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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
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.

But they based it on Judge Dread and other IPs, with AoS at least one can say it is wierd enough to be completly theirs. Why should GW had an adventage over other people, just because they could even legaly have private companies in the 80s? GW can keep their wealth, have their fans buy their stuff, they build a gigantic company and a market. Great for them and cross for the road, as we say it here. And now Kromlechs, Artels and other comapnies are going to make their models. And if people like those models, they are going to buy them. And I guess if GW wants to convince people to not buy from those companies , then I guess they are going to have to make better models, that people like more. We ain't some south american hell hole here, no table top gaming version of AT&T is going to force us to obey, and if they want, they sure as hell can come and try. They can get the polish or russian court expiriance first hand.

$20,000 a month means he's making serious money with something that wasn't his to use (the 40k IP).
It's little different to someone stealing your car and running an Uber business at night.
It was at night so you weren't using it anyway, no harm done right?

I still fail to see the issue even with your updated wording.
Just because something isn't worth the time to enforce doesn't mean it should be defacto legal.
Most litterers never get caught or fined, does that mean littering should be legalised?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
$20,000 a month means he's making serious money with something that wasn't his to use (the 40k IP).
It's little different to someone stealing your car and running an Uber business at night.
It was at night so you weren't using it anyway, no harm done right?

Once again, I believe him using the 40k universe should not be of any legal relevance, it was a good decision for him, he should be free to use it and that's all.

I will reiterate that there is no point in further arguing this subject as our positions on this are clear an we are unlikely to be persuaded by one another.

I still fail to see the issue even with your updated wording.
Just because something isn't worth the time to enforce doesn't mean it should be defacto legal.
Most litterers never get caught or fined, does that mean littering should be legalised?

Because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, because the vast majority of fan content constitutes an enrichment for the setting? As well being impressive displays of skill, creativity and dedication in their own right? None of this applies to litter, I might add.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's little different to someone stealing your car and running an Uber business at night.

Well, it is completely different, given that at the most basic level one constitutes a criminal offense and the other a civil offense.

I thought we got past 'YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A CAR' like fifteen years ago. Copyright infringement literally isn't theft, the concerns and ramifications are different. There's certainly a lot more leeway when it comes to copyright infringement- there's no 'fair use' doctrine for stealing cars, for example.

But in my example they give the car back.
It may not be a perfect anaology but I feel it gets the point across. You're using something that isn't yours (and is in fact owned by someone else). You're also profiting from it.

40k isn't an open source program, it should be up to the owners whether they want their world to be open source or not.
"I like what people produce with it, so it should be legal to use someone else's property" is an incredibly selfish and entitled viewpoint, imo.

Because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, because the vast majority of fan content constitutes an enrichment for the setting? As well being impressive displays of skill, creativity and dedication in their own right? None of this applies to litter, I might add.

So your argument is that it's perfectly, absolutely ok for fans to create whatever content they want based off of existing IP's without any legal repercussion whatsoever, correct?

Let's take it a step further then, and create a scenario where someone creates fan content that features Noise Marines sexually assaulting someone. And maybe some kid's mom stumbles across this content and knows that her kid has some miniatures from this hobby company. What happens then? Games Workshop has a BIG problem, because now their IP is associated with this content whether or not they want it to be. Regardless of what you think, I guarantee that GW does not want to be thought of as "that company that's ok with hardcore sexual violence" if they don't shut down this hypothetical fan content.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
"I like what people produce with it, so it should be legal to use someone else's property" is an incredibly selfish and entitled viewpoint, imo.

I said wanted to cease this discussion but I feel compelled to respond once again.

For one, it is not just 'I', ideally an independent panel of experts should judge on a case to case basis whether or not a piece of content is legally permissible. Again the vast majority of fan content is already tolerated so such a panel would only be called upon in borderline cases. Also again , I am not a legislator so I can't give you the specific duties or processes of the panel, just that it should guarantee some form of independent oversight.

I see selfish and entitled motives only by those arguing that fan content such as Astartes should be impermissible because a setting needs to be within the iron grasp of a creative company.

kirotheavenger wrote:But in my example they give the car back.
It may not be a perfect anaology but I feel it gets the point across.

It's a bad analogy because the basis for why stealing a car and using it without permission is wrong- and illegal- has no direct corollary in IP. They're completely different things. Using IP does not deprive anyone of a physical possession; it's parallel reuse of an abstract idea. It's an extremely important distinction and they're treated totally differently under the law.

To address it anyways: If you're taking my car at night, I can't use it if I have an emergency. I have no guarantee that you will return it. I have no guarantee that you won't damage it. You'll incur wear and tear as you use it. There is liability involving my property being used by you. The fact that you're using it for Uber is irrelevant- the laws that protect my physical property against your use are based on the risk you pose to my property and my ability to use it, and have nothing to do with what you're using it for. Whereas with intellectual property nothing is being taken, only reproduced, and your exact intentions with my IP matter a lot.

And for what it's worth, I don't agree that anyone should be free to profit off copyrighted material, and the Astartes guy was clearly doing it as a commercial venture (see: Patreon); but comparing it to theft is completely wrong.

Mr. Grey wrote:Let's take it a step further then, and create a scenario where someone creates fan content that features Noise Marines sexually assaulting someone. And maybe some kid's mom stumbles across this content and knows that her kid has some miniatures from this hobby company. What happens then? Games Workshop has a BIG problem, because now their IP is associated with this content whether or not they want it to be. Regardless of what you think, I guarantee that GW does not want to be thought of as "that company that's ok with hardcore sexual violence" if they don't shut down this hypothetical fan content.

I want to point out that under current copyright law, there are fair use protections specifically for use of copyrighted material in ways that cause damage to the copyright holder- criticism, for example.

The amount of material used, its nature (transformative or not), and intentions (commercial vs non-commercial) are what matters in a copyright infringement suit, not whether the use of copyrighted material makes the copyright holder look bad. No US court has ever ruled against a work of transformative, non-commercial fan work, and there's plenty of horrendous (and/or explicit) fan fiction that reflects poorly on the IP.

 Mr. Grey wrote:
So your argument is that it's perfectly, absolutely ok for fans to create whatever content they want based off of existing IP's without any legal repercussion whatsoever, correct?

Let's take it a step further then, and create a scenario where someone creates fan content that features Noise Marines sexually assaulting someone. And maybe some kid's mom stumbles across this content and knows that her kid has some miniatures from this hobby company. What happens then? Games Workshop has a BIG problem, because now their IP is associated with this content whether or not they want it to be. Regardless of what you think, I guarantee that GW does not want to be thought of as "that company that's ok with hardcore sexual violence" if they don't shut down this hypothetical fan content.

This is a reasonable question, the obvious answer is no.

I am not arguing that any person should be able to anything they want with an established setting owned by another party. I am arguing that with regards to fan content the legal tenor should weigh much more towards 'allow' than to 'deny'.

In my previous post I mentioned an independent panel that could act as judge in contentious cases, it might even be some form of judicial unit, just one that has the appropriate expertise and clearance to make a meaningful conclusion.

I am actually coming around to the idea that an inhibition on the pecuniary gain with regards to the creative work of others is mostly desirable. Still artist doing commissioned pieces of a large variety of settings will prove practically impossible to halt.

I think everyone is overthinking GW's motives for this purchase. Honestly, I think GW probably just took their cues from Kim Mitchell on this one:

Might as well go for sodaz
It's better than slander, it's better than lies
Might as well go for sodaz
Nobody hurts and nobody cries
Might as well go for sodaz

What was GW really supposed to do here? Let a guy make 20k a month using their IP? That doesn't seem fair.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

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)

Irrelevant. A forgery made with love, care, and dedication is still a forgery. The creator of the original still has a right to protest the existence of the forgery no matter how well intentioned or dedicated the bootlegger was in creating it.

5. (Also my appraisal) GW is not noticeably inconvenienced or harmed by said content.

Thats not for you to decide.

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.

Just because your perspective is "different" doesn't mean its valid or ethical.

But they based it on Judge Dread and other IPs

Sourcing inspiration from something doesn't constitute theft or infringement. 40k pulls a lot of inspiration from a lot of things, just as a lot of the things that 40k pulls inspiration from were in turn inspired by other things. A lot of people have "flanderized" the idea that GW is heavily inspired by other works into this idea that GW wholesale ripped off everything under the sun and copy-pasted gak into their own setting with complete disregard for IP law, etc. While there are some things that they definitely went too far on (Michael Moorcock would like to have a word, I'm sure) and which they probably would not have gotten away with today given the greater visibility of the industry and nerd media/pop culture in general, for the most part this is more of meme and in actuality not really relevant. Adeptus Arbites may have started out as a Judge Dredd ripoff, but they make up one tiny small fragment of the broader lore and recent depictions have moved them slowly away from that original concept. While some aspect of 40k is inspired by Judge Dredd, the totality of it is not, and it stands alone as a fairly distinct work greater than the sum of its parts.

