Peregrine wrote:Game rules can not be copyrighted. You are free to use any of GW's stats and rules in your own work and publish it however you like.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:You would really only want to post things with unique stats/costs, otherwise some sights may take it down.

 Ond Angel wrote:
Basically, just don't say "This is X unit from this codex. It costs Y points and does this."
Instead, I say "This is X unit from my fandex. It costs Y points and does this.",

Peregrine wrote:
Of course I should add that forum policy and what is legal are not necessarily the same thing. A site may enforce stricter limits on what you can post, whether because they are worried about over-zealous lawyers (even if you're indisputably right it can still cost time and money to fight a company with a huge legal budget) or just think that it's not "fair" to post "too much" of GW's rules

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
Basically, just don't say "This is X unit from this codex. It costs Y points and does this."
Instead, I say "This is X unit from my fandex. It costs Y points and does this.",

No, actually the first option is ok. Rules can't be copyrighted, so there's nothing wrong with saying "unit X in this codex costs Y points and does this", just like there's nothing wrong with saying "in chess pawns normally move one square at a time". The only reason to avoid the first option is that it doesn't make much sense in the context of a fandex. The reader doesn't care what some other codex says, they care what the rules in your codex are.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ond Angel wrote:
Basically, just don't say "This is X unit from this codex. It costs Y points and does this."
Instead, I say "This is X unit from my fandex. It costs Y points and does this.",

No, actually the first option is ok. Rules can't be copyrighted, so there's nothing wrong with saying "unit X in this codex costs Y points and does this", just like there's nothing wrong with saying "in chess pawns normally move one square at a time". The only reason to avoid the first option is that it doesn't make much sense in the context of a fandex. The reader doesn't care what some other codex says, they care what the rules in your codex are.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I see. So it's just a fight Dakka (understandably) is not interested in taking.

 Psienesis wrote:
Basically that.

In case anyone was curious, here's an article on the subject from the US Copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

 troa wrote:
Unless you're a lawyer, I have to say the phrasing actually does appear to allow game rules to be registered for a copyright.

 Peregrine wrote:
[Copyright protects things like the description of how awesome a tactical marine is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 troa wrote:
Unless you're a lawyer, I have to say the phrasing actually does appear to allow game rules to be registered for a copyright.

No it doesn't. There's a huge difference between the rules of a game and the words used to describe those rules. For example, if I write "roll a D6, on a 4+ the character suffers a wound" that exact sentence is copyrighted, and you would be violating the law if you just copy/pasted it into your own game. However, if you put "flip a coin, if you lose your character gets -1 HP" instead then you're fine, even though both rules describe a 50% chance of suffering damage. Similarly, all of the fluff next to the rules is copyrighted material, the awesome space marine picture on the front cover of the rulebook is copyrighted, etc.

Also relevant is the difference between factual statements and creative works. Copyright protects things like the description of how awesome a tactical marine is. It does NOT protect simple statements of fact like "a tactical marine costs 16 points".

Verviedi wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 troa wrote:
Unless you're a lawyer, I have to say the phrasing actually does appear to allow game rules to be registered for a copyright.

No it doesn't. There's a huge difference between the rules of a game and the words used to describe those rules. For example, if I write "roll a D6, on a 4+ the character suffers a wound" that exact sentence is copyrighted, and you would be violating the law if you just copy/pasted it into your own game. However, if you put "flip a coin, if you lose your character gets -1 HP" instead then you're fine, even though both rules describe a 50% chance of suffering damage. Similarly, all of the fluff next to the rules is copyrighted material, the awesome space marine picture on the front cover of the rulebook is copyrighted, etc.

Also relevant is the difference between factual statements and creative works. Copyright protects things like the description of how awesome a tactical marine is. It does NOT protect simple statements of fact like "a tactical marine costs 16 points".

14 points*
Can't be misleading people, now.

Research and private study

Copying parts of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or of a typographical arrangement of a published edition for the purpose of research or private study is allowed under the following conditions:

- The copy is made for the purposes of research or private study.
- The copy is made for non-commercial purposes.
- The source of the material is acknowledged.
- The person making the copy does not make copies of the material available for a number of people.

 troa wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Basically that.

In case anyone was curious, here's an article on the subject from the US Copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Eh. Unless you're a lawyer, I have to say the phrasing actually does appear to allow game rules to be registered for a copyright.

"Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable."

I'd be cautious about copy and pasting things, Ond Angel. I'd just post the unit and say it uses the statlines, points costs, and upgrade costs from whatever book it came from.

Also keep in mind that this is NOT a forum that can give legal advice. Asking the forum for advice is fine and dandy, but it offers you absolutely no protection.

 Psienesis wrote:

That prevents me from photocopying a page from a Codex and re-publishing it as my own. If I wanted to, I could create a tabletop war-game and use the specific rules that GW has published for their IG units, so long as I don't call them the same names, or make references to the 40K IP. The stats block and how those rules function is the part that cannot be copyright. In the case of the OP's fandex, he can make use of GW's published materials under the Fair Use Act, so long as he doesn't seek to sell the Codex, and provided that sources are credited.

Talys wrote:

Copyright protects intellectual property, and it doesn't have to be a verbatim copy to infringe. I guarantee that if you published Warhammer 40,000 Rules as "Scythe 44k: Wargames of the 44th Millenium", paraphrased the content (for example, calling Flyers Aerial Units), and used generic models instead of GW ones, you'd be sued up the wazoo.

Not being a copyright lawyer, but having some reasonable experience in it, as it pertains to computer software and documentation, I am pretty certain that the plaintiff would prevail in all Western jurisdictions (Eurozone, North America), because the intent of the work. In certain Asian jurisdictions, it's hard to get a judge to look at even blatant plagiarism.

In any case, I guarantee that the cost of defending such a lawsuit (nevermind any potential judgment) would far outweigh any potential benefit of doing such a thing.

Talys wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

That prevents me from photocopying a page from a Codex and re-publishing it as my own. If I wanted to, I could create a tabletop war-game and use the specific rules that GW has published for their IG units, so long as I don't call them the same names, or make references to the 40K IP. The stats block and how those rules function is the part that cannot be copyright. In the case of the OP's fandex, he can make use of GW's published materials under the Fair Use Act, so long as he doesn't seek to sell the Codex, and provided that sources are credited.

Copyright protects intellectual property, and it doesn't have to be a verbatim copy to infringe. I guarantee that if you published Warhammer 40,000 Rules as "Scythe 44k: Wargames of the 44th Millenium", paraphrased the content (for example, calling Flyers Aerial Units), and used generic models instead of GW ones, you'd be sued up the wazoo.

Not being a copyright lawyer, but having some reasonable experience in it, as it pertains to computer software and documentation, I am pretty certain that the plaintiff would prevail in all Western jurisdictions (Eurozone, North America), because the intent of the work. In certain Asian jurisdictions, it's hard to get a judge to look at even blatant plagiarism.

In any case, I guarantee that the cost of defending such a lawsuit (nevermind any potential judgment) would far outweigh any potential benefit of doing such a thing.

United States Copyright Office, Copyright Registration of Games 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.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

The deposit requirements for copyright registration will vary, depending on whether the work has been published at the time of registration. If the game is published, the proper deposit is one complete copy of the work. If, however, the game is published in a box larger than 12" x 24" x 6" (or a total of 1,728 cubic inches) then identifying material must be submitted in lieu of the entire game. (See “identifying material” below.) If the game is published and contains fewer than three three-dimensional elements, then identifying material for those parts must be submitted in lieu of those parts. If the game is unpublished, either one copy of the game or identifying material should be deposited.

Identifying material deposited to represent the game or its three-dimensional parts usually consists of photographs, photostats, slides, drawings, or other two-dimensional representations of the work. The identifying material should include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable content of the work, including the copyright notice if it appears on the work. All pieces of identifying material other than transparencies must be no less than 3" x 3" in size, and not more than 9" x 12", but preferably 8" x 10". At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of the work.

Talys wrote:
Most importantly, Games Workshop totally destroyed Chapterhouse after partially winning a jury verdict (roughly 1/3 of the copyright and trademark claims). When I say, totally destroyed, I mean, froze assets of, shut down website, closed bank accounts and payment methods, turn off email, shut down telephone.

They eventually got back into business, I think, but they had to make significantly different bits, and I'm sure the entire process was very painful.

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Most importantly, Games Workshop totally destroyed Chapterhouse after partially winning a jury verdict (roughly 1/3 of the copyright and trademark claims). When I say, totally destroyed, I mean, froze assets of, shut down website, closed bank accounts and payment methods, turn off email, shut down telephone.

Do your research before posting? GW got the court to temporarily freeze their assets because Chapterhouse didn't pay the damages GW was awarded (the case was being appealed), not because GW won a crushing victory. Meanwhile GW's handling of the case was an absolute disaster, and they're lucky they were able to get an out of court settlement instead of having to watch even more of their IP disappear in the appeal.

They eventually got back into business, I think, but they had to make significantly different bits, and I'm sure the entire process was very painful.

Again, do your research. They just came back, after only a very short absence, and they don't seem to have made any significant changes. The process was only "painful" because GW abused their superior budget for lawyers and thought they could bully a smaller company into submission.

Talys wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Talys wrote:
Most importantly, Games Workshop totally destroyed Chapterhouse after partially winning a jury verdict (roughly 1/3 of the copyright and trademark claims). When I say, totally destroyed, I mean, froze assets of, shut down website, closed bank accounts and payment methods, turn off email, shut down telephone.

Do your research before posting? GW got the court to temporarily freeze their assets because Chapterhouse didn't pay the damages GW was awarded (the case was being appealed), not because GW won a crushing victory. Meanwhile GW's handling of the case was an absolute disaster, and they're lucky they were able to get an out of court settlement instead of having to watch even more of their IP disappear in the appeal.

They eventually got back into business, I think, but they had to make significantly different bits, and I'm sure the entire process was very painful.

Again, do your research. They just came back, after only a very short absence, and they don't seem to have made any significant changes. The process was only "painful" because GW abused their superior budget for lawyers and thought they could bully a smaller company into submission.

Hey, like I said, if you want to fight a large corporation with millions of dollars that is vigilantly litigious, go for it. If you think that experience is at all pleasant for a company with a couple of guys, who are in it because they love the hobby, I think you're off your rocker. it's massively disruptive to a business, and you will spend tons of money -- whether you win or lose (which was my point).

Also, I was originally saying that paraphrasing game rules because psienesis doesn't think there are protections for intellectual property that's game related. I'm saying, in most jurisdictions, there are. The exemptions are there so that someone can't successfully sue a company making a similar game in the same genre (say, GURPS and D&D) ; it won't protect a company that just copies a work and changes tactical marines to stormtroopers.

Regarding Chapterhouse Studios, they were shut down for a couple of months. If you've ever managed or owned a small company, you'd know how tough that is on so many levels. You may well be right that the process was only painful because GW has deep pockets for lawyers. But guess what? Every other large company does too, and they vigorously defend their intellectual property. Call it bullying if you want, but that's the way our world works.