their IP rights.
No, they haven't, stop fear-mongering. It hasn't worked for any other company and it won't work for GW.
To add to the post I made earlier as some people seem to be confusing certain things, the disagreement over whether 30k was allowed was pre-Calth by about a year and it wasn't until Calth that the issue was resolved. At that time we were using things like Spartans, Glaives, Sicarans, and Primarchs, all products not sold by GW. If we had stuck to very basic stuff that was present in the GWSM range there might have been less of an issue. There was one specific incident of a new start dropping about £500 on 40k Ultramarines then after seeing our group playing 30k for two weeks in a row, declared to the staff they were going to start 30k.
Games like Titanicus weren't a thing and 30k was still very much viewed as a specialist game to many, however, I do want to make it clear we were never banned from playing and staff would be difficult regardless of what game was being played. If they needed to push Shadow War they pressured us to play Shadow War, if they needed to push Skirmish they would pressure us to play smaller games of AoS. That was just how sales went at the time.
Some of these are not at all enforceable. They clearly just want to scare smaller scale operations away and hope enough people are put off.
The worst of them is the one that says you can not 'imitate' their models, art etc. They are going to lay claim on as many things as they can with that, which is ridiculous as they 'imitated' almost every design of both fantasy & 40k over the years. They are going to have a tough time enforcing it, but its going to put strain on small cottage industry outfits.
The real trouble comes from the addition at the end of each section that really hurts the community. 'not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property'
Slag a model off when reviewing it on youtube? Say goodbye to your channel.
Say anything negative and have enough people complain loudly- say goodbye to your blog/fourmposts/accounts.
Its like they threw that in to cover all the eventuality that the actual law doesn't cover.
'not post or display rules or stats copied...' Post up an army list on a battle report or 'review' a new book- have a c&d for showing points? That one is ridiculous tbh.
I suspect this to cause another 'community funded' witch-hunt, as people start pointing out all the companies, 3d Print shops etc that are 'imitating' GW and telling people their armies/rules/games are 'illegal'.
I also noticed that this appears to have come out at the same time that the first real news for the old world came out in a new article, so social media is flooded with WFB/Oldworld talks and memes. It honestly feels like they hide behind the WarCom post on this one.
I think most would like to think that GW are doing this to just as a 'just in case we need to' protection, but sadly most of us have seen more than one incident of the company being heavy handed, oblivious to the fact that they broke all their own rules during the last 40 odd years for creating warhammer.
Russia is the go-to for anti-capitalist corporate sentiment satisfaction. I am a fan.
This move is aggressive on GW’s part. I have never wanted a 3D printer or some Kromlech orks more than I do now.
I was excited about new Heresy plastics and new KT, new ork battle force… now, well,we are moving and my models are all boxed up for shipping but I could save a couple hundred euros if I just ditched these things. GW does stuff like this, and it makes me sad that I spent so much of my life modelling and painting in the Old World and the original 40k universe. I hardly recognize the game, the context, the purpose of the hobby anymore. Profits over all… ruins everything beautiful.
Mallo wrote: Some of these are not at all enforceable. They clearly just want to scare smaller scale operations away and hope enough people are put off.
Personal experience, they will actually try to enforce these, the actual law be damned. And people with YouTube channels are going to have a hell of a time of it, since YouTube will keep taking your videos down as long as GW keeps making those copyright claims.
All that's really left is to see who's left in the end.
Mallo wrote: Some of these are not at all enforceable. They clearly just want to scare smaller scale operations away and hope enough people are put off.
Personal experience, they will actually try to enforce these, the actual law be damned. And people with YouTube channels are going to have a hell of a time of it, since YouTube will keep taking your videos down as long as GW keeps making those copyright claims.
All that's really left is to see who's left in the end.
I suspect a lot of people saying GW won't enforce this are people that 8th brought back, so they don't remember GWs old ways. Still gutted we never got to see Damnatus.
They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
yukishiro1 wrote: They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
yukishiro1 wrote: They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
Prior GW History says YES
Like I said, it's not a prediction; it's a spoiler. Mark my words, you'll see old GW rear its head in the coming months and the proverbial curtain will fall down to reveal the real wizard.
This move is aggressive on GW’s part. I have never wanted a 3D printer or some Kromlech orks more than I do now.
I was excited about new Heresy plastics and new KT, new ork battle force… now, well,we are moving and my models are all boxed up for shipping but I could save a couple hundred euros if I just ditched these things. GW does stuff like this, and it makes me sad that I spent so much of my life modelling and painting in the Old World and the original 40k universe. I hardly recognize the game, the context, the purpose of the hobby anymore. Profits over all… ruins everything beautiful.
So go buy some Kromlech orcs. Get a 3d printer. Go hog wild, play older editions of 40k with your buddies and make up some homebrew rules for a better version of Kill Team. Nobody's stopping you. You can build an entire orc army out of Kromlech's various lines and nothing whatsoever is stopping you from using that army anywhere except maybe in an official GW store or at Warhammer World(for obvious reasons).
GW is a publicly traded company, of course they're going to want to make profit on new releases and all of their various miniatures, paints, brushes, books, terrain, whatever. That's kind of how business works. You don't like it, you're always welcome to stop participating and step away from the GW bubble.
yukishiro1 wrote: They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
Prior GW History says YES
So we should put you in the "yes, they completely changed their approach in the last three weeks for <reasons>" camp?
I'm not saying it's impossible. But why would a company that was happy to send a free review copy to the guy who reads the book page by page on youtube suddenly decide three weeks later that it was a big deal if people reproduced even a tiny bit of rules text on their websites? What changed?
We have years of prior history of GW not enforcing these rules. Then before that we have years of history of the opposite re: the Chapterhouse debacle. And we know that as little as three weeks ago, they were still in the "not enforcing" camp. So why do you think that they suddenly had another personality swap? Isn't the much more reasonable explanation that the changes they made specifically to boost the debacle called Warhammer+ are just, well, specifically to boost the debacle called Warhammer+?
yukishiro1 wrote: They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
Prior GW History says YES
Like I said, it's not a prediction; it's a spoiler. Mark my words, you'll see old GW rear its head in the coming months and the proverbial curtain will fall down to reveal the real wizard.
Theres always a positive side to things... I remember the days that GW was making life difficult for forums, blogs etc. Many forums closed for many reasons ( one of the reasons was the absolute draconian mods and overall fan paranoia regarding leaks and IP whatever). Some sites went down, mine dedicated to tyranids surely was, I could just not find the time anymore but my heart was not with GW, in fact I was annoyed of the gatekeeping so I let it die.
But competitors were growing, we talked and followed many other companies instead. The fact that GW was dropping the ball others were picking it and scoring too.
Today GW is stronger than ever and if we take the new emergents 3d printers out of the forums... not many other companies are talked about, they have become almost invisible if not extinct...
It’s just GW being GW. Like many other companies, they’re in the business of making as much money as they can within entirely legal measures.
It doesn’t matter if us plebs disagree with their handling of their IP. It belongs to them. Not us.
Them setting out their position clearly and trying to leverage a little extra elbow room does not equate to evil, or heavy handedness at all.
It’s no different to other IP owners staking out their stall. Sure, we know in terms of income GW are no Disney. But that is a bogus argument. They’re the owner of their IP. Whether that’s worth 5p or £5,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000 doesn’t come into it. At all. Theirs to defend.
And now they’ve set out their stall? If they and their lawyers come a-knocking, whether it turns out to be justified or not? Don’t come crying to me. They told you what they’d do.
yukishiro1 wrote: They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
Prior GW History says YES
So we should put you in the "yes, they completely changed their approach in the last three weeks for <reasons>" camp?
I'm not saying it's impossible. But why would a company that was happy to send a free review copy to the guy who reads the book page by page on youtube suddenly decide three weeks later that it was a big deal if people reproduced even a tiny bit of rules text on their websites? What changed?
We have years of prior history of GW not enforcing these rules. Then before that we have years of history of the opposite re: the Chapterhouse debacle. And we know that as little as three weeks ago, they were still in the "not enforcing" camp. So why do you think that they suddenly had another personality swap? Isn't the much more reasonable explanation that the changes they made specifically to boost the debacle called Warhammer+ are just, well, specifically to boost the debacle called Warhammer+?
Person A who reads out books for a living "The new book is awesome, this is the best edition of the 'old age of 40khammer' ever!
Person B who reads out books for a living "The new book sucks. They didn't even bother to correct the mistake that makes the newly released Bork Boizzz™ under-costed just to sell new models which also suck as they don't come with enough guns, only have 5 models in a box with a minimum unit size of 16. I'm going to continue to play 6th Ed WFB even though they sent this to me for free"
Which one of them are they going to use the new rules against? Of course they are going to let channels that lean towards being sterile hobby content that shine a good light on the new hype.
Now yes, I'm not a fortune teller and can't see the future, but this is repeated behaviour from GW and it can be predicted from that. It was 'new' GW after all that went after the company 'War Banner' and forced them to change their name as it was too close to 'warhammer'. This was only in 2019 as well. They will stamp out the folk that don't tow the company line. I honestly think that we will see the days of 'honest' reviews of their products gone or at least seriously depleted.
It’s just GW being GW. Like many other companies, they’re in the business of making as much money as they can within entirely legal measures.
It doesn’t matter if us plebs disagree with their handling of their IP. It belongs to them. Not us.
Them setting out their position clearly and trying to leverage a little extra elbow room does not equate to evil, or heavy handedness at all.
It’s no different to other IP owners staking out their stall. Sure, we know in terms of income GW are no Disney. But that is a bogus argument. They’re the owner of their IP. Whether that’s worth 5p or £5,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000 doesn’t come into it. At all. Theirs to defend.
And now they’ve set out their stall? If they and their lawyers come a-knocking, whether it turns out to be justified or not? Don’t come crying to me. They told you what they’d do.
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good. May their lawyers eat gak in life at every turn.
There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hyperbole that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP laws work, both in how much they can cover (pretty much everything GW stated in their list) and also what it won't cover (pretty much everything not stated).
GW can't go after cosplayers, or review channels, or battle reports. Sure, they could strong arm YouTube, but that's a YouTube TOS issue, not an IP issue. And even then, I doubt that's the case. Fan made movies are actual creative works that deliberately slot along side canon works. That's very different from an unboxing or painting tutorial.
Which one of them are they going to use the new rules against? Of course they are going to let channels that lean towards being sterile hobby content that shine a good light on the new hype.
Now yes, I'm not a fortune teller and can't see the future, but this is repeated behaviour from GW and it can be predicted from that. It was 'new' GW after all that went after the company 'War Banner' and forced them to change their name as it was too close to 'warhammer'. This was only in 2019 as well. They will stamp out the folk that don't tow the company line. I honestly think that we will see the days of 'honest' reviews of their products gone or at least seriously depleted.
Again, they aren't new rules. The only thing that's really new is the change purporting to completely ban fan animation/movies. So why do we think they're suddenly about to start enforcing rules they haven't been enforcing up to now, just because they changed a different part of the document to address a different issue?
I'll be the first to hold up my hand if I'm wrong, but to me this reads 100% as about Warhammer+ and trying to make sure there are no free alternatives, not as some big change in their general IP strategy.
Which one of them are they going to use the new rules against? Of course they are going to let channels that lean towards being sterile hobby content that shine a good light on the new hype.
Now yes, I'm not a fortune teller and can't see the future, but this is repeated behaviour from GW and it can be predicted from that. It was 'new' GW after all that went after the company 'War Banner' and forced them to change their name as it was too close to 'warhammer'. This was only in 2019 as well. They will stamp out the folk that don't tow the company line. I honestly think that we will see the days of 'honest' reviews of their products gone or at least seriously depleted.
Again, they aren't new rules. The only thing that's really new is the change purporting to completely ban fan animation/movies. So why do we think they're suddenly about to start enforcing rules they haven't been enforcing up to now, just because they changed a different part of the document to address a different issue?
I'll be the first to hold up my hand if I'm wrong, but to me this reads 100% as about Warhammer+ and trying to make sure there are no free alternatives, not as some big change in their general IP strategy.
It isn't sudden, they've been attempting to enforce these rules for a long time now. Its just the companies they have gone after are not big enough to have caused waves on social media or they tried to enforce their own version of IP laws and failed. Them posting the new update just brings it more to light.
And yes, the primer seems to have been Warhammer+. They've recently shut down multiple sources of the repositories for things like old white dwarfs. Yes, sure they legally have a right to have things like white dwarf under their control and not given out for free. But its not been an issue for the last 20 years, they've let it slide and let communities continue to play and read about old 'dead' games in old publications. Now they see a $$ sign in them, suddenly they change up the rules. I'd love to be wrong but I fully expect communities that have kept their 'dead' games alive all these years to sudden be hit with C&Ds to remove old white dwarf rules. Sure, they can hide behind the legality of it all, but they can't be expect to win the hearts of gamers who already feel slighted from their favourite game(s) having been removed from GW years ago.
They've been making record profits with all these things existing until now, so it would be hard to say that having fan animations/white dwarf/reading from books etc have hurt the company in anyway. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is some GW executive that has starved to death because someone used the warhammer fantasy logo in their youtube video seen by 16 people.
Polonius wrote: There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hyperbole that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP laws work, both in how much they can cover (pretty much everything GW stated in their list) and also what it won't cover (pretty much everything not stated).
GW can't go after cosplayers, or review channels, or battle reports. Sure, they could strong arm YouTube, but that's a YouTube TOS issue, not an IP issue. And even then, I doubt that's the case. Fan made movies are actual creative works that deliberately slot along side canon works. That's very different from an unboxing or painting tutorial.
Polonius, maybe you're forgetting, but you're actually arguing this with people who have previously received Cease and Desist orders from GW for these exact things. Actual legal action has been taken by GW for the things that you're saying they could never do.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m surprised they haven’t tried to shut down companies like Wargames Atlantic, who make obvious and effective Imperial Guard proxies.
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
For GW to not stop people from being creative. For GW to stop punishing people from being fans of the game. For GW to not treat the hobby as their personal monopoly where the filthy customers only exist at the behest of the GW overlords.
So "let people do whatever they want with your IP despite not having permission" or they're "evil"? GW are not "stopping people being creative" or "punishing" fans and it's absurd hyperbole to say so, unless you're going to claim that the fan-made artwork, sites and fiction that they explicitly state in these guidelines for some reason don't count as "creative".
GW don't make a Carcharadons upgrade kit. They have no intention of ever doing so, so if someone wants to provide that for people the person making it shouldn't be slapped with the threat of legal action for making something GW has no intention if making themselves. Its not protecting their IP, they just don't want anyone else making money from it. It's just a crap way to treat people who love the setting and want to support it in a way that GW doesn't.
GW are within their rights to not make a kit, they are not obligated to make a kit for every single possiblity. And yes, stopping others making money via unauthorized use isexactly the sort of thing protecting an IP involves.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
They could start with allowing people to do what they are allowed to do under the law, without the threat of legal action.
...and how is that not what they're doing here? Copyright law means you don't get the right to use GWs ip to do whatever you like without permission.You get to use it under specific circumstances like parody or reviews and such, but the guidelines here don't mention anything against those at all. The part about animations could potentially come under that if it's a parody animation for example though, and in that case it would not necessarily be infringing.
You talking about Turn Signals on a Landraider? No, the author wanted to publish it and get the profits from it. He asked GW for permission, they said no, he stopped updating it.
...and how is that not what they're doing here? Copyright law means you don't get the right to use GWs ip to do whatever you like without permission.You get to use it under specific circumstances like parody or reviews and such, but the guidelines here don't mention anything against those at all. The part about animations could potentially come under that if it's a parody animation for example though, and in that case it would not necessarily be infringing.
Well, one, as you will undoubtedly find if things go as they have before, GW does not feel 'fair use' exists. Further, I'll remind you that GW forbids ALL fan made animation. History again suggests they WILL try to enforce that, and will come down hard on people regardless of what copyright law actually allows.
This is a flat out blatant attempt to crush potential competition for Warhammer + no matter what the victims actual rights under the law are. The only reason Chapterhouse's case managed to actually get fought is that they got Pro Bono legal representation, despite the fact that GW's case was made from cardboard and happy thoughts. And even though GW lost the vast majority of their claims, CH still ended up closing. Which his, likely, the goal here.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: You talking about Turn Signals on a Landraider? No, the author wanted to publish it and get the profits from it. He asked GW for permission, they said no, he stopped updating it.
This move is aggressive on GW’s part. I have never wanted a 3D printer or some Kromlech orks more than I do now.
I was excited about new Heresy plastics and new KT, new ork battle force… now, well,we are moving and my models are all boxed up for shipping but I could save a couple hundred euros if I just ditched these things. GW does stuff like this, and it makes me sad that I spent so much of my life modelling and painting in the Old World and the original 40k universe. I hardly recognize the game, the context, the purpose of the hobby anymore. Profits over all… ruins everything beautiful.
So go buy some Kromlech orcs. Get a 3d printer. Go hog wild, play older editions of 40k with your buddies and make up some homebrew rules for a better version of Kill Team. Nobody's stopping you. You can build an entire orc army out of Kromlech's various lines and nothing whatsoever is stopping you from using that army anywhere except maybe in an official GW store or at Warhammer World(for obvious reasons).
GW is a publicly traded company, of course they're going to want to make profit on new releases and all of their various miniatures, paints, brushes, books, terrain, whatever. That's kind of how business works. You don't like it, you're always welcome to stop participating and step away from the GW bubble.
Wow. Thanks so much for pointing out the obvious. I might have forgotten that I am free to do what I want, including posting sentiment on dakka. Or, is there something else that you were trying to communicate?
doesn't suprise me they're going after fan videos. copyright and trademark laws are very "use it or lose it" if it's not enforced then future suits may be thrown out. GW is just covering their ass here. with youtube monetization I expect GW is concerned that if someone released a warhammer animation for profit down the line they could get hammered with "well you let those videos on youtube stand and THEY made a profit"
so it's GWs intreast in entering animation themselves, combined with a careful legal approuch which is whats prompted this
BrianDavion wrote: doesn't suprise me they're going after fan videos. copyright and trademark laws are very "use it or lose it" if it's not enforced then future suits may be thrown out.GW is just covering their ass here. with youtube monetization I expect GW is concerned that if someone released a warhammer animation for profit down the line they could get hammered with "well you let those videos on youtube stand and THEY made a profit"
No, they aren't. Please stop spreading this false information, it is so frustrating because someone else reads what you wrote and then repeats it and before long the internet is convinced it's true even though it has no basis in fact - that's probably how you started thinking it yourself, you read someone else type it and didn't think to check if it was actually true. Copyright is not use or lose, you are completely free to choose whether to enforce your copyright or not to, it has no impact on your ability to enforce it in the future. Trademark is only use or lose in the sense that if your trademark becomes generic (think Aspirin for pain medication), it means you may not be able to keep it trademarked any more. But that's not a fear that comes from people making Adeptus Astartes fan videos clearly situated in GW's 40k universe, because there's no dilution as a result of that - in fact, it's reinforcing the trademark, just like someone drinking a bottle of Coca-cola in a movie is reinforcing the trademark, not diluting it. Instead, what GW would be afraid of re: dilution is someone making their own universe and using the Adeptus Astartes name to refer to generic space marine-like figures, so that it stops meaning something specifically about GW and just becomes a term for super warriors generally. That's dilution.
From reading these forums, it seems that all GW are trying to do is give a little slap on the wrist to scare animators into removing their animations (or make it so they can't afford to make them).
GW have probably realised they don't have enough animations to make a really full WH+ channel, so have tried to employ those fans that are making them. Where they've failed to hire, they're trying to scare the animators off with a generic IP reminder threat to include the animations.
It just seems really late preparation for their WH+ subs release next month.
All the rest of the scare talk about shutting youtubers down for painting videos is just silly.
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
For GW to not stop people from being creative. For GW to stop punishing people from being fans of the game. For GW to not treat the hobby as their personal monopoly where the filthy customers only exist at the behest of the GW overlords.
So "let people do whatever they want with your IP despite not having permission" or they're "evil"? GW are not "stopping people being creative" or "punishing" fans and it's absurd hyperbole to say so, unless you're going to claim that the fan-made artwork, sites and fiction that they explicitly state in these guidelines for some reason don't count as "creative".
GW don't make a Carcharadons upgrade kit. They have no intention of ever doing so, so if someone wants to provide that for people the person making it shouldn't be slapped with the threat of legal action for making something GW has no intention if making themselves. Its not protecting their IP, they just don't want anyone else making money from it. It's just a crap way to treat people who love the setting and want to support it in a way that GW doesn't.
GW are within their rights to not make a kit, they are not obligated to make a kit for every single possiblity. And yes, stopping others making money via unauthorized use isexactly the sort of thing protecting an IP involves.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
They could start with allowing people to do what they are allowed to do under the law, without the threat of legal action.
...and how is that not what they're doing here? Copyright law means you don't get the right to use GWs ip to do whatever you like without permission.You get to use it under specific circumstances like parody or reviews and such, but the guidelines here don't mention anything against those at all. The part about animations could potentially come under that if it's a parody animation for example though, and in that case it would not necessarily be infringing.
You guys need to be nice. Fan sites aren’t allowed to criticize GW. Also we’re going to need to remove all images of upcoming releases taken from GW pages.
Gimgamgoo wrote: From reading these forums, it seems that all GW are trying to do is give a little slap on the wrist to scare animators into removing their animations (or make it so they can't afford to make them).
GW have probably realised they don't have enough animations to make a really full WH+ channel, so have tried to employ those fans that are making them. Where they've failed to hire, they're trying to scare the animators off with a generic IP reminder threat to include the animations.
It just seems really late preparation for their WH+ subs release next month.
All the rest of the scare talk about shutting youtubers down for painting videos is just silly.
Yeah, this is my read too. I guess we'll find out soon enough, if GW does start slapping people other than the animators with cease and desist notices I'm sure we're going to hear about it. But it'd be deeply stupid of them to try it, it's literally free advertising for them and powers a lot of their sales growth.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: You talking about Turn Signals on a Landraider? No, the author wanted to publish it and get the profits from it. He asked GW for permission, they said no, he stopped updating it.
WholeHazelNuts wrote: I think it's a shame about the fan films. I saw this kind of thing generate nothing but ill-will for the Star Trek fan film community when they clamped down on theirs - you had the whole Axanar debacle that generated lots of bad feeling. Compare that to Star Wars fanfilms, where they embrace the fact that people want to celebrate their love for the subject matter and be creative... I think it's just asking for more irritated fans. Shame.
Especially considering that Axanar was light years ahead of the crap CBS has been putting out and calling "Star Trek."
Everything today is about monetization. As a well known game critic once said "It is no longer enough to make a product, put it out and make some money. Companies need to make ALL of the money, or it is considered a failure."
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m surprised they haven’t tried to shut down companies like Wargames Atlantic, who make obvious and effective Imperial Guard proxies.
Year isn’t over yet.
And GW would lose any case, as there is nothing that is similar to a GW product. Chapter House lost copyright decisions when it was determined that the particular model in question was VERY similar to a GW model, like the Doomseer one. Design ethos and shapes could not be copyright-able, though. You can sell sci-fi dwarves with guns all you want, that happen to work in GW games. Just don’t make them look too much like Squats with Lasguns. There is no need to even be concerned about the stuff Wargames Atlantic is doing.
They don’t have to win a single case or even go to court. All they have to do is make complaints to YouTube and generally make clattering noises to keep people jumping.
yukishiro1 wrote: They weren't enforcing most of those rules. They changed the rules to put a ban on the thing they just started a streaming service for. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots on that one and see why they changed the rules for that specific thing.
I'm no GW fanboi by any stretch of the imagination. But I'd wait to see if they're actually going to start doing anything besides what they've already been doing - shutting down 3rd party animation producers in order to kneecap the competition to Warhammer+ - before acting like this heralds any big change in their IP enforcement strategy beyond the animation issue. Literally three weeks ago they were sending "guy who reads book on youtube" a free copy of the GHB2021 to, well, read on youtube. This directly violates their rules re: reproducing GW text and rules. And yet they've been not only tolerating this, but actively sending him the stuff for free so he can read it on youtube. Do we really think they've done a complete 180 degree pivot in the last three weeks?
Prior GW History says YES
So we should put you in the "yes, they completely changed their approach in the last three weeks for <reasons>" camp?
I'm not saying it's impossible. But why would a company that was happy to send a free review copy to the guy who reads the book page by page on youtube suddenly decide three weeks later that it was a big deal if people reproduced even a tiny bit of rules text on their websites? What changed?
We have years of prior history of GW not enforcing these rules. Then before that we have years of history of the opposite re: the Chapterhouse debacle. And we know that as little as three weeks ago, they were still in the "not enforcing" camp. So why do you think that they suddenly had another personality swap? Isn't the much more reasonable explanation that the changes they made specifically to boost the debacle called Warhammer+ are just, well, specifically to boost the debacle called Warhammer+?
Simple, GW is a really big company. The marketing department sees a free avenue of getting the word out and the cost is sending them a copy of the rulebook, they reach thousands of customers for the cost of one book and postage, WIN. The IP department sees somebody reading the rules and screams FOUL. The production department hears about it and says WHATEVER. The accountants wonder why they didn’t use the bulk shipping pricing that they negotiated which would have saved the company £1.25.
