Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The following is a legal question, that i sort of think other people are curious about too.

How much does GW own the substance of their 40k rules?

Do they own the mechanics themselves? (ie: str vs toughness; Initiative determines attack order, etc)

Or do they rather just own their particular version of those mechanics? (ie: rules like "fearless means no morale rolls")

Do they own the stat lines?

Do they own the underlying mathematic formulas for hit/miss rolling?

Do they own the concept of saving throws or re-rolls?

Edit add questions:

[Do they own the measurement dimensions of their tanks?

Do they own "infantry moves 12 inches, then can run based on a dice throw, then can charge 6 inches; in the respective turns" That is, do they own how far units can move? If they do, can the problem be overturned by switching to metric system and being off by 1 mm?]

The reason I ask is that I am considering drawing up some generic rules that function simular to 40k with all the words changed, changing the numerical values but keeping the underlying formulas, and using that as a base to have different new units yet compatable with existing GW and other products; then releasing the rules for free side by side with a range of miniatures in "heroic" scale. I intend to change a bunch of the rules along the way, but I am concerned about them still being substantially simular and i'd like to not have to fold over a frivolous GW lawsuit.

Thank You anyone who comments knowledgeably. I think the answers will be useful to a great number of other small time and aspiring small time guys out there.

As an attorney, I can give you some invaluable advice:

Ask an attorney in your jurisdiction who practices in IP law. Yes, you will need to pay him, but if you plan on sinking significant time or money into this, its a worthwhile investment.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/7083681#7083681

An interesting read.

NumberZero wrote:The reason I ask is that I am considering drawing up some generic rules that function simular to 40k with all the words changed, changing the numerical values but keeping the underlying formulas, and using that as a base to have different new units yet compatable with existing GW and other products; then releasing the rules for free side by side with a range of miniatures in "heroic" scale. I intend to change a bunch of the rules along the way, but I am concerned about them still being substantially simular and i'd like to not have to fold over a frivolous GW lawsuit.

Well, if you ever did get hit with a 'frivolous' lawsuit for copying 40k, stating your intentions to do so ahead of time on the internet makes it real easy for GW's lawyers.

But best thing to do is get a lawyer. The legal advice you get from the internet isn't goog enough.

mikhaila wrote:The legal advice you get from the internet isn't good enough.

What do you mean? It's worth every penny!

wouldnt be suprised if GW try and do you for 'rolling dice'...

biccat wrote:

mikhaila wrote:The legal advice you get from the internet isn't good enough.

What do you mean? It's worth every penny!

*rimshot*

Welp. This thread was actually rather useful. I have compiled an argument to date.

Games Workshop does not, indeed, have a patent on its 40k game system mechanics. I checked, and most of their stuff is assaigned and related to injection molding techniques, casting techniques, and something about a process to make plastic trees.

What they do have is copywrights, and trademarks

See the following:

http://www.cyanide-studio.com/forumBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10197&start=90

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

http://www.quora.com/What-part-of-board-games-besides-the-name-is-governed-by-copyright-patent-law

To wit:

The shapes of their models are protected by copywright, this means no recasting. However they don't have a copywright on the idea of space marines, just the name and trademark of THEIR space marines. Same for guardsmen/SST. Same for Orcs. Same for Space Elves. Same for ancient alien undead skeletons.

All the text in all their publications carries a copywright; but nowhere are they entitled to free and unabridged commercial or noncommercial use.

Just change all the numbers and all the names and don't use any identical text. Maybe change a bunch more just to make it better and be sure.

Nobody owns a copywright or patent on mathematics and the grammar of the english language.

I am eager to hear any counter-argument.

There is no counterargument (in regards to rules). Game mechanics are never copyrrightable, etc. You can atually get away with using the same exact rules, so long as it is presented in a different manner (I.E. change the way the rules are described). GW doesn't own the terms Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, Strength, Toughness, Initiative, Wounds, Save, Leadership, Armor Value, etc.

The only things that you do have to watch out for are things with more unique names, such as "And They Shall Know No Fear" "Feel No Pain" "Gets Hot" etc. as they are slightly more specific.

chaos0xomega wrote:The only things that you do have to watch out for are things with more unique names, such as "And They Shall Know No Fear" "Feel No Pain" "Gets Hot" etc. as they are slightly more specific.

I was thinking of changing literally every name of every thing in the rules. Like every single noun regardless if it was already generic. Gets Hot! can also be called Is Sometimes Explosive! Feel no Pain can also be called Lacking in Sensitivity to Pain and Harm. ATSKNF is a bad rule so i was thinking of reworking how Morale, also known as Espirit de Corps, works.

Would this look cumbersome? yeah, probably. But it would also be scott free.

(sorry scott)

PS: Rolling Dice can also be called Throwing Dice. A D6 can be called a R6 because it generates random numbers. +1 is mathematics.

Technology Fists. Hot Liquid Gun. Occasionally Melting Things Cannon. It can just go on and on, so easily.

You should look into the things WOTC has copyrighted and patented. Trust me, if you tried this idea with MTG, it would not work.

And not saying it will work anyway. GW can always through a cease and desist or lawsuit at you, and then you get to prove all your points in court.

I think the bigger questions is Why bother? And why should anyone bother to buy your knock off rules or miniatures? Do something original, create your own game, and the miniatures for it. Why put in the effort of miniatures and rules, and not do something that is yours, vs a cloned copy of a GW rules set?

I had the same idea actually. Create a basic rip off of 40k and fantasy and release it anonymously online under the GNU/GPL.


Not that i have any love for GNU, but it would create a massive headache for GW's lawyers if they tried to do something about it.

Platuan4th wrote:

biccat wrote:

mikhaila wrote:The legal advice you get from the internet isn't good enough.

What do you mean? It's worth every penny!

*rimshot*

Is that some new sex term? Either way is sounds slightly dirty even if it isn't.

mikhaila wrote:I think the bigger questions is Why bother? And why should anyone bother to buy your knock off rules or miniatures? Do something original, create your own game, and the miniatures for it. Why put in the effort of miniatures and rules, and not do something that is yours, vs a cloned copy of a GW rules set?

Because the idea of space marines is cool; and I don't like how 40k's rules function but don't know how to make the maths for a wholly original game so it is easier to make modifications for a game that already works; Plus making my own miniatures is cheaper, selling them might cover the costs, and overall i could put out a arguably better range of miniatures at a lower price thus undercut a large corporation via competition in the free market which adds value to the consumer?

Standard disclaimer: I'm a lawyer, but i'm not your lawyer. I'm not offering legal advice on any particular issue. I also am not an IP lawyer, so I have no real expert advice here.

Generally speaking, copyrights protect expressions of an idea, not the idea. Patents can protect processes, including game mechanics. The link from KK does a better job than I will with it.

I will give three peices of friendly (non-legal) advice: 1) consult with a real lawyer before doing anything, 2) Incorporate (or form an LLC) before you get anything close to market to protect your liability, 3) don't be stupid and taunt GW. They don't need to win a lawsuit to make your life hell.

Polonius wrote:They don't need to win a lawsuit to make your life hell.

Such as? They actually do because sternly worded letters and mild telephone harrasment mean piss all.

The legal advice you get from the internet isn't good enough.

What do you mean? It's worth every penny!

This is Da truth!
You can further on freely choose between all the "yes" and "no" answers on the internet and do so for free. Cant be any better then this.

NumberZero wrote:

Polonius wrote:They don't need to win a lawsuit to make your life hell.

Such as? They actually do because sternly worded letters and mild telephone harrasment mean piss all.

Such as... filing a lawsuit!

You'll be forced to appear. You can either hire a lawyer (expensive) or appear yourself (only if you didn't incorporate). Yes, you will win, and you might even get the case dismissed early. But stepping lightly early on can help set up an easier to dismissal.

Do some reading on the "retro clone" movement for D&D. There are multiple small publishers printing re-phrased versions of old D&D rules sets right now, despite Wizards of the Coast still having copyright.

In the US, at least, you cannot copyright a game mechanic. You can protect the idiosyncratic expression of that idea- your own wording of that mechanic. But not the rules themselves.

I believe the same general principle holds in the UK, because OSRIC (the original clone of 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) was first put together over there, IIRC.

That being said, three disclaimers apply:

1) I don't know if other legal jurisdictions handle it differently.
2) I Am Not A Lawyer.
3) A big company with deep pockets can sue you and hurt you financially even if their lawsuit is meritless.

Why not just build your own game system? Make your own rules up for it. Don't just re-word GWs stuff. That's lazy and won't use your creative ability at all. We're gamers, we're creative. Use it, don't waste it.

Just release it for free on the internet.

Non-GW rules don't sell anyway.

Mannahnin wrote:Do some reading on the "retro clone" movement for D&D. There are multiple small publishers printing re-phrased versions of old D&D rules sets right now, despite Wizards of the Coast still having copyright.

In the US, at least, you cannot copyright a game mechanic. You can protect the idiosyncratic expression of that idea- your own wording of that mechanic. But not the rules themselves.

I believe the same general principle holds in the UK, because OSRIC (the original clone of 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) was first put together over there, IIRC.

That being said, three disclaimers apply:

1) I don't know if other legal jurisdictions handle it differently.
2) I Am Not A Lawyer.
3) A big company with deep pockets can sue you and hurt you financially even if their lawsuit is meritless.

A lot of them can just continue to use DnD 3.5, as I believe it's still open liscense. Hackmaster was actually given the rights to 2.0 to turn into Hackmaster. I'm thinking WOTC doesn't care a whole lot about anything but 4th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NumberZero wrote:

mikhaila wrote:I think the bigger questions is Why bother? And why should anyone bother to buy your knock off rules or miniatures? Do something original, create your own game, and the miniatures for it. Why put in the effort of miniatures and rules, and not do something that is yours, vs a cloned copy of a GW rules set?

Because the idea of space marines is cool; and I don't like how 40k's rules function but don't know how to make the maths for a wholly original game so it is easier to make modifications for a game that already works; Plus making my own miniatures is cheaper, selling them might cover the costs, and overall i could put out a arguably better range of miniatures at a lower price thus undercut a large corporation via competition in the free market which adds value to the consumer?

If you don't know how to do the math for a new game then you are going to be in sheer hell to 'make the maths' for a small business selling miniatures.
It's laughable that starting from scratch you'll just make a better range of miniatures. Cheaper? sure. It's easy to make cheaper miniatures than GW. Selling them if they look like garbage may be tough though.)
You won't be able to undercut GW in anyway noticeable unless you put years into it. Lots more work than just talking about it on the internet.)

I think you would do better to produce the models and not worry about rules.

There's always a market for interesting models. Soda Pop have been going a couple of years with their Relic Knights figures, without a game. People buy them anyway.

biccat wrote:

mikhaila wrote:The legal advice you get from the internet isn't good enough.

What do you mean? It's worth every penny!

Then 'tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer- you gave me nothing for't. Can you make no use of nothing, nuncle?

Worglock wrote:Non-GW rules don't sell anyway.

Privateer Press, Battlefront, Cassus Belli and the entire historical scene would like a word with you.....

If I wanted to play 40k, I'd play 40k. Think of something original, don't just rehash something somebody else has already done.

102(b)

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

That about sums it up, really. A rule -system- is not protectable. Rules are also procedures, processes, and methods of operation.

So no, the straight mechanics are not protectable under copyright, but sections of the rulebook that explain the rules could be protectable. So don't plagiarize the rulebook, but copy the mechanics any way that you like.

In the US, Games Workshop is only an assignee on patents describing injection molding processes.

Like others have pointed out if you are going to do what you propose, you'd be better getting legal advice. Internet lawyers are fine but if you end up in front of a beak then their advice is probably not going to cut it.

The case that springs to mind is Whiter Shade of Pale by Procol Harem - which no doubt had Bach spinning in his grave.

As for you not being able to work out the maths in your proposed rule system.... what maths?

Soooooo, by just changing the name of everything, you really think that Games Workshop is not going to notice? That's like me opening a restaurant, offering a sandwich with two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, and cheese on a sesame seed bun and calling it a Special, then acting surprised when McDonalds sues me.

Here's a hint to all people who seem to be confused with the legalities and procedures concerning intellectual property: if you invented something, and someone put out something almost, kinda like what you did, would you be angry enough to sue?

Not if I had confidence in my product.