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.
One, it's not a copyright. They have a TRADEMARK, and a Trademark ONLY IN SPAIN, which is why it only caused issue with Vallejo, not Plaid, Rustolium, etc. There is a difference.
Two, they have behaved horribly and taken action that is illegal in the EU by filing a false and improper copyright claim against a 3rd party reviewer which is protected.
Three, GSW has shot themselves in the foot. Their reviews and public facing elements are getting raided by folks angry about this, and justly so.
We are a small community and GSW is no GW and they cannot absorb the fall out from this kind of action.
This is insane. Sure, they can ask Vallejo to change the name of the product, but censoring third parties this way from displaying or mentioning the offending product it simply orwellian.
If I upload a Youtube video that shows or even mentions a pirated Lightsabre toy from China can Disney now have my video taken down and have me sanctioned?
I was honestly looking at GSW colorshift paints for a project I want to do, but this sort of behavior really doesn't make me want to buy them. At the very least they have corrected the strike and apologized, but still. Such a misstep.
Also, did she say they'd trademarked 'Chameleon' in their letter along with Colorshift?
PourSpelur wrote: It's fully within the rules for me to look up your Facebook page, find out your dear Mother Gladys is single, take her on a lovely date, and tell you all the details of our hot, sweaty, animal sex during your psychic phase.
I mean, fifty bucks is on the line.
There's no rule that says I can't.
* GSW registered a trademark for their product. Trademarks have nothing to do with copyright, and they're not relevant to the DMCA (C as in Copyright, obviously).
* Vallejo released a product infringing on GSWs trademark, and have been slapped down for it (and renamed the product)
* GSW then told YT that youtube channels were infringing on their copyright by reviewing Vallejos trademark-infringing product.
* YT took down the videos and handed out copyright strikes to those youtubers
My understanding is that this simply isn't a copyright issue, and these videos shouldn't have been taken down at all - especially(!) not by claiming some kind of copyright infringements.Trademarks and copyrights are separate things.
Youtube is the one mostly at fault here, in my opinion. I can believe that a small family business has no better understanding of copyright issues than the average person (because that's what they are - just normal people), but youtube should've gone "wait a second - what you're asking us to do is wrong, let me explain this to you" instead of just issuing copyright strikes.
Yeah they've made a huge marketing blunder here in an effort to be overzealous about their Trademark product. The correct course of action would have been to have contacted and informed the 3rd party reviewers in private about the new trademark and make some form of offer to encourage them to moderate their own videos.
You can't really go to the table and try to mediate when their action was to hit a DMCA takedown through youtube which is a very harsh system and to blacklist the reviewer through the youtube system and then try to sweeten up the situation later with "would you like to review our stuff?"
I mean yes its nice that they try to make up for it, but they should never have got to that position in the first place. Very bad marketing move by them
Of course time will tell if this actually affects them or if it turns out to be a storm in a teacup that boils for a week and then fizzles out on its own. Considering that I suspect they've only hit a few channels with a DMCA it might not go that far; then again considering that quality painting reviews is likely a really small market with a lot of high profile people in a very small pace and that colour-shift is a really niche market; they've probably just annoyed most of the people who would have been really good to befriend to review their product.
nekooni wrote: f
Youtube is the one mostly at fault here, in my opinion. I can believe that a small family business has no better understanding of copyright issues than the average person (because that's what they are - just normal people), but youtube should've gone "wait a second - what you're asking us to do is wrong, let me explain this to you" instead of just issuing copyright strikes.
I suspect that, like a lot of big site systems, their whole DMCA system is likely automated with a general bias for assuming that whoever reports is in the right. I seem to recall when the video game market had a blow up a few years back it was basically found that anyone could issue a DMCA without any proof at all and Youtube just automatically assumed the person accused was at fault; who then had to provide actual proof and go through a super slow review system. It was like that for ages mostly because until then no one abused it. I've no idea if Youtube changed it all up after that or not.
It mostly has to do with the sheer scale of 'copyright' claims youtube gets. Some of which are political and bad faith, others are the heavy hand of Nintendo and other japanese game companies (among others, but Nintendo particular has a bad rep with youtube).
Others are a constant stream of good faith claims where movies, music and tv show episodes are constantly uploaded and taken down on 'disposable account' channels.
Youtube doesn't want to be on the responsibility end of any serious legal/financial issues, so it functionally auto-pulls copyright claims and sorts out the details later. It blatantly isn't a good system, but times being what they are, I haven't seen many functional alternate suggestions
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/02 18:21:45
meatybtz wrote: One, it's not a copyright. They have a TRADEMARK, and a Trademark ONLY IN SPAIN.
What are we splitting hairs here? Okay, it was a trademark, not copyright - regardless they went way overboard trying to jealously guard their IP.
YouTube, Green Stuff, they are both at fault and i hope this PR house fire stays with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Carnikang wrote: I was honestly looking at GSW colorshift paints for a project I want to do, but this sort of behavior really doesn't make me want to buy them. At the very least they have corrected the strike and apologized, but still. Such a misstep.
Also, did she say they'd trademarked 'Chameleon' in their letter along with Colorshift?
Turbo Dork has a really great range of true metal and color shift paints.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/02 18:26:38
It's pretty hilarious that a company named Green Stuff World, is trademarking the term colorshift when their entire company name is a marketing term they didn't create.
meatybtz wrote: We are a small community and GSW is no GW and they cannot absorb the fall out from this kind of action.
Good, i hope GSW dies, lots of smaller companies would love their business and there is no shortage of alternative products.
I get that it's bad for them personally, but it's better for the community as a whole to get rid of as many of the bad actors as we can.
Boycott GSW. DO NOT give them money, time, or attention.
Instead of wanting attention and sales, They don't want money, attention, or positive press....
So give them what they want- Nothing.
BTW, I saw the Youtuber that they took the piss with, and in this viewers humble opinion it was so far over the top that it doesn't even pass the common sense test. So at the end of the day, the heck with them, ignore them and let them die the death of obscurity.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
meatybtz wrote: One, it's not a copyright. They have a TRADEMARK, and a Trademark ONLY IN SPAIN.
What are we splitting hairs here? Okay, it was a trademark, not copyright - regardless they went way overboard trying to jealously guard their IP.
YouTube, Green Stuff, they are both at fault and i hope this PR house fire stays with them.
The difference is that since it's a trademark issue and not a copyright issue, they had absolutely no basis for any kind of takedown notice toward anyone showing or reviewing the infringing product.
Just look at it like this:
If someone wants to report on the whole GSW vs Vallejo "shifty colors" thing, they're clearly allowed to call Vallejos product by it's infringing name. Reporting and talking about it, even showing it, is not a trademark infringement and it's not a copyright infringement.
Red Corsair wrote: It's pretty hilarious that a company named Green Stuff World, is trademarking the term colorshift when their entire company name is a marketing term they didn't create.
I wondered about that too.
Somehow I doubt the equivalence will occur to them.
meatybtz wrote: We are a small community and GSW is no GW and they cannot absorb the fall out from this kind of action.
Good, i hope GSW dies, lots of smaller companies would love their business and there is no shortage of alternative products.
I get that it's bad for them personally, but it's better for the community as a whole to get rid of as many of the bad actors as we can.
Is GSW a bad company in general? I have to say whilst I've heard of them in general, this is the first time I've heard of them in a negative manner. One bad situation like this really shouldn't burn a whole company to the ground - nor should we wish it too. A bad situation yes, but there's a difference between a company that suffers for its bad actions for a while and one which we wish to see utterly destroyed.
Overread wrote: One bad situation like this really shouldn't burn a whole company to the ground - nor should we wish it too. A bad situation yes, but there's a difference between a company that suffers for its bad actions for a while and one which we wish to see utterly destroyed.
If you scroll up meatybtz makes a pretty compelling case, it seems this isn't the first time GSW has acted in bad faith.
Overread wrote: One bad situation like this really shouldn't burn a whole company to the ground - nor should we wish it too. A bad situation yes, but there's a difference between a company that suffers for its bad actions for a while and one which we wish to see utterly destroyed.
If you scroll up meatybtz makes a pretty compelling case, it seems this isn't the first time GSW has acted in bad faith.
meatybtz summarized the current situation. At least I don't see anything regarding anything that happened in the past.
Overread wrote: One bad situation like this really shouldn't burn a whole company to the ground - nor should we wish it too. A bad situation yes, but there's a difference between a company that suffers for its bad actions for a while and one which we wish to see utterly destroyed.
If you scroll up meatybtz makes a pretty compelling case, it seems this isn't the first time GSW has acted in bad faith.
Uh, I read it as meatybtz just commenting on this particular case, not that they have a track record of similar behavior.
Overread wrote: One bad situation like this really shouldn't burn a whole company to the ground - nor should we wish it too. A bad situation yes, but there's a difference between a company that suffers for its bad actions for a while and one which we wish to see utterly destroyed.
If you scroll up meatybtz makes a pretty compelling case, it seems this isn't the first time GSW has acted in bad faith.
meatybtz summarized the current situation. At least I don't see anything regarding anything that happened in the past.
Exactly. So far unless anyone knows anything else this is a very bad move by GSW but not the kind that should see them burned to the ground. A week or two bad publicity; a drop in sales and some humility and an expensive lesson for them. But honestly it shouldn't be the end of them.
Overread wrote: But honestly it shouldn't be the end of them.
"We are the Emperor's angels of death, not his angels of mercy" - Avitus
Spoiler:
Those are not good role models in modern days, though.
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/02 19:05:29
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
People make mistakes. Sometimes those people are small business owners. I'll give anyone a second chance. The world would be a better place with less "You screwed up! I'm going to boycott you for all time and hope that your business gets burned to the ground!" attitudes like those evidenced by some posters in this thread.
GSW has apologized, and sought to take corrective action. That is good enough for me. If they continue to slam small YouTube reviewers with DCMA notices over a trademark (the consequences of which they should now fully understand), I'll re evaluate my willingness to buy from them.
This is as douche baggy as the spots the space marine debacle. Could you imagine what this company would try to pull if they had actual power and money? I’d say it’s best to nip this one at the bud before they become actually important and influential to the hobby.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
This wasn't some cashier who rang up the wrong item, it was a top down company wide decision to trademark a common use term. them.
They're listed as a small company with 11-50 employees on LinkedIn. The "top down company wide decision" probably involved a total of 3 people or something like that, tops. The place I work at has close to 200 employees and some decisions of a somewhat similar scale are still decided by like 2 or 3 people.
Hive Fleet Hercual - 6760pts
