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.

I was board, so I read through the GW IP legal junk to see what they expected, and I found this "Gem"

T-SHIRTS, CLOTHES, TATTOOS AND THE LIKE

As always, we cannot allow third parties to obtain money from our intellectual property.

This effectively means that you would either have to buy Games Workshop T-shirts or clothes or make them yourself. You would not be able to sell any t-shirts or clothes that you make.

This also means that we cannot allow tattoos as an acceptable use of our IP as a third party necessarily has to perform the "service."

The tee-shirt thing makes sense. But the tattoo bit is a little extreme. Also how on earth would you enforce this? Court ordered laser removal?

Dunno. Hard to enforce, but a company has to defend it's IP or lose it.

In all honesty, they aren't going to enforce the Tattoo thing in anyway, it's just a legal statement designed to protect themselves if they need to prove copyright in court.

If GW doesn't make the attempt to defend their IP, they can lose it legally if shown to not enforce their copyright. Considering that above all, their fluff is their strongest, most valuable asset, it makes sense that they defend it so much.

They can sue the tatoo artist.

That being said, just about every sports team has IP and isn't exactly telling folks they can't get team logo tatoos...

Still, this "failure to defend IP means you forfeit your rights" is pretty much BS. I know it has been argued over and over, but GW is pretty lazy and suffer bad PR because of it for their blanket statements.

Easier to err on the side of caution, I guess.

How about this:

CONVERSIONS

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

* Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

So they are telling me that if I buy a Basilisk and then buy a Howetzer model from the local model shop I can not switch the guns without breaking their IP. That is total bull gak, if I spend my hard earned money on something I should have the right to do what I want to it. If I want to hit it with a sledge hammer then glue the pieces on a Cabbage Patch Kid, that should be my business.

Thats more about mixing PP and GW stuff, as an example.

The company that made the model of the Howitzer do not own the IP on the Howitzer, just the copyright of said models sculpt.

I think.

Recklessfable wrote:Still, this "failure to defend IP means you forfeit your rights" is pretty much BS. I know it has been argued over and over, but GW is pretty lazy and suffer bad PR because of it for their blanket statements.

Wrong. Failure to defend a trademark in the United States (or the UK) can lead to loss of trademark rights.

GW is actually extremely liberal with their IP. You're allowed to convert stuff. You're allowed to make your own clothing w/their designs. You're allowed to paint their symbology onto various things.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The company that made the model of the Howitzer do not own the IP on the Howitzer, just the copyright of said models sculpt.

You're creating an artificial distinction. In order to combine kits, you have to use someone's copyrighted kit; you can't use the unprotected "ideal" of a howitzer. That said, anyone can create their own model of a howitzer if they want to.

Recklessfable wrote:They can sue the tatoo artist.

That being said, just about every sports team has IP and isn't exactly telling folks they can't get team logo tatoos...

Still, this "failure to defend IP means you forfeit your rights" is pretty much BS. I know it has been argued over and over, but GW is pretty lazy and suffer bad PR because of it for their blanket statements.

Easier to err on the side of caution, I guess.

Are you a lawyer? Failing to defend IP can definitely lead to forfeiture of your rights.

Conversions are a thin line but interesting. Whereas GW encourage you to convert many music artisits refuse to allow songs to be turned into ringtones (not as often with current technology). The argument was that they didn't want someone 'messing with their artform turning it into a seeries of beeps'. You could argue that GW allow it as you still have to pay them whereas music wise you didn't. Still intersting. Not helpful to the argument I guess though, sorry.

I think that GW don't mind their models being combined with models of real life items as said above anyone can make a model of something, and they even show these in WD from time to time, however they never show conversions including fantasy parts from competitors ranges (to my knowledge)

You think GW's IP protection is bad? You should actually read some of the stuff other companies have on the back of their boxes.

For example(taken from Clorox Disinfecting Wipes, underlined emphasis mine):

"Directions for Use: It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Not for cleaning or sanitizing sking. Don not use as a diaper wipe or for personal cleaning...."

Now, I knew it was dangerous, but apparently, it also seem to be illegal to wipe your arse with these? Maybe a lawyer could help me out with what they mean by the underlined part.

I expect it's part of liability coverage, and it wouldn't surprise me if as it contains cleaning chemicals, there are some federal regulations that govern how it's supposed to be used and disposed of, and so by including that on its box, Clorox is in the clear if someone does something improper or stupid with it.

As for the tattoo thing, that primarily means tattoo parlors are never authorized to have GW IP up on their walls as picture choices.

Copyright and Intellectual Property rights are very very different.

Fifty wrote:Copyright and Intellectual Property rights are very very different.

Only as different as a square is from a rectangle (or maybe from a parallelogram would be a better analogy).

Janthkin wrote:

Recklessfable wrote:Still, this "failure to defend IP means you forfeit your rights" is pretty much BS. I know it has been argued over and over, but GW is pretty lazy and suffer bad PR because of it for their blanket statements.

Wrong. Failure to defend a trademark in the United States (or the UK) can lead to loss of trademark rights.

GW is actually extremely liberal with their IP. You're allowed to convert stuff. You're allowed to make your own clothing w/their designs. You're allowed to paint their symbology onto various things.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The company that made the model of the Howitzer do not own the IP on the Howitzer, just the copyright of said models sculpt.

You're creating an artificial distinction. In order to combine kits, you have to use someone's copyrighted kit; you can't use the unprotected "ideal" of a howitzer. That said, anyone can create their own model of a howitzer if they want to.

''


I got a question -



I have something to point out - i've seen a ton of places such as Bols , and other places that have 40k tshirts and alike.

Is this okay?


Is it OK to create your own art of a space marine - and then put it up on a tshirt and sell?

As long as the art is your own design, not a copy cat.

Should be perfectly legal?

Lol no why would it be legal.

You are using / borrowing the concept of warhammer into your product .

as well as your definition of Space Marine. The warhammer marines? with the Emperor?

Or your genetic Marines In Space?

RogueMarket wrote:
I got a question -

I have something to point out - i've seen a ton of places such as Bols , and other places that have 40k tshirts and alike.

Is this okay?

Is it OK to create your own art of a space marine - and then put it up on a tshirt and sell?

As long as the art is your own design, not a copy cat.

Should be perfectly legal?

Sorry, I'm not going to offer any specific legal advice in a public forum.

Speaking in general terms, drawing your own impressions of someone else's copyrighted work creates a "derivative work." Only the copyright holder has the right to create/distribute derivative works.

Trademarks have to be defended. Copyright doesn't. I mean in the sense that you don't lose your copyright because you allow people to break it. You do lose your trademark.

Realistically GW are unlikely ever to find out someone got a tattoo.

LunaHound wrote:Lol no why would it be legal.

You are using / borrowing the concept of warhammer into your product .

You cannot copyright ideas, concepts or facts. You can only copyright the specific works or representations (ie books, models...) and this has certain limitations which is covered by fair use laws.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Dunno. Hard to enforce, but a company has to defend it's IP or lose it.

And leave it to Mad Doc to defend anything GW does, no matter how bizarre. Anything. If they started including a dead kitten with every box set, Doc would find some excuse for their behavior.

Some things never change....

TR

BrockSamson wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Lol no why would it be legal.

You are using / borrowing the concept of warhammer into your product .

You cannot copyright ideas, concepts or facts. You can only copyright the specific works or representations (ie books, models...) and this has certain limitations which is covered by fair use laws.

Thats why i specified to roguemarket, generic marines in space? or 40k type of space marines. or USCM for example.

all these are mainly to cover thier own asses.



"this tattoo on my arm? its just a winged blood drip, nothing special"


Edit: 2,900th post

Platuan4th wrote:"Directions for Use: It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Not for cleaning or sanitizing sking. Don not use as a diaper wipe or for personal cleaning...."

Now, I knew it was dangerous, but apparently, it also seem to be illegal to wipe your arse with these? Maybe a lawyer could help me out with what they mean by the underlined part.

Given that you're unlikely to want to sue yourself its mostly in the case of on other people, if you ran a daycare centre for kids and where using those a diaper wipes then you could be liable, although it would be the parents or state that brought a case rather than the manufacturing company - who themselves wouldn't give a crap (do you see what I did there?)

Trench-Raider wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Dunno. Hard to enforce, but a company has to defend it's IP or lose it.

And leave it to Mad Doc to defend anything GW does, no matter how bizarre. Anything.

Some things never change....

TR

Read the thread.

Trench-Raider wrote:If they started including a dead kitten with every box set, Doc would find some excuse for their behavior.

Stop flaming.

How does one prove that a company failed to protect their copyright? You have to prove they were aware of it being infringed.

They are the only company you see with crap like this:


Meh whatever, I love how folks like to as if you are a lawyer when they bloody well aren't either.

Trench-Raider wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Dunno. Hard to enforce, but a company has to defend it's IP or lose it.

And leave it to Mad Doc to defend anything GW does, no matter how bizarre. Anything. If they started including a dead kitten with every box set, Doc would find some excuse for their behavior.

Some things never change....

TR

This is obviously an inflammatory comment designed to insult Mad Doc Grotsnik, and it breaks Rule #1. If you're going to express yourself, please do it politely.

Thank you.

How about the 'Commissioned Artwork' by Goatboy over at Taco Bell?
Or the commission painting or conversion pieces people make and seel (like Inaniak's awesome stuff)?

Where does that all fit in?

Recklessfable wrote:They are the only company you see with crap like this:

Nah. Fox and Paramount will do the same thing.

BYE

The tatoo thing is a little OTT, but i can see why they do it.

Regarding the photo removal.... there are two sides to this situation.

You cannot just copy a photo from the GW website, or a scan from a magazine or something, and use that how you want to because they own the photo and can decide how it is used.

However... If you take the photo than YOU own the photo and can do with it as you see fit. You can take a photo of a GW model or box and use it for anything you want, whether it's personal use, using it to sell a GW product on a website/ebay or even selling the photo itself. There is nothing they can do about this. So when you see that removal picture it means one of two things.

Either the person/website/whatever copied a photo that GW owns in which case GW has the right to demand that the photo not be used for any purpose or by any person they don't approve, or the person used their own photo in which case GW has no legal standing in the matter at all but because the person doesn't know their own rights they comply with the GW request to avoid legal actions that can't actually be taken against them.

BrockSamson wrote:Regarding the photo removal.... there are two sides to this situation.

You cannot just copy a photo from the GW website, or a scan from a magazine or something, and use that how you want to because they own the photo and can decide how it is used.

However... If you take the photo than YOU own the photo and can do with it as you see fit. You can take a photo of a GW model or box and use it for anything you want, whether it's personal use, using it to sell a GW product on a website/ebay or even selling the photo itself. There is nothing they can do about this. So when you see that removal picture it means one of two things.

Either the person/website/whatever copied a photo that GW owns in which case GW has the right to demand that the photo not be used for any purpose or by any person they don't approve, or the person used their own photo in which case GW has no legal standing in the matter at all but because the person doesn't know their own rights they comply with the GW request to avoid legal actions that can't actually be taken against them.

You are oversimplifying to a great degree. While taking a picture yourself does create a new work, the owner of a protected (e.g., copyrighted or trademarked) work displayed in your picture may very well still have some rights.

For example, taking a picture of the front of a codex reproduces the copyrighted artwork of the front cover. While fair use covers some uses you might make of such a cover, it does not by any means grant you absolute rights with respect to the image.

Recklessfabl wrote:Meh whatever, I love how folks like to as if you are a lawyer when they bloody well aren't either.

While I am a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. As such, I tend to limit myself to negating factually incorrect representations about what the law says, particularly when people present them in absolute terms, or discussions about hypothetical situations.

Janthkin wrote:

RogueMarket wrote:
I got a question -

I have something to point out - i've seen a ton of places such as Bols , and other places that have 40k tshirts and alike.

Is this okay?

Is it OK to create your own art of a space marine - and then put it up on a tshirt and sell?

As long as the art is your own design, not a copy cat.

Should be perfectly legal?

Sorry, I'm not going to offer any specific legal advice in a public forum.

Speaking in general terms, drawing your own impressions of someone else's copyrighted work creates a "derivative work." Only the copyright holder has the right to create/distribute derivative works.

Not true. Anyone can create a derivative work, but distribution is limited as are the range of benefits. Which is how GW got by early on (Space Marines are not an original work - I'm still waiting for the Catholic Church to chime in on this one).

All of these laws are available for review online (at least for the United States).

I still find the "Conversions are an infringement" to be hillarious. It's the same type of argument that Blizzard uses when you sell your accounts for their games. "You can't do that! We own the game!"

But you don't own the liscenses once you sell them.