Switch Theme:

SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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

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


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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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 es
Fresh-Faced New User




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

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


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




NE Ohio, USA

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

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


Why should smaller companies enjoy more protection than larger ones?

   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Because otherwise not GW bad.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Grot Snipa





Atlanta, GA

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


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

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




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


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

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

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




On the Internet

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

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




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




New Jersey, State of Perfection

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

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

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

This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

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

Never heard of that one.
   
Made in nl
Tail Gunner



Old Francia

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Never heard of that one.


Just found it on an archive. "Eagle Ordinary"
   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




United Kingdom

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


Eagle Ordinary? IIRC not all of them went to work for GW, they did Vhane Glorious then left GW.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

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


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

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

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 17:04:44


 
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






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

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
Stealthy Grot Snipa





Atlanta, GA

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


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





Bristol (UK)

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




On the Internet

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

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

That said, we do need a Warhammer Animations channel.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/17 19:33:28


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Caradman Sturnn wrote:

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


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

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

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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



Old Francia

Slipspace wrote:


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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





Bristol (UK)

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

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



Old Francia

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

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

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

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/18 14:37:45


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




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

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

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


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

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





Bristol (UK)

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

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

Small animations flying below the radar doesn't mean animations should beyond copyright law.
   
Made in nl
Tail Gunner



Old Francia

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/05/18 15:38:00


 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

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

Unnoticed content isn't protected, at all.
So no, I don't see anything to formalise, let alone needing a reason to justify not doing it.
   
Made in us
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Right behind you.

Wait, seriously $20k a month?
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

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



Old Francia

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

I don't see why it would.

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

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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/18 16:12:48


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: