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.
Ha, as if it would get far enough for any of that to matter. Unless there's been a new update, he's already had his filing bounced back as, 'no, just no.' but with generous permission to fix his numerous failings and try again.
Actually it was bounced as 'the court requires that the papers be filed in person rather than by mail.' Supposedly he's out of the US atm so we likely will not see a refiling until such time as he is able to present himself at the court.
I will say that I entirely feel his frustrations, having formerly run Dark Reign, which used to be a 40kRPG fansite. Getting cease and desists that claimed that, among other things, that GW owned all the fan scenarios and characters that players produced, that any and all double eagle tattoos are their property, and that a man in a bassinet helm was clearly some sort of proto space marine (it actually was owned by Osprey) pretty much has me at the point that I hope to God that this guy comes back, properly files, and burns GW for their treatment of fans and other customers.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Ha, as if it would get far enough for any of that to matter. Unless there's been a new update, he's already had his filing bounced back as, 'no, just no.' but with generous permission to fix his numerous failings and try again.
Actually it was bounced as 'the court requires that the papers be filed in person rather than by mail.' Supposedly he's out of the US atm so we likely will not see a refiling until such time as he is able to present himself at the court.
I will say that I entirely feel his frustrations, having formerly run Dark Reign, which used to be a 40kRPG fansite. Getting cease and desists that claimed that, among other things, that GW owned all the fan scenarios and characters that players produced, that any and all double eagle tattoos are their property, and that a man in a bassinet helm was clearly some sort of proto space marine (it actually was owned by Osprey) pretty much has me at the point that I hope to God that this guy comes back, properly files, and burns GW for their treatment of fans and other customers.
The same can be said of disney and many other large companies. They feel forced to defend their property because it is too easy to lose control of it, hence the bizarre over-policing. Even video game companies are subject to the problem nowadays. Bethesda sued a much smaller company because they included the word "scrolls".
BaronIveagh wrote: Actually it was bounced as 'the court requires that the papers be filed in person rather than by mail.' Supposedly he's out of the US atm so we likely will not see a refiling until such time as he is able to present himself at the court.
He didn't even file it correctly? Bodes well, lol.
He didn't even file it correctly? Bodes well, lol.
It's not actually an uncommon mistake, as it can vary wildly between jurisdictions, the nature of the case, and even between judges in some areas. That's probably why they offered to allow him to resubmit the filing.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Ha, as if it would get far enough for any of that to matter. Unless there's been a new update, he's already had his filing bounced back as, 'no, just no.' but with generous permission to fix his numerous failings and try again.
Actually it was bounced as 'the court requires that the papers be filed in person rather than by mail.' Supposedly he's out of the US atm so we likely will not see a refiling until such time as he is able to present himself at the court.
I will say that I entirely feel his frustrations, having formerly run Dark Reign, which used to be a 40kRPG fansite. Getting cease and desists that claimed that, among other things, that GW owned all the fan scenarios and characters that players produced, that any and all double eagle tattoos are their property, and that a man in a bassinet helm was clearly some sort of proto space marine (it actually was owned by Osprey) pretty much has me at the point that I hope to God that this guy comes back, properly files, and burns GW for their treatment of fans and other customers.
If there is any 'karma' for this sort of thing, then I agree with you on this point.
I saw similar happening with a lot of sites around that time, especially when you heard of them being targetted with C&D letters, and it was deeply unpleasant. I was helping to moderate on a site that changed it's logo, name etc. Users were getting suspended (and threatened with suspension) based on photos of Finecast pictures, derogatory comments and other 'leaks', it was just a horrible atmosphere (and actually a feeling of fear, I'll be honest) for the people both on and running the sites. And I think ultimately that it ruined that community and what was supposed to be, after all, a 'fun pastime' for a lot of people!
I think it was the one thing, more than anything else, that turned me against GW as a company at that time. To essentially turn on your biggest fans like that I think was a disgrace, and I don't think was anything at all to do with 'protection of IP', which was often a statement used in justification of their actions. I think was just the work of a handful of overly entitled, borderline-sociopaths that were in a position of authority within the company and had an elevated opinion of their own authority, and then used that power on small groups of passionate fans who wanted to do nothing more than spend their free time in sharing that enthusiasm.
You'll notice that there haven't been (to my knowledge) repeats of this kind of action over recent years, and you have to think it has stopped with the apparent culture change within the GW hierarchy. I hope, for the communities of fans that have re-built or formed in the intermediary, that it continues in the same way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/16 07:29:40
You'll notice that there haven't been (to my knowledge) repeats of this kind of action over recent years, and you have to think it has stopped with the apparent culture change within the GW hierarchy. I hope, for the communities of fans that have re-built or formed in the intermediary, that it continues in the same way.
I think it had more to do with counter-suits and the spectacular failure that was the Chapterhouse case. GW's latest idiocy, not crediting writers, is going to bite them hard, as it's illegal under both EU and UK law, even as work for hire.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/16 19:59:56
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
You'll notice that there haven't been (to my knowledge) repeats of this kind of action over recent years, and you have to think it has stopped with the apparent culture change within the GW hierarchy. I hope, for the communities of fans that have re-built or formed in the intermediary, that it continues in the same way.
I think it had more to do with counter-suits and the spectacular failure that was the Chapterhouse case. GW's latest idiocy, not crediting writers, is going to bite them hard, as it's illegal under both EU and UK law, even as work for hire.
yeah, while I can ubnderstand them not putting a authors name on the cover as rules books are all collaborative, they don't even have a insert on the front page listing who where all involved in the books creation
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
You'll notice that there haven't been (to my knowledge) repeats of this kind of action over recent years, and you have to think it has stopped with the apparent culture change within the GW hierarchy. I hope, for the communities of fans that have re-built or formed in the intermediary, that it continues in the same way.
I think it had more to do with counter-suits and the spectacular failure that was the Chapterhouse case. GW's latest idiocy, not crediting writers, is going to bite them hard, as it's illegal under both EU and UK law, even as work for hire.
yeah, while I can ubnderstand them not putting a authors name on the cover as rules books are all collaborative, they don't even have a insert on the front page listing who where all involved in the books creation
I thought GW stopped crediting writers because of all the online anger directed at Mat Ward for his work on certain codex and army books.
Not just Ward, other authors also received a fair share of nasty comments, emails or in some really eerie cases, snail mail with questionable contents.
Are there any authors (in any field actually) that don't have to contend with aggressive and loon 'fans'?
Don't meant Misery type levels, but you'll read a fair amount of comments from various author to this effect.
I honestly don't think it's that at all, you don't get authors (or any type of creative) hiding their names because they are worried about back-lash. I think it's more to do with the GW rule system developments are formulaic and exist as minor re-iterations of the previous version (at least with new editions of 40k and the like) that there is very little, other than the odd new plastic kit' to actually 'create'. The design studio will come up with a new design for something, a bunch of the rules guys will sit around and discuss the best way to represent it and fit it in with the background that was again written by someone else.
That being said, there are obviously situations where this isn't the case, It is a little bit weird where there are genuinely new products (AoS for example), which have had a lot of involvement in the creative process. Is it the same for that game as well? I'm not sure how I would feel I was a 'lead' of rules development for that game and my name hadn't appeared anywhere, you have to think it would affect your employment prospects of you ever wanted to move on from GW and work for another miniatures company (as a lot of the GW creatives seem to do).
for me the accrediation bit thats odd isn't even the move away from a single writers name on the cover. To be honest I think thats not a bad thing as these books ARE collaborative projects. but there's also no additional credits on the inside.
looking at my 5th edition Grey Knights codex (just an example of one of the older 'dexes I was able to find) in addition to the "by Matt ward" at the front, it lists people with hobby design (maybe those are the actual guys who write the rules? layout people model photographers etc. so those who really care would know that there is a whole team devoted to it.
and even then then be honest it's not very good. compared to say,,, an old battletech field manual of mine, it lays out who wrote what, who did the eiditing the art the rules design etc. I can open that book and know EXACTLY who worked where. and Laud or criticize them approperatly. meanwhile with the 5th edition codex grey knights. "what does Hobby design mean"? does that mean they wrote the rules? and Ward's contribution was fluff writing? etc.
I'd very much like to see GW give credit where it's due. the folks writing for them deserve to be reckongized, for the most part they've done a decent job
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
You'll notice that there haven't been (to my knowledge) repeats of this kind of action over recent years, and you have to think it has stopped with the apparent culture change within the GW hierarchy. I hope, for the communities of fans that have re-built or formed in the intermediary, that it continues in the same way.
I think it had more to do with counter-suits and the spectacular failure that was the Chapterhouse case. GW's latest idiocy, not crediting writers, is going to bite them hard, as it's illegal under both EU and UK law, even as work for hire.
I don't think you're correct about that at all.
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"
Attribution is considered a Moral Right, which cannot be waived or transferred in the EU under the Berne Convention. UK allows them to be waived, but it must be voluntary. Actually voluntary, the company can't just decide it and tell you that you'd better go along with this. You can, however, use a pseudonym, and some countries require you to assert the right in order to force compliance rather than it being automatic. This varies to a fair extend across the EU and is why most game companies have that little page at the beginning with the contributors, even if they don't say what they wrote.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Attribution is considered a Moral Right, which cannot be waived or transferred in the EU under the Berne Convention. UK allows them to be waived, but it must be voluntary. Actually voluntary, the company can't just decide it and tell you that you'd better go along with this. You can, however, use a pseudonym, and some countries require you to assert the right in order to force compliance rather than it being automatic. This varies to a fair extend across the EU and is why most game companies have that little page at the beginning with the contributors, even if they don't say what they wrote.
The Berne Convention has nothing to do with the EU, and it absolutely allows for anonymous works.
The Berne Convention has nothing to do with the EU, and it absolutely allows for anonymous works.
One, the EU, under the TRIPS Agreement, agreed to uphold certain parts off Berne.
Two, it allows for the Courtesy of Anonymity where an author can renounce a work, voluntarily, or use a pseudonym, but in no way gives up his right to reclaim it or claim authorship credit. Article 6B section 1:"Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation." GW's policy is effectivly to deny the author the right to claim authorship as laid out in this section.
For employee-made copyright works UK law stipulates an exception to how most legal systems view the definition of 'author': while under the work made for hire doctrine the employer is considered the author of a work, UK copyright law only refers the copyright of the work to the employer; the employee is deemed the author.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/19 19:03:03
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
BaronIveagh wrote: Two, it allows for the Courtesy of Anonymity where an author can renounce a work, voluntarily, or use a pseudonym, but in no way gives up his right to reclaim it or claim authorship credit. Article 6B section 1:"Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation." GW's policy is effectivly to deny the author the right to claim authorship as laid out in this section.
You missed the part where an author is not obliged to claim the right to be acknowledged as the author. Has it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, they don’t want it? Or do you somehow have privileged access to their contracts of employment that you can make categorical statements about what GW is or is not "forcing" its employees to do? Perhaps you’ve heard of one of their staff writers trying to claim authorship of a codex or whatever and being fired and/or having their claim denied by the company? Because I somehow missed that very real and troubling case in all the furore over a frivolous suit being brought by a plaintiff with no standing.
"Three months? I'm going to go crazy …and I'm taking you with me!"
— Vala Mal Doran
Or do you somehow have privileged access to their contracts of employment that you can make categorical statements about what GW is or is not "forcing" its employees to do?
Having signed one of their waivers myself for work done on BFG, and not being under a NDA, I can say yes.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Or do you somehow have privileged access to their contracts of employment that you can make categorical statements about what GW is or is not "forcing" its employees to do?
Having signed one of their waivers myself for work done on BFG, and not being under a NDA, I can say yes.
Details? What are the penalties the contract would try to extract for a public claim of authorial privilege? We're dying to know.
"Three months? I'm going to go crazy …and I'm taking you with me!"
— Vala Mal Doran
Details? What are the penalties the contract would try to extract for a public claim of authorial privilege? We're dying to know.
Mine required waiver of all claim against GW, monetary or otherwise, if I wanted my name to appear in the product at all. As I'm in the US, that was, sadly, legal.
There are lot of rights in the US, but the right of attribution is not one of them unless the product has an original run of less than 200 copies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/19 22:54:58
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
The fluff is like ketchup and mustard on a burger. Yes it's desirable, yes it makes things better, but no it doesn't fundamentally change what you're eating and no you shouldn't just drown the whole meal in it.
Details? What are the penalties the contract would try to extract for a public claim of authorial privilege? We're dying to know.
Mine required waiver of all claim against GW, monetary or otherwise, if I wanted my name to appear in the product at all. As I'm in the US, that was, sadly, legal.
There are lot of rights in the US, but the right of attribution is not one of them unless the product has an original run of less than 200 copies.
So being a former employee/subcontractor didn't help you at all in avoiding the late Kirby era takedown notices? Wow...but I'm not too shocked I suppose.
We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
Details? What are the penalties the contract would try to extract for a public claim of authorial privilege? We're dying to know.
Mine required waiver of all claim against GW, monetary or otherwise, if I wanted my name to appear in the product at all. As I'm in the US, that was, sadly, legal.
There are lot of rights in the US, but the right of attribution is not one of them unless the product has an original run of less than 200 copies.
Er, hang on, that’s… exactly the opposite of the right granted by the law you cited. You gave up other rights in favour of attribution and that law inalienates attribution such that you can’t give it up anyway. Or at least if you do you can claim it back later consequence free.
To put it another way, you gave up A&B to have C where that law says you always have C, regardless of A or B. The situation is at best tangential to the argument you were presenting, specifically that the authors of the codex books were somehow being legally or contractually prevented from asserting C regardless that we have no evidence of any such thing besides that none of them have yet tried.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/19 23:28:24
"Three months? I'm going to go crazy …and I'm taking you with me!"
— Vala Mal Doran
Er, hang on, that’s… exactly the opposite of the right granted by the law you cited. You gave up other rights in favour of attribution and that law inalienates attribution such that you can’t give it up anyway. Or at least if you do you can claim it back later consequence free.
To put it another way, you gave up A&B to have C where that law says you always have C, regardless of A or B. The situation is at best tangential to the argument you were presenting, specifically that the authors of the codex books were somehow being legally or contractually prevented from asserting C regardless that we have no evidence of any such thing besides that none of them have yet tried.
A) As i said I'm in the US, the laws I sited were the EU and UK. The US does not recognize moral rights outside a VERY narrowly defined set of situations, totally ignoring their obligations under Berne.
B) as far as asserting it, as of yet it probably isn't in their financial interests to do so. When GW starts letting people go, and people need to be able to prove they worked on book so on and so forth for their submissions elsewhere, you'll see that change
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
And after reviewing the motion to dismiss, the Judge overseeing the case, William P. Dimitrouleas, has granted Games Workshop’s motion to dismiss, and the case will be closed by October 19th, unless the complaint is amended and legal representation attained.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Full article:
Spoiler:
Florida Man vs. GW: Case Dismissed
Posted by JayArr at October 6, 2017
Earlier this year, a Florida man filed a suit against Games Workshop for $62 million. The case has been dismissed.
The Case Basics
Earlier this year, David Moore, a Florida Man, filed a complaint with the United Stated District Court – Southern District of Florida.
Moore was looking to bring a lawsuit against Games Workshop. Alleging fraud, price fixing, tortious interference, violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Orgs. Arct (RICO), and Unfair Trade Practices under 18 & 15 USC, Moore aimed to reclaim $62.5 million in damages from Games Workshop. You can read a writeup of the full case here.
In response, however, Games Workshop filed a motion to dismiss the suit, citing that Moore failed to actually list any specific details to back up his claims, nor did he establish jurisdiction over the individual defendants, nor was he able to file pro se. You can read the full details in the document linked above.
And after reviewing the motion to dismiss, the Judge overseeing the case, William P. Dimitrouleas, has granted Games Workshop’s motion to dismiss, and the case will be closed by October 19th, unless the complaint is amended and legal representation attained. If you’re interested in going back through the details of the case yourself, here are the court documents for you:
Affidavit and Exhibit A
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
If any further details in this case develop, you can be sure we’ll keep you up to date on the proceedings.
Now that’s enough actual lawyering for one day, it’s time to get back to good old fashioned rules lawyering.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/06 18:30:24
Mr_Rose wrote: So exactly what everyone (possibly except Florida Man) expected to happen, then?
Pretty much. Though it sounded like Spiky Bits was somehow rooting for this guy. I think almost everyone who had any bit of reasonableness expected this to fail in almost exactly this way.
Mr_Rose wrote: So exactly what everyone (possibly except Florida Man) expected to happen, then?
Pretty much. Though it sounded like Spiky Bits was somehow rooting for this guy. I think almost everyone who had any bit of reasonableness expected this to fail in almost exactly this way.
Spikey Bitz hates GW though. And is also awful.
And yes, anyone with sense expected it to get dismissed, because if crazy Florida man representing himself who started his own religion wins then it sets a precedent that undermines the IPs of companies like Disney, Time Warner, etc. Same way the Chapterhouse law suit would have established a precedent that would have had massive effects on after market car parts if GW had won.
Check out my youtube channel at www.youtube.com/channel/UCc8CECcBOeCO-srhlUwf_lQ
