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.

 Shadenuat wrote:
"Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"

What does that mean?

"include the word ‘unofficial’ prominently on the front cover"
amused me because it reminded me of a late law in my country about 'foreign agents" that must slap "foreign agent" on any of their publications.

Don't be a Nazi.

*cough*Arch*cough*

 KidCthulhu wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
"Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"

What does that mean?

It's directed at parodies and things making fun of GW

I think parody is still legally protected, but it has to be obvious parody rather than just using their IP in a demeaning way.

Correct, parody/satire is protected under IP law, but let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good anti-GW rant.

That clause is more than likely directed at depicting things like SM getting a bit too grimdark and showing them killing women and children (accurate in the lore but not something GW would go out of their way to depict in animation). Again, this is a fairly standard thing for most IP holders.

The only thing I worry about is the Tabletop Simulator stuff, but I'm not going to get upset about it. TTS is likely a net win for GW since it actually promotes the game - unlike the other things people suggested earlier.

So that will be the real watershed moment. Scans for 3D printers can get bent for all I care.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The only thing I worry about is the Tabletop Simulator stuff, but I'm not going to get upset about it. TTS is likely a net win for GW since it actually promotes the game - unlike the other things people suggested earlier.

So that will be the real watershed moment. Scans for 3D printers can get bent for all I care.

I look forward to GW going after TTS and claiming copyright on things like "rolling dice" or "playing games on a table".

I'd suggest TTS may be a net loss for GW, I know several people that say they play TTS in lieu of buying and playing models.

Then again, other people try out armies on TTS first, decide they like them, and buy them. Whereas before they simply would have never bought them due to the financial and time risk.

It's not about net loss or gain. It's about control. Fan made videos make GW money.
3d printed parts and 3rd party pieces make GW money.
TTS, Battlescribe, even ye ole fashioned internet piracy (even if it truely is a victimless crime) make GW money in the long run. But they have no control over it. Like I said. They don't WANT people to have space marine armies that they don't make themselves. They don't WANT the customer to buy a box of marines, then go to Etsy or someplace and buy a pack of custom shoulder plates with an insignia of a chapter they don't make.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The only thing I worry about is the Tabletop Simulator stuff, but I'm not going to get upset about it. TTS is likely a net win for GW since it actually promotes the game - unlike the other things people suggested earlier.

So that will be the real watershed moment. Scans for 3D printers can get bent for all I care.

I look forward to GW going after TTS and claiming copyright on things like "rolling dice" or "playing games on a table".

Plenty of mods in the game do make use of their trademarks, copyrighted miniature designs, rules, artwork etc.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Plenty of mods in the game do make use of their trademarks, copyrighted miniature designs, rules, artwork etc.

The issue is that TTS doesn't really make use of that. All that was created by the TTS community, TTS only gave them tools to do so.
Battlescribe is similar in that it doesn't make use of 40k rules, it only is an army builder that the BS community uses for a 40k army builder.

This degree of separation makes it complicated to go after them. GW could try to go after the community, but that is like trying to hit flies with a bazooka, not very cost effective.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 Shadenuat wrote:
"Fan works
must not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity"

What does that mean?

"include the word ‘unofficial’ prominently on the front cover"
amused me because it reminded me of a late law in my country about 'foreign agents" that must slap "foreign agent" on any of their publications.

Don't be a Nazi.

*cough*Arch*cough*

And OC, and a few other equally vile but less known scum.

There is one (who made six videos reeeing at dark skinned Ultramarine on the Avenging Son book cover) who will probably get Warhammer name C&D soon too for his torrent of racist drivel and I can already bet some of GW clown bashers here will pretend it's just evul corp cancelling innocent lily white content creator, hOw DaRe ThEY!!!one1!1!

yukishiro1 wrote:
I'll be the first to hold up my hand if I'm wrong, but to me this reads 100% as about Warhammer+ and trying to make sure there are no free alternatives, not as some big change in their general IP strategy.

Um, no. Just no. Warhammer+ is way too small potatoes for that. Plus, GW already made content before (see their two movies) and they had no problems with fan content coexisting.

If I may venture a guess, it's either racists trying to smear 40K by trying to associate brand with cancer they made up (seeing companies are way more conscious about it these days and GW would want it nipped in the bud), or, way more likely, GW is in talks with some real giant right now (Amazon/Apple/Netflix/Disney) about monetization of their books and the first condition of talk was 100% exclusivity of IP to new partner, no ifs and buts. Fan content would be just collateral damage of GW trying to prove to someone with way better legal department investing in co-project will be sound and the partner will get to reap return on investment without parasites and freeloaders riding on it (which is description of how these contracts are worded, not my own words before somone with low reading comprehension decides to treat fact statement as my own opinion while twisting it at the same time).

 KidCthulhu wrote:


I think parody is still legally protected, but it has to be obvious parody rather than just using their IP in a demeaning way.

If it's youtube GW can DMCA your video for whatever reason they like, your video will be taken down, then you can choose to file a counterclaim, give GW your info and prepare for a lawsuit, which would cost a lot of money, and years to resolve, it' not worth it. Unless they changed the law for wrongful claim to pay the defendant millions of dollar, you would be bettr off just took your video down.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:
It's not about net loss or gain. It's about control. Fan made videos make GW money.
3d printed parts and 3rd party pieces make GW money.
TTS, Battlescribe, even ye ole fashioned internet piracy (even if it truely is a victimless crime) make GW money in the long run. But they have no control over it. Like I said. They don't WANT people to have space marine armies that they don't make themselves. They don't WANT the customer to buy a box of marines, then go to Etsy or someplace and buy a pack of custom shoulder plates with an insignia of a chapter they don't make.

GW has no issue with custom pauldrons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

Plenty of mods in the game do make use of their trademarks, copyrighted miniature designs, rules, artwork etc.

The issue is that TTS doesn't really make use of that. All that was created by the TTS community, TTS only gave them tools to do so.
Battlescribe is similar in that it doesn't make use of 40k rules, it only is an army builder that the BS community uses for a 40k army builder.

This degree of separation makes it complicated to go after them. GW could try to go after the community, but that is like trying to hit flies with a bazooka, not very cost effective.

Yea the only angle is steam workshop, but everything is pretty much underground now anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW has no issue with custom pauldrons.

GW cannot go after custom pauldrons, third party bits are not a violation of copyright (although things get murkier with full models).

 Polonius wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
There's a lot of "the sky is falling" hyperbole that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP laws work, both in how much they can cover (pretty much everything GW stated in their list) and also what it won't cover (pretty much everything not stated).

GW can't go after cosplayers, or review channels, or battle reports. Sure, they could strong arm YouTube, but that's a YouTube TOS issue, not an IP issue. And even then, I doubt that's the case. Fan made movies are actual creative works that deliberately slot along side canon works. That's very different from an unboxing or painting tutorial.

Polonius, maybe you're forgetting, but you're actually arguing this with people who have previously received Cease and Desist orders from GW for these exact things. Actual legal action has been taken by GW for the things that you're saying they could never do.

This is it exactly!

Some of us here had our hobby seriously impacted in the past by heavy-handed legal actions. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to not want that to happen again.

Okay, but what were the specifics? I can’t comment on a C&D I know nothing about.

Beasts of War is the only one I know about for certain as it was publicised at the time.

Other than this, I know other sites reacted to this, but I don't know whether they actually received any kind of formal warning. But I've by no means a knowledge of what was going on with all forums so if anyone can add any more details please do so.

One forum that I moderated on (I had stopped by this point) changed it's name as a result. Moderation there (and I think most forums actually around the time) stepped up heavily to the point where posts and threads were removed and users banned - there were a lot of posts around Finecast at that time, it started off with comments being discouraged before any mention of Finecast itself was banned.
Another well known 40k forum was actually recording names of individuals it thought were either involved with Chapterhouse or other garage casting companies and was reporting them directly to GW legal. Like something from McCarthy actually, it would have been funny if people weren't being banned. That site has always been heavy-handed in terms of moderation, but I remember discussion at that point being almost impossible.
I remember some other forums banning posting of images of GW stock miniatures - so you couldn't post a link or copy of the image on the GW shop website for example.

I actually don't blame the people that ran the forums/sites. If I had invested so much of my time and money in a project and I thought it was at risk of being shut down, I would have behaved in the same way.

But, I blame GW for managing to make everything so undeniably gakky around that time, making the forums an unpleasant place to be and even making people argue (cause as you can imagine, there were people willing to defend GW's practice to their dying breath, even as it was smothering the community).

I know of one forum needed to change its name because GW "asked" for it

it got also a letter for "sharing" point costs in army list discussions

a friend of mine got a letter because the custom bases a made and sold had GW bits in them (I think it was the Drop Pod small engine he used for city bases)

the shop here was "asked" from GW to remove the official product pictures from their online store

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW has no issue with custom pauldrons.

Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does enforce that ban stringently in practice).

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW has no issue with custom pauldrons.

Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does).

Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.

"They" is GW at a GW-run event.

 Theophony wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW has no issue with custom pauldrons.

Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does).

Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.

Link to GW's event pack. It does state "all miniatures in your collection must be Games Workshop or Forge World miniatures (excluding basing or scratchbuilt components)", but it's very much 'don't ask, don't tell'.

 Theophony wrote:
Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.

no, this is an official "rule" from GW, it is just up to the TO to ignore it as they can never proof it anyway (not the other way around)

beast_gts wrote:

 Theophony wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

GW has no issue with custom pauldrons.

Well, aside from purporting to ban them at its own events (though reports are mixed on whether it actually does).

Once again that is probably due to whoever is running the event being worried that THEY will get into trouble and err on the side of stupid.

Link to GW's event pack. It does state "all miniatures in your collection must be Games Workshop or Forge World miniatures (excluding basing or scratchbuilt components)", but it's very much 'don't ask, don't tell'.

Note that events at Warhammer World states the following in regards to 3D printed parts:

Are 3D printed parts I’ve designed allowed?

Much like hand sculpted detail, if you’ve gone to the effort of designing and printing your own bespoke parts for your army, then these parts are indeed permitted at our events. Commercially available, third party 3D printed parts aren’t permitted though. Please bear in mind that if we do spot cast/printed parts on miniatures at our events, we will ask you to prove where they’re from, and may ask for them to be removed if there’s any doubt as to their origins.

Their basic rule for conversions is that "... conversions should be checked in advance with the events team, to ensure they are appropriate for organised play".

 Pacific wrote:
Beasts of War is the only one I know about for certain as it was publicised at the time.

so, the only thing I could find on this was that Beasts of War used to preview models, got C&Ds, they ignored them, so GW put pressure on their partner, which was a main distributor of the products. This was back in 2012, before GW flooded social media with preview copies. That has nothing to do with anythign GW is currently claiming.

But, I blame GW for managing to make everything so undeniably gakky around that time, making the forums an unpleasant place to be and even making people argue (cause as you can imagine, there were people willing to defend GW's practice to their dying breath, even as it was smothering the community).

Yes, the whole "our stock photos are our IP was a weird flex. As they've more or less reversed their approach to new releases since that time, I don't think we're going back to it.

the one thing that's worth hashing out is the names of some of the forums. So trademarks are easier to defend, and if a forum used a trademarked name, that really did open themselves up for trouble, even if their activity (a discussion forum) probably didn't actually violate the trademark of a gaming miniatured.

The TL;DR is that GW has certainly overreached in the past, but these new guidelines do not appear to be overreaches.

So, if you have the stance that GW is an evil, greedy corporation that hates it's fans, then you feel free to feel vindicated. Of course, GW is a publicly traded corporation that owes it's primary duty to shareholders, so you get what you get.

Slipspace wrote:

Correct, parody/satire is protected under IP law, but let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good anti-GW rant.

Much as GW don't let actual law get in the way of their threats of legal action?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Okay, but what were the specifics? I can’t comment on a C&D I know nothing about.

On Dark Reign our reviews of FFG's Role play material contained 'images of GW IP'. I'm fairly sure a copy of the GW C&D we received was shared here on Dakka, but as this thread goes on, it's increasingly obvious that most of the posters are newer players that don't remember this gak.

I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.

 Gert wrote:
I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.

Emphasis mine.


You clearly missed the WHOLE debacle last time. GW legal had something of a Purge following it since, yes it was that brainless.

 Gert wrote:
I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.

There's nothing stopping a company from sending C&Ds that threaten lawsuits without any actual legal merit behind them. If it's a third-party platform like Youtube, they'll play ball because the DMCA encourages them to acquiesce. If it's directly to a small website or company, they're probably not going to be willing to go to court, incur legal fees, and run the (minor) risk of actually losing anyways.

This happens all the time.

 Gert wrote:
I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.

GW claimed to own, in a lawsuit which they took all the way to court, trademarks on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

GW claimed to own a trademark on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).

The concept of heraldry and all associated symbols was my personal favorite. I'm sure the Peerage was deeply surprised by that one.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.

GW claimed to own, in a lawsuit which they took all the way to court, trademarks on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).

Got a link to this stuff specifically? I'm assuming it's part of the chapterhouse thing, but those examples are baffling because that's not what trademarks cover. Surely there must be more to it?

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I mean GW will have to let the law get in the way because the company isn't run by people who are utterly brainless.
There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest GW will go after satirical pieces of media.

GW claimed to own, in a lawsuit which they took all the way to court, trademarks on halberds, broadswords, wolf fur, snakes and plasma (among many other ludicrous claims).

Got a link to this stuff specifically? I'm assuming it's part of the chapterhouse thing, but those examples are baffling because that's not what trademarks cover. Surely there must be more to it?

Feel free to go find the Dakka thread on it. We had a blow by blow commentary going, but, in a nutshell, GW tried to claim those things, and the judge tossed it out after being informed by the Trademark office that no, it does not work like that.

The Chapterhouse was an example of GW's legal team being overzealous. Had they limited themselves to the actual violations of copyright Chapterhouse was guilty of, they would had gotten a legal victory.

The error wasn't in suing Chapterhouse, the error was trying to bite far more than what the law dictated they could chew.