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.

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

The Catholic Church copyrighted Space Marines? Anyway, you can be sued for creating derivative works. Happens all the time.

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

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

I haven't played one of their games, but I assume that when you play them you sign some sort of contract. Presumably the contract states that the license is non-transferable. That's all it would take for them to have a leg to stand on.

My favorite anecdote about "defend IP or lose it" is from Star Trek. Paramount (or Viacom or whomever owns Trek nowadays) basically allowed the design of the Starship Enterprise to fall into the public domain. By allowing fans to use the design (and sell fan-created merchandise with it on there) they have forfeited their right to the design. Anyone can use it now.

Much computer software including games is not sold as a product, it is a licence to use the software under certain conditions which you have to agree to in order to install the software.

A fairly typical restriction is that the user cannot sell on the licence.

Obviously this doesn't apply to standalone disc-based games which are a unitary product.

Now do you see why game companies are so keen to push online distribution of games?

Clthomps wrote:How about this:

CONVERSIONS

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

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

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

But who owns the IP on a WW2 (or even current) howitzer? No one i think you'll find... so it would be ok.

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

Thank you.

You think THAT was inflammatory and rude?
*snort*
That was actually pretty mild.


TR

There is a short simple explanation... allthough certainly NOT for every clause of the IP contracts

It is money...

1. If you buy and use their product - all OK

2. If you buy their product and then make another product (conversion) out of it, then sell it as in 1. - all OK

3. If you copy a design / image and use it yourself - all OK

4. If you do 3. and then make another product (T shirt print) out of it, then sell it - then they will nail you to a tree (in a legal sense) coz you did it without permission

5. If you copy it and make money instead of them (online store instead of a shop) - then they will nail your body parts to several trees (in a literal sense) coz you took away their income

They generally don't worry about FAIR use, only depends on how much money they could lose

Mik

They generally don't worry about FAIR use, only depends on how much money they could lose

I was not arguing what they do, I am complaining about what they say they can do under IP fine print.

Fair enough Clthomps... however...

The content / what they say they can do, is similar to what they do with Risk Management assessments in Workplace / Occupational Health & Safety...

They SAY a lot... in order to cover as many possible outcomes on a sliding scale of perceived financial loss and then determine which outcomes do they act upon in a cost / benefit proccess

So... they ALL say a lot and as usual with any contract...

Only lawyers can understand it

Mik

Trench-Raider wrote:

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

Thank you.

You think THAT was inflammatory and rude?
*snort*
That was actually pretty mild.


TR

That doesn't make it "not over the line", though. It's not a contest and it's not a game. If you can't follow the rules here on Dakka, you will not be allowed to post here anymore.

It may look like I'm just coming down on you right now, but there's been a lot more rudeness lately, and I'm sick of it. Once it subsides, I'll chill out again.

My point is that I feel it was not over the line. Your opinion has been noted on the subject.

I'll keep it in mind.

TR

If you want to argue with a mod, why don't you take it to PM. This thread is about IP, isn't it, not your snit with Grostnik?

I didn't even do anything this time.

Just yet again illustrated that any company who wishes to retain it's IP has a legal obligation to defend it, with failure to do so resulting in loss of it.

I'd say the tattoo thing is more about stopping a parlor setting up a sign outside saying ' get your GW tattoo's here.'

Pariah Press wrote:My favorite anecdote about "defend IP or lose it" is from Star Trek. Paramount (or Viacom or whomever owns Trek nowadays) basically allowed the design of the Starship Enterprise to fall into the public domain. By allowing fans to use the design (and sell fan-created merchandise with it on there) they have forfeited their right to the design. Anyone can use it now.

Do you have a link with more information about that? It sounds like a fun anecdote, but I'm having a devil of a time tracking down a confirmation online.

"how was it for you"
"it was...ok"
"ok?"
"it's just..."
"just what?"
"that tatoo above your genetalia...you do know that's copyright infringement right?"

40k_slimez wrote:

Clthomps wrote:How about this:

CONVERSIONS

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

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

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

But who owns the IP on a WW2 (or even current) howitzer? No one i think you'll find... so it would be ok.

That actually brings up a point I've heard regarding plastic model kits of modern weapon systems. Seems that defense companies like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, etc.. are attempting to exercise IP rights over weapons systems (like tanks, planes, etc) that they've built on the public dime. Apparently, it's chased a lot of model kit makers away from modern subjects.

Vale,

JohnS

40k_slimez wrote:But who owns the IP on a WW2 (or even current) howitzer? No one i think you'll find... so it would be ok.

It's not the copyright on the Howitzer that's at issue - it's the copyright on the *model* of the howitzer, which belongs to whomever sculpted it.

I can take a picture of the pyramid at Giza. The pyramid is ancient, and not protected by copyright. My picture IS copyrighted.