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.

This is lifted from "http://blog.coolminiornot.com/skeeve/note/1749/baltimore-golden-demon-2010-coverage.html."
"Q: Like, can I enter a marine that is dated 1987, because it was still being made and could be purchased off the shelf in 1989?

A: On the foot tag you'll find a year stamp... let that be your guide, for models that don't have this, see if you can research them on the net, as there are several amazing collector sites out there that are quite detailed, and just a Google search or two away."

Other than the question starts with 'Like,' - so much pain >_<

Just how much permission or 'proctecion' is GW surrendering by encouragin the use of fansites to obtain details about their products?

Huh?

I fail to see where you are going with this? What is it in relation to?

I think he's asking if GW is granting permission to fan sites to post pictures of their minis..........? After all, telling someone to go look it up on a fan site doesn't do much good if GW is stopping said fan site from posting the aforementioned pictures.

Which is an asinine question in itself.

They don't care about you posting pictures of your personal collection, so long as you're not trying to sell your collection and pass it off as something you sculpted yourself.

Your personal collection is just that. Yours.

And my personal rulebook is just that, mine. Yet if I post pictures of page so and so, they get upset, right? So just how much permission is implied and/or granted in the GW statement? Only old OOP models that you're not selling? Current models? Old rules? What? Given GWs prolific record of C&Ds, one has to wonder.

don_mondo wrote:And my personal rulebook is just that, mine. Yet if I post pictures of page so and so, they get upset, right? So just how much permission is implied and/or granted in the GW statement? Only old OOP models that you're not selling? Current models? Old rules? What? Given GWs prolific record of C&Ds, one has to wonder.

Publishing a page out of a rulebook is a lot different than a picture of a model. It would be along the same lines of why they don't want people posting itemized points costs: they don't want people to be able to figure out the rules without having to buy the books themselves.

Unless they decide they're losing business to a horde of people gluing pics of models to bases, there's no reason for them to try to stop people from posting them online. Even then, I seriously doubt there's anything they could do to stop it. The laws regarding IP are nowhere near as all-encompassing and airtight as GW seem to think they are.

The original question seems to have been posted in regards to whether or not a miniature is valid for use in Golden Demon, correct?

Golden Demon is an event sponsored and organized by GW, but one would assume that the individuals running it are not involved in the legality of GW's IP. Therefore, GW is not telling anyone anything, but GD event personnel are saying it's your responsibility to determine the validity of the model you enter, regardless of the resources you utilize.

Wasn't the main reason GW shut down a bunch of fansites because their names breached GW IP? I seem to recall that being the case. GW doesn't seem to care if fansites are made, as long as their names don't infringe GW's copyrights.

So for instance, if I made a website called "Brother SRM's Space Marine Hootenanny", I'd get in trouble. If I called it "Brother SRM's Grimdark Jamboree" I'd be just fine.