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.

Interesting question on GW policy. While researching their legalese in regards to a question of a different nature, I stumbled across this in the 'What you can and can't do with our IP' section.

This also means that we cannot allow tattoos as an acceptable use of our IP as a third party necessarily has to perform the "service."

How could you possibly enforce this? Since we all know there are plenty of folks out there with 40k tatts.

They cut off the appendage with the tattoo on it.

Somehow, I'm pretty sure that unless you go up to Mr. Wells and say "Look at my cool Aquilla tattoo!!" I doubt anyone will really care or do anything to enforce it. Get one and don't make a big deal about it in front of any GW management and you'll be fine. I'm pretty sure most GW employees won't even know it's illegal.

Also, I like coolyo's answer. +1, buddy. I'm all in favor of limb-chopping.

coolyo294 wrote:They cut off the appendage with the tattoo on it.

Funny until you realize that if possible, GW probably will call repomen.

Most of the tattoo shops I know could not afford litigation. If they get sued, they go out of business. GW sues a few shops/artists and others will hear about it and may be reluctant to infringe on GW IP.

Pretty simple to enforce really.

Ye like there is a way to do something about such tattoos. Please remove your tattoo or we will sue you If I've bought their product and I tattooed something from there "for personal use" there is no problem. About the third party being involved - you can always say that it was done by a friend without any charge so this stupid GW policy! Or I will say that I did the tattoo myself!

I think France should sue GW for using their Fleur-de-Lys without paying royalties.

so many of GWs symbols are considered public domain.

the Crux Terminus is simply a Maltese Cross with some minor changes,

the Aquilla is just another double headed eagle,

the Ultramarine symbol is just an inverted Omega symbol,


the only things i can think of that are GW originals would be the marks of the Chaos gods, the Mechanicus Cog, the ork Clan symbols, Tau symbols, and Eldar runes.


GW wouldn't ever persue case against a person wearing a tattoo, they would go after the artist. and if you don't say who the artist was they will find it impossable to file a claim.

Lynata wrote:I think France should sue GW for using their Fleur-de-Lys without paying royalties.

Didn't France sever its patent on the Fleur-de-Lys in 1793?

But it might explain why the new fluff refers to the symbol as the Sigil Sororitas

I was wondering how Games Workshop would force deletion of tattoos. I suppose flaying alive is still legal somewhere in the world.

A) It's unenforceable on you, the tatooed person. I've met a bunch of people with GW tattoos.
B) It could be enforced on a tattoo shop, especially if the shop was using a GW trademarked symbol in their "flash", that is; the standard images they display on the walls and in books for people to choose from. Normally a shop has to buy/pay licenses for flash, as it's all created by various artists.

"That tattoo on your chest is Gamesworkshop property sir."

Mythal wrote:Didn't France sever its patent on the Fleur-de-Lys in 1793?

They actually had a patent on that? You learn something new every day.

Mythal wrote:I suppose flaying alive is still legal somewhere in the world.

Why do you think the colour pots are called "Blood Red"?

But yeah, I suppose they could just sue the shop that took money for tattooeing it. Lucas too sues the manufactors of Trooper armour, not the buyers.
That said, I guess a shop owner could always pull the "I've never heard of 40k" card, so it'd be pretty much a Cease-and-Desist. Or this passage in the policy is quite simply a lawyery statement meant as a preemptive measure, targeting tattoo parlors that would (partially) specialize on such iconography, advertising and making money from it, rather than the odd guy who stumbles into a shop with a crude sketch of an aquila.

terranarc wrote:"That tattoo on your chest is Gamesworkshop property sir."

I wonder if Jervis has flayed bits of skin from reposessed Tattoos hanging in his office

Lynata wrote:They actually had a patent on that? You learn something new every day.

Forgive me, it was a jest in exceedingly poor taste about the fate of Louis XVI

Lynata wrote:Or this passage in the policy is quite simply a lawyery statement meant as a preemptive measure, targeting tattoo parlors that would (partially) specialize on such iconography, advertising and making money from it, rather than the odd guy who stumbles into a shop with a crude sketch of an aquila.

Very possibly - with as many of their icons having public domain roots, I suspect that's more likely than actively pursuing a line of inquiry every time they see Ω tattooed on someone's arm.

How could you possibly enforce this? Since we all know there are plenty of folks out there with 40k tatts.

With a chainsword.

terranarc wrote:"That tattoo on your chest is Gamesworkshop property sir."

The original style is better. More Grimdark, too.



Plus, it was played by Giles(Anthony Stewart Head) for the 1st translation to a movie.

Mannahnin wrote:A) It's unenforceable on you, the tatooed person. I've met a bunch of people with GW tattoos.
B) It could be enforced on a tattoo shop, especially if the shop was using a GW trademarked symbol in their "flash", that is; the standard images they display on the walls and in books for people to choose from. Normally a shop has to buy/pay licenses for flash, as it's all created by various artists.

This.

While it's amusing (the first, you know, thousand or so times...) to joke about, the person who has the tattoo is not the one who would be targeted if GW decided to try to persue this. The Tattooist is the one who has technically (possibly) breached IP laws.

Tattoos and IP are a big, nasty grey hole in the law, though, and it's rarely been tested. I would very strongly suspect that, like a lot of the other stuff on GW's legal page, it's just there for consistency and to cover themselves against the unexpected, rather than because they have any actual interest in pursuing tattoo artists.

It's pretty much impossible to enforce. They can only go after the tatoo artist, and if you don't tell them who did it, or say you had your friend do it for free as previously mentioned, it's done. And even if you do direct them to who did it, they can just claim they had no idea that it's IP which they probably didn't.

loota boy wrote:... they can just claim they had no idea that it's IP which they probably didn't.

Ignorance is rarely a valid excuse, so far as the law is concerned.

Well, like said before, a large portion of GW symbols arn't that different from some other symbol with a skull or two on it.

Perhaps not, but it doesn't really matter how "common" the symbol is. Once GW slapped some skulls on it and filed a copyright, it just became theirs.

The Nike logo (internally called "the dramatic swoosh") is a curved check-mark. It's copyright to hell and back.

The Coca-Cola "swerve" (that white, wavy line on their red cans) is just some lines... but it's copyright.

...and this is just to name a few well-known, yet very basic, symbols of companies.

Games Workshop aren't stupid enough to attempt to sue a tattoo artist. What, some measly amount of money in return for a hugely negative public opinions? Now there's a clever business plan.

Besides, most logos in 40K are already public property.

Which of their logos is public property?

Also... though this is how it is in the US, other countries may vary... a company must vigorously defend its IP and Copyright materials. It does not have the option to let one guy slide while suing some other guy. Once you stop defending your IP, it's no longer protected.

Abstract Catalyst wrote:What, some measly amount of money in return for a hugely negative public opinions? Now there's a clever business plan.

That didn't stop Marvel... and even with Marvel being quite a lot larger than GW, it didn't have much of an effect on public opinion. Most people never even heard about it.

It's not always just about the money from the lawsuit. Keeping control of your IP is more of a long-term issue.

I imagine that they really don't enforce it, simply because it would be a hard thing to track. There are half a dozen tattoo shops within walking distance of my house, which means that they are also within drunk-stumbling distance. One could easily claim they don't remember even getting the tattoo and that it was the result of a wild night of drinking.

-cgmckenzie

True, but the fact that you'd be having the conversation at all is proof that GW is, at least, attempting to protect their IP.


Like insaniak said, it's not about the money, it's about protecting the IP. It's what prevents other companies from producing a line of miniatures, or books, slapping one of these supposedly-public GW logos on it and calling it "Chapter Approved"... or, in that case, "Chapter Acknowledged".

Enforcement would require 2 things with the first being most important:

1) GW would need to know you have the tattoo in the first place.

2) GW would want to force the issue.

Once those points are met it is a matter of simplicity to subpeona the person with the tattoo to legally push them to disclose the name of the artist in court, or perjur themselves to protect them. If you are willing to go to jail to protect your artist then go for it. If not you give them up and they get sued.

The first is pretty unlikely unless, as someone pointed out, you waved your new tatt under the nose of high level GW management. The 2nd is also not likely unless someone is using that fancy new tattoo to someone generate income. For example some fancy MMA competitor with a big Genestealer tattooed on his chest calling himself the Genestealer in the circuit.

That said GW is not above making dick moves for silly financial reasons...

Skriker

I would love for GW police to burst and cut out someones tattoo! That would be a great Monty Python skit....

Cutting off appendages? Flaying? Cutting out the tattoo?

You guys gotta do everything the hard way. Save your buds with 40k tats the future trouble, simply hand them a cheese grater!

Skriker wrote:Enforcement would require 2 things with the first being most important:

1) GW would need to know you have the tattoo in the first place.

2) GW would want to force the issue.

Once those points are met it is a matter of simplicity to subpeona the person with the tattoo to legally push them to disclose the name of the artist in court, or perjur themselves to protect them. If you are willing to go to jail to protect your artist then go for it. If not you give them up and they get sued.

The first is pretty unlikely unless, as someone pointed out, you waved your new tatt under the nose of high level GW management. The 2nd is also not likely unless someone is using that fancy new tattoo to someone generate income. For example some fancy MMA competitor with a big Genestealer tattooed on his chest calling himself the Genestealer in the circuit.

That said GW is not above making dick moves for silly financial reasons...

Skriker

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that there is probably no way you could jail someone over that. Besides, there's always the "I was drunk and don't remember getting it" card.