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.

BaronIveagh wrote:Personally, I'm waiting for GW's heavy handed approach to get them a counter suit. I'd consider it ironic if they lost a few million for their arrogance over fan sites.

That's what the free world was waiting for with the RIAA insanity. That train wreck been going on for years and you can guess how many times they've been punished for their arrogance. In this litigious world we live in nowadays, the only thing I can think of that you can do is move your hosting to an area that is hostile to western copyright cartels. I hate using the word cartel because typically when I see it used online it is used by people I imagine wearing tinfoil hats and hiding in the bomb shelters in their basements, but IP laws and "enforcement" have gotten so out of hand in the last few years that it's becoming quite scary.

Empchild wrote:Unfortunately, we cannot allow the printing or publishing of such conversions- such action devalues existing GW products.

wait didnt they in white dwarf in previous years have CONVERSION CORNER!!!!!!!

2 things on that... The bit you quoted was referring to paper or cardboard models.

And GW have every right to publish conversion articles of their own. The IP is theirs.

You are right insainik,and I would be heavily inclined to agree with you but as such is the deal with the american legal system unless your specific on your rightings of the law and put down almost every possible contigent then no they do not have legal rights as they did not put down they do to do such things. Interpetation of the law only takes you so far sadly here and in all honesty it's one of the major downfalls of our legal system.

daedalus wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Personally, I'm waiting for GW's heavy handed approach to get them a counter suit. I'd consider it ironic if they lost a few million for their arrogance over fan sites.

That's what the free world was waiting for with the RIAA insanity. That train wreck been going on for years and you can guess how many times they've been punished for their arrogance. In this litigious world we live in nowadays, the only thing I can think of that you can do is move your hosting to an area that is hostile to western copyright cartels. I hate using the word cartel because typically when I see it used online it is used by people I imagine wearing tinfoil hats and hiding in the bomb shelters in their basements, but IP laws and "enforcement" have gotten so out of hand in the last few years that it's becoming quite scary.

RIAA has actually lost quite a few suits, however, with the economic power of the recording industry behind them, losing a few million is no big deal for them. GW however would find it a devastating blow.

The major problem with this is it runs counter to how most other businesses do business.

Example: I make a site called fordmakesawsomecars.com I load it up with images of Ford cars, taken by Ford, and extolling how to get the most out of each one, and how to mod them.

Ford would be, in all likelihood, happy with this. Why? It's free advertising for their products. They might even turn a blind eye to me selling custom parts for their cars to be modded with. Why? Because they've already made their money in the car sold. They'd be pissed if I offered fake Ford goods, but otherwise...

On the flip side, we have GW who is freaking out right now because they've pinned too much of thier brand identity on their monopoly on Warhammer, etc. Rather then diversifying and expanding brand awareness, they've been contracting and focusing solely on their Big 3 (WHFB, 40k, and LotR) and they know that other companies have been producing superior product to theirs in the metal and resin mini's market. If their monopoly on these trademarks was broken, they could kiss their sales goodbye if they didn't immediately improve quality or reduce price.

FUMBBL is getting the C&D and taken to town.

Empchild wrote:You are right insainik,and I would be heavily inclined to agree with you but as such is the deal with the american legal system unless your specific on your rightings of the law and put down almost every possible contigent then no they do not have legal rights as they did not put down they do to do such things. Interpetation of the law only takes you so far sadly here and in all honesty it's one of the major downfalls of our legal system.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

There are going to be a lot of sad panda's about FUMBBL.

(edit: My Engrish is Eggsalad)

Ahh... GW strikes again...

From what I understand, GW is now closeing fan sites with trademarks in their names. (I dont get dark reign though, thats not 40k) Sorry to sound paranoid, but isnt DAKKA a GW trademark? Dose that put us on the chopping block?

If you are next, and if this is true, then should we be ready for a legal battle? I mean, as far as I know the server for DAKKADAKKA is hosted in the US, so are we safer? The only thing they could take us for is the DCM thing right? Sorry to sound like a manic, but this thing has me concerned. If Dakka went away I am not sure what I would do with my GW stuff....

In response to GW's (attempted to date) destruction of FUMBBL here is an interesting perspective from Impact miniatures in response to the "GW must do this" vitriol:

[As I understand it, GW are obliged to go after all these sites, othewise they lose their intellectual property rights by default. I am sure we would all do the same if we were GW.]

No I wouldn't. I'd offer them licensing agreements and require text on their site that the copyrighted material on the site was used under license.

We've already sold licenses to fans for Elfball for a couple folks that asked to do internet stuff.

Other games have Fan Packs for the internet. See WOW ( worldofwarcraft.filefr..._Kit;42980 ) Elfball is following THAT model ... instead of the souless squash everyone model that GW is using.

See ... I've called GW SEVERAL times over the last 4 years to try and purchase licenses to do things personally or with Impact! and every time I was told no via email. So finally I called licensing and asked what I needed to actually get a yes and the head of marketing said they don't do licenses for less than 1000000 GBP.

So the answer is no I would not do it the way GW has. I would do and in fact DO do it it in a way to encourage fans and I would not care if the license for them to do so was only 15 GBP per a year.

Happygrunt wrote: Sorry to sound paranoid, but isnt DAKKA a GW trademark?

Nope.

If they tried that gak on Dakka, several hundred of us are in commuting distance of GW in Nottingham.

I'd be up there with half a brick in a sock before you could say 'Is tom kirby protected by the look out sir rule?'...

BeefyG wrote:So the answer is no I would not do it the way GW has. I would do and in fact DO do it it in a way to encourage fans and I would not care if the license for them to do so was only 15 GBP per a year.

It basically comes down to how much control a company wants over its IP.

Some companies are happy to let fans do more or less what they want. Some encourage fans to get creative with their IP (see the video mash-up competitions on the official Star Wars website not so long ago). Some, like GW, prefer to keep as much control over the expression of their IP as possible. They've always been rather choosy as to who they work with, and who gets to develop their IP, in order to (at least as they explain it) avoid their product from being 'watered down' ...

Here's the thing. You produce a game. Someone comes along who wants to produce a website producing, say, fan-made army lists. You sell them a license to do so... and so those fan-made armies, despite you not actually having any real control over what's in them, become indelibly associated with your game. Even if they're rubbish.

That's more or less what GW are claiming they're trying to avoid. They want to ensure that whatever is out there being associated with their product is of a quality that they would be happy to produce themselves. And so they remain picky about licenses, and they keep an eye on anything that may impinge on where they want their product to go.

Whether or not that's actually a good business model is ultimately decided by the success (or lack thereof) of the company.

So Cyanides bug filled, rules inaccurate, horrible interface, hacked, disconnect cheating, cherry picked cheating, 8 teams out of 24 licensed product is far superior to FUMBBL? (This is slightly tongue in cheek).

Give me a LRB 5 compliant FUMBBL anyday simply for the fact that it isn't watered down.

This is the single most damaging event to the bloodbowl hobby (albeit JJ's overzealous rules review that was universally shunned a lot earlier in the piece) that could occur.

The letter to FUMBBL also is interesting in the fact that GW state that they have only recently become aware of its existence when that is an outright lie as the rules council (JJ included) used FUMBBL statistics in reviewing teams.

Cheers for the actual valid argument though insaniak, there have been very little to date that aren't simply "GW can do what it wants...whatever".

As you said it comes down to choice. The way in which the company chooses to act. Blizzard are a good example of a massive company that allow their fans to expand their enjoyment/use of the IP. As has been stated above, GW seem to take the "...souless squash everyone model" which I am very disappointed in.

BeefyG wrote:So Cyanides bug filled, rules inaccurate, horrible interface, hacked, disconnect cheating, cherry picked cheating, 8 teams out of 24 licensed product is far superior to FUMBBL? (This is slightly tongue in cheek).

While I have no experience with the BB game from which to base a comment on the quality of it, it's worth mentioning that being 'picky' about your licenses doesn't automatically mean that you always make the right decisions...

Or that the company that looks great when you engage in initial talks will actually deliver at the standard promised (see Mongoose vs Chinese miniature painters...)

The letter to FUMBBL also is interesting in the fact that GW state that they have only recently become aware of its existence when that is an outright lie as the rules council (JJ included) used FUMBBL statistics in reviewing teams.

To be fair, the fact that the design studio, or any other department for that matter, is aware of something is no guarantee that the legal department is aware of it.

You know what happens when companies get careless with access to their IPs?

This:



Yeah, that's right. Promoting the Watchmen movie with condoms.

insaniak wrote:To be fair, the fact that the design studio, or any other department for that matter, is aware of something is no guarantee that the legal department is aware of it.

... however, if they want to make a copyright issue out of it, it's not required at a particular department knows of it. Though if legal WERE to claim that they had no idea and then the defendent were to produce a copy of said information, it makes them look bad.

insaniak wrote:

BeefyG wrote:Insaniak, wouldn't you agree that the defense of their copyright concerning historical content although "sure they can" means the inevitable destruction/loss of that resource forever for everyone and that equals LAME for the people who care about it?

Not really. The old books are all still out there. They're mostly not that difficult to get a hold of.

Copyrights are very long and even if no copy exist on the market they would still apply. Trademarks are worse because you need to protect them even if you don't sell anymore of those products if you want to keep the trademark.

This is used a lot by company the would like that people forget things they have done in the past by enforcing copyright on bad products. Look for bugs bunny cartoon from world war II or from that era where a lot of them are consider too racist today.

In the US if you cannot find who hold the copyright and get a permission from them you cannot distribute it . It lead to ridiculous amount of time. I remember reading about a case of an historian that made a book about letter written by soldier in the secession war in the US. He was not able to publish his book because the last soldiers died in the 50's and there was copyright on those letters 70 years after the death of those soldiers which lead around 2020.

In the US they don't name the copyright law the Mickey mouse law for nothing.

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Ah, but beware the morasse that is PATENT LAW. For example, Wizards of the Coast cannot copyright the game Magic: The Gathering, it's rules or mechanics, but they do hold the patent for it. Before you decide to do anything frisky with a published game be sure to check for patent info.

Happygrunt wrote:From what I understand, GW is now closeing fan sites with trademarks in their names. (I dont get dark reign though, thats not 40k) Sorry to sound paranoid, but isnt DAKKA a GW trademark? Dose that put us on the chopping block?

If you are next, and if this is true, then should we be ready for a legal battle? I mean, as far as I know the server for DAKKADAKKA is hosted in the US, so are we safer? The only thing they could take us for is the DCM thing right? Sorry to sound like a manic, but this thing has me concerned. If Dakka went away I am not sure what I would do with my GW stuff....

Dakka Dakka ™ is a trademark of Dakka Dakka.

scramasax wrote:

In the US if you cannot find who hold the copyright and get a permission from them you cannot distribute it . It lead to ridiculous amount of time. I remember reading about a case of an historian that made a book about letter written by soldier in the secession war in the US. He was not able to publish his book because the last soldiers died in the 50's and there was copyright on those letters 70 years after the death of those soldiers which lead around 2020.

In the US they don't name the copyright law the Mickey mouse law for nothing.

Thanks big business and the politicians who service them by keep extending the length of time the copyrights remain in effect.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If they tried that gak on Dakka, several hundred of us are in commuting distance of GW in Nottingham.

I'd be up there with half a brick in a sock before you could say 'Is tom kirby protected by the look out sir rule?'...

Dakka (TM) really is TM'd. GW hast no claim upon these badlands.

Breotan wrote:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Ah, but beware the morasse that is PATENT LAW. For example, Wizards of the Coast cannot copyright the game Magic: The Gathering, it's rules or mechanics, but they do hold the patent for it. Before you decide to do anything frisky with a published game be sure to check for patent info.

Interestingly enough, they run into problems with it overseas where patents are much more limited in duration and/or cannot be renewed. (Japan, for example, is limited to just a few years, if I remember correctly. Some eastern European countries have no such thing, even))

MeanGreenStompa wrote: 'Is tom kirby protected by the look out sir rule?'...

Yeah I'm certain there'd be a few employees ready to push him closer, or hold him still so you'd have a good shot.

BaronIveagh wrote:
On the flip side, we have GW who is freaking out right now because they've pinned too much of thier brand identity on their monopoly on Warhammer, etc. Rather then diversifying and expanding brand awareness, they've been contracting and focusing solely on their Big 3 (WHFB, 40k, and LotR) and they know that other companies have been producing superior product to theirs in the metal and resin mini's market. If their monopoly on these trademarks was broken, they could kiss their sales goodbye if they didn't immediately improve quality or reduce price.

^ This pretty much proves to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Monopoly on the product they sell?? That doesn't even make sense. To use your car example, that's like saying Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars.

*gasp!*

You're right Ozy! Ford does have a monopoly on Ford cars just like GW has a monopoly on GW models!!! It's a conspiracy!!!!



Personally, I blame Jervis...

Ozymandias wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
On the flip side, we have GW who is freaking out right now because they've pinned too much of thier brand identity on their monopoly on Warhammer, etc. Rather then diversifying and expanding brand awareness, they've been contracting and focusing solely on their Big 3 (WHFB, 40k, and LotR) and they know that other companies have been producing superior product to theirs in the metal and resin mini's market. If their monopoly on these trademarks was broken, they could kiss their sales goodbye if they didn't immediately improve quality or reduce price.

^ This pretty much proves to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Monopoly on the product they sell?? That doesn't even make sense. To use your car example, that's like saying Ford has a monopoly on Ford cars.

Not really. In the case of my example it would be more like claiming Ford has a monopoly on cars.

... looking back I'm not sure why I said brand identity when I meant potential income, I think I was tired or writing too fast...

Ford does have a monopoly on Ford cars, but Ford doesn't pin everything on that. They have a large selection of current product lines and other forms of income (stocks, etc.)

Why? Because Ford's income does not revolve around the idea that to drive you must own Ford products.

GW relies on the idea that you must (at some point) buy their products to play Warhammer/40k. God help you if you have a non-GW skeleton in your undead legion. (I've actually had them spot the single Reaper skeleton in a vampire counts army and demand the player be disqualified for using non-GW minis [not a requirement in the rules]. At a non-GW store. At a tournament they didn't sponsor. They were not asked to officiate again.)

I can't say I've ever had or heard of a Ford employee who was judging an Autoshow hosted by someone else dock a Mustang points for having a Shelby muffler.

Maybe Tamiya would be a better example. I've built a lot of Tamiya kits over the years, with parts from Verlindin, Dragon, etc. I have never heard of a cease and desist order from Tamiya to any website for using their graphics, modding their models, or seen them request that I not use whatever parts I want, even though their kits are, in fact, their IP. Nor have I heard such a thing from any other mini or model manufacturer.

Breotan wrote:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Ah, but beware the morasse that is PATENT LAW. For example, Wizards of the Coast cannot copyright the game Magic: The Gathering, it's rules or mechanics, but they do hold the patent for it. Before you decide to do anything frisky with a published game be sure to check for patent info.

In the case of Games workshop I am aware of patent for injection moulding but not for the game itself.

HA HA HA!! I found this while cruising that thread where a chap had pulled the legal jumbo off the GW site and posted it. Ine one instance they site what you can not do with the GW IP saying:

- Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.

Sooooo appearantly we can not talk smack about GW products without getting sewed! HA HA HA!!! I love these guys!

That is not what that means.

I also believe the word you are looking for is "sued".

Just saying.