These creations, on the other hand, are pretty far and away a different case entirely. The Last Church is a *literal* 40k/Horus Heresy story that was converted into an animation. Astartes is literally presented as a 40k space marine doing 40k space marine things. These aren't the same as what you're trying to compare them to. These animations aren't "hey I was really inspired by Space Marines so I created my own universe with these power-armored genetically engineered super soldiers called 'Star Rangers'", they are "hey I really like Space Marines, so heres a video of Space Marines doing things" - and in the case of The Last Church it was literally a case of "Hey, I really like this story that this other dude wrote, watch these moving pictures I drew while I read it to you!" In the case of The Last Church, its particularly problematic, as its literally ripping off a story written by a guy who is not "a large wealthy organization" - Graham McNeill probably got a couple thousand dollars total in royalties to write that story, and he doesn't get a penny of profit from the guy who made The Last Church animation, whereas depending on the terms of the contract he might have made a hell of a lot more if GW made an official monetized film/tv adaptation of it. The existence of the fanimation actually jeopardizes Grahams potential to cash in on it, as GW could now be sued (assuming they didn't purchase the rights from the animator) if they themselves created an official film/animated adaptation of the story for infringing on the IP of the fanimation - it would be a contentious case, but other much larger companies than GW have literally had this same exact scenario occur to them, and in several cases the fan-creator actually won damages from the actual IP owner (though only under very specific/limited circumstances).

And now Kromlechs, Artels and other comapnies are going to make their models. And if people like those models, they are going to buy them. And I guess if GW wants to convince people to not buy from those companies , then I guess they are going to have to make better models, that people like more. We ain't some south american hell hole here, no table top gaming version of AT&T is going to force us to obey, and if they want, they sure as hell can come and try. They can get the polish or russian court expiriance first hand.

lol, those companies are ultimately a bunch of parasites that would collapse overnight if GW and 40k ceased to exist. It amazes me how so many in this "fandom" seem to think that 40k, etc. are self-created and self-perpetuating, i.e. the game, lore, and minis just will themselves into existence as if flowing from a well-spring or crowing from a tree, and GW just so happened to be the lucky corporate entity that found it and took ownership of it. Newsflash: if you want more stories and books, more minis, films, artwork, game rules, etc. etc. etc. you have to feed the beast. All of this takes money and resources, none of it comes from nothing, none of it is free. Every penny you direct to companies like Kromlech or Artel or whatever is a hit on GWs ability to provide you with more of the content that you profess to love, ultimately you're doing nothing but hurting yourself by supporting them. And no, if GW were to go out of business and the game were to disappear, the community would not somehow "keep it alive".

The only reason these companies, and others like them, haven't effectively killed GWs existence is because IP laws exist in the first place, even in Poland and Russia there are effective limitations on how far these companies can go before running afoul of these laws, and even if that wasn't the case the fact that the core markets for their products are in countries with very strict IP laws limits the amount of harm they can cause.

Once again, I believe him using the 40k universe should not be of any legal relevance, it was a good decision for him, he should be free to use it and that's all.
I will reiterate that there is no point in further arguing this subject as our positions on this are clear an we are unlikely to be persuaded by one another.

Its not his to use. He isn't entitled to it. Nobody is. Its not their creation, its not their setting, its not their story. Period. End of. Fan works existence largely by the grace of the owners of the IP, if the owner of the IP says "no, you can't play with my imaginary spaceships and genetically engineered supersoldiers, create your own instead" then thats their right to do so. Its unethical to suggest otherwise. The concept of "fair use" exists to protect what are legally deemed fair uses of copyright material, fan-works are only loosely covered by it.

Because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, because the vast majority of fan content constitutes an enrichment for the setting? As well being impressive displays of skill, creativity and dedication in their own right? None of this applies to litter, I might add.

Irrelevant. Theft is still theft, no matter how "enriching" or entertaining it might be to witness or how amicable the thieves might be. *eyeroll*

For one, it is not just 'I', ideally an independent panel of experts should judge on a case to case basis whether or not a piece of content is legally permissible. Again the vast majority of fan content is already tolerated so such a panel would only be called upon in borderline cases. Also again , I am not a legislator so I can't give you the specific duties or processes of the panel, just that it should guarantee some form of independent oversight.

Whats it like living in an idealized paradise where things work the way you want them to because you think they should work that way? Must be nice. A panel of elders is no more entitled to decide what constitues permissable ownership of someone elses property than you are as an individual.

I see selfish and entitled motives only by those arguing that fan content such as Astartes should be impermissible because a setting needs to be within the iron grasp of a creative company.

If I make the investment of resources and labor into creating the setting, let alone the *emotional* labor involved with it, why shouldn't that setting be in my iron grasp? What entitles you to step in and start meddling with the things that I created?

I disagree with so many of the assessments made in the post above that I'll decline to comment on them individually.

What I'll leave here is that everything I've posted so far is my sincere personal belief, yes I favour radical and unprecedented changes to how we appraise creative content, but always through the appropriate democratic channels. Anybody is free to disagree with me if they wish.

You can even accuse me of having unethical standpoints if you truly so desire, however, I doubt I'll agree with you on what constitutes ethical policy however.

PenitentJake wrote:
I think everyone is overthinking GW's motives for this purchase. Honestly, I think GW probably just took their cues from Kim Mitchell on this one:

Might as well go for sodaz
It's better than slander, it's better than lies
Might as well go for sodaz
Nobody hurts and nobody cries
Might as well go for sodaz

Attributing malice to everything GW does is just par for the course at this point.

At this point GW could save a kitten from a tree and someone would claim Roundtree probably put it up there first.

Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

When you start making money on someone else's IP is where it gets morally murky. And let'a be honest: they were making money on GW's IP.

Honestly I feel GW hiring them is a step in the right direction. We still need a GW animations youtube page, but considering where the compamy was even 5 years ago I'll take the small steps I can. Especially when the company is still run by Boomer era old men who are scared of the internet.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We still need a GW animations youtube page

I agree, but it's possible they've signed an "exclusive contract" with someone to distribute (HBO has been rumoured in regard to Eisenhorn, for example) so they can't just dump everything on there.

beast_gts wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
We still need a GW animations youtube page

I agree, but it's possible they've signed an "exclusive contract" with someone to distribute (HBO has been rumoured in regard to Eisenhorn, for example) so they can't just dump everything on there.

Quite possible. Then they need the animators to redirect people to a WHC animations page and make it easier to find stuff there.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.

Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.

"The artists need the patreons to continue to work and sustain themselves"
What gives them the right to make a living off IP that isn't there's?

This opinion honestly baffles me, it's just do incredibly selfish and entitled to believe that you have more right to someone else's property than the actual property owner.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
"The artists need the patreons to continue to work and sustain themselves"
What gives them the right to make a living off IP that isn't there's?

This opinion honestly baffles me, it's just do incredibly selfish and entitled to believe that you have more right to someone else's property than the actual property owner.

You ignored my first point. What gives GW more of a right to an idea than Moorcock or Tolkien or Giger? "Nothing" is the obvious and truthful answer. GW should, in your view, pay Moorcock for every time they use the Chaos Star he designed. Yet they don't, because these laws are not made to protect property, they're to protect large corporations' control over ideas.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.

Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.

Riiight. And as chaos0xomega pointed out HERE:

Sourcing inspiration from something doesn't constitute theft or infringement. 40k pulls a lot of inspiration from a lot of things, just as a lot of the things that 40k pulls inspiration from were in turn inspired by other things. A lot of people have "flanderized" the idea that GW is heavily inspired by other works into this idea that GW wholesale ripped off everything under the sun and copy-pasted gak into their own setting with complete disregard for IP law, etc. While there are some things that they definitely went too far on (Michael Moorcock would like to have a word, I'm sure) and which they probably would not have gotten away with today given the greater visibility of the industry and nerd media/pop culture in general, for the most part this is more of meme and in actuality not really relevant. Adeptus Arbites may have started out as a Judge Dredd ripoff, but they make up one tiny small fragment of the broader lore and recent depictions have moved them slowly away from that original concept. While some aspect of 40k is inspired by Judge Dredd, the totality of it is not, and it stands alone as a fairly distinct work greater than the sum of its parts.

People love to yell and scream "OMG Games Workshop DIRECTLY copied all of these ideas from other places!!", when in fact, that's pushing it a bit. Pull up the Tyranids section of the GW website and show me exactly where I can find an Alien xenomorph mini. Show me where on the GW website I can find a Dune sandworm or a "House Atreides" commander miniature. Go on. I'll wait.

Or maybe you'd like to produce evidence of a Games Workshop Judge Dredd mini. Oh... that's right. You can't. Because while Games Workshop may have drawn inspiration from all of these sources, over the past 30+ years of the company's existence they've kind of turned into this wonderful IP that we all love to use as our playground.

You may as well shout about Wizards of the Coast producing Magic cards with orcs, goblins, dragons, and wizards on them, and claim that they're ripping off Dungeons and Dragons(or Tolkien for that matter).

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.

Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.

Yes, GW has room to protect its IP because it took those ideas and themes and sufficiently changed them to be a new IP. The animators did not change them as they are still 100% in GW's IP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Note on the GW Juge Dreds minis: they had a license to produce them in the 80s.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Wait, seriously $20k a month?

At a minimum yes.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.

Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.

So;
-It was not wrong when GW did it, thus it is not wrong now.
-It was wrong when GW did it, thus it is also wrong now.

Where do you stand?

I'm not sure there is a clear legal direction as to how exclusive ownership of IP can be regulated. Rather than a criminal matter of right/wrong I think it's more of a civil matter of personal impact.

Consider a few examples...

As an artist, say I made original paintings of cars, quite specifically a Lamborghini, driving through the country side, which I sold to earn a living. What if anything do I owe the car manufacturer for having made this creative work based on their design?

Consider another case where I am an author and have created a series of sci-if novels set in a universe of my own invention called Dark Galaxy. What if someone else starts writing and selling stories clearly set in my universe, but titles the books a little differently and doesn't explicitly used the same terms of words?

What if I start my own car company called Rambourghini and sell cars that look like the real thing but are much cheaper quality?

All of these reflect different cases of relative impact and possible harm and I'm not sure IP law has anything clear cut to say about it.

In the first case - it would be pretty difficult to win a civil suit claiming that someone selling a painting of my car is causing me harm. If anything, it's free advertising. If the painting somehow depicted the car in a negative light, eg it was shown running over people, there might be a case but I'd be hard pressed to see how it wouldn't be allowed under creative expression.

In the second case, it's kinda close to what is going on with the videos. But the authors aren't using the IP's trademarked logos, aren't directly copying a visual art, aren't directly reproducing the text (ie stuff that falls under copyright), and so on. I think it would need to be a civil case and the initial author would have to claim that the other author was depriving them of money. Would be quite difficult.

The last example is the most likely to be illegal - and is perhaps clearly a case of counter fitting and intending to deceive a consumer and sell a fake product.

All of this gets murky when the product is available for free for the taking (ie youtube videos) and the artists revenue source is based on voluntary patron support.

Does GW have a right to seek a civil case for damages? Yes - but it would be pretty hard to prove that Astartes videos were someone how damaging the brand. I see these videos falling between the first two examples I presented.

The reality is that it would likely be too difficult to try and take on GW in a legal case. Easier to take the money and whatever deal they offer.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Wow, this thread is dog-gak. Of course creators should be able to use material from other people's IPs. That's the whole basis of fanfic, of fanart, etc. Anyone who wants to obliterate that is fooling themselves.

As mentioned above, it is the making money part that prompts debate. Though unlike some have asserted I seriously doubt anyone here has selfish motives.

Do you seriously think GW, having lifted from Moorcock, Hebert, Giger, and Tolkien among others to make their "original" IP, has any leg to stand on here? They've wholesale taken ideas from other creatives and profited massively off of them.

Furthermore, the artists need those Patreons to both continue the work and sustain themselves.

So;
-It was not wrong when GW did it, thus it is not wrong now.
-It was wrong when GW did it, thus it is also wrong now.

Where do you stand?

You fail to understand the concept of a derevitive work. Games Workshop took basic premises from thise creators and put a fresh spin on it to create a new IP. The animators took GW's IP wholesale and played in the sandbox (and in some cases used 3d assets they didn't own to animate with), not made a new sandbox with a couple scoops of GW mixed in.

Caradman Sturnn wrote:

 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.

Since your beliefs are entirely relative and context dependent, it doesn't shift your context? Your whole argument is based around the idea that small people are free to take whatever they want, but anyone over a certain threshold automatically loses any rights they have because of... unclear reasons.

So if they're not the 'small earner' you thought, I can't see how it wouldn't change your opinion.

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?

Either way, the answer is hard no. Intentionally creating a tiered & segregated legal system for different classes of people is extraordinarily messed up.

It reminds me a lot of one of the weird aspects of the fanfic community. They assume they've got free use of any character and story ever created by anyone, but if they use fanart, there's a huge backlash if they don't credit the artist. Its amazingly hypocritical, but no one involved seems to grasp the irony.

I'm the definition of a fan author that writtes a ton of stuff for Warcraft.

If I was making money with any of this stuff I would absolutely expect Blizzard to come down on me.

I'm all for bashing our trademark policies and how copyright is too invasive and many times used by big conglomerates to just stop everyone else to do something until they, maybe, in some point in the future, make it.

But is easy: As a fan you can do everything. But the moment you gain money with it, or it affects something the proper company is gonna do (All the nintendo fan remakes ,etc...), you are told to stop. Is not computer science.