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 us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

Karol wrote:
I'd like you to stop posting abject nonsense which portrays you or others as being entitled to something that doesn't belong to you and which advocates for changes to enable that. You aren't entitled to your opinion.

Really you think in order to have an opinion people have to explain why they are suppose to be allowed to have one ? Well how about this one. The good armies and the bad armies, and the armies that GW does not fix, all cost money, same with their rule , the rule updates etc. You don't get a bad army for free, you don't get paints to paint it for free. you don't get a pass to not pay for table time at the store just because your army is bad and you have a much higher chance to lose. And if they cost similar money, then what you get out of them should also be similar. If bad army costs 100$ and a good army cost 1000$, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. Pay 100$, get 100$ expiriance. But if you pay 700-800$ and your army does not work, well then I think that people are very much entitled to voice their concern about the state of things. Specially if the state does not get fixed.

If Hyndai produced a car that would just not work, then just because people driving other models of Hyundai cars or BMWs are happy, it doesn't remove the right of the Hyundai owners to be rather upset about the state things. Specially if Hyundai way of fixing the problem, was something kin to hook up a horse to pull it or concentrate on making the hood more artsy, instead of focusing on the driving.


I'm really not understanding what point you're trying to make here or what any of this has to do with anything?

All I can say is that I will not being satisfying your wish.
Really, my unanswered question sums it up well, it's not a matter of accepting but of understanding. Now, if that is absent, how is this exchange supposed to be anything other than a constant repeat of our convictions. Ironically as I see it, we both are compelled to post them over and over again. Despite our differences, we're alike in some ways.


The difference here is that I'm actually supporting my convictions with an actual argument - at best you are simply restating that you "believe xyz" to be true and that you're "no lawmaker" but you have an approach that you think will work if someone else figures it out for you, and at worst you're simply declining to debate any evidence-based arguments against your stance. If you are making any sort of evidence-based argument to support your stance, its being lost on myself and evidently a lot of other posters here, as I am thankfully not the only one who is finding your arguments incoherent, unclear, nonsensical, wishy-washy, etc. Basically what Voss said:

"It doesn't at all. It makes it clear that you aren't will to explain what your ideas are, or engage in an actual discussion about them.
It doesn't seem like self-interest as much as just being argumentative for the sake of it. Reiterating that you can't or won't explain makes it fairly pointless."

Ideas aren't sandwiches.
If two people have a sandwich each, and they exchange them, they still leave with a sandwich.
If two people have and idea each, and they exchange them, both leave with two ideas.


Neither the sandwich nor the idea analogy are accurate to what is occurring. GW is not receiving an idea sandwich from a fan in exchange for the fan borrowing GWs idea sandwich, its in fact a lopsided exchange because one person has an idea sandwich (GW), and the other person is taking a piece of it without giving GW anything in return. You could argue that GW might gain an idea sandwich from the content of what the fan creates with the piece of GWs idea sandwich - but its actually legally objectionable for GW to do so, and the fan can in fact sue GW if they were to do so. A more accurate analogy would be to say that one person has an idea, and the other person has nothing, and the person with nothing takes the idea and leaves to make a sandwich, while the person with the idea is left with just the idea.

And, honestly, I don't really understand why all the third party miniature provider should be ashamed. They're doing derivative work, exactly as GW did. Maybe they are the next GW, who knows?
As long as it's not recasting, is legit. The example of a Lamborghini painting is pretty clear.


Theres a difference between a third party miniature provider like, say, Dreamforge Games or Wargames Atlantic, who design minis according to their own concepts, artwork, and designs which can also be used for 40k - which is reflective of how GW got its own start (though I will note that the majority of the minis GW produced in its early days were *LICENSED* for D&D and other games/properties, so attempting to argue that GW did it too so others should be able to do so falls flat), and businesses that are producing minis that are very undeniably centered primarily on GWs miniatures, artworks, and concepts. One creates something new by drawing inspiration from something existing, the other one is parasitically attempting to profit off of someone elses work.

I've reiterated this point multiple times, I don't intend to remove all creators' right on intellectual creations, just to institutions leniency with regards to fan creation (that evidently already exists in practice) in a legislative manner. Now the exact conditions and terms will have to be described specifically in the legislation, in instances that it doesn't suffice experts should be available to form an opinion on a case by case basis.

In the end creators will lose some rights to the community, which I deem to be acceptable. Especially because for the most part it will be rights they don't seem to have much interest in exercising how. (Again the evidence of this abundantly available on the internet on this very for. Hell, part of my user name is lifted straight from a 40k videogame)

I used 'crumb cases' earlier to refer to the ventures I wish to protect, such a concept exists in certain Dutch laws. It's by no means a perfect comparison, but there is a reason why companies don't go against pieces of fan art why the have the practical ability and legal right to do so. In fact there must be creators out there who don't know that the instant they draw an imperial aquila they are committing a civil offence. I don't want that burden to exist, once again if properly demarcated in legislation.


And this is part of why your argument makes no sense. The existing system is just fine, you can draw an imperial aquila and GW isn't going to sue you (and if they did try to sue you every court in the US, UK, and the EU would throw the case out and possibly even award *you* damages for GWs predatory litigiousness for how unreasonable such a lawsuit would be), you can lift part of your username from a 40k game, and GW isn't going to sue you, etc. It doesn't require change, it doesn't require a creator losing rights to their own creation to "the community", etc. So either you're not comprehending how actual IP law works, or you're actually very much in favor of taking away a creators right to their own creation, because theres no other explanation for what you're proposing. GW isn't having these animations taken down because it feels like it or because it wants to be a bully, they're doing it because its utilizing GWs IP in a manner which is harmful and damaging to GWs own business operations - the fact that GW hasn't yet actually launched its own shows is irrelevant, the fact that they have been announced and are soon forthcoming is enough. Notice that even despite the removal of the animation there is still plenty of other fan-created content like videos, artwork, video game mods, fanfiction, etc. out there that aren't being removed.

From my observations I have determined that fan content is broadly a desirable phenomenon, an enrichment of the setting as it were. I also observe that fan content thrives in large numbers, this despite the fact that the owners of the settings have broad authority to deny much if not all fan content from existing, they do not opt to so in many cases, though.


If I create an IP and have a very specific view of what it is and what it shall be and where its going, and a passionate fan misunderstands my work and produces fan content which I find not only disagreeable to me but antithetical to the setting, then the fan content is not desirable and as the creator of the IP upon which this fan has built upon I have the right - and indeed an imperative - to remove it in order to preserve the integrity of the original work.

If I create an IP and have a very specific idea for a story that will be told in the IP, and a passionate fan takes it upon themselves to right that same/similar story and put it out into the world for mass consumption - whether paid or for free, then that fan content is not desirable to me as a creator because it has robbed me of my ability to tell that story as I envisioned it because any attempt to do so will be met with accusations of theft and/or misappropriation of the fan work - even if it was something that I developed independently and in advance of the fans publication - and in fact I can then be held liable and be forced to award damages to said fan if I proceed with my original intentions. The only thing that protects me, my work, and the broader setting from being so irreparably harmed and damaged is that IP law does provide me the legal recourse to protect myself from fans doing exactly that, and the mere existence of that potential threat of legal recourse likewise disincentives fans from pursuing such activities in the first place - allowing me to continue to operate safely in the process. This allows *me* as a creator to *actually* provide enrichment to the setting, whereas fan content potentially eliminates enrichment of it.

Even if none of that was true, the fact of the matter is that if I build a sandbox and fill it with sand, its my right to tell the other kids in the neighborhood that they can't play in my sandbox, nor can they build annexes onto my sandcastles, nor can they build their own sandcastles using my sand. Its *my* sandbox, and if I find it undesirable for other people to use it, then it doesn't matter that you have "observed" it to be broadly desirable - as a creator I can reserve the right to find it undesirable for others to use what I have created, and what you might see as "enrichment" I might see as stifling my own creativity and limiting my own ability to create more sandcastles using my own sandbox and my own sand (this is no doubt part of what caused GW to do away with WHFB and bring in AoS, but I digress).

And even as a non-creator, I often find fan works far and away from being anything approaching desirable. I often find fan works of franchises and IPs I truly enjoy to be low-effort, embarrassing, painful, etc. and distracting to my enjoyment of the actual official work. I simply choose not to engage with most fan content because I believe in peaceful coexistence so long as it isn't actively harmful to myself or others, but if your personal enjoyment of fan works justifies you arguing that fan produced content should be somehow protected or encouraged, etc. surely my own distaste and dislike for fan work would thus serve as sufficient justification for fan produced content to be suppressed and eliminated? The only actual fair arbiter of the resulting impasse, then, isn't to bring in a fourth party in the form of a council of independent wise men, but rather allowing the entity which created the original content to determine whether or not they feel the fan content actually does enrich their creation and is deserving of being allowed to exist. No amount of "expertise" will ever match a creators own judgement as to whether or not a piece of fan content is appropriate, enriching, or desirable to their own artistic vision or the intended message of a setting. An outside council can only interpret the content presented to them, if they interpret incorrectly then they have actually damaged and harmed the creator and their creation to the detriment of the entire fanbase - including the fan-creator who created the offending work and is now left with a false impression and understanding of the thing which they profess to love.

I see it as good thing if content creators were in a position in which their works are enabled to exist undisturbed, which is the status quo in many instances already, but not all as discussed in this thread. Doing this via democratic means that legislation with the precise demarcation of allowed content will be necessary.


OR - it should be left to the original creator and owner of the property to decide whether they welcome other kids playing in their sandbox. Again, this is what things like Creative Commons and OGL already exist for, they are a legal mechanism which exists to indicate "hey other kids, come build sandcastles with me in this sandbox I built and filled with sand!". Sometimes they come with stipulations, sometimes anything goes - again, thats all for the person who built the sandbox and filled it with sand to decide, not the person who wants to play in it. This is the *proper* fair and democratic means to resolving the issue, not forcing someone who wants to play in the sandbox they built for themselves to share it with others. Stealing someone elses property because a group of people democratically decided by a majority vote to allow it is still theft. Killing someone because a group of people democratically decided by a majority vote to allow it is still murder. feth, I'm not even what most people would consider to be a capitalist and even I think what you're proposing is wrong and unethical.

Fan creators do have a place where their works can exist undisturbed, and that place is "for free and not for profit."
The moment someone starts making money off of someone else's idea is the moment IP law should kick in. Till then? Draw or write whatever you want.


One distinction that needs to be made clear is that damages and "profit" exists beyond the realm of money. A creator can still be damaged and harmed by fan work even if the fan/work doesn't generate any profit or financial cash flows. A fan can still "profit" from fan work without cash flows being involved if they can derive some other non-monetary benefit from the work.


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
Exalted Beastlord




Gotcha, it's this exact point that clashes with my sense of fairness and view of good policy, there should be an undisturbed environment for fan content to exist. I can't state my core position any more concise. This apparently disgusts may of my fellow participants here but it is my view in earnest and I do not feel tempted to readjust them by the given arguments.


'Fairness' is apparently losing something in translation here. Because the way you use it, the original content creators lose (money, time control) and 'fan' copycats/exploiters are granted largess, just because.

It seems the polar opposite of fair, and detrimental to the act of creating anything, or even trying to create. It establishes an environment where it's better to live off of someone else's creations, rather than create your own and lose it to anyone who cares to trace over your work.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/19 21:41:21


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in nl
Tail Gunner



Old Francia

Chaos, at it core I simply do not share your absolutist views on intellectual creations, that's all, really, That is a pure opinion based in deeply held believes and desires.

If you don't think I have provided arguments than I guess I did not. in the same vein what you bring for arguments doesn't do anything for me.

One thing I will single out is that you finally acknowledged a case were fan content can exist were the all powerful content holder should not be able to smash it's hammer down on the little guy (the aquila example), that's heartening to know, actually. Now if only we could just slightly broaden the scope of those cases. If only...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Fairness' is apparently losing something in translation here. Because the way you use it, the original content creators lose (money, time control) and 'fan' copycats/exploiters are granted largess, just because.

It seems the polar opposite of fair, and detrimental to the act of creating anything, or even trying to create. It establishes an environment where it's better to live off of someone else's creations, rather than create your own and lose it to anyone who cares to trace over your work.

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/05/19 21:59:25


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Caradman, consider the situation where you allow free enterprise or regulated, but mandated, enterprise to be undertaken upon a persons IP regardless of that creators wishes. What is to stop the fan created content being superior? What happens when someone comes out with a better Warhammer than Games Workshop?

What happens when the fan content eclipses the original content? Do you then cap the fan content and say "you can only sell X copies and then nothing?"




What happens when big firms take over? When Disney ends up hiring 50 "independent fan content creators" so that they can sub-manage huge amounts of now free IP because its free for them to do so? Even mandated to be smaller or restricted they'd still do it.






I can see where you come from, but I think what you want is near impossible whilst society lives based upon our resources and skills. When things like Games Workshop aren't just hobbies but actual bread-on-the-table jobs for people. When Harry Potter allows an author to live comfortably and provide for themselves and their family.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.


So you sort of answered my post with an edit whilst I was writing it.

But still you've not really answered it, you've sort of said that it should be regulated, you've acknowledged the problem. But you've presented no real viable solution. Furthermore what happens when Astartes is followed by Xenos. Suddenly is Astartes allowed, but Xenos crosses the random fan-earnings-limit and suddenly one good fan creation prevents another. By which point you're just drawing a random line in the sand and allowing some and not others. It's not so much resolving the issue, but instead just kicking it down the road and imposing a rough value of allowed free enterprise on any created IP

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/19 22:05:09


   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Fairness' is apparently losing something in translation here. Because the way you use it, the original content creators lose (money, time control) and 'fan' copycats/exploiters are granted largess, just because.

It seems the polar opposite of fair, and detrimental to the act of creating anything, or even trying to create. It establishes an environment where it's better to live off of someone else's creations, rather than create your own and lose it to anyone who cares to trace over your work.

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.

But its still not clear why they should accept any loss, nor why there should be any. You don't answer these questions, and they're really basic to the problems you're proposing to create.

My imagination can draw a lot of lines, but I've no idea what you mean by a 'good degree' of protection for the original creator. Vague statements of intent aren't illustrative of what direction you'd go.
Take some actual real life examples, and I don't know if you'd protect them or not. So how do you deal with these:
The most popular (or common) type of NCIS fanfiction for quite a while was rape fics.
My Little Pony has a problem with Nazi fan art. Swastika cutie marks, unicorn superiority standing in for Aryan crap, etc.

Some authors make decrees about an absolute ban on fanfiction at all (GRR Martin is one, partially because of a previous experience of his when he wrote up the Githyanki in an early book, which were put together in the British Fiend Folio book by TSR (largely fan submissions) and George decided because it was published, he didn't own the IP anymore, because he's kinda a crazy man who doesn't understand things).


More generally, using art or concepts, to sell other products. That the creators may or may not approve of. Are recasters suddenly OK under your system? (Cheap copies of actual products?) Is it OK if the proceeds are going to a non-profit? What if its a bad one? (assign a theoretical creator some politics, assume the fan wants to donate to the opposite of that)

Actually draw some actual lines so you're taking an actual position rather than just musing aimlessly. 'limited domain,' 'good protection,' etc are all functionally meaningless.
Overread has a good example: companies like Disney, Activision, Hasbro, etc can and will start farming 'fan creators' to get around restrictions- how would a 'democratic body' even begin to deal with that? They don't even have to own them to start with (though that's a possibility too), they can just buy them up when they're worth 'enough')

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/20 02:42:35


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




What was SODAZ using to make their videos? Was it source filmmaker? That's what it always reminded me of. Not sure how the legalities for that kind of content would work.

Because while the IP might be GW's isn't the program used Valves?

I don't know, I know nothing about this kind of thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/20 03:59:48


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

Jarms48 wrote:
What was SODAZ using to make their videos? Was it source filmmaker? That's what it always reminded me of. Not sure how the legalities for that kind of content would work.

Because while the IP might be GW's isn't the program used Valves?

I don't know, I know nothing about this kind of thing.

The program is merely the medium. If I did an oil painting of Cato Sicarius and sold prints of it I'd be infringing on their IP even though they don't sell oil paintings nor own the means to produce them.
   
Made in pl
Imperial Agent Provocateur




Poland

Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.

It's not the same, though. Nobody stops you from making your own setting inspired by 40k. People turning making fanart into career is something different.
Also, I wish these Eastern European producers would actually make something for us that is inspired by 40k that we could affordably play instead of making GW knockoffs. Maybe even in 15mm or 20mm or 6mm.

Removed - BrookM

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/20 12:41:52


   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.

It's not the same, though. Nobody stops you from making your own setting inspired by 40k. People turning making fanart into career is something different.
Also, I wish these Eastern European producers would actually make something for us that is inspired by 40k that we could affordably play instead of making GW knockoffs. Maybe even in 15mm or 20mm or 6mm.

I have a friend who has really gotten into playing Apoc using 6mm models (all inch ranges are turned into cm as a rough conversion) and swears by it, so if they made a small scale game like the old Epic I'm sure it'd catch on with the right crowds.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





For all the people who think GW " offering " these people to work for them is done as a good thing, I wish I could see the world that way. Considering the canned statements they all give out this is simply them offering to " work " for them or get crushed, they won't say that however. It's all about being a shark with a smile these days.

Yeah sure GW can do whatever they want with their IP, but lets not say they are good for it, they are simply greedy sods, losing no money at all with these videos out there but not being able to stand anyone else getting recognition for them.

Unless you are telling me these video makers were somehow robbing from the poor little orphan boy GWs tills.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
For all the people who think GW " offering " these people to work for them is done as a good thing, I wish I could see the world that way. Considering the canned statements they all give out this is simply them offering to " work " for them or get crushed, they won't say that however. It's all about being a shark with a smile these days.

Yeah sure GW can do whatever they want with their IP, but lets not say they are good for it, they are simply greedy sods, losing no money at all with these videos out there but not being able to stand anyone else getting recognition for them.

Unless you are telling me these video makers were somehow robbing from the poor little orphan boy GWs tills.


As noted earlier in the thread, Astartes person was making around $20K a month from patreon money generated by those supporting the creation of Astartes.

   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Make money off someone else’s IP, they’ll getcha.

It’s not rocket surgery.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

question is why there are still many that make money by creating STL files for models based on that IP

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 gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




United Kingdom

 kodos wrote:
question is why there are still many that make money by creating STL files for models based on that IP

Because GW hasn't gotten round to them yet.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

People making direct STL copies of stuff is definitely infringement.
In fact it's infringement that arguably hurts GW more than something like Astartes does.

I'm not at all surprised or angry when I see them taken down.
But there's so many and they're so niche they fly below GW's radar.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Caradman Sturnn wrote:

Obviously, for the so-manied-time. I'm open to a good degree of protection for the creations of the original content. I only propose a limited domain of undisturbed fan content to exist if certain terms met. Now comes the obligatory disclaimer that I don't know what the exact terms should be, really use your imagination for once, think about what harmless fan content constitutes, and fill in the blanks. In the end I intend tonreduce
whatever loss a content holder might experience to a minimum.


There are many problems here, but the main one is that I believe one side of the debate has outlined the problems in your position with reasoned examples but every time you respond it's always in really vague terms like "certain terms" being met or "use your imagination".

You've said above that you want to reduce content-holder loss to a minimum, which is perhaps a useful starting point to define what we're talking about. One problem then becomes what you mean by loss. We could argue there are maybe three areas to consider (I'll assume we're talking about GW here for the sake of examples but it equally applies to other IP creators):

1. Financial loss. Pretty self-explanatory - the fan work is in competition with something GW sells or intends to sell.
2. Reputational loss. The fan work goes against GW's core values in some way. Obvious examples are things people generally find abhorrent such as racism, misogyny etc, but could also apply to the political views of a creator.
3. Thematic loss. Bit of a vague definition here, but I'm thinking of something like somebody producing an epic romantic saga set in the 40k universe while GW has decided to double-down on the grimdark so don't want that diluted by other works that aren't fully on-theme.

In all cases we also need to consider the possibility that the loss could be due to things GW is planning to do but has not yet done - projects or ideas they have in the pipeline.

First of all, the "minimum loss" in each case is clearly zero so I assume you don't literally mean that. What you probably mean is something like "minimum loss while still allowing fan-created works of some type". Yet again we come back to who decides that. Even in terms of financial loss it's not always easy to quantify, especially if you take into account projects that may not have been released to the public yet. How is a panel of experts better at deciding that than the company itself? They may not even be in full possession of the facts. You also haven't said when a creator becomes big enough for these rules to apply versus still being seen as the plucky little guy. When, for example, did GW flip from being a small-medium creative studio fully in control of their IP to an evil corporation who must now submit to the will of this mysterious panel of experts? That's a genuine question, not rhetorical. Is it based on audience size (how are you measuring that), annual turnover, annual profit, number of employees?
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




2. Reputational loss. The fan work goes against GW's core values in some way. Obvious examples are things people generally find abhorrent such as racism, misogyny etc, but could also apply to the political views of a creator.


How the hell can you have w40k without racism and why would GW be against it in related materials? The whole core of the system world building is about telling the story of humanity defending itself from the enemy outside.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

You're allowed to hate aliens because they're aliens. They're aliens, it's fine.
Hating black people because they're black; not so much.
Particularly in the last years GW has been sure to make sure they're race and gender inclusive. Not only have they put out a public statement declaring as such, they make sure to showcase female figures and/or those painted with darker skin tones.
So it's reasonable to conclude racism is not a value they want associated with themselves.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.

Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).

Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Grot Snipa





Atlanta, GA

Karol wrote:
2. Reputational loss. The fan work goes against GW's core values in some way. Obvious examples are things people generally find abhorrent such as racism, misogyny etc, but could also apply to the political views of a creator.


How the hell can you have w40k without racism and why would GW be against it in related materials? The whole core of the system world building is about telling the story of humanity defending itself from the enemy outside.



...humanity defending itself from the enemy outside."

Right. There's a huge difference between the Imperium of Mankind fighting off waves of tentacled, many-mouthed alien horrors whose sole purpose is to subjugate and destroy the human race, vs. say, the Astra Militarum committing genocide on a planet populated largely by Black people. Which scenario do you think would actually ever be depicted in an official GW publication? I can tell you for sure it's not the second one.

One of the key points of the entire Warhammer 40,000 universe is that at it's core, one of the main plot points is "the Imperium of Man vs the Outside Other" - meaning the influences of Chaos, the Warp, and all the xenos entities that are constantly waging war against Mankind.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/20 15:15:29


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyrands as 2 different races)

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
Exalted Beastlord




 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyrands as 2 different races)


It could... but... not really? That has been a real problem with fantasy settings for decades now, but various companies are starting to move away from it (sometimes in awkward ways).

But in sci-fi and sci-fi adjacent settings (ie, 40k and star wars), those aren't used as adjacent, let alone related, concepts. 40k at its worst barely acknowledged the modern concept of racism exists, and focused on actual aliens (and almost exclusively hostile aliens). If its actually a linguistic translation problem, someone needs to tell the companies involved to keep a sharper eye on their translators, because that isn't even vaguely what's meant.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

Hence the "most bloody regime imaginable" in the standard 40k intro, plus all the examples of stupid dogmatism and backstabbing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/20 15:38:04


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Mr. Grey wrote:



...humanity defending itself from the enemy outside."

Right. There's a huge difference between the Imperium of Mankind fighting off waves of tentacled, many-mouthed alien horrors whose sole purpose is to subjugate and destroy the human race, vs. say, the Astra Militarum committing genocide on a planet populated largely by Black people. Which scenario do you think would actually ever be depicted in an official GW publication? I can tell you for sure it's not the second one.


I don't really understand the difference, if they break the law or oppose the Imperial Authority then of course they would be destroyed. Why would something like skin colour somehow offer protection from Imperial Retribution or Law?

The Shaffers Last Chancers, I read about, had a one member who was an ex member of a Venusian all female Imperial Guard regiment and it was judged to be breaking imperial and church law for adding unacceptable elements in to the imperial cult. If sex doesn't protect you from the prosecution, then skin colour wouldn't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:
In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

/quote]

Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/20 15:42:06


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Tyran wrote:
In addition, GW makes it clear that the IoM are not really the good guys, they are not meant to be praised or imitated.

Hence the "most bloody regime imaginable" in the standard 40k intro, plus all the examples of stupid dogmatism and backstabbing.

I feel they need to work some of that back into the codexes and core books since it's so easilly missed if you're newer to the game and don't touch Black Library's stuff. That said Fifteen Hours does a good job showing how the Imperium shoots itself in the foot and should be up there on the reading list.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

Karol wrote:
Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


There are no good guys, and if there were the Tau would be them (but not really because they still are an extremely aggressive empire).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/20 15:50:36


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Yeah the Tau would be the villains in any other setting as an expansionist oppressor-state.

The real Good Guy is Slaanesh, for through Her pleasure can be found in all things. If suffering is inevitable, might as well learn to enjoy it.
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Tyran wrote:
Karol wrote:
Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


There are no good guys, and if there were the Tau would be them (but not really because they still are an extremely aggressive empire).

This. I actually appreciate this aspect of 40k as it doesn't let stuff get hidden under flimsy justifications like "the ends justify the means" or "hard men make hard decisions".
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Voss wrote:
 kodos wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Racism and speciesism isn't the same thing.
Species have biological differences, and those differences can be irreconcilable (e.g. Tyranids and Humans).
Races are made-up unscientific balderdash that have no real meaning save for an excuse to poke each other with sharp sticks and to justify oppression.


be aware that such thing can be lost in translation were the word for race means "species" (and you would refer to humans and tyranids as 2 different races)


It could... but... not really? That has been a real problem with fantasy settings for decades now, but various companies are starting to move away from it (sometimes in awkward ways).

But in sci-fi and sci-fi adjacent settings (ie, 40k and star wars), those aren't used as adjacent, let alone related, concepts. 40k at its worst barely acknowledged the modern concept of racism exists, and focused on actual aliens (and almost exclusively hostile aliens). If its actually a linguistic translation problem, someone needs to tell the companies involved to keep a sharper eye on their translators, because that isn't even vaguely what's meant.

well, GW has a history of bad translations and falling for "false friends" that find their way into other products because the people grew up with that and use it as they have learned it from GW
(famous one is with the German Warhammer books were Spear was translated as Speer, the German word for Javelin while Spear is actually Spieß and a lot of people grew up with this and it flew over into other settings as the translators of those learned it from those books)

the setting being Xenophobic and Species-ism and translated into racism as the other languages missing the words for it while the words for species and race are used interchangeable (so orks and elves become just another fantasy race) and racism in real live is there different as well (more about origin and culture)

so just don't get angry if non-native speakers are taking it as "racism" when Mankind hates Xenos in 40k

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 pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Tyran wrote:
Karol wrote:
Who are the good guys then? The orks? IoM is made out of humans, they oppose things that are not human, this automaticaly makes them the good guys and in the right.


There are no good guys, and if there were the Tau would be them (but not really because they still are an extremely aggressive empire).

No by definition a tau can not be considered good, the same way a bear or a dog can't be good. And in each moment where the choice is between camp 1 with humans, and camp 2 not humans. The camp 1 is right. For it to be different one would have to , I don't know hate the human race or something, and that is plain insanity considering people are humans.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: