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 hate to say it, but GW has been passing these things out like candy corn this month.

Dark Reign, the Warhammer /40k role-play site has just received one too.

Read details here on their forums.

http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0

Never heard of 'em but they're included in this thread already so methinks this is on the verge of being locked: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/264704.page

Someone mentioned that they scanned material straight off of GW's books - if thats true they deserve worse.

The last thread on this topic got locked for a variety of reasons.

There is a lot of good information and discussion taking place on this subject, but please remember to keep it on topic and polite.

Thanks!

Was unaware that there was another thread discussing the Dark Reign issue.

As someone who occasionally contributes there, I can say that GW's cease and desist skirts the edge of baseless, as DR's site clearly falls under fair use under US and most international definitions of fair use. Legally speaking, accepting a donation does not technically equate receipt of payment for a service under US tort law. This is how palm readers and other brands of fortune teller can operate legally, as they are not foreseeing your future for payment, which would be illegal in most states, but rather accepting a donation.

I think GW closing down fan-sites is ludicrous and counter-productive to their business!
Hell, Dakka keeps me in the hobby, if, for example Dakka got closed down it would seriously damage my hobby interest...

Damn you Games-Workshop! *shakes fist*

And as it was said in the countless other posts,

GW are protecting their IP, they aren't "shutting down" the websites, that is up to the owners- They are asking them to sort out where they are over-stepping the idea of fair-use
(Hence Cease and desist.... using stuff your not meant to, not "Cease and desist your website for ever, or cease and desist your breathing.... or we'll kill you!" :-p )

Bignutter wrote:And as it was said in the countless other posts,

GW are protecting their IP, they aren't "shutting down" the websites, that is up to the owners- They are asking them to sort out where they are over-stepping the idea of fair-use
(Hence Cease and desist.... using stuff your not meant to, not "Cease and desist your website for ever, or cease and desist your breathing.... or we'll kill you!" :-p )

The problem is that some of these websites are located in counties other then the UK, in which what they're doing IS fair use, but are closing down rather then fight a lengthy legal battle with GW over it.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Bignutter wrote:And as it was said in the countless other posts,

GW are protecting their IP, they aren't "shutting down" the websites, that is up to the owners- They are asking them to sort out where they are over-stepping the idea of fair-use
(Hence Cease and desist.... using stuff your not meant to, not "Cease and desist your website for ever, or cease and desist your breathing.... or we'll kill you!" :-p )

The problem is that some of these websites are located in counties other then the UK, in which what they're doing IS fair use, but are closing down rather then fight a lengthy legal battle with GW over it.

And again, closing down is a bit different from ceasing using the IP- regardless of any legal shenanigans- closing down is not what GW has told them to do- nor I think is that the message- If GW really didn't want fan sites (as some people seem to suggest they are trying to get rid of them) they'd probably be trying a hell of a lot harder- and we'd not be talking here on dakka as it'd be under the same raincloud

Well... let me put it in this context: If you couldn't say '40k' 'warhammer', discuss GW rules, or show a picture of a model, how exactly would, say, CMON or Dakka, be able to function?

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

BaronIveagh wrote:Well... let me put it in this context: If you couldn't say '40k' 'warhammer', discuss GW rules, or show a picture of a model, how exactly would, say, CMON or Dakka, be able to function?

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

I don't believe any of them said you couldn't discuss them- it was- as far as I'm aware, the use of trademarks mainly in URLs and picture leeching

Where exactly did they say you couldn't say 40k or warhammer?

BaronIveagh wrote:Well... let me put it in this context: If you couldn't say '40k' 'warhammer', discuss GW rules, or show a picture of a model, how exactly would, say, CMON or Dakka, be able to function?

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

That's not at all what the C&D's have been saying.

You can't use GW trademarks in the site's domain name. Not you can't use those words at all.
You can't post illegal scans of GW material. Not you can't discuss the rules at all.
You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.

While it's understandable that people get upset when their favorite site closes down, it would be nice if people toned down the hysteria enough to actually look at what's being asked, rather than just assuming that GW are trying to kill off fan sites entirely with some odd draconian ruleset that they've just come up with out of nowhere. Those rules have been in place for as long as GW have been on the internet.

So far as the C&D itself goes... Yes, as a layperson it seems a little extreme as a first step. But as has been pointed out in the other threads, we have no way of knowing whether or not GW did engage in any prior communication with these sites. I don't know about anyone else, but I also have no idea of the legal requirements of these sorts of requests... it's entirely possible that there are sound legal reasons that GW jumped straight to the C&D, if that's in fact what happened.

It's also possible, knowing what an intractible and/or unmotivated bunch a lot of wargamers tend to be, that GW have found in the past that asking politely just doesn't actually work. I can very easily imagine someone who has been running a fan site for years receiving a letter from GW politely asking them to change their domain name and thinking 'Yeah... when they make me' or 'Yeah, I'll get to it later...'


So, yeah, it's terrible that site owners feel that their best option is to close down. It seems on the surface to be a rather non-customer-friendly approach on GW's behalf. But we don't have the full story, here.

Bignutter wrote:
Where exactly did they say you couldn't say 40k or warhammer?

No, what most of them request is the removal of GW intellectual property and that you will not infringe on said property again. You may want to read the somewhat lengthy list of what GW considers it's intellectual property, as it includes things like the terms Ultramarines, Battlefleet Gothic, and Warhammer 40k. If one were to comply with the letter of the C&D, it would be impossible to discuss anything GW.

...

The aforementioned sites also used tons of GW IP, and didn't properly credit it while at the same time asking for donations, directlinking to GW photos, etc.

That's why they were sent the C&D. Proper credit, hosting the photos yourself with a watermark saying "property of Games Workshop", etc would have gone a long way. As would have requesting GW to help you figure out what material they had objections to.

Bignutter wrote:Where exactly did they say you couldn't say 40k or warhammer?

The earlier thread that was discussing this was about the C&D directed at "www.TalkBloodBowl.org" for the express reason that the name "Blood Bowl" was in the title.

Changing the name effectively shuts them down because it ends a 9-year-old site. The new name "talkfantasyfootball" is overly generic and will be confusing to those sportsfans looking for an actual fantasy football site not a miniatures game site and will not be easily found by new Blood Bowl fans.

Maybe it's community will fracture and go off in different directions starting new fan sites ... who knows. But it's always unfortunate when a fan site community dissolves.

insaniak wrote:

Since, in effect, that's one way to read some of these C&D's.

That's not at all what the C&D's have been saying.

You can't use GW trademarks in the site's domain name. Not you can't use those words at all.
You can't post illegal scans of GW material. Not you can't discuss the rules at all.
You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.

insaniak wrote:

You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.

Just asking... but if say a member of dakka sees new releases so he cant post or link them here directly from GW? Will the images/ links be considered illegal?

As for not knowing the full story I bet we will never know it all... like in most things in our lives.

On that topic Navarro, does that mean any pictures taken from said GW site (copied) would need to be stamped with a "Taken from Games Workshop, used without permission" stamp? Further, does doing this just make a legal case for GW easier should they choose to follow it up?

BeefyG wrote:What about the ones where they are telling a site to stop hosting historic GW articles and miniatures catalogue that aren't accessible by any other means?

Whether or not those articles are currently available, they're still GW's property, and still covered by copyright. They have the right to decide whether or not they will be made available. So posting such things online without GW's permission is likely to get you a C&D sooner or later, yes.

NAVARRO wrote:Just asking... but if say a member of dakka sees new releases so he cant post or link them here directly from GW? Will the images/ links be considered illegal?

Hotlinking is one of those internet minefield issues that you'll be hard-pressed to find a clear answer on. Some people consider it a definite no-no, as it's taking someone's picture without permission and displaying it in a way that wasn't originally intended by the actual owner (particularly if you're doing so as, say, an avatar, or as a part of your site layout rather than just as part of a news post). It can also play havoc with server statistic tracking. Some consider it to be fine, as it's basically just free advertising. Some opinions fall somewhere in between, depending on specific situations.

I don't believe it's actually illegal, although I believe you could potentially run into issues if the pic is not appropriately credited. But whether or not it's illegal, the owner of a picture should always have the right to dictate when and where it's posted, or to ask someone to remove it if has been posted somewhere they don't want it... because it's their property.

This would also include hosting things like the old Black Library Dark Heresy content which GW no longer hosts. I have one of the C&D's in front of me, and I'll quote it:

"1: Immediately cease and desist any activity which infringes on Games Workshop's Intellectual property rights."

"2: Immediately remove all the images/files listed above as well as any other files or images which infringe on Games Workshop's intellectual property rights from the (removed to protect the record) website"

"3: confirm by return that you will not infringe Games Workshop's intellectual property rights at any time in the future."



There are some other statements in it which are legally questionable as well: "...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

They're also insisting that Dark Reign remove images of GW products from their Amazon Webstore. These images are hosted by Amazon, not GW site and therefor do not constitute theft of bandwidth. It does however constitute an attempt by GW to manipulate or control the secondary market for it's goods, a violation of US law.

BaronIveagh wrote:This would also include hosting things like the old Black Library Dark Heresy content which GW no longer hosts.

Again, whether or not GW currently host it, they still own the copyright.

"...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

Like where?

It's true at least in most of the 'western world' these days.

They're also insisting that Dark Reign remove images of GW products from their Amazon Webstore. These images are hosted by Amazon, not GW site and therefor do not constitute theft of bandwidth. It does however constitute an attempt by GW to manipulate or control the secondary market for it's goods, a violation of US law.

If the images being used are GW's, it doesn't matter that they're hosted by Amazon. They're still GW's images. They can't stop you from selling their products, or using pictures you've taken yourself of those products, but they certainly are entitled to grant or withhold permission to use images they own.

So that one's not about bandwidth. Just about copyright.

BaronIveagh wrote:

This would also include hosting things like the old Black Library Dark Heresy content which GW no longer hosts. I have one of the C&D's in front of me, and I'll quote it:

"1: Immediately cease and desist any activity which infringes on Games Workshop's Intellectual property rights."

"2: Immediately remove all the images/files listed above as well as any other files or images which infringe on Games Workshop's intellectual property rights from the (removed to protect the record) website"

"3: confirm by return that you will not infringe Games Workshop's intellectual property rights at any time in the future."



There are some other statements in it which are legally questionable as well: "...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

They're also insisting that Dark Reign remove images of GW products from their Amazon Webstore. These images are hosted by Amazon, not GW site and therefor do not constitute theft of bandwidth. It does however constitute an attempt by GW to manipulate or control the secondary market for it's goods, a violation of US law.

Care to share it then in full?

And how does GW asking them to remove images from their webstore count as trying to manipulate or control the secondary market? Looking at the images, they appear to be the same sample ones that would be found on the GW site- so unless they'd done a REALLY good job of taking very professional pictures then how else would they get such images except taking them from the GW site and rehosting them.... in effect taking the IP from GW (the image) and using it for their own personal gain?

When I was trying to sell some of my handcasts on ebay I got what was at first look a rather agresive mail threatening legal action.

I entered into some polite discussion with Adam, one of GW's legal guys.

Long story short, everything got cleared up, and in the end he even offered to give me some free advice if ever I needed it on what was and was not acceptable.

The key was 'polite a reasoned' which was how I aproached things.

They got my stuff removed, no one got harmed and I learned some stuff. It's not in GW's interest to sue people, but they have to agresively persue perseaved breach of ip, or risk loosing it all together, which could effectively shut them down over the long run which no one actually wants!

insaniak wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Just asking... but if say a member of dakka sees new releases so he cant post or link them here directly from GW? Will the images/ links be considered illegal?

Hotlinking is one of those internet minefield issues that you'll be hard-pressed to find a clear answer on. Some people consider it a definite no-no, as it's taking someone's picture without permission and displaying it in a way that wasn't originally intended by the actual owner (particularly if you're doing so as, say, an avatar, or as a part of your site layout rather than just as part of a news post). It can also play havoc with server statistic tracking. Some consider it to be fine, as it's basically just free advertising. Some opinions fall somewhere in between, depending on specific situations.

I don't believe it's actually illegal, although I believe you could potentially run into issues if the pic is not appropriately credited. But whether or not it's illegal, the owner of a picture should always have the right to dictate when and where it's posted, or to ask someone to remove it if has been posted somewhere they don't want it... because it's their property.

Thanks mate, I'm covered on my site since i do my own artwork and use general urls and no hiperlinks etc... yet I'm still not sure how to act here on dakka.
I know its their IP and i know this is a polemic subject and many diferent people accept it diferently but the big question for me is:

I want to post on the dakka news forums a new GW release... can I post or link it? Because we( kind of?) know GW position in that issue.
I ussually find some miniature related news on the net and post it here... or for example someone asks for a painting advice and theres a cool GW tutorial i could link it... How is that action considered here knowing now GW stance?

Bignutter wrote:


Care to share it then in full?

And how does GW asking them to remove images from their webstore count as trying to manipulate or control the secondary market? Looking at the images, they appear to be the same sample ones that would be found on the GW site- so unless they'd done a REALLY good job of taking very professional pictures then how else would they get such images except taking them from the GW site and rehosting them.... in effect taking the IP from GW (the image) and using it for their own personal gain?

Because they only sent C&Ds to some parties. Not all sellers of GW material were ordered to do so.

insaniak wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote: "...copyright is a right that vests in the creator as soon as the material in question is created." Might be true in England, questionable in most other countries.

Like where?

It's true at least in most of the 'western world' these days.

Not true. US copyright law does not recognize any copyright that is contingent on the US participation in the Berne Convention. Therefor it must conform to the 1976 Copyright Act, which does offer some protection to unpublished material, but otherwise protection is for up to 120 years after date of publication (with the most recent revisions) or 75 years after the death of the author, whichever comes first. Further, this is for materials published in the United States. Works originally published overseas (in this case, England) are on somewhat shakier ground, as evidenced by the repeated failures of certain Japanese animation companies to stem the tide of fansubbing in the US.

Further, as game rules constitute a system, the actual system of a game may not be copyrighted in the US AT ALL. However, the name of the system may be claimed as trademark (example: Dungeons & Dragons)

Under US law, copying a system is only an infringement on copyright if you lift the description exactly as it is in the original publication.

BaronIveagh wrote:Not true. US copyright law does not recognize any copyright that is contingent on the US participation in the Berne Convention. Therefor it must conform to the 1976 Copyright Act, which does offer some protection to unpublished material, but otherwise protection is for up to 120 years after date of publication (with the most recent revisions) or 75 years after the death of the author, whichever comes first. Further, this is for materials published in the United States. Works originally published overseas (in this case, England) are on somewhat shakier ground, as evidenced by the repeated failures of certain Japanese animation companies to stem the tide of fansubbing in the US.

Not sure how the US having grey areas on it constitutes it being questionable in most of the world.

Further, as game rules constitute a system, the actual system of a game may not be copyrighted in the US AT ALL.

That much is true as I understand it. But GW don't seem to be objecting to anyone doing that. They're just objecting to people using their artwork and trademarks.



Oh, and for what it's worth, that letter actually reads as quite polite to me.

You can't use GW trademarks in the site's domain name. Not you can't use those words at all.

You can use it even if the site name is exactly a word with a trademark . If the name include the the trademark but is not exactly the same word they cannot do anything most of the time. This is why we can have www.games-workshop-suck.com

The test is if the owner of the site is trying to confuse the user by making them think they are the owner of the trademark. By exmaple in some case where the name was exactly the same

mcdonalds.com: This domain name was taken by an author from Wired magazine who was writing a story on the value of domain names. In his article, the author requested that people contact him at ronald@mcdonalds.com with suggestions of what to do with the domain name. In exchange for returning the domain name to McDonalds, the author convinced the company to make a charitable contribution.

The court will check if the user has register the name in bad faith base on

* Does the domain name holder have trademark rights in the domain name?
* Is the domain name the legal name of the domain name holder, or some other name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person?
* Has the domain name holder made use (prior to the dispute) of the domain name in connection with a bona fide sale of goods or services?
* Is the domain name holder using the mark in a bona fide noncommercial or fair use way at a web site accessible at the domain name?
* Is the domain name holder attempting to divert consumers from the trademark owner's web site in a confusing way, either for commercial gain or in an attempt to tarnish or disparage the trademark mark?
* Has the domain name holder offered to sell the domain name to the trademark owner (or anyone else) for financial gain without having any intent to use the mark with the sale of goods or services?
* Has the domain name holder behaved in a pattern of registering and selling domain names without intending to use them in connection with the sale of goods or services?
* Did the domain name holder provide false information when applying for the registration of the domain name (or do so in connection with other domain names)?
* Has the domain name holder registered domain names of other parties trademarks?; and
* How distinctive and famous is the trademark owner's trademark?

Among the ways that a domain name owner can prove a legitimate right or interest in a domain name is by showing:

* use or preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to any notice of the dispute;
* that the domain name owner has been commonly known by the second level domain name; or
* that the domain name owner is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent of (i) commercial gain, (ii) misleadingly diverting consumers, or (iii) tarnishing the trademark at issue


I don't think that games workshops could have a case to get the domaine name for them. The site make it very clear they they are not the official owner of the trademark by putting in the site banner "The unofficial warhammer 40k rgp forum"

You can't post illegal scans of GW material. Not you can't discuss the rules at all.

Rules are not copyright. It is only the expression of the rule like how the rules are place in the page and which fonts are used that is copytight. Here is a text form the us copyright office

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

For the scans I agree unless it is to discuss about the scan or that the scan is covered by fair use.

You can't post pictures hotlinked directly from the GW servers. Not you can't post pictures.


Again there is a lot of court case like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc. that give some right to do it.



Basically it is a case of I have a bigger bank account than you to pay for a lawyer so do what I say.

Basically it is a case of I have a bigger bank account than you to pay for a lawyer so do what I say.

A little less basically, it's a case of: We have a list of things on our website that we would prefer that you don't do. If you ignore or are unaware of that list, we'll send you a letter pointing out that we don't like what you're doing and explaining what we would like you to do about it.

And then, maybe, it becomes a case of who has the bigger bank account.

Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it? After all this hobby is about caring and attention to detail (LOL that's a GW rules writing pun right there) to no small degree. I don't argue that they don't have a legal right to burn books (ok e-books) but the concept of it is painful to a lot of people.

BeefyG wrote:Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it?

Not really. The old books are all still out there. They're mostly not that difficult to get a hold of.

insaniak wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Not true. US copyright law does not recognize any copyright that is contingent on the US participation in the Berne Convention. Therefor it must conform to the 1976 Copyright Act, which does offer some protection to unpublished material, but otherwise protection is for up to 120 years after date of publication (with the most recent revisions) or 75 years after the death of the author, whichever comes first. Further, this is for materials published in the United States. Works originally published overseas (in this case, England) are on somewhat shakier ground, as evidenced by the repeated failures of certain Japanese animation companies to stem the tide of fansubbing in the US.

Not sure how the US having grey areas on it constitutes it being questionable in most of the world.

I used it as an example, since many of the sites targeted by GW are located in the US, even DR, though it's site manager lives in the Netherlands.

To make some broad generalizations, acknowledging there are exceptions, most African nations either do not have copyright, or follow a pattern similar to England's. Most Asian countries either do not have them, or have copyrights with limited lifespans, usually around the same duration as their patents. Eastern Europe has partially accepted Berne, with a few notable exceptions, while South and Central America are somewhat more spotty. Enforcement is also nearly impossible in some locations that do have copyright laws, such as Singapore and several former Warsaw pact nations.

Mind you, that's just non Berne signatories.

Dark Reign is in no way a copyright of GW. Activision might be able to sue them, but that's about it.

@Insaniak: What about files that were never in print to begin with but have always been internet exclusive.