Switch Theme:

SODAZ bought up/shut down by GW  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Bryan Ansell





Birmingham, UK

 Mr. Grey wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



I'm getting really, really tired of this argument that just because Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 IP draws inspiration from dozens of different sources means they have no ground to stand on when it comes to defending their IP. I hate to tell you this, but surprise surprise, a LOT of media is at least somewhat derivative and draws its inspiration from things that came before it.



It does get tiresome. IP HAS to be protected through legal means such as C&D'ing the poor little darlings making fan art and videos etc.

It sucks but the upside is some sort of consistency and continued demand for fan based projects.......


   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


No it is not. But I don't like grandstanding on a moral level from people that come from countries that sold us in to slavery 3 times, while getting rich by stealing everything, including nailed down things, now telling us that because of moral reasons we are not allowed to do the same. which more or less turns has the result of turning us in to a part of the world that will never catch up, specially for countries that happen to not sleep on raw materials or oil. It even goes double considering the fact that both okey when Korea and China did the same thing. Why shouldn't we get rich too.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Karol wrote:

No it is not. But I don't like grandstanding on a moral level from people that come from countries that sold us in to slavery 3 times, while getting rich by stealing everything, including nailed down things, now telling us that because of moral reasons we are not allowed to do the same. which more or less turns has the result of turning us in to a part of the world that will never catch up, specially for countries that happen to not sleep on raw materials or oil. It even goes double considering the fact that both okey when Korea and China did the same thing. Why shouldn't we get rich too.


You...understand that Games Workshop isn't the British Empire right?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


It's not "felony theft." Please quit spreading this factually wrong nonsense. IP infringement is not theft; if it was, you wouldn't need to call it IP infringement, you could just call it theft instead. We have IP infringement laws precisely because it is not theft.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:20:22


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:


It's not "felony theft."


Yes, it is. Selling counterfeit goods and IP theft are both felonies in the EU and US.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




There is no crime of "IP theft."

The reason we have IP infringement laws is because you cannot prosecute someone for theft because, well, it isn't theft. Theft requires the taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive the owner; IP infringement is not theft because there is no taking, merely a reproduction.

If you could walk down the street and point your magic wand at someone's car and duplicate it, it wouldn't be theft to then take the duplicate and drive off in it. This is the same reason that IP infringement isn't theft.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:
There is no crime of "IP theft."


Yes, there is. 18 USC 1831, Economic espionage. 18 USC 1832, Theft of trade secrets. Two readily identifiable examples in US law.

You're so caught up on copyright infringment as a novelty that you're transferring the notion onto adjacent, and far more serious, acts that you willfully ignore. But just because you don't understand the spectrum doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:40:22


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




It's hard to tell if you're being serious here. Trade secret laws are not the sort of IP infringement laws we are all talking about, they are trade secret laws. When we talk about IP infringement, nobody's talking about some eastern european sneaking into GW's nottingham HQ and copying the molds or the secret blueprints for 10th edition.

The post you responded to was referring to copyright (or possibly trademark) infringement in the form of someone independently creating infringing miniatures; you stated that was "felony theft," which is factually wrong.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:47:01


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:
It's hard to tell if you're being serious here.


And it's just as hard to tell why you're so focused on defending blatant theft. I have a few theories.

yukishiro1 wrote:
When we talk about IP infringement, nobody's talking about some eastern european sneaking into GW's nottingham HQ and copying the molds or the secret blueprints for 10th edition.


Except of course that's not what's being discussed here.

yukishiro1 wrote:

The post you responded to was referring to copyright (or possibly trademark) infringement in the form of someone independently creating infringing miniatures; you stated that was "felony theft," which is factually wrong.


Wrong. They were describing individuals who literally use GW products to create counterfeit copies. That squarely falls under anti-counterfeiting laws, and just as readily trade secret protections depending on the method of reproduction.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:50:24


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Thairne wrote:
Just like Astartes, they possibly browbeat the next good channel into submission.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-54J5Pu4bs

He had some very good and lengthy animations, mostly, but not exclusively, involving the DKoK.

If anyone has those saved somewhere...


First of all, this is Fox News meets National Enquirer level reporting. Figure out a way to work 'the libs!' in there and you'll be making the rounds on breitbart by tomorrow.

Secondly, here's the deal:

If they were monetized: "oh no, now he won't be able to make money off of someone else's IP! The horror of not being allowed blatant ripoffs!"

If the weren't monetized: Shadier, but still ultimately their prerogative since there's no way a straight up animated DKoK series would fall under fair use.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:55:27


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sterling191 wrote:

Wrong. They were describing individuals who literally use GW products to create counterfeit copies. That squarely falls under anti-counterfeiting laws, and just as readily trade secret protections depending on the method of reproduction.


Wrong both factually and legally. Here is the post:

Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


This is clearly referring to models independently designed, but that infringe on GW's copyright, not on copying miniatures. But even if it was actual copying, copying is not theft of trade secrets. Please read the laws you cited, this is very simple stuff:

(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;


A model is not a trade secret. Stealing GW's molds is theft of trade secrets; making your own molds using GW miniatures is not.

I am not defending anything, I am merely calling out your factually and legally inaccurate claims. Just because IP infringement isn't theft doesn't mean it is ok, but it does mean you shouldn't use the term theft in order to try to make it sound worse.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:58:13


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




yukishiro1 wrote:

This is clearly referring to models independently designed, but that infringe on GW's copyright, not on copying miniatures. But even if it was actual copying, copying is not theft of trade secrets. Please read the laws you cited, this is very simple stuff:

(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;


A model is not a trade secret. Stealing GW's molds is theft of trade secrets; making your own molds using GW miniatures is not.


Thanks for highlighting the important section, and for torpedoing your own argument. Making ones own molds from the product firmly meets those definitions, as it is neither generally known to, nor readily ascertainable by proper means how to make an injection molded plastic or resin model by Joe on the street.

You might know how to do that. That doesnt make the legal definition any less clear however.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 20:57:50


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Karol wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Karol wrote:
I have no problem with them defending their IP, what I have problem with is GW moral grand standing. Specially when polish or russian companies make models inspired by GW lore, GW suddenly become very anti making money based on inspirtation.


So...felony theft is okay when it's done in Eastern Europe?

Get the feth out of here with that.


No it is not. But I don't like grandstanding on a moral level from people that come from countries that sold us in to slavery 3 times, while getting rich by stealing everything, including nailed down things, now telling us that because of moral reasons we are not allowed to do the same. which more or less turns has the result of turning us in to a part of the world that will never catch up, specially for countries that happen to not sleep on raw materials or oil. It even goes double considering the fact that both okey when Korea and China did the same thing. Why shouldn't we get rich too.


Wait, when did GW sell you into slavery 3 times? Or did you get so lost in your moralist soapboxing that you completely forgot what the feth is even being discussed?

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sterling191 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:

This is clearly referring to models independently designed, but that infringe on GW's copyright, not on copying miniatures. But even if it was actual copying, copying is not theft of trade secrets. Please read the laws you cited, this is very simple stuff:

(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;


A model is not a trade secret. Stealing GW's molds is theft of trade secrets; making your own molds using GW miniatures is not.


Thanks for highlighting the important section, and for torpedoing your own argument. Making ones own molds from the product firmly meets those definitions, as it is neither generally known to, nor readily ascertainable by proper means how to make an injection molded plastic or resin model by Joe on the street.

You might know how to do that. That doesnt make the legal definition any less clear however.


That's a remarkable misreading of the text. I cited the definition to show that the model itself is not a trade secret. If you take the model itself and create a mold from it, that isn't theft of a trade secret because you aren't stealing or copying anything that is secret. GW's mold is a trade secret, but if you can produce your own mold not through any sort of illegal copying of original mold but merely from the model itself, there is no appropriation of the trade secret. In the same way that stealing GW's STL file would be theft of a trade secret, but making your own STL by looking at a GW model is not. Or that stealing someone's recipe for cake is theft of trade secrets, but buying one of their cakes and reverse engineering the recipe is not.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the Supreme Court of the United States has to say on the subject:

A trade secret law, however, does not offer protection against discovery by fair and honest means, such as by independent invention, accidental disclosure, or by so-called reverse engineering, that is, by starting with the known product and working backward to divine the process which aided in its development or manufacture.


Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476, fn. 5. (1974)

IP infringement is not theft. Making your own mold from a miniature is not theft of trade secrets. Please stop making these legally incorrect statements, all they do is confuse the discussion.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/13 21:24:08


 
   
Made in gb
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





The only reason GW would have opened a dialog with SODAZ is if they were:
A- Monetising their work through YT.
B- Monetising their work through Patreon/other funding site.
C- They were impressed by the creators work and instead of annihilating it from orbit, gave them a chance to work with the IP at its source.
GW isn't staffed by cavemen who don't know how to use the Internet. Many staff are friendly with popular content creators and will absolutely see any good quality animation work if it's talked about on social media. If a project garners attention then GW will likely find out and either choose to C&D, which btw has been pretty rare recently, or work within their rights as IP owners to make the project work for them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 21:41:59


 
   
Made in de
[DCM]
Aspirant Tech-Adept






ERJAK wrote:


First of all, this is Fox News meets National Enquirer level reporting. Figure out a way to work 'the libs!' in there and you'll be making the rounds on breitbart by tomorrow.


I'm sorry a quick forum post about fan art about plastic men does not satisfy your standards for actual, neutral and professional journalism...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 21:40:50


Data author of DA/AdM on Battlescribe
Report bugs here:
https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 Gert wrote:
The only reason GW would have opened a dialog with SODAZ is if they were:
A- Monetising their work through YT.

Even if SODAZ channel wasn't monetized, there is still the issue that YT gets an income from ads, so still a copyright violation.
   
Made in gb
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions





Spoiler:
 Tyran wrote:

Even if SODAZ channel wasn't monetized, there is still the issue that YT gets an income from ads, so still a copyright violation.

Also true.
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority





Boston-area [Watertown] Massachusetts

Psst.

If you allow unauthorized use of your IP...you can lose your rights to that IP, as lawyers can now successfully argue you allowed people to use it by your inaction. This applies to both Trademarks and Copyright.

You may not like independent fan creators getting roflstomped, but this is the reality of IP law.

Anything else is wishful thinking in a late-stage capitalism world.






Falling down is the same as being hit by a planet — "I paint to the 20 foot rule, it saves a lot of time." -- Me
ddogwood wrote:People who feel the need to cheat at Warhammer deserve pity, not anger. I mean, how pathetic does your life have to be to make you feel like you need to cheat at your toy army soldiers game?
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Briancj wrote:
Psst.

If you allow unauthorized use of your IP...you can lose your rights to that IP, as lawyers can now successfully argue you allowed people to use it by your inaction. This applies to both Trademarks and Copyright.

You may not like independent fan creators getting roflstomped, but this is the reality of IP law.

Anything else is wishful thinking in a late-stage capitalism world.



This is largely another of those pernicious myths people bandy about on the internet and confuse one another with. It is essentially impossible to waive your copyright any way but through explicit words to that effect, and you certainly don't do it by failing to pursue violators. In theory, the amount of damages you can recover for copyright infringement could be diminished if your work is comprehensively infringed by others, but that has nothing to do with your enforcement per se, and when GW acts to protect its copyrights, it's almost always simply about stopping the infringement and almost never about getting a monetary judgment, so this element is largely irrelevant.

Trademarks can theoretically lose their protection if they are not defended, but what GW has to be worried about on that front is not fan videos. If it was, they'd be having their trademarks invalidated simply because youtube channels post battle reports that use the trademarked terms. In general, the way you lose trademark protection is if you fail to stop your term from becoming used generally to refer to other similar products (Kleenex being the best example), not because people use your trademarked term to refer to your products. In other words, a guy making GW-themed youtube videos is not any threat to GW's trademark - what would be (if they were popular enough) is a guy making his own Adeptus Astartes videos that were not set in GW's universe but in their own universe.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/13 23:13:25


 
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 00:07:21


 
   
Made in mx
Tunneling Trygon




Mexico

 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


Without the compliance of the creator, GW cannot "take" whatever Astartes gets, but it can sue the creator for copyright infringement.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/14 00:24:32


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


We have the big mouse to thank for that.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block





I have no clue who SODAZ is, but I wish them luck.
*nevermind, now I remember the video of theirs I saw, good stuff.

 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


What Tyran said.
Even still, GW wasn't an active participants in the production but let's not ignore the literal design of the actual armored characters used.
Interestingly enough ~98% of the rest of that series was original content; from the environments, characters, human/alien soldiers and story, sound and VFX, etc. almost none of it has canonical 40k universe precedence....except for the GW-power armor characters used and maybe one of the ships.
Outside of those armors they could tell the exact same story with proxy not-quite marines and heck, still call it Astarte given it's a millennia old Mesopotamian goddess name, and it'd be harder for GW to have made a legal case against having the content pulled or them wanting to patreon all the effort. It's not like the creator is incapable or lacking the imagination. But would it still have garnered the same kind of fan-reaction/reputation it does? I don't know.
I don't quite remember whether the pervasive rumor of starcraft's origin related to 40k game is true or not, but even with the parallels (or likely common inspirations) that game universe can and does stand on its own. I would have loved to see the fuller story Syama Pedersen wanted to tell, but I'm sure whatever work he does for GW will be damn good too
.I'm also not saying people shouldn't make fan art, regardless of media, but it's hard to pretend one isn't knowingly piggybacking off of established work when they risk monetizing direct copies for their own end (and I plea the 5th).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 21:27:14


 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 fraser1191 wrote:
I'm pretty sure a C&D can only be handed out if he's making money off the IP.

He has a Patreon to support his animations and IIRC he uses DoW models which means he's using assets that belong to someone else to make money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BertBert wrote:
 BlackoCatto wrote:
"You take down all your GW stuff on your channel and work for us.... or we bust your kneecaps, good deal?" -GW probably.


It would be interesting to know what these kinds of deal actually mean. Do you think this dude and the maker of astartes are actual employees with a fixed salary now, or did they just join a pool of affiliated artists who work on a project-by-project basis?

Likely licensed employees with an IP rights clause in their contract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr. Burning wrote:
 Mr. Grey wrote:
Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



I'm getting really, really tired of this argument that just because Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 IP draws inspiration from dozens of different sources means they have no ground to stand on when it comes to defending their IP. I hate to tell you this, but surprise surprise, a LOT of media is at least somewhat derivative and draws its inspiration from things that came before it.



It does get tiresome. IP HAS to be protected through legal means such as C&D'ing the poor little darlings making fan art and videos etc.

It sucks but the upside is some sort of consistency and continued demand for fan based projects.......

Yeah, worst part about IP law is if you don't try to legally enforce it at all times it can create legal precedent which bites you in the ass when you need to enforce it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/14 02:05:01


 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Thairne wrote:
POSSIBLY browbeaten. Dont leave out important words.
Rumours are they put a gun to the artists head that left them 2 options - to work for GW and accept their terms or get a C&D. Thats not "given a chance", that's essentially blackmail.
Its just as possible as they offered so much money that they simply HAD to agree to not be stupid, but my money is rather on the first.

Vids unfortunately turned to private... :(


Thats neither browbeating nor blackmail, nor is it "having a gun held to your head". A C&D is meaningless, other than being a notice that you're in violation of someones intellectual property and continued violation could result in legal action. Do you know what the consequences and ramifications of receiving a C&D are? N-O-T-H-I-N-G. These creators were given the option to have their skills and talent recognized - probably launching a few peoples careers in the process - and to make some money while doing so, or simply to stop making animations based on GWs IP and go on living their life as normal working on other projects. Theres no gun there, theres no blackmail there, nor is there any "browbeating" there. And that assumes the *RUMOR* is even true in the first place, and not simply some misanthrope idly speculating negative context into something that is otherwise a huge positive in all of these guys lives - every one of these animators has jumped at the opportunity and expressed nothing but excitement about it.

My personal stance on why I dont like this development at all is basically best said in a comment I found:


In general its amazing whenever creators get opportunities with the companies whose products they make content for. But with GW its very dubious when they force said creators to cut off all communication with their fans, and force them to remove all their hard work only for it to be Edited™ and posted on their fringe site where only fans already dedicated to the community will be able to find them, instead of increasing exposure to the fandom like these works of art did and GW never could. GW keeps shooting itself in the foot, and its getting pretty tiring


They
- shut them down, forcing removal from YT
- thereby reduce exposure
- force you on their site where it gets hidden under a bullet point
- seemingly forbid them to communicate with the fans
- dabble in the process and alter the works, as seen in Astartes (not just sound choices via copyright, but speeding up scenes as well)
- probably replace artistic visions with corporate design
- slow down the releases due to meddling from higher ups

and so far we have not seen anything positive come from it. Which might come, but... I doubt it somehow.
Not white/blackknighting, thats just what I see and fear. Yes, it's their IP, but forcing everything under their control is bad for us as consumers.


Ah, I see *YOU* are the misanthrope, and probably also the source of the "rumor". You have a horribly warped and flawed perception of whats going on here - GW gave them a sack of cash, insider access to GWs lore bible, more resources than they ever had access to before, and permission to create official canon within the IP that they were working on, in exchange they had these guys sign the industry standard NDAs that they would have had to sign if they got a job with literally any other animation studio and pull their content so that it can be refined and released through official channels and in accordance with the brands official style guides which ensure tonal and thematic consistency between works by different creators. Again, this is pretty much industry standard, and would be no different than if we were discussing Lucasfilm and Star Wars fanimations or Bandai and Gundam fanimations or basically anything else. As for the "posted on their fringe site where only fans already dedicated to the community will be able to find them" you are incredibly short-sighted if you think thats what this is all going to amount to. GW has hired major film and television studio heavyweights on to its staff - they aren't investing into highly paid film/tv studio execs and content creators to post this gak on Warhammer Community (which even if they did, all the videos are literally hosted on Youtube *eyeroll*). These creators and their shows are going to get way more visibility and exposure than they ever would have sitting on Youtube.


This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Karol wrote:
You know I can get it with AoS. They do a lot of wierd stuff with that, but no one can say that the stuff they do there isn't their own stuff. On the other hand the amount of "inspiration" they used in w40k are gigantic. I get that a company wants and has to defends it IP. They full right to do it, by law. But moral grandstanding when their stuff is build on stealing/getting inspired from other people stuff should not be okey.



The idea of knowledge as cumulative — a ladder, or a tower of stones, rising higher and higher — existed only as one possibility among many. For several hundred years, scholars of scholarship had considered that they might be like dwarves seeing farther by standing on the shoulders of giants --Sir Isaac Newton


Most pop culture calls back to something that came before. To pretend things are truly original ignores the source material that inspired. And there's literally nothing wrong with that.


   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 waefre_1 wrote:
Arguments about IP law aside, something that I think gets missed in a lot of these arguments is the question of labor. GW made the IP, yes, but GW did not do the animation. GW did not make the programs that were used to make Astartes, GW did not do the storyboarding, GW did not provide technical or artistic direction, GW did not provide the computer it was done on, GW did not facilitate the upload or host the final product. Why, then, does having the IP justify GW taking any/all of whatever Astartes gets from it?


It should be noted that everything here you list is used under some kind of licence, or agreement of some kind to facilitate it. None of it pops into existence at the persons house to create it, and they should extend that same to GW and there IP.
GW like any business has channels to go through.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Would this person have been so successful in the first place if they were not using an established IP? Because I am pretty sure the answer is no. The only reason they became popular enough for us to hear about it is because of using the IP that belongs to GW. It was borrowed popularity from the start.

Now I'm not saying fan content is bad. But this person got first a successful youtube channel then a job from GW in exchange for borrowing their IP without permission and showing them what they could do with it. Pretty sweet fething deal for everyone involved if you ask me.
   
Made in it
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot





Sesto San Giovanni, Italy

I'm with Karol on this one. Once you're the bigger fish in the pond, you should behave like one... you see no shark worried that the pilot fishes are stealing its food.
Sharks that does dies from parasites. Which in this analogy are recasted, not those who created 40k-compatible miniatures or eldar-esque miniature like recently happened.

I would love to see the HR Giger Foundation sent a C&D to GW for their ENTIRE Tyranid line (or even for some specific very-derivative design... of GSC for example).
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: