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.

Channel Awesome just posted their latest trailer for their annual get-together, "To Boldly Flee", which you can see here: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/specials/36233-to-boldly-flee-final-trailer

Seen it? If you couldn't get through the trailer, skip to the 2:25 mark. Notice anything blatantly GW-y in that trailer?

This might bring the Channel Awesome peeps some trouble to come, as they always plan on selling these as special edition DVD's afterwards.

The whole thing is full of geek culture parody. They'll have nothing to fear on this one as it's specifically protected as fair use.

frozenwastes wrote:The whole thing is full of geek culture parody. They'll have nothing to fear on this one as it's specifically protected as fair use.

But they lose that protection if they sell it as a DVD.

Also, WAS THAT ANGRY JOE DRESSED AS SNAKE?!?

I'm pretty sure that whole "it's not fair use if you sell it" thing is a myth. You don't automatically lose the fair use defence, it just becomes a bit harder to argue.

Regardless, nothing will happen, GW won't sue.

I did like the inclusion of the Vyper (I've been a fan of the site independently of seeing anything here for a long time now).

Charax wrote:I'm pretty sure that whole "it's not fair use if you sell it" thing is a myth. You don't automatically lose the fair use defence, it just becomes a bit harder to argue.

Regardless, nothing will happen, GW won't sue.

Fair Use covers things like making physical backups of CD's for the sake of backing up.

And it's not a parody use of GW IP. It's a shot of a copyrighted work in a video. The element looks exactly like what it should, and is not represented as anything resembling a parody.

GW likely would not sue based on it's current use as they aren't really losing any money on it. However, it's inclusion into a product without licensing would be an unauthorized commercial use of a copyrighted work. That you can sue for.

As for the "it's not fair use if you sell it" defense:
If you are selling backups of software or digital media, then it is not fair use, it's piracy.

You have an exceptionally limited view of Fair Use, it covers a ton of things. Backups of CDs is covered by an entirely different act, the AHRA. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. established a legal precedent for "It's not fair use if you sell it" being BS in relation to parodies, but the principle applies to fair use in general.

Besides, GW are having a hell of a time proving they own a number of trademarks in relation to models, you really think they're going to be able to prove that a small stylistic reference in a commercial comedic movie isn't at the very least transformative or that it has any effect on the value of GWs works?

Nothing will come of this. GW have done some stupid things in the past, but this would be an insane overreach. It's transformative, it doesn't impact on the commercial value of any of GW's products, it doesn't dilute the trademark - it ticks every Fair Use box there is.

Testors Paints have a Space Marine explicitly shown on one of their packages showcasing how the paint can be used. I looked over the box and nothing states any trademarks or copyrights of GW used.

Do you think they could be in trouble?

1. The digital model shown isn't a trademark. It is a copyrighted work. No one here is talking about trademarks.

2. (in the US) a work is copyrighted from the time it is created, regardless of any paperwork you filled out. GW can show that the model existed as of X date, and they can show that the video maker had access to the design and image. GW's copyrighted art is being used without permission. That is illegal.

3. You keep saying it's a parody, but the image itself and it's shot are not parodies of anything. They are direct representations of the work. So while the video in its entirety may be a parody, the shot in question is not. GW couldn't likely sue to prevent the video from being sold, but they could sue to have the image removed from the video.
Calling the image a parody is like calling a direct cover of a song a parody.

4. If the video was sold with that footage, GW could then sue for damages and copyright violation.

GW owns that image, plain and simple.

Again, copyright fair use comes into play. what are the four tests for fair use?

1) Purpose and character
This is where being a transformative work comes into play. It's a 3D model, not created by GW, which shares visual characteristics of a GW product (a Vyper) without being a direct copy of the whole thing - the whole expression of a Vyper is what GW has automatic copyright of, not bits of one.

When a painter uses a photograph to inspire a painting, even if the painting is an exact copy of the photograph, it's transformative. This is a 3D computer model of a 3D physical object. It's transformative, point 1 down.

2) The nature of the published work - the Vyper has been released for some time, hence this is a copyright rather than a privacy issue. Not entirely relevant.

