Switch Theme:

GW NDA Leak  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

Games Workshop has just had another interesting leak, the new NDA they're apparently forcing on Content Creators.

Spoiler:


It's pretty bad, to be honest. A lot of it is fairly standard boilerplate, but there are also some rather questionable details. It prohibits, for example, channels who would otherwise have reasonable 'fair use' claims to monetize their work no longer able to do so if they sign this.

Spikeybits for the Full Breakdown: https://spikeybits.com/2021/09/games-workshop-nda-leak-more-damaging-than-their-ip-policy.html

Additional, for those who decry spikybits




This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/24 21:17:13



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Badass "Sister Sin"






Company that likes to guard its secrets in NDA complete non-shocker.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Company that likes to guard its secrets in NDA complete non-shocker.


Company that adds nasty riders that have nothing to do with keeping secrets to an NDA is a non-shocker to you? Because there are ways of reading this that basically prohibit the creators from doing anything mini related for a minimum of three years after they drop their agreement with GW.

Also, interestingly, the governing law shall be that of England, according to the NDA. Apparently losing court cases in other countries is starting to get on GW's nerves.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 19:57:02



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut






Yeah, people who don't know what Restricted Customer is, should not be doing breakdowns of legal documents.
   
Made in gb
Badass "Sister Sin"






NDAs. Standard bit of kit these days. This is a non-shocker.

Don’t want to sign it? Don’t sign it. You want to leverage GW’s products? They’re the ones with the discretion.

This isn’t even a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a molehill out of a worm cast.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

Good ol Spikey Bits for the click bait.

   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Yeah, people who don't know what Restricted Customer is, should not be doing breakdowns of legal documents.


Since they're quoting the definition that GW lays out in the contract (opposed to other definitions that may exist), you want to run that by me again?


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch





Why do they even need NDA's, as there's (in their money tinted bubble-o-vision) nobody that can touch them in the whole darned subculture...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:06:58


"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".
Not spikeybitz, I'm not reading whatever clickbait trash they've done this time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:10:02


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Not really new, that the NDA of GW has no advantage for content creators is known for some time now

most YT channels got out of it shortly after they signed it as the information or boxes they got "earlier" was not really early enough to make a video before others did who got the info from the web or boxes from regular shop pre-orders

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Why do they even need NDA's, as there's (in their money tinted bubble-o-vision) nobody that can touch them in the whole darned subculture...



In theory, to stop youtubers from leaking gak. Or, you know, leaking that a soon to be released product IS gak, as the case may be. As written, anyone who signs this cannot, in theory, give any GW product a negative review for a period of three years after the termination of the agreement. If a GW employee were to leak something to them, it actually extends the time the agreement is in effect.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:10:52



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Sneaky Lictor





London

That looks like a completely standard, uncontroversial NDA.
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Gert wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".
Not spikeybitz, I'm not reading whatever clickbait trash they've done this time.


They're fairly accurate in this case. Effectively, if you were to give a GW product a negative review, they can sue you for breach of contract. You also cannot earn money on your youtube channel, regardless of what the law might say, without being in breach of contract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 The Phazer wrote:
That looks like a completely standard, uncontroversial NDA.


Details, genius, details. It's a noncompetitive agreement disguised as an NDA. The relevant sections are 'Definitions and Interpretation' and 'Non-competition and Non-Solicitation'.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:18:25



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Tunneling Trygon






 Gert wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".


That's pretty much it. Looking forward to all the hilarious amateur interpretations of legal text ITT though. Great use of a hobby News & Rumour board.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 BaronIveagh wrote:


Also, interestingly, the governing law shall be that of England, according to the NDA. Apparently losing court cases in other countries is starting to get on GW's nerves.


thats not intreasting, thats standard. I've signed NDA's in the past, once with Catalyst game labs (makers of battletech, I play tested several products including the scenerios in the Jihad books, and the A time of War RPG) and once with Tindalos Interactive (I was on the post launch 'super test' team for BFG:A)

in both cases the NDA stated that the governing law would be the law of the country they where based in (the US for CGL and France for Tindalos)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:16:47


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

BrianDavion wrote:

thats not intreasting, thats standard. I've signed NDA's in the past, once with Catalyst game labs (makers of battletech, I play tested several products including the scenerios in the Jihad books, and the A time of War RPG) and once with Tindalos Interactive (I was on the post launch 'super test' team for BFG:A)

in both cases the NDA stated that the governing law would be the law of the country they where based in (the US for CGL and France for Tindalos)



So have I. Though, I grant, it was with Wargaming.net and Gaijin. Hell, I've been in charge of enforcement of them at one job. The reason I say that's interesting is that the previous GW NDA I've seen was under the laws of California.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
Why do they even need NDA's, as there's (in their money tinted bubble-o-vision) nobody that can touch them in the whole darned subculture...



In theory, to stop youtubers from leaking gak. Or, you know, leaking that a soon to be released product IS gak, as the case may be. As written, anyone who signs this cannot, in theory, give any GW product a negative review for a period of three years after the termination of the agreement. If a GW employee were to leak something to them, it actually extends the time the agreement is in effect.



aren;'t the content creators animators etc and not youtube reviewers? given that it's not nesscarily a big deal. I tend to agree with the idea that this is more a reaction to things like Duncan setting up his own youtube channel, which GW might be justified to feel a little used over..

also a leak from a non-approved source I doubt would qualify "in court"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

thats not intreasting, thats standard. I've signed NDA's in the past, once with Catalyst game labs (makers of battletech, I play tested several products including the scenerios in the Jihad books, and the A time of War RPG) and once with Tindalos Interactive (I was on the post launch 'super test' team for BFG:A)

in both cases the NDA stated that the governing law would be the law of the country they where based in (the US for CGL and France for Tindalos)



So have I. Though, I grant, it was with Wargaming.net and Gaijin. Hell, I've been in charge of enforcement of them at one job. The reason I say that's interesting is that the previous GW NDA I've seen was under the laws of California.


Makes more sense for them to base it under the laws of the UK TBH. thats presumably where the bulk of their lawyers are based

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:28:51


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





This is for SPONSORED content creators. In other words, they're likely to have a much closer relationship with GW if they sign the contract, moreso than the standard reviewers that may receive advanced copies of games/books/boxes.

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





drbored wrote:
This is for SPONSORED content creators. In other words, they're likely to have a much closer relationship with GW if they sign the contract, moreso than the standard reviewers that may receive advanced copies of games/books/boxes.

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


playing devil's advocate the only way to prove disparagement vs defamation would be to fight a costly court battle. So I could see this being a cause for worry if a review site said "sadly space marine codex tenth edition just isn't very strong" and GW was like "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT;S MASSIVLY STRONG!" yeaaah good luck winning that one in court.

I don't think that's gonna be the case and yeah most likely this is more a "ok so if you partner with us you're not to spend your entire time telling the world what an aweful buncha puppy eaters we are" (and frankly if your entire youtube schtick is "GW is literally EVIL" you proably shouldn't be accepting partnerships with them anyway) so yeah not too big a deal. that said, as with any legal agreement, people should read over this carefully, think and possiably even consult their lawyer before signing

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





BrianDavion wrote:
drbored wrote:
This is for SPONSORED content creators. In other words, they're likely to have a much closer relationship with GW if they sign the contract, moreso than the standard reviewers that may receive advanced copies of games/books/boxes.

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


playing devil's advocate the only way to prove disparagement vs defamation would be to fight a costly court battle. So I could see this being a cause for worry if a review site said "sadly space marine codex tenth edition just isn't very strong" and GW was like "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IT;S MASSIVLY STRONG!" yeaaah good luck winning that one in court.

I don't think that's gonna be the case and yeah most likely this is more a "ok so if you partner with us you're not to spend your entire time telling the world what an aweful buncha puppy eaters we are" (and frankly if your entire youtube schtick is "GW is literally EVIL" you proably shouldn't be accepting partnerships with them anyway) so yeah not too big a deal. that said, as with any legal agreement, people should read over this carefully, think and possiably even consult their lawyer before signing


GW isn't going to waste money on a costly legal battle if someone says a codex is meh.

But yeah, like you say, if you're worried about it, just don't sign it. This is an argument between entitled babies that want to poop all over free stuff they get.
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

BrianDavion wrote:

aren;'t the content creators animators etc and not youtube reviewers? given that it's not nesscarily a big deal. I tend to agree with the idea that this is more a reaction to things like Duncan setting up his own youtube channel, which GW might be justified to feel a little used over..

also a leak from a non-approved source I doubt would qualify "in court"


While not familiar with British NDA civil procedure, in the US the argument could be made. And, this is being sent to youtube reviewers and anyone else who gets GW's early release samples.


BrianDavion wrote:

Makes more sense for them to base it under the laws of the UK TBH. thats presumably where the bulk of their lawyers are based


I'll admit I'm unsure of that, they seem to have plenty of lawyers in the US, from the number of suits they file. Some countries prohibit their citizens being under contracts who's governing laws are outside their legal system, and in the US, California used to have rules favoring the plaintiff in this sort of thing, though I'm unsure if this is still the case


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


Your looking at the wrong clause, drbored. Look at 4.1.1, which does state that they will not, in any way, reduce the amount of business GW does.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/23 20:45:15



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Forget it Jake, It's Spikeybits.


He doesn't waste an opportunity to badmouth GW at the drop of a hat.

TLR

There's no story here.



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. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 BaronIveagh wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

aren;'t the content creators animators etc and not youtube reviewers? given that it's not nesscarily a big deal. I tend to agree with the idea that this is more a reaction to things like Duncan setting up his own youtube channel, which GW might be justified to feel a little used over..

also a leak from a non-approved source I doubt would qualify "in court"


While not familiar with British NDA civil procedure, in the US the argument could be made. And, this is being sent to youtube reviewers and anyone else who gets GW's early release samples.


BrianDavion wrote:

Makes more sense for them to base it under the laws of the UK TBH. thats presumably where the bulk of their lawyers are based


I'll admit I'm unsure of that, they seem to have plenty of lawyers in the US, from the number of suits they file. Some countries prohibit their citizens being under contracts who's governing laws are outside their legal system, and in the US, California used to have rules favoring the plaintiff in this sort of thing, though I'm unsure if this is still the case


Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote:

Importantly, the big clause that everyone is upset about, 4.1.7, is a "Defamation Clause" - don't lie/slander about stuff. It is NOT a "Disparagement Clause" - don't say anything negative, even if true.

In other words, this is a big nothing burger and I encourage mods to just shut this down before misinformation spreads.


Your looking at the wrong clause, drbored. Look at 4.1.1, which does state that they will not, in any way, reduce the amount of business GW does.


Google the definition of a "Restricted Customer", it doesn't mean what people think it means.

And, again, you're only going to sign this if you think it's a good deal for you and your review business and you want to get free review copies of things. Being SPONSORED also means that on youtube and in online articles, you will likely have a thing in your video/article that says "THIS IS A SPONSORED ARTICLE" or somesuch, which will tell viewers what they need to know in terms of what to expect from that video/article.
   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

The 3 years period is pretty draconian. Most cases will not implant nore than 12 months of lockdown.
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Gathering the Informations.

Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...

   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Can someone explain why this is bad or something. All I'm reading is "don't leak our stuff if you work for us".
Not spikeybitz, I'm not reading whatever clickbait trash they've done this time.


They're fairly accurate in this case. Effectively, if you were to give a GW product a negative review, they can sue you for breach of contract. You also cannot earn money on your youtube channel, regardless of what the law might say, without being in breach of contract.

...well, they may want that to be true, but that's not the case. Contracts don't supersede the laws, and that's what's usually called an unenforceable clause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Kragan wrote:
The 3 years period is pretty draconian. Most cases will not implant nore than 12 months of lockdown.


It is, yeah. All of it kinda reads as "why would I want to sign this, again?" to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/23 21:53:39


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Kanluwen wrote:
Curious if part of this is a reaction to things like FLG, who sell mats that just so happen to always be in the size that purportedly they pushed for with GW in playtesting...



I assumed the size change was more a result of GW's Kill Team/Warcry mats, since the new table sizes are scaled to those.

FLG certainly had advanced word the change was coming, but scaling down isn't nearly as hard for companies to adapt to than scaling up would be.
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 Albertorius wrote:

...well, they may want that to be true, but that's not the case. Contracts don't supersede the laws, and that's what's usually called an unenforceable clause.


Actually the clause is completely enforceable, as while, you may have the right under the law to do so, this enters you into a contract with GW that says you won't.

 Albertorius wrote:

It is, yeah. All of it kinda reads as "why would I want to sign this, again?" to me.


Well, the general idea is that you get advance copies of GW's products so that you can have day 1 reviews ready to go. But 4.1.1 makes that more than a bit absurd, and their track record on actually delivering from their end sucks ass.


Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Oh goody, is this the outrage thread? They're always fun for the next 30 pages of people flinging at each other over unimportant things.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Lord Kragan wrote:
The 3 years period is pretty draconian. Most cases will not implant nore than 12 months of lockdown.


It's part of a larger 'Sponsorship' contract.

In other words, the intended recipient is likely being offered to sign on for 3 years of reviewing or making videos/articles about GW product and this NDA is here to make sure they don't leak information. It could, for all we know, be the NDA that playtesters get in order to playtest things ahead of time and do reviews on them. In order to organize those things, GW may need to make sure they don't leak any confidential stuff well ahead of time.

Put even more obviously: we know NOTHING about the rest of the intended recipient's contract or deal they could be getting from GW. For all we know, 3 years could be a super good deal for them getting a GW sponsorship, and there could be plenty of perks that we know NOTHING about, because all we have is this confidentiality contract.

At the end of the day, the INTENDED RECIPIENT (have I said that enough?) will likely not sign this if they think it's a bad move for their business, and would likely want to discuss the terms of this contract and other things with their own lawyer.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: