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.

I am surprised no one has had a aneurysm yet that Mantic is using GW products in thier photo advertising thier models. Someone posts a 3rd party model on GW's site and people practically burn down the internet...

See if you can find the GW models!





Wonder why no one has chosen to notice? Using other companies copyrighted art in a commercial publication without permission is potentially worse than posting images of fan art on a website. I like to see equally symmetrical outrage out of consistent non-biased posters.

Honestly its no consequence to me that they used the realm of battle board..

I am curious why they would have bothered not simply making their own terrain for photography especially as this looks like the type of official photo that you expect to see in a print rulebook. (which they wouldn't be able to do should they publish it as a commercial product without citing the source in the photo)

nkelsch wrote:I am surprised no one has had a aneurysm yet that Mantic is using GW products in thier photo advertising thier models. Someone posts a 3rd party model on GW's site and people practically burn down the internet...

...

Wonder why no one has chosen to notice? Using other companies copyrighted art in a commercial publication without permission is potentially worse than posting images of fan art on a website. I like to see equally symmetrical outrage out of consistent non-biased posters.

Because, unlike GW, Mantic doesn't chest-thump about 100% Mantic models and no other minature comapnies at tournaments or pretend that they're the only mini maker on earth. When GW puts someone else's model in one of their pictures, it gets pointed out because GW are so full of themselves when it comes to 'staying pure'. When someone else does it no one else cares because no one else is like GW in this area (or at least not to the same degree).

Isn't that obvious?

There's also a few Gale Force 9 tents. It's terrain, which they're not selling. Nobody cares.

Laughing Man wrote:There's also a few Gale Force 9 tents. It's terrain, which they're not selling. Nobody cares.

But to photograph, you need explicit permission of the copyright owners, especially if they use these photos in their commercial print publications. The fact they are not selling it is irrelevant. All is well and fun on casual photos on the internet, but if these end up in print publications of product, that is a copyright lawsuit.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

How are we to know that they do not have permission to use it?? It does not need to be cited on there site.. Well for that matter the trees are probably from wood land scenics.. Hope they don't get into trouble for that either.. Worst case scenario is GW issues a cease and desist letter to them to pull the image..

nkelsch wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:There's also a few Gale Force 9 tents. It's terrain, which they're not selling. Nobody cares.

But to photograph, you need explicit permission of the copyright owners, especially if they use these photos in their commercial print publications. The fact they are not selling it is irrelevant. All is well and fun on casual photos on the internet, but if these end up in print publications of product, that is a copyright lawsuit.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

Which is fine for GW and Battlefront if they want to bring to Mantic to court. I can't see Battlefront doing it, and GW has proven inept so far when it comes to actually bringing down the legal hammer.

And, of course, you're making the assumption that this will be in the rulebook. And you're also making the assumption that Mantic doesn't have permission.

And, again, nobody cares because Mantic doesn't insist on a 'Mantic-only' policy and pretends to be the only miniature wargame maker in the world. Which is why we then berate GW when they decide to post pictures featuring other company's models.

So step down off the soapbox before you go and hurt yourself.

This is the stupidest excuse for white knighting I've ever seen. While it's not impossible that a sufficiently incompetent judge would award GW damages over this (in the same way a sufficiently incompetent judge could find you guilty of murdering Abraham Lincoln), the fact that this is a) a mass produced item on the photographer's own property, b) a background to the focus of the photograph c) does not diminish the value of the copyrighted item (since you can't game on a photograph) and d) something that GW has at least implicitly condoned for decades means they don't have a leg to stand on.

infinite_array wrote:
And, again, nobody cares because Mantic doesn't insist on a 'Mantic-only' policy and pretends to be the only miniature wargame maker in the world. Which is why we then berate GW when they decide to post pictures featuring other company's models.

So step down off the soapbox before you go and hurt yourself.

I totally agree..

nkelsch wrote:But to photograph, you need explicit permission of the copyright owners, especially if they use these photos in their commercial print publications. The fact they are not selling it is irrelevant. All is well and fun on casual photos on the internet, but if these end up in print publications of product, that is a copyright lawsuit.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

From your own link: In most countries, you will not need permission if you want to include a work in a photograph if its is merely a part of the background or is otherwise incidental to the principle object/subject represented in the photograph.

HBMC has already adequately answered your original question. The fact people do not blow a gasket when other companies use GWS's products with theirs is not hypocritical because other companies do not pretend they are the totality of the hobby to the complete exclusion of all other companies.

ruff wrote:How are we to know that they do not have permission to use it?? It does not need to be cited on there site.. Well for that matter the trees are probably from wood land scenics.. Hope they don't get into trouble for that either.. Worst case scenario is GW issues a cease and desist letter to them to pull the image..

GW legal says they do have to cite it and explicitly say if they have permission or not... And GW still reserves the right to reject permission.

But I get the gist. Basically people are morally bankrupt in their selective outrage simply because they dislike GW and like Mantic.

Oh! And GWs submission policy makes you agree to accept any and all fault and liability for submitted works and that you have complete ownership and permission of everything submitted. If you lie to GW and submit models with 3rd party copyrighted parts, GW is protected from legal harm and can and will sue for any damages as part of the agreed to submission policy. Of course most 'damages' is a removal of the offending infringing photo...

I do enjoy a good double standard.

I didn't notice because there were pretty models on the board, does it matter?

Honestly, Idk who would have noticed if you weren't scouring these pixels to find some anti-mantic ground to stand on.

Imo, it could just be photoshopped lol

Ouze wrote:

nkelsch wrote:But to photograph, you need explicit permission of the copyright owners, especially if they use these photos in their commercial print publications. The fact they are not selling it is irrelevant. All is well and fun on casual photos on the internet, but if these end up in print publications of product, that is a copyright lawsuit.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

From your own link: In most countries, you will not need permission if you want to include a work in a photograph if its is merely a part of the background or is otherwise incidental to the principle object/subject represented in the photograph.

HBMC has already adequately answered your original question. The fact people do not blow a gasket when other companies use GWS's products with theirs is not hypocritical because other companies do not pretend they are the totality of the hobby to the complete exclusion of all other companies.

That link clearly shows how even the most perceived insignificant of in the background claim you can make doesn't legally protect you and is not usually protection and that clear consent is always preferred.

And you don't see PP promoting or allowing alternative minis. Most mini companies try to pretend like only their minis work for their games. I don't see GWs actions any different Than privateer press or mantics. Many PP event seven require PP models as they are sponsored by PP. I see way more freedom in the Indy GW circuit than I do at PP games. It is smart for companies to not acknowledge competitors and pretend they are the only thing out there.

nkelsch wrote:

ruff wrote:How are we to know that they do not have permission to use it?? It does not need to be cited on there site.. Well for that matter the trees are probably from wood land scenics.. Hope they don't get into trouble for that either.. Worst case scenario is GW issues a cease and desist letter to them to pull the image..

GW legal says they do have to cite it and explicitly say if they have permission or not... And GW still reserves the right to reject permission.

But I get the gist. Basically people are morally bankrupt in their selective outrage simply because they dislike GW and like Mantic.

Oh! And GWs submission policy makes you agree to accept any and all fault and liability for submitted works and that you have complete ownership and permission of everything submitted. If you lie to GW and submit models with 3rd party copyrighted parts, GW is protected from legal harm and can and will sue for any damages as part of the agreed to submission policy. Of course most 'damages' is a removal of the offending infringing photo...

I do enjoy a good double standard.

I truely doubt that any damages would be awarded to GW.. But honestly who cares.. Your making a stink over nothing..

nkelsch wrote:GW legal says they do have to cite it and explicitly say if they have permission or not... And GW still reserves the right to reject permission.

GW legal could say you owe them a kidney and your firstborn, that doesn't make it true.

But I get the gist. Basically people are morally bankrupt in their selective outrage simply because they dislike GW and like Mantic.

To be selectively outraged, doesn't one first have to be outraged? The worst I've heard in the reverse case (incidental non-GW parts shown on the GW website) is people snickering about the GW Inquisition's failure to catch the un-product.

nkelsch wrote:
But I get the gist. Basically people are morally bankrupt in their selective outrage simply because they dislike GW and like Mantic.

Oh, dear. I do believe this thread is drowning in irony.

nkelsch wrote:
And you don't see PP promoting or allowing alternative minis. Most mini companies try to pretend like only their minis work for their games. I don't see GWs actions any different Than privateer press or mantics. Many PP event seven require PP models as they are sponsored by PP. I see way more freedom in the Indy GW circuit than I do at PP games. It is smart for companies to not acknowledge competitors and pretend they are the only thing out there.

And now you've got to bring Privateer Press into it?

What's next? Are you going to claim that GW is just a company, so we should all appreciate their price rises? Or maybe that GW games are the most superior on the market? Better cover all those white-knight bases while you're at it.

Testors paints uses a Space Marine image to show what you can paint with on certain packages and I do not see any warning label on said package indicating that the model is GW's.

infinite_array wrote:And now you've got to bring Privateer Press into it?

He wanted to try out different coloured straw?

Unless Mantic also makes flock, they clearly should also be sued by whomever made the flock.

And the glue.

Ohhhhhh my god the sky just fell.......................

Ouze wrote:Unless Mantic also makes flock, they clearly should also be sued by whomever made the flock.

And the glue.

As well as the company which made the paint the miniatures are coated with and the company that made those trees

H.B.M.C. wrote:

infinite_array wrote:And now you've got to bring Privateer Press into it?

He wanted to try out different coloured straw?

Curious. I wonder if a PP Strawman would look Cygnaran or Cryxian?

Mantic do not sell terrain, so it's irrelevant to their advertising that the terrain board is a GW piece.

One might as well complain that they shot a bunch of models set up on an Ikea table, using a Canon camera.

And the background trees. I sincerely doubt they got Bob Ross' permission or that of his foundation to use painted trees. Everyone knows Bob Ross owns the rights to artistic expression of trees and mountains. Nkelsch.. if you don't start up a Bob Ross thread.. THAT will be the biggest double standard in this thread and it's all on you.



What GW claims to own and what they've proven in court to own are two different things. If GW legal precedents were extended to the whole world, you'd never be able to have your picture taken except naked against a white wall you constructed yourself as you don't have the express permission of your sock manufacturer, the people who made your watch, etc.

infinite_array wrote:Curious. I wonder if a PP Strawman would look Cygnaran or Cryxian?

Circle! Duh!

infinite_array wrote: And, again, nobody cares because Mantic doesn't insist on a 'Mantic-only' policy and pretends to be the only miniature wargame maker in the world. Which is why we then berate GW when they decide to post pictures featuring other company's models.

Lets be fair here. Mantic have that current policy to try and attract customers. If they can say to players that it's OK to use their current mini's then those players won't feel like they need to start again in building up an entire army just to try out the game and therefore will be able to just add a few boxes onto what they've got to play the game. This helps because Mantic are a cheaper producer of mini's, so the price element is an attraction as well.

Personally I don't care about the whole copyright thing. However it is something that most companies do. I'm just not surprised by any of it really.

Someone should create a "GW White Knight" ranking track for posters like nkelsch.

Stuttering Strawman
GW Marketeer
Price Adjuster
Windmill tilter
Wile E Quixote
I white knighted for GW and all I got was a sore ass.
Finecast Strawman

Much as I enjoy watching people arguing about copyright, this thread has no purpose but to promote argument and disquiet.

<thread terminated>