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.

Posted By Duncan_Idaho on 11/06/2007 4:02 PM
@Centurian99

1.) Of course you can give up German citizenship, but you need to have lived for quite some time in the other country, at least six years. Besides there is the little difference of being American by being born to american parents and of being German by being born in Germany. There are some mor details involved in this, but this is the general line.

2.) I do know quite some about copyright law since my wife is a professional musician and we had to make sure she had the copyright to her pieces. Besides friends of ours are lawyers who are quite good at it.

3.) They did not sell the rights to any other company. But GW advertised for their film two times in the german version of the White Dwarf.

4.) GW Germany for quite some time acted in a way that everyone would have considered as supporting the project. The only mistake the Damnatus crew made was not getting the support written on paper. On the other hand, advertising of GW in the WD for the movie could bee seen by a judge as supporting it.

Are you kidding?  Your wife is a musician so you know something about copyright law in Germany?  Umm ok dude.  Maybe you and the rest of us would be best served if someone who actually knew something about German copyright law would make an intelligent post about it.  It seems that some fans who just want to hate on GW are spouting off at the mouth about what they should have done without any legal basis for that opinion.

If you would have liked to see the movie I sympathize with you because I would like to see it too but you have no clue what you are talking about from a legal basis so why bash GWs decision?

So was this an insanely expensive fan film or a low budget commercial film?

Posted By brettz123 on 11/06/2007 5:03 PM

Are you kidding?  Your wife is a musician so you know something about copyright law in Germany?  Umm ok dude.  Maybe you and the rest of us would be best served if someone who actually knew something about German copyright law would make an intelligent post about it.  It seems that some fans who just want to hate on GW are spouting off at the mouth about what they should have done without any legal basis for that opinion.

If you would have liked to see the movie I sympathize with you because I would like to see it too but you have no clue what you are talking about from a legal basis so why bash GWs decision?

Hey brettz123, in case you haven't quite got with the program here yet, I believe Mr. Duncan_Idaho is from Germany, and while that certainly doesn't make him an expert on German copywright law, I'd be willing to bet he knows a damn sight more about it than you do, especially if he's done some previous research on it, since, you know, his wife is a professional musician.

As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to take any of our German posters' word for it, vs. one of our non-German posters, unless that person happened to be a copywright lawyer with experience in the EU.  As far as I know, no one in our community that contributes regularly has those credentials, and since this isn't a critical legal issue for most of us personally, I'll go with the second best source for now.

If your job revolves around creating or reproducing creative content (as a professional musician does, for example) you ought to know at least a bit about the legalities involved.

The doubters need to look at this.

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm#13

No need to rely on heresay in this case, just type German copyright law into a browser and read it yourself.

Pretty clear cut if you ask me. GW were right to block this although i feel very sorry for the Dammatus Team.

What I don't understand (and this is coming from someone with absolutely zero legal experience) is that if they don't collect any money off of the release, what exactly happens to them if they give it to someone to post on the internet?

They can't be sued to give over any earnings. Whoever is hosting the video can obviously be forced to shut it down, but once its out on the internet we all know it will be impossible to completely eradicate.

So what happens? Are they stuck with a hefty fine by British courts. . .? If they don't collect any money off of this, how is this any different then painting a picture of a McDonalds logo and then just standing with that painting on a street corner? I don't understand how simply displaying the movie can be a crime/IP infringement in any country.

Somebody please enlighten me.

The Damnatus team could be sued for business damages as having damaged the reputation and good name of GW by releasing an unauthorised film.

GW would have to prove damages, which might be difficult.

The Damnatus team would then be liable to pay a fine. If unable to, maybe the bailiffs get sent in, I am not sure about that system in Germany.

I've heard of that, sort of. Like those people who printed up anti-McDonalds pamphlets and started handing them out all over the place. I believe they were taken to court by McDonalds for defaming them.

But how could that possibly apply here? I can't imagine the simple production of a clearly adoring movie could be legally found to be damaging to the company's business.


I mean, they clearly have no recourse to make money off of the thing, but I still don't understand how they are prevented from just letting people watch it.

Its irrelevant if they win Yakmeister. All GW has to do is actually sue them. Legal costs alone would be painful for anyone without deep pockets.

Googeling for laws is dangerous, since you very often get to see only a part of the picture. Germany has over 900 different law books. So just googling it is a sure way to get yourself in trouble.

Besides, Gearge Lucas has no problems with fan films in general and German law. So why should GW do have a problem with it? And rest assured, Lucas definitely goes for the decision that generates the most in cash.

That's why someone needs to steal it from them and then release it. They can't be held accountable at that point...

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Just by releasing it, especially if GW sold the film rights for 40K to someone else, they're lowering the value of the IP, or stealing the film rights from the actual studio that purchased the option.

Fan fic and fan pics are the exception, not the rule. The IP holder has to offer specific film rights, and that's totally at the IP holder's discretion. Even then, there's the difference between German IP law and US IP law, in that German law does not permit the sale or transfer of certain IP rights.

There's a reason why the only examples people are dredging up for "sanctioned" fan films are George Lucas and Star Trek. Star Trek, as has been cited earlier, actually lost some of their IP due to insufficiently vigorous defense of it back in the 70s. And George Lucas, for whatever reasons, actually sanctions fan films to a certain extent. Then again, George Lucas has always been something of an abberation in the Industry.

GW is behaving extremely responsibly towards the value of its IP by the steps its taking. Whatever issues I have with GW, I can't fault them for the decisions they've made here.

And Idaho - the fact that your wife is a muscian who had to deal with German IP law by no means qualifies you as an expert. I think we can safely assume that GW HQ and GW Germany are getting some good legal advice in making their decision, so unless you want to argue that they're legal advice is flawed, and can explain exactly how its flawed, I'm going to side with the professionals on this one.

Why couldn't they just release it another country with less restrictive IP laws?

Duplicate!  Please delete and sorry.

If I were to guess this is a question of the legal world vs. the real world.

In the legal world, GW wants to defend it's IP as vigoursly as possible to prevent it from being diluted. Keep in mind that much of GW's IP is barely distinguishable from stuff in the public domain, so they need to be very, very zealous in defending their legal right to own their IP. One fan film clearly won't hurt too much, but it opens the door for other things, and GW wants to be able to point to a sterling record, around the world, of defending it's IP.

In the real world, GW can't stop this. It'll get on the internet, it'll be leaked, and then anybody that wants to see it can see it. The filmmakers never really could have made money off of it, so all they're losing is the credit. GW can't seize all copies, and probably can't sue the filmmakers if it gets out.

Does anybody really think that GW fans won't see this?

Posted By Centurian99 on 11/07/2007 10:18 AM
There's a reason why the only examples people are dredging up for "sanctioned" fan films are George Lucas and Star Trek. Star Trek, as has been cited earlier, actually lost some of their IP due to insufficiently vigorous defense of it back in the 70s.

Except that the only IP they could have possibly lost due to a lack of defending it is trademarks.  Neither patents (which don't apply to artistic efforts), nor copyright require the holder to defend their IP to maintain control over it.

Posted By Buoyancy on 11/07/2007 11:17 AM

Posted By Centurian99 on 11/07/2007 10:18 AM
There's a reason why the only examples people are dredging up for "sanctioned" fan films are George Lucas and Star Trek. Star Trek, as has been cited earlier, actually lost some of their IP due to insufficiently vigorous defense of it back in the 70s.

Except that the only IP they could have possibly lost due to a lack of defending it is trademarks.  Neither patents (which don't apply to artistic efforts), nor copyright require the holder to defend their IP to maintain control over it.

  All I know is that people can put the Starship Enterprise in any work they want to and apparently there's not a damned thing Paramount can do about it. 

Yes. However, how has that harmed Paramount other than helping turning ST into a household name?  

Posted By jfrazell on 11/07/2007 12:14 PM
Yes. However, how has that harmed Paramount other than helping turning ST into a household name?  

It hasn't because it takes lots of money to make movies so home grown movie businesses arent going to just start making Star Trek films.  But it is significantly less espensive to start making Space Marine Models.  So if they GW failed to protect their IP how would they stop me from paying someone $400 or $500 dollars to sculpt me a space marine and then producing them.  I could then sell them for a couple dollars a piece which is much cheaper then a metal space marine from GW and if they have failed to protect their IP on previous occassions they might not be able to stop me.

As others have said unless you can show some relevant German IP law that contradicts what GW is stating as their reason why are people calling them liars? 

In the U.S., they hit you for statutory damages, rather than going after profits. And if you've seen any of the RIAA lawsuits, statutory damages (here) are hefty. If they can prove willfulness (extremely easy in this case, given all the notice that they aren't allowed to distribute), there are some hefty damage-enhancers. And our system isn't unique in this...

Oh, and if they release and it enters the U.S.? Yeah, all those U.S. copyright options become available.

Note to Damnatus people: DO NOT illicitly release this. You've made it far too apparent that you're aware you lack permission of the copyright holder to do so, and you really, really don't want to open yourselves up to that kind of liability.

Besides the legal ramifications, it's entirely possible that GW is refusing to let this be released because it's a steaming pile of _______ (insert choice phrase) that they don't want to be conected to.

Fan + time + money does not = good film.

Me again... ^^
As some of you should know, I´m am member of the damnatus-team since beginning.

First I´ve got to say that there will be no leak over the internet an no hacker that steals our movie. GW has forbidden any kind of release and we´ve got to accept this.

On the second we´ve never planned to do money with this an GW knows it. Every discussion with the legal departement was based on that fact.

The third thing ist that the movie was allowed for a long time based on the GW´s IP-policy. It was clearly allowed to create animations and such things. The IP were changed very later (on the same time they´ve forbidden the release of the movie). Till december last year everything looked fine, and GW promised us to find a way for both sides. At this time Damnatus were nearly finished ex. some Animations. But then things changed and we´ve got the trouble you can see in the BBC-article.
Till about march of this year, there were no sign from GW, going to forbid the movie. Everything that was discussed with the legal departemet, were the specifications of the disclaimer at the beginning of the movie.

And please don´t justice Damnatus until you haven´t seen it. GW never seen our movie (yes, really), so there were no quality reasons to forbid it.

I feel for your lost time. Unfortunately, you probably should not have begun production of such a labor of love without first entering into some sort of binding contract with GW. Couple hours of work? Sure. A week? Why not. But thousands of dollars and thousands of hours? Nope, not without a written guarantee.

Posted By Da Boss on 11/06/2007 2:44 PM
I feel sorry for the German guys, because GW should have made it totally clear with them from the start. It was a bit unprofessional of them not too. On the other hand, why go ahead when you don't know for sure?

We don't actually know if the "misunderstanding" was GW's fault. It may have simply been wishful thinking on the part of the film crew. No means no guys.

If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this. With no agreement, GW is within their rights to change their minds at any time. It's there call.

I can understand the Damnatus crew being upset, but this problem was as much their doing as it was GW's

Is that really true? For practical purposes, maybe, but isn't a verbal agreement legally sufficient if it comes from someone who is able to give this agreement?

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 11/07/2007 6:22 PM

If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this.

Is that really true? For practical purposes, maybe, but isn't a verbal agreement legally sufficient if it comes from someone who is able to give this agreement?

Whether that is the case or not, I would think the biggest problem with that is proving the existence of the verbal agreement, unless of course you have some audio or video documentation of the thing.

Posted By Hordini on 11/07/2007 10:19 PM

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 11/07/2007 6:22 PM

If you don't have permission, in a written, legal, document, then you don't have permission. A verbal agreement isn't enough in a project like this.

Is that really true? For practical purposes, maybe, but isn't a verbal agreement legally sufficient if it comes from someone who is able to give this agreement?

Whether that is the case or not, I would think the biggest problem with that is proving the existence of the verbal agreement, unless of course you have some audio or video documentation of the thing.

I think the White Dwarf ads for Damnatus will count for a lot if the question is ever put to the test.

Except it's very likely that neither the person who wrote it up nor the person who okayed it for publication was legally able to grant the permission needed.

Posted By tegeus-Cromis on 11/08/2007 5:16 AM
Except it's very likely that neither the person who wrote it up nor the person who okayed it for publication was legally able to grant the permission needed.

 In Canada anyway there's ostensible authority rules when dealing with corporate agents (as opposed to actual authority) that cover that sort of thing. I don't feel like getting into a technical discussion about it though. You can wiki it if you're curious.

GW's problem is the following:

You cannot patent rules and you only hold copyright on the rules as expressed in your writings.

You cannot copyright or patent names such as Eldar, Warhammer etc though they can be used as Trade Marks within the narrow context of wargaming. (In other words, I can open a pub called The Warhammer but I can't publish a game called The Warhammer.)

Although the models are copyright by virtue of being sculptures, sales of the figures are very dependent on their association with the rules and fluff.

As a consequence of these factors, much of GW's value as a company rests on their control of their trade marked terms.

Trade Marks need to be defended or they lapse (see Hoover.)