Every time they come up with a new plan things change, wether it was because Bob in accounting was on vacation and couldn’t voice his concerns, or Ted in janitorial threw away a piece of paper on the floor which was actually a really important note, change happens. Look at Cursed City. A planned system that was shown off as an ongoing item, marketed as such, and then stricken from all record better than the expunged legions.
Vaktathi wrote: At one point GW's IP policy included notes about tattoos of Warhammer stuff not being authorized
None of this really looks new to me, GW has always publicly maintained a strict IP policy, even if enforcement has been wonky.
Back when they had the tattoo thing in there, they also had the claim that conversions were 'technically' an IP infringement, but that they would 'allow' them so long as people weren't mass-producing them.
Other than the animation thing, all of this looks like the same stuff that GW have had on their legal page for as long as they've had a legal page.
BrianDavion wrote: doesn't suprise me they're going after fan videos. copyright and trademark laws are very "use it or lose it" if it's not enforced then future suits may be thrown out.GW is just covering their ass here. with youtube monetization I expect GW is concerned that if someone released a warhammer animation for profit down the line they could get hammered with "well you let those videos on youtube stand and THEY made a profit"
No, they aren't. Please stop spreading this false information, it is so frustrating because someone else reads what you wrote and then repeats it and before long the internet is convinced it's true even though it has no basis in fact - that's probably how you started thinking it yourself, you read someone else type it and didn't think to check if it was actually true. Copyright is not use or lose, you are completely free to choose whether to enforce your copyright or not to, it has no impact on your ability to enforce it in the future. Trademark is only use or lose in the sense that if your trademark becomes generic (think Aspirin for pain medication), it means you may not be able to keep it trademarked any more. But that's not a fear that comes from people making Adeptus Astartes fan videos clearly situated in GW's 40k universe, because there's no dilution as a result of that - in fact, it's reinforcing the trademark, just like someone drinking a bottle of Coca-cola in a movie is reinforcing the trademark, not diluting it. Instead, what GW would be afraid of re: dilution is someone making their own universe and using the Adeptus Astartes name to refer to generic space marine-like figures, so that it stops meaning something specifically about GW and just becomes a term for super warriors generally. That's dilution.
And GW would lose any case, as there is nothing that is similar to a GW product. Chapter House lost copyright decisions when it was determined that the particular model in question was VERY similar to a GW model, like the Doomseer one.
Mind you, they don't actually have to care about winning or losing. And their legal team previously used a 'flood the zone' mentality. They did, as you might recall, accuse Chapter House of basically pirating every single mini they had ever made, and won on, what was it, 4 out of 400? It was some absurdly tiny number of the accusations actually stuck.
insaniak wrote: Other than the animation thing, all of this looks like the same stuff that GW have had on their legal page for as long as they've had a legal page.
Because it is.
The purpose of this thread was to show the updates, hence "Games Workshop has updated their IP rules..." being the subject heading.
insaniak wrote: Other than the animation thing, all of this looks like the same stuff that GW have had on their legal page for as long as they've had a legal page.
Because it is.
The purpose of this thread was to show the updates, hence "Games Workshop has updated their IP rules..." being the subject heading.
Was that not clear?
The snark is unnecessary. There's been 7 pages of people discussing this as if it's all new. That's what I was responding to.
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?
There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.
Well yeah they talk like it's all new, their purpose is not to see what's actually new and what GW actually did to enforce these rules on the Internet so far.
So all they're talking about is, again, an imaginary situation we're still not in despite all these rules already be there for so many years thus far.
RaptorusRex wrote: All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
Everybody gangsta till they actually make something worth a damn.
They want to sanitise the hobby, and monetise everything.
No other company gets away with monetising a balance patch, except GW, and somehow their lazyness should be applauded cue 2 W csm... FOMO, blatant cut content DLC, preorder DLC.. etc.
I've been saying GW is the EA of tabletop games. EA screwed all their franchises by shoving DLCs, FOMO, and monetized BS up their franchises rear ends, and are rightfully the most hated company in the world, yet they are making billions. GW just hasn't figured out how to implement gambling to minors into their stuff... yet.
NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?
Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?
Spoiler:
Especially adult content
Thairne wrote:whelp
and to think I just tried to get another friend to play warhammer.
I have a feeling that was a mistake.
I hope Warhammer+ burns in a fairy fire. Slowly, painfully and with a gakload of money lost, just as their terrible app.
Introduce them to 3rd. Best rules, balanced armies, EVERYTHING is in one book. Also, I share that exact sentiment about Warhammer+ and hope it backfires in their face. (It's just the jaded cynic in me says it'll make them money despite this.) And yeah the app is terrible. Remember when that guy made a freaking web based list builder and it was free and awesome?
Aenar wrote:
EldarExarch wrote: I'm not super knowledgeable when it comes to law, but isn't a lot of the things listed by GW protected under the Fair Use copyright law?
Is this GW flexing their muscles as a mega-corporation basically knowing they won't win court battles if it goes there but scaring off little guys who don't have the money to even fight the battles.
In any circumstance it is super unfortunate and definitely is linked to them pushing Warhammer +. "New" GW is starting to act a lot like old GW...
New GW is just old GW with a fresh coat of paint.
I dunno. Old GW happily showed people how to make hover tanks out of deodorant bottles, and how to make a Land Raider out of a WW1 tank model kit, and had Troll magazine that showed you how to build new and exciting things, and conversions with a few bits and bobs of their stuff. Hell they had entire articles on how to make Defilers for the Chaos 3.5 dex, BEFORE THE DEFILER HAD AN OFFICAL MODEL. And they had bit orders, and they loved the hobbyist, and were fine with people mixing and matching their stuff with other companies to make cool stuff. They didn't really start getting pissy about this stuff until they got the damn LOTR license. Cause I remember they were forced to outlaw players using LOTR bitz in their 40k and Fantasy armies. (At least that's what the manager at the old Concord Mills GW said to the guy that kit bashed a bloodthrister with a balrog) Even then AT THE STORE the rule was 75%=25% GW to other stuff. Cause they knew you'd buy 3rd party stuff they didn't have to make things, so what if you got that 3rd party chapter's shoulder pads. They still got their $$$ for that box of marines and/or tank.
Da Boss wrote:
And as to recasting, I can recast any of my models. They're mine. I fully own them after I buy them. I can recast any object I own, make copies of anything I have bought. I can scan them and make 3D prints. Of course I can. And then I can sell them as well, they're my property and I can go to a car boot sale or flea market or sell them to any other individual.
There's obviously a difference if I set up an online shop selling GW recasts and so on. That's fair enough. But any hobbyist can recast, scan, or 3D print whatever the hell they want, and yeah, they can go sell their army on ebay afterwards if they want to. GW cannot enforce that and look stupid for trying.
As for fan animations and creations, well, I hope people stop creating them then. Less advertisement for a stupid company with an asinine approach to their IP, most of which is stolen from Michael Moorcock or folklore in any case.
1. If GW had their way, they'd do like the RIAA did and say hell no you DON'T own them after you buy them. You own the LICENSE to use them in the way THEY WANT. Making copies, even for no profit, or using the base material for anything other than it's intended purpose would be illegal. And if the RIAA won, GW could win that battle in theory very easily, cause 'hooray unregulated capitalism'. 'We'll shoot ourselves in the foot to over are costumers. Even if it makes us MORE money in the long run.'
2. It's just as illegal to sell as it is to give away, and technically illegal to just print them out for yourself.
3. Yeah, and I'd like to see more companies embrace fan animations and creations, especially if it helps create a serious competitor to GW. There's certainly alternatives to GW, but people need to stop kidding themselves if they think there's a Ford to GW's Chevy.
Polonius wrote: ...but it forgets the one key thing: GW doesn't want fans, it wants customers.
True. Again 'hooray capitalism' Screw people, buy our stuff! GW doesn't want fans, or hobbyists. They want people to buy whatever army they are pushing this week to 'Win on the table now' and when the next thing comes out, expects those same people to buy that too. It's very much geared now as a Pay 2 Win scheme for WAACers. And that's their bread and butter now.
Sledgehammer wrote: This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.
Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?
Even that hypothetical person, who gets their rules online and 3D prints their own models, GW could be selling paint, brushes, scenery, gaming accessories, books and merch to, not to mention they're promoting 40k to their friends/family and thus creating new customers. Why you'd want to litigate that person out of your ecosystem is totally beyond me, sorry.
Because selling models is their core business.
Because a lot of 3d models looks slightly off, and they don't want people thinking that dodgy 3d prints are what GW actually sells.
Because why would a person who prints GW models buy GW terrain?
Not to mention that hypothetical person still BOUGHT GW models, but also BOUGHT 3rd party/3d printed icons, heads, arms, weapons, gear, etc, to use WITH their models that GW doesn't offer. Battlescribe is a tool that aids players, and lore on the wikis just helps people learn about the setting and give them inspiration.
Their core business if FLIPPING models and selling books, and being corporate predators. They don't want you to buy a space marine army, and collect space marines, they want everyone buy the NEW thing and the NEW things SUPERIOR rules so you win now, and not lose the game.
3d prints often looks as good if not better than GW
Because maybe the person likes the GW product when they see it in the store. Course now, if they even so much as alter a window with a 3d printed one or put a cat from reaper bones in on the piece, now it's illegal terrain to use!
GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.
THIS.
Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.
Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.
Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?
For GW to not stop people from being creative. For GW to stop punishing people from being fans of the game. For GW to not treat the hobby as their personal monopoly where the filthy customers only exist at the behest of the GW overlords.
GW don't make a Carcharadons upgrade kit. They have no intention of ever doing so, so if someone wants to provide that for people the person making it shouldn't be slapped with the threat of legal action for making something GW has no intention if making themselves. Its not protecting their IP, they just don't want anyone else making money from it. It's just a crap way to treat people who love the setting and want to support it in a way that GW doesn't.
GW doesn't WANT people to HAVE a Carcharadons army. They don't have a rulebook out for them and until they do, they want you to only have an army of the chapters they give you in the box to make. And by god they better be painted in the approved colors of that chapter now. They want to control access to what you can make and do with the models you buy.
Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?
There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.
Huge companies wouldn't exist in my ideal world, which you would know if you'd actually read whose writing I was quoting.
But to answer your question, here's a snappy little video.
In the end, it always revolves about how people feel and see what should be done about IP - those say it shouldn't exist at all, others say it's really needed, and others don't care.
In a word ; politics. Wonder why it still up here in the News and Rumors, honestly...after just the first page, it's clearly going into a general discussion. It's not about the "news" (and certainly not rumors) anymore.
Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?
There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.
Huge companies wouldn't exist in my ideal world, which you would know if you'd actually read whose writing I was quoting.
But to answer your question, here's a snappy little video.
That's a nice ideal that totally ignores what made it possible to communicate such ideas across the world or to enjoy a game that would otherwise be bound to the island in which it was founded.
And I wasn't talking about whether copy is theft. Even if you lack large businesses there will always an unequal distribution of resources until we reach post scarcity. I don't quite think individuals can overcome such challenges without a mechanism to protect them.
Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?
There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.
I’ve seen this story in the papers again and again.
The little guy goes bankrupt and the company makes a fortune.
NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?
Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?
Spoiler:
Especially adult content
Derivative art has always been an infringement, they've just historically not bothered to chase it.
As far as I'm aware (not an IP lawyer) commission painters would generally be fine. Streaming themselves painting would likewise be fine (although including attribution for the minis would be a good idea). Using GW logos or artwork in your videos would potentially be an issue, from GW's point of view.
Da Boss wrote:
And as to recasting, I can recast any of my models. They're mine. I fully own them after I buy them. I can recast any object I own, make copies of anything I have bought. I can scan them and make 3D prints. Of course I can. And then I can sell them as well, they're my property and I can go to a car boot sale or flea market or sell them to any other individual.
This is not actually true in most countries, despite being a commonly held belief.
In the end, their IP rules mostly serve :
- to be clear towards people who legitimately ask themselves about what they can hope if they ask the question
- to be deterrent
As for the actual use...depends of the risks and the target. In the case of an individual...if he's blatantly public about this and reach a lot of persons, well he's painting himself a pretty target and could be used as perfect example of what not to do if GW wishes to do so.
If the individual is more elusive and quiet about this...may not be worth the pain (and money spent) for no real gain back.
Rest of the debate is nice and all, but mostly theorical and turned towards personnal beliefs about IP. And it belongs certainly more to Dakka Discussions, IMHO.
BaronIveagh wrote: That's... thorny, I'll admit. In the US at least, I believe that they'd have a hard time with this, as long as he didn't sell it.
Yup, recasting for personal use would be largely impractical to prosecute in most countries. That doesn't change the fact that it's still an infringement, though.
Yup, recasting for personal use would be largely impractical to prosecute in most countries. That doesn't change the fact that it's still an infringement, though.
Copyright was created to defend little guys against companies, not the other way around, no matter what GW currently thinks. It is a hilariously long way from the days when Ian railed against Copyright bullying in White Dwarf though, isn't it?
They want to sanitise the hobby, and monetise everything.
No other company gets away with monetising a balance patch, except GW, and somehow their lazyness should be applauded cue 2 W csm... FOMO, blatant cut content DLC, preorder DLC.. etc.
I've been saying GW is the EA of tabletop games. EA screwed all their franchises by shoving DLCs, FOMO, and monetized BS up their franchises rear ends, and are rightfully the most hated company in the world, yet they are making billions. GW just hasn't figured out how to implement gambling to minors into their stuff... yet.
NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?
Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?
Spoiler:
Especially adult content
No, it's not illegal "now". It was already illegal before. Not being able to use someone elses creations without permission, outside of certain contexts, was already enshrined in copyright law and has not changed just because GW have wrote an article.
BaronIveagh wrote: That's... thorny, I'll admit. In the US at least, I believe that they'd have a hard time with this, as long as he didn't sell it.
Yup, recasting for personal use would be largely impractical to prosecute in most countries. That doesn't change the fact that it's still an infringement, though.
No, I don't think that's true. You have the right to recast for personal use, just like you have the right to make copies out of a book you own for personal use. I don't think any attempt to restrict that right would hold up in court, and I'm not aware of GW actually trying to assert that right either in terms of anything you agree to when you make a purchase from them. I mean they can say whatever they want on their website, but they can't bind you with a unilateral statement to that effect, and they certainly can't restrict your right to recast GW products you buy from a 3rd party (i.e. a retailer) where GW isn't even a party to the transaction.
Certain GW words are trademarked and cannot be used. To identically copy their models (whether through recasting or digital sculpting and printing) is illegal and always has been. To take money for artwork/games/anything really designed upon their IP is also illegal, although there is always room for artisanal one-offs and free fan stuff (fanart, online encyclopedias, fanfiction etc). Such things will likely continue to thrive, because it isn't worth anyone's time to police it, doing so generates illwill, and unlike trademarks you don't lose IP by not prosecuting.
These things are the law and centrepiece of our IP system. They apply for every big company, and will never change. GW is not special or cruel for adopting these stances. So t's mostly the same as their old statement, just with additional emphasis on the whole 'better not make stuff that looks like ours!' angle. Which they've had, in all fairness, for the last twenty years. Putting a little extra emphasis on fan animations and 3d technology is not particularly out of step with their usual behaviour.
Those who say that Games Workshop is legally overstepping their bounds with the whole 'based upon' and 'copy heavily' phrases are not wrong. Nor are those people who point out the hypocrisy of the company who ripped so many other franchises in the past. But at the end of the day, none of that matters if you're not prepared to put up in court. If a company/patreon was owned by a part-time IP lawyer or bored millionaire and the case wasn't clear-cut, GW would back off from many of their claims faster than lightning. But most such people aren't, and so GW feels it can do whatever it likes. It's no wonder that one patreon owner just sent out the following:-
Hello,
Unfortunately I need to pause the Patreon. It appears GW is on a rampage and while I haven't received any communication from them I certainly have been hearing about it from many corners of our little hobby. So Im going to lay low at least for August and see what happens.
I hope you all will hold out til I know what direction the channel will take, but understand one way or another.
Thanks a ton for being here and willing to support my work. I'll definitely be back but it remains to be seen in what capacity.
At the end of the day, if GW stomps too loudly and often, someone will get pro-bono again and we'll have Chapterhouse Mark II: Electric Boogaloo. But until then, the little businessmen will get squashed, whether the law agrees with it or not.
yukishiro1 wrote: No, I don't think that's true. You have the right to recast for personal use, just like you have the right to make copies out of a book you own for personal use.
You really, really don't. That's not just an amateur, personal opinion, it's been the position of various IP professionals involved in the hobby over the years.
In the US, the 'Fair Use' clause allows you to make personal back-up copies of things like books and CDs (but not DVDs with DRM) to protect the original. It could arguably allow you to make a personal copy of a miniature in order to similarly put the original aside somewhere safe and use the copy in your games instead. It does not grant you wholesale right to make as many copies as you want.
It would be difficult to prove a specific amount of damage if you're not selling your recasts, which is what makes it impractical to prosecute. But the idea that you can legally make as many copies as you want of a thing you bought is a myth.
Fair Use covers whatever it covers, and we know it covers making copies of other things for personal use - and not just one. No case I'm aware of has ever said you can make a copies from a book you own, but only one copy. You don't really know what it covers until someone sues you to establish whether the given use is fair or not. I'm not aware of any published case that's ever actually opined on whether fair use would cover making multiple reproductions for personal use. I don't think it is a clear answer - factor 4 is about the impact on the market value of the product, it's not about whether you making a copy saves you buying more copies of the product. If it did, we'd say that you can't make a scanned copy of your print book if there's an e-book version available for purchase, because by doing so you're avoiding buying the e-book. But we don't say that. We say it's fair use, even though it means depriving the rights holder of a possible second purchase, because we don't consider that a diminishment of the overall market value.
But you're right in the sense that fair use is a defense to infringement, so I guess technically you would say it is an infringement, but one that cannot realistically be punished, both because it's unclear whether it's covered by fair use and because proving damages is impossible. And in a civil setting, if you can't realistically establish a violation of the law or prove damages, saying it's illegal in the abstract is rather meaningless.
We'll likely never know whether GW could actually prohibit you from recasting for personal use, because GW is never going to risk going to court over it and getting an adverse judgment.
BaronIveagh wrote: I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.
They've gone after Marvel comics a few times.
Maybe Marvel's settlement with Games Workshop was the Marneus Calgar comic book series...
it honestly wouldn't suprise me if that was the defacto situation. their lawyers started talking, marvel's response was "ohh wow we obviously didn't know about this but jesus that would make an AWESOME comic"
RaptorusRex wrote: All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.
Everybody gangsta till they actually make something worth a damn.
Yeah, just ask GW.
Did Kirby sneak back in through the back door or something?
Stormonu wrote: Did Kirby sneak back in through the back door or something?
Kirby never left. He's still part of the company, just not the same part.
Ghaz wrote: Maybe Marvel's settlement with Games Workshop was the Marneus Calgar comic book series...
Whilst I doubt Marvel could be forced into making anything they don't want to make, it is plausible that the situation at the very least opened the door for their partnership. Kind of a "Why are we fighting? Let's just make 40k comics! Everybody* wins!".
yukishiro1 wrote: Again, they aren't new rules. The only thing that's really new is the change purporting to completely ban fan animation/movies. So why do we think they're suddenly about to start enforcing rules they haven't been enforcing up to now, just because they changed a different part of the document to address a different issue?
I'll be the first to hold up my hand if I'm wrong, but to me this reads 100% as about Warhammer+ and trying to make sure there are no free alternatives, not as some big change in their general IP strategy.
exactly that, GW changed their rules to make sure that this kind of content is exclusive to WH+, also because their starting content won't be much better than the stuff you got for free
so what else was announced for WH+ were the free content is of similar or better quality?
masterclass painting guides and battle reports
we are just connecting the dots here that this will be the next step, and specially on YT this is easy to enforce
so the big question here is just how strict will they enforce those rules (or try to enfoce them) and what else get changed with WH+ running
yukishiro1 wrote: No, I don't think that's true. You have the right to recast for personal use, just like you have the right to make copies out of a book you own for personal use.
You really, really don't. That's not just an amateur, personal opinion, it's been the position of various IP professionals involved in the hobby over the years.
No, this depends on the country
for example laws in central European countries allow re-casts for private use
you are not allowed to sell them and it need to be a reasonable amount for private use (so called "household amounts") and the source must not be obviously illegal
this also covers 3D printing by scanning the original model and make a private copy
so yes, I am allowed by law to buy a single GW model and make 9 more from it for a unit to play a game
and this is what people have done here for years, long before 3D printing was a thing
They want to sanitise the hobby, and monetise everything.
No other company gets away with monetising a balance patch, except GW, and somehow their lazyness should be applauded cue 2 W csm... FOMO, blatant cut content DLC, preorder DLC.. etc.
I've been saying GW is the EA of tabletop games. EA screwed all their franchises by shoving DLCs, FOMO, and monetized BS up their franchises rear ends, and are rightfully the most hated company in the world, yet they are making billions. GW just hasn't figured out how to implement gambling to minors into their stuff... yet.
NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?
Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?
Spoiler:
Especially adult content
No, it's not illegal "now". It was already illegal before. Not being able to use someone elses creations without permission, outside of certain contexts, was already enshrined in copyright law and has not changed just because GW have wrote an article.
Tell that to literally every single fanfiction in existence.
Tell that to literally every single fanfiction in existence.
Are you implying no one has ever infringed copyright law before? Or that everyone always gets punished for absolutely every crime?
IP infringement is particularly blurry as companies regularly allow it to take place, because they think it's beneficial to them and/or the backlash would be worse for them.
This "looking the other way" is often confused for legality or even entitlement.
Yet again, bad GW is bad, nothing new to see here. Legally can they do all this ? Most likely they are all good. Now them doing it feels real bad however and depending on how hard they will hammer these points home it could really blow up in their face at least for some people.
I would say if you think this is just the start that is a quite reasonable way to view it. I can easily imagine them using this to slowly trim away many uses of their products outside their direct hands, such as battle reports, etc, etc. As they try and get all the information coming out of their own avenues. Fan support was good when they felt they needed it but they may be finding they don't need it at all so why keep wasting the time and money when they can take it all themselves ?
Time will tell but GW has never gotten less greedy over time.
Sunno wrote: The thing is, apart from what they HAVE done with animators, none of us know how GW will enforce these IP changes.
Will they go after, bat rep makers and lore video creators? Who knows. Certainly none of you guys do.
So maybe we should watch, observe and comment on what they actually do, not what they might do.
Reasonable approaches are sadly not in vogue. Some comments definitely read as if GW will enforce it with a 100% certainity. Just the usual hate on this board.
Polonius wrote: There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hyperbole that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP laws work, both in how much they can cover (pretty much everything GW stated in their list) and also what it won't cover (pretty much everything not stated).
GW can't go after cosplayers, or review channels, or battle reports. Sure, they could strong arm YouTube, but that's a YouTube TOS issue, not an IP issue. And even then, I doubt that's the case. Fan made movies are actual creative works that deliberately slot along side canon works. That's very different from an unboxing or painting tutorial.
Polonius, maybe you're forgetting, but you're actually arguing this with people who have previously received Cease and Desist orders from GW for these exact things. Actual legal action has been taken by GW for the things that you're saying they could never do.
This is it exactly!
Some of us here had our hobby seriously impacted in the past by heavy-handed legal actions. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to not want that to happen again.
Gimgamgoo wrote:From reading these forums, it seems that all GW are trying to do is give a little slap on the wrist to scare animators into removing their animations (or make it so they can't afford to make them).
GW have probably realised they don't have enough animations to make a really full WH+ channel, so have tried to employ those fans that are making them. Where they've failed to hire, they're trying to scare the animators off with a generic IP reminder threat to include the animations.
It just seems really late preparation for their WH+ subs release next month.
All the rest of the scare talk about shutting youtubers down for painting videos is just silly.
I think this is probably on the money...
And an acknowledgement of 3D printing now becoming a much bigger thing.
insaniak wrote: Yes, I was responding to an American poster about US Fair Use.
your post were written in a general way and this is also were some of the problems with GW come from, that their general guidlines are written without the laws of different countries in mind (and therefore are more strict than they needed to be just be sure to cover everyone)
kodos wrote: your post were written in a general way and this is also were some of the problems with GW come from, that their general guidlines are written without the laws of different countries in mind (and therefore are more strict than they needed to be just be sure to cover everyone)
To be fair, up until comparatively recently, the laws were fairly universal, with the US's Fair Use being amongst the more liberal. The EU rules allowing countries to pay IP holders compensation in exchange for allowing people to copy for personal use weren't something that I had come across before. An initial search online turned up the bare bones of it, but I'd be curious to see what it actually applies to, as the articles I found seemed to suggest it was aimed more at digital or printed content.
insaniak wrote: as the articles I found seemed to suggest it was aimed more at digital or printed content.
this is is always changing depending on technology and for example empty/fresh MC, VHS, CD's and now HDD's have always been more expensive here as for the additional fee for private copies (blank media tax and most of the money goes to the social fund for authors)
going down the way of re-casts this usually applies to sculptures/art and rules what can be done without being a counterfeit and now with 3D prints being a thing this gets updated (but not in all countries at the same time) and it is expected that in the long term the fee will be added to 3D printers as well
They already had the legal rights to shut down fan animations and films before, as proven by the fact that they did it. They've just added this to their "guidelines" (and that's all they are - the law is the law regardless of what they assert or otherwise) to make it clear that fan animations aren't allowed so no-one else starts devoting years of their lives to making something that can never be shown.
If they were going to start to go after people making battle report, painting videos or so on, would they not have added those to these guidelines when they updated them?
Mallo wrote: Some of these are not at all enforceable. They clearly just want to scare smaller scale operations away and hope enough people are put off.
Personal experience, they will actually try to enforce these, the actual law be damned. And people with YouTube channels are going to have a hell of a time of it, since YouTube will keep taking your videos down as long as GW keeps making those copyright claims.
All that's really left is to see who's left in the end.
I suspect a lot of people saying GW won't enforce this are people that 8th brought back, so they don't remember GWs old ways. Still gutted we never got to see Damnatus.
GW isn't a person with it's own thoughts and ideas though. It's not a serial killer that went quiet for a few years to throw people of the scent and now wants to go back to killing. It's a company. Obviously corporate culture is a thing, and certain ways of doing things tend to stick around through momentum even as the people change, but generally once that change has happened it takes active effort from people to revert it to what it was.
Most of the people at GW ten or so years ago when they last went after folk in a big way likely are not there any more. So there's no inherent internal reason for them to revert back to that.
That doesn't mean they won't. Doesn't mean some new people won't join the legal team and start pushing the idea that they should start aggressively going after anything damaging to their brand, whether they have the legal right to or not. But the fact that they did it before doesn't really make it any more or less likely. "Reverting to type" is not really a thing with companies, unless it's a very hands-on, high profile CEO.
The fact they've updated the legal text could be seen as indicator that they're planning some sort of copyright crackdown, but all they've done is add in a note to say they're going to do what they've already done.
Aren't GW already forcing some animator to remove all their Warhammer stuff when they refused to join the WH+ program ? Kinda remind me of Nintendo war with fan creator and community of their old games.
This is a great wakeup call for all Warhammer fan creator out there, time to dip, I wouldn't be surprised if some fan creator got targeted in the future because of something they post on social media that GW didn't like.
Polonius wrote: There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hyperbole that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP laws work, both in how much they can cover (pretty much everything GW stated in their list) and also what it won't cover (pretty much everything not stated).
GW can't go after cosplayers, or review channels, or battle reports. Sure, they could strong arm YouTube, but that's a YouTube TOS issue, not an IP issue. And even then, I doubt that's the case. Fan made movies are actual creative works that deliberately slot along side canon works. That's very different from an unboxing or painting tutorial.
Polonius, maybe you're forgetting, but you're actually arguing this with people who have previously received Cease and Desist orders from GW for these exact things. Actual legal action has been taken by GW for the things that you're saying they could never do.
This is it exactly!
Some of us here had our hobby seriously impacted in the past by heavy-handed legal actions. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to not want that to happen again.
Okay, but what were the specifics? I can’t comment on a C&D I know nothing about.
Chopstick wrote: Aren't GW already forcing some animator to remove all their Warhammer stuff when they refused to join the WH+ program ?
They have asked some creators to either stop profiting off their IP (so Patrons or YT) or to come work with them on Warhammer+. AFAIK they've not approached anyone who is not making money from it.
"Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"
What does that mean?
"include the word ‘unofficial’ prominently on the front cover"
amused me because it reminded me of a late law in my country about 'foreign agents" that must slap "foreign agent" on any of their publications.
insaniak wrote: It means they don't want fan fiction that they feel will impact perception of the setting or the company in negative way.
Sounds kinda broad.
It is, probably intentionally. Again, worth pointing out that anything GW writes on their IP pages, unless it's exercising their rights to conditionally extend a license to creators as CBS/Paramount do, doesn't affect the legal standing of anything.
Many years ago GW legal shut down a humorous T-shirt that I had put up for sale (all proceeds to charity). It was a shame but not entirely unexpected.
Protecting your IP and brand is fine up to a point but GW legal have a history of going after protection for things they don't actually own. IIRC a friend has emails from them demanding that he stop selling "Blood Red" paint (which he called their bluff on and came to nothing).
I really don't care about all the post chapterhouse names that they have come up with as I have no emotional attachment to them whatsoever. They have all been designed to have maximum legal protection but to me many of them just sound silly.
If FlashGitz survived through the ad-pocalypse and the trigger happy GW of yesteryear this isn't going to change anything. Until GW actually brings its first case to a court or sends a C&D there really isn't any point in all this fear-mongering nonsense.
Shadenuat wrote: "Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"
What does that mean?
"include the word ‘unofficial’ prominently on the front cover"
amused me because it reminded me of a late law in my country about 'foreign agents" that must slap "foreign agent" on any of their publications.
Shadenuat wrote: "Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"
What does that mean?
It's directed at parodies and things making fun of GW
I think parody is still legally protected, but it has to be obvious parody rather than just using their IP in a demeaning way.
Correct, parody/satire is protected under IP law, but let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good anti-GW rant.
That clause is more than likely directed at depicting things like SM getting a bit too grimdark and showing them killing women and children (accurate in the lore but not something GW would go out of their way to depict in animation). Again, this is a fairly standard thing for most IP holders.
The only thing I worry about is the Tabletop Simulator stuff, but I'm not going to get upset about it. TTS is likely a net win for GW since it actually promotes the game - unlike the other things people suggested earlier.
So that will be the real watershed moment. Scans for 3D printers can get bent for all I care.
Daedalus81 wrote: The only thing I worry about is the Tabletop Simulator stuff, but I'm not going to get upset about it. TTS is likely a net win for GW since it actually promotes the game - unlike the other things people suggested earlier.
So that will be the real watershed moment. Scans for 3D printers can get bent for all I care.
I look forward to GW going after TTS and claiming copyright on things like "rolling dice" or "playing games on a table".
I'd suggest TTS may be a net loss for GW, I know several people that say they play TTS in lieu of buying and playing models.
Then again, other people try out armies on TTS first, decide they like them, and buy them. Whereas before they simply would have never bought them due to the financial and time risk.
It's not about net loss or gain. It's about control. Fan made videos make GW money.
3d printed parts and 3rd party pieces make GW money.
TTS, Battlescribe, even ye ole fashioned internet piracy (even if it truely is a victimless crime) make GW money in the long run. But they have no control over it. Like I said. They don't WANT people to have space marine armies that they don't make themselves. They don't WANT the customer to buy a box of marines, then go to Etsy or someplace and buy a pack of custom shoulder plates with an insignia of a chapter they don't make.
Daedalus81 wrote: The only thing I worry about is the Tabletop Simulator stuff, but I'm not going to get upset about it. TTS is likely a net win for GW since it actually promotes the game - unlike the other things people suggested earlier.
So that will be the real watershed moment. Scans for 3D printers can get bent for all I care.
I look forward to GW going after TTS and claiming copyright on things like "rolling dice" or "playing games on a table".
Plenty of mods in the game do make use of their trademarks, copyrighted miniature designs, rules, artwork etc.
Plenty of mods in the game do make use of their trademarks, copyrighted miniature designs, rules, artwork etc.
The issue is that TTS doesn't really make use of that. All that was created by the TTS community, TTS only gave them tools to do so. Battlescribe is similar in that it doesn't make use of 40k rules, it only is an army builder that the BS community uses for a 40k army builder.
This degree of separation makes it complicated to go after them. GW could try to go after the community, but that is like trying to hit flies with a bazooka, not very cost effective.
Shadenuat wrote: "Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"
What does that mean?
"include the word ‘unofficial’ prominently on the front cover"
amused me because it reminded me of a late law in my country about 'foreign agents" that must slap "foreign agent" on any of their publications.
Don't be a Nazi.
*cough*Arch*cough*
And OC, and a few other equally vile but less known scum.
There is one (who made six videos reeeing at dark skinned Ultramarine on the Avenging Son book cover) who will probably get Warhammer name C&D soon too for his torrent of racist drivel and I can already bet some of GW clown bashers here will pretend it's just evul corp cancelling innocent lily white content creator, hOw DaRe ThEY!!!one1!1!
yukishiro1 wrote: I'll be the first to hold up my hand if I'm wrong, but to me this reads 100% as about Warhammer+ and trying to make sure there are no free alternatives, not as some big change in their general IP strategy.
Um, no. Just no. Warhammer+ is way too small potatoes for that. Plus, GW already made content before (see their two movies) and they had no problems with fan content coexisting.
If I may venture a guess, it's either racists trying to smear 40K by trying to associate brand with cancer they made up (seeing companies are way more conscious about it these days and GW would want it nipped in the bud), or, way more likely, GW is in talks with some real giant right now (Amazon/Apple/Netflix/Disney) about monetization of their books and the first condition of talk was 100% exclusivity of IP to new partner, no ifs and buts. Fan content would be just collateral damage of GW trying to prove to someone with way better legal department investing in co-project will be sound and the partner will get to reap return on investment without parasites and freeloaders riding on it (which is description of how these contracts are worded, not my own words before somone with low reading comprehension decides to treat fact statement as my own opinion while twisting it at the same time).
I think parody is still legally protected, but it has to be obvious parody rather than just using their IP in a demeaning way.
If it's youtube GW can DMCA your video for whatever reason they like, your video will be taken down, then you can choose to file a counterclaim, give GW your info and prepare for a lawsuit, which would cost a lot of money, and years to resolve, it' not worth it. Unless they changed the law for wrongful claim to pay the defendant millions of dollar, you would be bettr off just took your video down.
KingmanHighborn wrote: It's not about net loss or gain. It's about control. Fan made videos make GW money.
3d printed parts and 3rd party pieces make GW money.
TTS, Battlescribe, even ye ole fashioned internet piracy (even if it truely is a victimless crime) make GW money in the long run. But they have no control over it. Like I said. They don't WANT people to have space marine armies that they don't make themselves. They don't WANT the customer to buy a box of marines, then go to Etsy or someplace and buy a pack of custom shoulder plates with an insignia of a chapter they don't make.
Plenty of mods in the game do make use of their trademarks, copyrighted miniature designs, rules, artwork etc.
The issue is that TTS doesn't really make use of that. All that was created by the TTS community, TTS only gave them tools to do so.
Battlescribe is similar in that it doesn't make use of 40k rules, it only is an army builder that the BS community uses for a 40k army builder.
This degree of separation makes it complicated to go after them. GW could try to go after the community, but that is like trying to hit flies with a bazooka, not very cost effective.
Yea the only angle is steam workshop, but everything is pretty much underground now anyway.
Polonius wrote: There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hyperbole that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP laws work, both in how much they can cover (pretty much everything GW stated in their list) and also what it won't cover (pretty much everything not stated).
GW can't go after cosplayers, or review channels, or battle reports. Sure, they could strong arm YouTube, but that's a YouTube TOS issue, not an IP issue. And even then, I doubt that's the case. Fan made movies are actual creative works that deliberately slot along side canon works. That's very different from an unboxing or painting tutorial.
Polonius, maybe you're forgetting, but you're actually arguing this with people who have previously received Cease and Desist orders from GW for these exact things. Actual legal action has been taken by GW for the things that you're saying they could never do.
This is it exactly!
Some of us here had our hobby seriously impacted in the past by heavy-handed legal actions. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to not want that to happen again.
Okay, but what were the specifics? I can’t comment on a C&D I know nothing about.
Beasts of War is the only one I know about for certain as it was publicised at the time.
Other than this, I know other sites reacted to this, but I don't know whether they actually received any kind of formal warning. But I've by no means a knowledge of what was going on with all forums so if anyone can add any more details please do so.
One forum that I moderated on (I had stopped by this point) changed it's name as a result. Moderation there (and I think most forums actually around the time) stepped up heavily to the point where posts and threads were removed and users banned - there were a lot of posts around Finecast at that time, it started off with comments being discouraged before any mention of Finecast itself was banned.
Another well known 40k forum was actually recording names of individuals it thought were either involved with Chapterhouse or other garage casting companies and was reporting them directly to GW legal. Like something from McCarthy actually, it would have been funny if people weren't being banned. That site has always been heavy-handed in terms of moderation, but I remember discussion at that point being almost impossible.
I remember some other forums banning posting of images of GW stock miniatures - so you couldn't post a link or copy of the image on the GW shop website for example.
I actually don't blame the people that ran the forums/sites. If I had invested so much of my time and money in a project and I thought it was at risk of being shut down, I would have behaved in the same way.
But, I blame GW for managing to make everything so undeniably gakky around that time, making the forums an unpleasant place to be and even making people argue (cause as you can imagine, there were people willing to defend GW's practice to their dying breath, even as it was smothering the community).
I know of one forum needed to change its name because GW "asked" for it
it got also a letter for "sharing" point costs in army list discussions
a friend of mine got a letter because the custom bases a made and sold had GW bits in them (I think it was the Drop Pod small engine he used for city bases)
the shop here was "asked" from GW to remove the official product pictures from their online store
Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does enforce that ban stringently in practice).
Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does).
Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.
Link to GW's event pack. It does state "all miniatures in your collection must be Games Workshop or Forge World miniatures (excluding basing or scratchbuilt components)", but it's very much 'don't ask, don't tell'.
Theophony wrote: Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.
no, this is an official "rule" from GW, it is just up to the TO to ignore it as they can never proof it anyway (not the other way around)
Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does).
Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.
Link to GW's event pack. It does state "all miniatures in your collection must be Games Workshop or Forge World miniatures (excluding basing or scratchbuilt components)", but it's very much 'don't ask, don't tell'.
Note that events at Warhammer World states the following in regards to 3D printed parts:
Are 3D printed parts I’ve designed allowed?
Much like hand sculpted detail, if you’ve gone to the effort of designing and printing your own bespoke parts for your army, then these parts are indeed permitted at our events. Commercially available, third party 3D printed parts aren’t permitted though. Please bear in mind that if we do spot cast/printed parts on miniatures at our events, we will ask you to prove where they’re from, and may ask for them to be removed if there’s any doubt as to their origins.
Their basic rule for conversions is that "... conversions should be checked in advance with the events team, to ensure they are appropriate for organised play".
Pacific wrote: Beasts of War is the only one I know about for certain as it was publicised at the time.
so, the only thing I could find on this was that Beasts of War used to preview models, got C&Ds, they ignored them, so GW put pressure on their partner, which was a main distributor of the products. This was back in 2012, before GW flooded social media with preview copies. That has nothing to do with anythign GW is currently claiming.
But, I blame GW for managing to make everything so undeniably gakky around that time, making the forums an unpleasant place to be and even making people argue (cause as you can imagine, there were people willing to defend GW's practice to their dying breath, even as it was smothering the community).
Yes, the whole "our stock photos are our IP was a weird flex. As they've more or less reversed their approach to new releases since that time, I don't think we're going back to it.
the one thing that's worth hashing out is the names of some of the forums. So trademarks are easier to defend, and if a forum used a trademarked name, that really did open themselves up for trouble, even if their activity (a discussion forum) probably didn't actually violate the trademark of a gaming miniatured.
The TL;DR is that GW has certainly overreached in the past, but these new guidelines do not appear to be overreaches.
So, if you have the stance that GW is an evil, greedy corporation that hates it's fans, then you feel free to feel vindicated. Of course, GW is a publicly traded corporation that owes it's primary duty to shareholders, so you get what you get.
Okay, but what were the specifics? I can’t comment on a C&D I know nothing about.
On Dark Reign our reviews of FFG's Role play material contained 'images of GW IP'. I'm fairly sure a copy of the GW C&D we received was shared here on Dakka, but as this thread goes on, it's increasingly obvious that most of the posters are newer players that don't remember this gak.
I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.
Gert wrote: I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.
Emphasis mine.
You clearly missed the WHOLE debacle last time. GW legal had something of a Purge following it since, yes it was that brainless.
Gert wrote: I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.
There's nothing stopping a company from sending C&Ds that threaten lawsuits without any actual legal merit behind them. If it's a third-party platform like Youtube, they'll play ball because the DMCA encourages them to acquiesce. If it's directly to a small website or company, they're probably not going to be willing to go to court, incur legal fees, and run the (minor) risk of actually losing anyways.
Gert wrote: I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.
GW claimed to own, in a lawsuit which they took all the way to court, trademarks on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).
Gert wrote: I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.
GW claimed to own, in a lawsuit which they took all the way to court, trademarks on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).
Got a link to this stuff specifically? I'm assuming it's part of the chapterhouse thing, but those examples are baffling because that's not what trademarks cover. Surely there must be more to it?
Gert wrote: I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.
GW claimed to own, in a lawsuit which they took all the way to court, trademarks on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).
Got a link to this stuff specifically? I'm assuming it's part of the chapterhouse thing, but those examples are baffling because that's not what trademarks cover. Surely there must be more to it?
Feel free to go find the Dakka thread on it. We had a blow by blow commentary going, but, in a nutshell, GW tried to claim those things, and the judge tossed it out after being informed by the Trademark office that no, it does not work like that.
The Chapterhouse was an example of GW's legal team being overzealous. Had they limited themselves to the actual violations of copyright Chapterhouse was guilty of, they would had gotten a legal victory.
The error wasn't in suing Chapterhouse, the error was trying to bite far more than what the law dictated they could chew.
over are costumers. Even if it makes us MORE money in the long run.'