3) Amount and substantiality - while the majority of the Vyper's physical design has been used, not the entirety of it has - so it's not copying the whole expression of what a Vyper is. That favours fair use.

4) Effect on the work's value - this has no effect whatsoever of the value of a physical vyper model. Good luck proving damages

so at the very, very least it's not "Plain and simple"

Oh, and copyright covers expression, not ideas - so the Vyper model TGWTG are using is copyright of whoever made it, whereas GW hold the copyright to the model of the vyper, that being the physical expression of the idea of a Vyper. Two different media, two different copyrights, Q.E.D. transformative work.

All of which is largely irrelevant because nothing's going to happen. GW aren't going to waste money pursuing it, and TGWTG aren't going to remove it this late in production. Nothing changes, status quo is god

Charax wrote:
Oh, and copyright covers expression, not ideas - so the Vyper model TGWTG are using is copyright of whoever made it, whereas GW hold the copyright to the model of the vyper, that being the physical expression of the idea of a Vyper. Two different media, two different copyrights, Q.E.D. transformative work.

All of which is largely irrelevant because nothing's going to happen. GW aren't going to waste money pursuing it, and TGWTG aren't going to remove it this late in production. Nothing changes, status quo is god

Exactly, remember the time GW went after Disturbed for their "Land of Confusion" video? Oh wait...

If I were them?

I would be more worried about War One's avatar picture then that video.

Though I wouldn't put it past GW to go for the Mutt play, I don't see it as anything to do with any copyrights.

If that be the case, you all better be careful of the lawyer that is going to pop out of your toilet and hand you a C and D letter against painting those miniatures in anything other then GW's finest fineblended paint and using anything other then GW finest finecrafted tools to do it with.

Grimtuff wrote:
Exactly, remember the time GW went after Disturbed for their "Land of Confusion" video? Oh wait...

GW would have to high to have gone after Disturbed for this. It's an awesome video that gave me ideas on how to paint a new Imperial Guard Army, but I don't think GW owns "Angry Mobs", "Nazis with gas masks", or "Rich Uncle Pennybags"

adamsouza wrote:GW would have to high to have gone after Disturbed for this. It's an awesome video that gave me ideas on how to paint a new Imperial Guard Army, but I don't think GW owns "Angry Mobs", "Nazis with gas masks", or "Rich Uncle Pennybags"

No, but I'm pretty damn sure they own the Sabre 20 seconds in (Rhino with a big gun, which is about as different as TGWTG's Vyper without a platform)

Charax wrote:

adamsouza wrote:GW would have to high to have gone after Disturbed for this. It's an awesome video that gave me ideas on how to paint a new Imperial Guard Army, but I don't think GW owns "Angry Mobs", "Nazis with gas masks", or "Rich Uncle Pennybags"

No, but I'm pretty damn sure they own the Sabre 20 seconds in (Rhino with a big gun, which is about as different as TGWTG's Vyper without a platform)

Cheers for the catch there. I'm glad at least you knew what I was pointing out.

Grimtuff wrote:

Charax wrote:

adamsouza wrote:GW would have to high to have gone after Disturbed for this. It's an awesome video that gave me ideas on how to paint a new Imperial Guard Army, but I don't think GW owns "Angry Mobs", "Nazis with gas masks", or "Rich Uncle Pennybags"

No, but I'm pretty damn sure they own the Sabre 20 seconds in (Rhino with a big gun, which is about as different as TGWTG's Vyper without a platform)

Cheers for the catch there. I'm glad at least you knew what I was pointing out.

See, I thought it was just a badly drawn Stug, but I could be mistaken.

before the Stug, JUST after the tank comes rolling over the hill, it's followed by a rhino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV4oYkIeGJc&feature=player_detailpage#t=21s

If I were the guys producing that show, I'd be more concerned with the many obvious references to Star Trek and Star Wars, as those are much larger properties than 40k.

Happygrunt wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:The whole thing is full of geek culture parody. They'll have nothing to fear on this one as it's specifically protected as fair use.

But they lose that protection if they sell it as a DVD.

Also, WAS THAT ANGRY JOE DRESSED AS SNAKE?!?

It indeed is Angry Joe.