Switch Theme:

If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus  [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 de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Arbitrator wrote:
Wonder if they'll go after commission artists next, particularly when a lot of them do freelance work for GW anyway.

If they're taking aim at mod makers now, that doesn't bode well for lore and battle report channels, particularly when few of them are quiet about their Patreons and W+ will have it's own versions of them.

You know it says a lot that in just about any other fandom, if any other company did this, the forums would be on fire 24/7. It speaks a lot as to why GW is so successful not so much because of their product but the quasi-religious devotion that a non-insignificant proportion of it's fanbase has towards The Hobby. When people call Warhammer World it's 'Mecca' I wonder if some mean it more literally than you'd think.

I also think it's commendable for our community that we can have a - for the most part - civilised conversation about such a complex topic without directly demonising one side based on our own subjective (moral) opinion.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you doubting the Warhammer community is toxic? You? And you haven’t seen how a company taking the lead, or failing to, has reinforced some of the most toxic elements in the fandom?

No, I'm doubting that the toxic community is the sole fault of GW's corporate nature. People will be toxic regardless and yes they will latch onto excuses but GW as the cause is not true. Hell toxic people will latch onto things and make those things toxic with their behavior. I look at Star Trek, the most out and out "Socialism is cool and being good to others is awesome" media ever, and people still find a way to say things like "the SJW's have ruined Star Trek".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 12:05:27


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

a_typical_hero wrote:
 Arbitrator wrote:
Wonder if they'll go after commission artists next, particularly when a lot of them do freelance work for GW anyway.

If they're taking aim at mod makers now, that doesn't bode well for lore and battle report channels, particularly when few of them are quiet about their Patreons and W+ will have it's own versions of them.

You know it says a lot that in just about any other fandom, if any other company did this, the forums would be on fire 24/7. It speaks a lot as to why GW is so successful not so much because of their product but the quasi-religious devotion that a non-insignificant proportion of it's fanbase has towards The Hobby. When people call Warhammer World it's 'Mecca' I wonder if some mean it more literally than you'd think.

I also think it's commendable for our community that we can have a - for the most part - civilised conversation about such a complex topic without directly demonising one side based on our own subjective (moral) opinion.


Nah, sorry, look below you and earlier in this thread, this community is *toXiCcCCc*, we can't do anything in a civilized manner.

Anyway, yeah, I don't disagree that GW has the right to ask those animators to pull the TWW mods, and both sides appeared to handle it well. But feth. At some point, GW's gotta wake up and realize this is all self-sabotaging. Those patreon bucks were never going in GW's hands. But the general goodwill generated from a broader Warhammer ecosystem (via mods like these) indirectly puts money in GW's hands. And it keeps fans happy. If GW wants a closed IP environment that reaches fewer people, fine. But it's a lose-lose outcome, and I'm allowed to call it dumb on forums (until GW gets those shut down too).

And don't get me wrong, I've given GW a looooootttttttt of money over the years.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





I can totally understand why people are concerned with this situation, but the whole "GW are evil" take or trying to frame everything - regardless of if they actually did anything wrong or not - as GW being at fault (like the whole "They're forcing people!" view of things) that I've seen in some places just seems utterly absurd, especially as there have not been policy changes with these updated guidelines.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 13:09:13


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




BrianDavion wrote:
deano2099 wrote:
Mario wrote:


They should be able to survive a few people making silly jokes while using bits and pieces of their IP.



They probably can and might well never go after this content creator anyway. We'll never know as he's made the choice to stop anyway. Yes GW were "inspired" by a whole lot of other things in their history too. But they never tried to actually license those things. If they had, they'd probably have been told "no" as well. Just like the TTS guy would if he asked GW for a license.

But GW took the risk. They carried on regardless knowing that one of these larger companies that owned the IP they profited from could well have come after them legally. But they kept going, and got to the point that they were bigger than all those companies and so didn't have to worry about that any more. But that was the risk they chose to take. Other content creators may choose not to take that risk with GW.
.


I think you';re letting these people confuse you, no GW didn't just rip off other IPs. they borrowed ideas from them yes but these ideas went into creating something new.

just for case of point, some people legitimately learn their lore for 40k from TTS (this is aweful but some people think thats how you can learn it)

NO ONE would claim you can learn about Dune through 40k


I do agree with you, I was just using a discussion technique to take the conversation somewhere more interesting. Sometimes in discussions it's clear that fundamentally you and someone else disagree on a specific premise. Instead of just constantly bashing the same point back and forth "but you're wrong" "no I'm right" - it's more interesting to go, "okay, even if we accept your premise as correct, it doesn't prove your over-arching point because of this: "


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
I can totally understand why people are concerned with this situation, but the whole "GW are evil" take or trying to frame everything - regardless of if they actually did anything wrong or not - as GW being at fault (like the whole "They're forcing people!" view of things) that I've seen in some places just seems utterly absurd, especially as there have not been policy changes with these updated guidelines.


Yeah, weirdly people are saying they'll be going after people doing painting tutorials and battle reports next. Putting aside for the moment them being fundamentally different as these are people demonstrating the product as it's designed to be used: you're meant to paint your minis, you're meant to create and play out narrative battles - that's all part of the hobby. Making animated films is not.

Putting that aside, the one thing the updated guidelines suggest is that they *won't* be going after these channels. Because they called out animations specifically in the new guidelines. And nothing else. If they were planning on going for battle reports, there's no reason not to include that next to animations when they revised the guidelines.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 13:11:46


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
I can totally understand why people are concerned with this situation, but the whole "GW are evil" take or trying to frame everything - regardless of if they actually did anything wrong or not - as GW being at fault (like the whole "They're forcing people!" view of things) that I've seen in some places just seems utterly absurd, especially as there have not been policy changes with these updated guidelines.


Well, they're not *directly* forcing people... but again, as somebody said before, we all know in this post MeToo world that coercion doesn't require direct force. Do you deny that GW is using indirect force here? Does the distinction matter? I don't think it does.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
I can totally understand why people are concerned with this situation, but the whole "GW are evil" take or trying to frame everything - regardless of if they actually did anything wrong or not - as GW being at fault (like the whole "They're forcing people!" view of things) that I've seen in some places just seems utterly absurd, especially as there have not been policy changes with these updated guidelines.


Well, they're not *directly* forcing people... but again, as somebody said before, we all know in this post MeToo world that coercion doesn't require direct force. Do you deny that GW is using indirect force here? Does the distinction matter? I don't think it does.


So I guess you think someone shouldn't have the right to protect their IP from unauthorized use? because by this logic, any time a copyright holder protects their IP by stopping someone else profiting off it without permission, that's "forcing" them.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 13:42:58


 
   
Made in gb
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms







Internet always was a polarised space and always will be.
In regards of "toxic community and we should do something about" it...

Dakka already does, you can ignore and you can report and we have people, who god knows why, took the MOD role

GW is growing and with it comes new people used to other social media that have little to no rules regarding conduct, so they assume all is the same... doesn't help we vets sometimes.... err many times, are a grumpy bunch.

Not much can be done regarding how others behave unless you want to go the route of the past where forums were just draconian.
Against myself I think that if you want to elevate the conversation level you should start with yourself.

Before internet we had the console wars etc so its common thing everywhere.

In regards to "borrowing" IP Funny that hey? Everyone to some extent does it but I would rather see fresh IP, so I take my hat to the Hiatus and the goals of doing their own ideas and projects. That is very welcome and I may actually have a look into that.

   
Made in us
Guardsman with Flashlight




Morecambe, UK



Well, they're not *directly* forcing people... but again, as somebody said before, we all know in this post MeToo world that coercion doesn't require direct force. Do you deny that GW is using indirect force here? Does the distinction matter? I don't think it does.


Sorry, but I think you may have misunderstood a few things... A company protecting its IP is in no way comparable to the issues that came out of the MeToo movement.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Mentlegen324 wrote:I can totally understand why people are concerned with this situation, but the whole "GW are evil" take or trying to frame everything - regardless of if they actually did anything wrong or not - as GW being at fault (like the whole "They're forcing people!" view of things) that I've seen in some places just seems utterly absurd, especially as there have not been policy changes with these updated guidelines.


SODAZ states that they were forced by GW to take down their animation, and only given a choice as to whether they'd then go work for GW or not.

I have not gotten the sense from any of these fan animators that they were merely asked nicely and free to say no with zero repercussion.

Given that GW didn't do this before, there are pretty obviously some policy changes at work.

Mentlegen324 wrote:because by this logic, any time a copyright holder protects their IP by stooping someone else profiting of it without permission, that's "forcing" them too.


...Yes? Invoking copyright law to C&D someone would be forcing them to stop. I don't see how else you can interpret that.

There's a difference between having a right and being morally justified in exercising it. Every copyright holder has the right to quash unauthorized usage of their media, but that doesn't mean sending legal threats to six-year-olds making a Star Wars fan film would be a great and laudable thing to do.

They can have the right to demand the removal of unauthorized usage of their IP, and we're free to judge it as a stupid and self-sabotaging move.

   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 Mentlegen324 wrote:
So I guess you think someone shouldn't have the right to protect their IP? because by this logic, any time a copyright holder protects their IP by stooping someone else profiting of it without permission, that's "forcing" them too.

I do find it really funny that you keep boiling this down to "oh so what you don't think IP laws should exist?" when there are multiple factors at play that make the situation a difficult one.
TTS making money off of 40k is maybe not allowed but maybe it is because of parody. We don't know and people aren't willing to risk it because of potentially losing their money, their content, and possibly a court case.
TTS has been going on for years and despite your claims that GW's IP rules haven't changed, GW hasn't taken TTS down in these past 8 years but now GW has said explicitly no more fan animations. To me that reads as "it doesn't matter if you did it in the past, don't do it now or else".
However, GW is also launching its own media platform and has been doing the rounds with creators giving the option of "work for GW or stop using GW IP". I'm not saying GW isn't within its rights to do this, it is to some degree but can you also understand that a corporation like GW has much greater weight behind "stop using my IP" than an independent artist would?
Can you also understand that corporations absolutely can and will use IP laws like a flail to hit whatever it wants whenever it wants? In the past, GW has made some really stupid cases against people/companies that GW claims infringes on its IP and there isn't anything stopping that from happening again.
Just because the laws are there doesn't mean they'll be used for the right reasons.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 MJRyder wrote:


Well, they're not *directly* forcing people... but again, as somebody said before, we all know in this post MeToo world that coercion doesn't require direct force. Do you deny that GW is using indirect force here? Does the distinction matter? I don't think it does.


Sorry, but I think you may have misunderstood a few things... A company protecting its IP is in no way comparable to the issues that came out of the MeToo movement.


Hmm, I could explain to you how comparisons work, or I could post this, thanks Yukishiro

yukishiro1 wrote:
 MJRyder wrote:
I have to ask, which we should find more disturbing, criticizing a corporation for practices that, while legal, are questionable, or decrying that we dare think for ourselves and question our corporate overlords wisdom in certain acts. In an era of Phrama-Bro and Lehman Brothers which do you think is actually more damaging to society?


The problem is, most of you aren't thinking.

Honestly, if GW makes you all this unhappy, I think maybe it's some you found yourself something new.


Posts like this are entirely content-free. They add nothing to the discussion, it's just throwing around personal insults because you're unable or unwilling to actually engage in substantive discussion. They're especially counterproductive when they're made while ignoring pages and pages of actual substantive discussion. All they do is reorient people away from talking about the topic to attacking one another.
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

I think MJRyder got a point.

How do these two things compare:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 16:28:21


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

a_typical_hero wrote:
I think MJRyder got a point.

How do compare these two things:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.



I won't comment on the framing you used for your first situation, but I don't agree with it.

Look, it's all about power dynamics. Yes, those two things you mentioned above are obviously completely different scenarios with completely different severities. But they both involve similar exploitation of differences in status. Anybody looking to have a good faith discussion on something will see my point as immediately apparent. Two things can be bad without being equally bad.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I think MJRyder got a point.

How do compare these two things:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.



I won't comment on the framing you used for your first situation, but I don't agree with it.


Just what is there to disagree with with the first part?
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I think MJRyder got a point.

How do compare these two things:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.



I won't comment on the framing you used for your first situation, but I don't agree with it.


Just what is there to disagree with with the first part?


>"What was their right to begin with": see the frankly ludicrous policy GW has on requiring content to be positive about GW that was discussed previously in this thread or another. Much of what GW asserts in the guidelines are not within their rights as a company

>"Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation": or having them shut down, as was the case with some Kickstarters
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
I can totally understand why people are concerned with this situation, but the whole "GW are evil" take or trying to frame everything - regardless of if they actually did anything wrong or not - as GW being at fault (like the whole "They're forcing people!" view of things) that I've seen in some places just seems utterly absurd, especially as there have not been policy changes with these updated guidelines.


simple answer, it is easier to convince yourself that GW is an evil company with a hidden plan to gak on the community, than to admit that those are some incompetent idiots who don't know what they are doing or why their products are selling

saying you have fallen for evil GW and gave them so much money and playing their game is easier than saying you have given the money to incompetent people who have more luck than understanding

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I think MJRyder got a point.

How do compare these two things:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.



I won't comment on the framing you used for your first situation, but I don't agree with it.


Just what is there to disagree with with the first part?


>"What was their right to begin with": see the frankly ludicrous policy GW has on requiring content to be positive about GW that was discussed previously in this thread or another. Much of what GW asserts in the guidelines are not within their rights as a company



No, someone claimed that it's not within their rights, and others then took it as fact without looking into whether that's the case or not. Framing it as "you have to say nice things about GW" is misconstruing what was said, as that is not what it is at all. Notice the word "prejudice" is included in the line, which in a legal sense involves harm as the result of an action. Goodwill and reputation of a brand or company is something that they can try and protect - that's the sort of thing libel/slander laws cover. They're saying don't use their IP to try and harm their brand/company, there 's no reason they can't say that as part of their guidelines.

>"Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation": or having them shut down, as was the case with some Kickstarters


Kickstarter is quite a different situation to the ones being discussed here.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 17:01:30


 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I think MJRyder got a point.

How do compare these two things:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.



I won't comment on the framing you used for your first situation, but I don't agree with it.


Just what is there to disagree with with the first part?


>"What was their right to begin with": see the frankly ludicrous policy GW has on requiring content to be positive about GW that was discussed previously in this thread or another. Much of what GW asserts in the guidelines are not within their rights as a company



No, someone claimed that it's not within their rights, and others then took it as fact without looking into whether that's the case or not. Framing it as "you have to say nice things about GW" is misconstruing what was said, as that is not what it is at all. Goodwill and reputation of a brand or company is something that they can try and protect - that's the sort of thing libel/slander laws cover. They're saying don't use their IP to try and harm their brand/company, there 's no reason they can't say that as part of their guidelines.

>"Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation": or having them shut down, as was the case with some Kickstarters


Kickstarter is quite a different situation to the ones being discussed here.


Alright, I think I'm done here. If we can't agree that "not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property" is pushing the boundary of what GW can control, then there's no common ground and it's not worth discussing. Have a good day.
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Seneca Nation of Indians

 MJRyder wrote:

Sorry, but I think you may have misunderstood a few things... A company protecting its IP is in no way comparable to the issues that came out of the MeToo movement.


It's the fact they're doing all the stuff at once. They're attacking fans at the same time as a scandal about their employee issues are all hitting at once.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:

No, someone claimed that it's not within their rights, and others then took it as fact without looking into whether that's the case or not. Framing it as "you have to say nice things about GW" is misconstruing what was said, as that is not what it is at all. Notice the word "prejudice" is included in the line, which in a legal sense involves harm as the result of an action. Goodwill and reputation of a brand or company is something that they can try and protect - that's the sort of thing libel/slander laws cover. They're saying don't use their IP to try and harm their brand/company, there 's no reason they can't say that as part of their guidelines.


Yes, but effectivly a negative review, something again, COMPLETELY in fair use, would be contrary to GW's terms. And, before you complain 'that's hypothetical' I can point to specific C&Ds.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 17:13:33



Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut





Wait and see, but after reading some comments in the Total War Warhammer modding community, it seems like that this Radious is seen with suspicion with his recent post from the own modding community...especially the part on his statement where he's oddly avoiding to name who actually contacted him. He didn't clarify this as well when he intervened on the reddit topic about this (see there if you want to have fun with 800 comments : https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/oxbdff/games_workshop_is_going_after_total_war_modding/). On the Da Modding Den discord (https://discord.com/invite/SvR7sbr), he did intervene (rather angrily) against someone named Venris who also seems to have been contacted / knows more about that but "can't say any information so far" saying what he says isn't entirely true and "wait for the official statement".

A person from CA, the editor of Total War Warhammer, simply made that statement so far :


OtherTomCA

Aujourd’hui à 16:04
Hi all, I know that there are a lot of questions relating to modding for Total War: Warhammer right now.

I wanted to assure you that the stance has not changed in any fundamental way from what was outlined back in 2016 here: https://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Content_Creators.html#Creating_Mods_for_Total_War:_WARHAMMER.

We are monitoring the conversation and will look at clarifying any questions or situations at a later date.


The stance he's talking about is this one :


Creating Mods for Total War: WARHAMMER

In addition to the above guidance, bear in mind that Total War: WARHAMMER contains IP owned by Games Workshop, and as a result you should consider the following when creating mods for this title.

When uploading TW:WARHAMMER mods to the Steam Workshop via the mod manager, you’ll need to confirm you’ve read the section on Mods in the game’s EULA. This is provided as a pop-up message when you are uploading.

Please ensure your mod meets the requirements laid out in the EULA, especially with regard to the treatment of Games Workshop and Total War IP, and ensuring that no third party IP is present.

Do not include or alter content in a way that is offensive or denigrating to the World of Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Please only include Warhammer Fantasy Battles content in your mods – other Games Workshop IP like Age of Sigmar or Warhammer 40,000 is separate and is often licensed to other companies, or used in other games.

It is not permitted to charge or ask for money for your Total War: WARHAMMER mods.


So...since Radious never says the name of who contacted them, maybe it's not GW at all and it's actually CA, specifically about the mods of their video game.

Some say GW didn't contact nor removed content from any modder so far, but I can't verify their sources.

Radious seems to be known to be someone always going to monetize his mods and doesn't look to have a good reputation in the TW Warhammer modding community.


Anyway, better to be careful before trying to jump to conclusions too fast...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 17:22:58


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

a_typical_hero wrote:
Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.


This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I've been avoiding this thread since it's a pointless ragefest, but checking out the petitions on change.org it seems the best one has got 1,300 signatures. So, a total non-issue for GW and their sales.

This comes as no surprise, as at the end of the day people almost always do what they want for themselves, then rationalize it afterward. Someone isn't going to decide, "Oh I guess I can't buy those minis I want for my army because some guy on Youtube was using GW's IP to make money and got caught." Not to mention anyone who's been into gaming for 10 or more years has already dealt with a far worse GW who abused and bullied through legal claims, not just shut down unlicensed TV shows. So if this was going to put you off, you got put off a long time ago.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I think MJRyder got a point.

How do compare these two things:
- A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years. Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.

- Women and children being exploited by people of power in high places. Directly or indirectly telling them that they won't make it far / bad things going to happen if they don't come with those people to their private suites.



I won't comment on the framing you used for your first situation, but I don't agree with it.


Just what is there to disagree with with the first part?


>"What was their right to begin with": see the frankly ludicrous policy GW has on requiring content to be positive about GW that was discussed previously in this thread or another. Much of what GW asserts in the guidelines are not within their rights as a company



No, someone claimed that it's not within their rights, and others then took it as fact without looking into whether that's the case or not. Framing it as "you have to say nice things about GW" is misconstruing what was said, as that is not what it is at all. Goodwill and reputation of a brand or company is something that they can try and protect - that's the sort of thing libel/slander laws cover. They're saying don't use their IP to try and harm their brand/company, there 's no reason they can't say that as part of their guidelines.

>"Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation": or having them shut down, as was the case with some Kickstarters


Kickstarter is quite a different situation to the ones being discussed here.


Alright, I think I'm done here. If we can't agree that "not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property" is pushing the boundary of what GW can control, then there's no common ground and it's not worth discussing. Have a good day.


It seems you just entirely ignored the explanation for that line I just gave. If you don't think it's reasonable for a company to request in a set of guidelines that if you use their IP, then you don't use that IP to try and harm their buisiness, then yes, there's no point continuing.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
 MJRyder wrote:

Sorry, but I think you may have misunderstood a few things... A company protecting its IP is in no way comparable to the issues that came out of the MeToo movement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:

No, someone claimed that it's not within their rights, and others then took it as fact without looking into whether that's the case or not. Framing it as "you have to say nice things about GW" is misconstruing what was said, as that is not what it is at all. Notice the word "prejudice" is included in the line, which in a legal sense involves harm as the result of an action. Goodwill and reputation of a brand or company is something that they can try and protect - that's the sort of thing libel/slander laws cover. They're saying don't use their IP to try and harm their brand/company, there 's no reason they can't say that as part of their guidelines.


Yes, but effectivly a negative review, something again, COMPLETELY in fair use, would be contrary to GW's terms. And, before you complain 'that's hypothetical' I can point to specific C&Ds.


No it wouldn't. The context and meaning of the line is "don't use our IP in a way that aims to cause harm to our IP or business". That's the sort of thing slander/libel/defamation law and the like is for, those laws have their own criteria and cannot be done for things as simple as a bad review, unless it involves things like false statements.

And just like the rest of it, their previous guidelines (which, are actually still in place as they're on the forgeworld site) say the same thing.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 17:40:35


 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





a_typical_hero wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.


Unless I've missed something, the videos were taken down because he agreed to work with GW - so they were removed to be put on Warhammer+ as a result of that. He then changed his mind due to the community harassing him for taking the job.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.


Unless I've missed something, the videos were taken down because he agreed to work with GW - so they were removed to be put on Warhammer+ as a result of that. He then changed his mind due to the community harassing him for taking the job.


That was my understanding of the situation as well.

A Blog in Miniature

The Swarm Arises

Do you ever notice, sometimes, there's an extra post? 
   
Made in at
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





 Mentlegen324 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.


Unless I've missed something, the videos were taken down because he agreed to work with GW - so they were removed to be put on Warhammer+ as a result of that. He then changed his mind due to the community harassing him for taking the job.

They told him to take his videos down regardless of whether or not he worked with them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 18:23:44


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





 Arbitrator wrote:
 Mentlegen324 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.


Unless I've missed something, the videos were taken down because he agreed to work with GW - so they were removed to be put on Warhammer+ as a result of that. He then changed his mind due to the community harassing him for taking the job.

They told him to take his videos down regardless of whether or not he worked with them.



Have you got a source for that? Tried to find it but can't
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Veteran Marine with Tentacles






 catbarf wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Contacting content creators to hire them officially or, failing that, letting them continue with their work if they remove monetisation.


This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

This is what I distinctly remember from the Sodaz debacle. Not sure where Valrak got it from, but one of the official statements can be found here: https://youtu.be/ZWWOKBw_KVs?t=75 GW told him to take it down and left him in limbo for a month.
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: