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.

Hm. Made it onto the Slashdot front page, for whatever that counts for. Corey Doctorow is talking about it now too. He's claiming this is Amazon acting willfully, and that they're not required by any law at this point to remove the book per GW.

Source: boingboing.net/2013/02/06/games-workshop-trademark-bully.html

Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I intend to write a series of novels entitled Forward to Space, Marine; The Frontier of Space, Marine; Upward to Space, Marine; A Skyfull of Space, Marine; Infinity of Space, Marine, etc.

Would anyone like to help think of variations and trademark them?

How about Space: Marines of the Future!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.

Well, time to add a meme.

"Go home GW, you are drunk!"

Seriously though, this is dumb.

 Hordini wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

Well, the author has stated that she is in talks with GW, trying to make sense of it. If that's not evidence enough that GW is involved, well, I don't expect you will ever see evidence that satisfies you.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

Is it really that hard to believe? Do you suppose the author just made up the whole story after the ebook was taken off of Amazon?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

This is seriously weird. I can understand a healthy amount of skepticism, but this degree borders on neurosis.

Ultimately, you have the fact that the e-book was on Amazon and that it was subsequently removed. You have the author's word that it was due to a Games Workshop claim. You have Games Workshop's long pattern of behavior to date.

Yea, you need to take the author's word for it at this point, but please give everyone a break. I think it is reasonable to give the author the benefit of the doubt on this one. The alternative explanation is super unlikely. Are you saying that you think it is likely that the author wrote this book, self published it, put the e-book version up for sale, subsequently removed the e-book version on her own, and then started rabble rousing about how it was Games Workshop just to advertise herself? Have you seen the books that she writes? She has a page on WikiFur. I don't think that there is a substantial amount of crossover between her fan base and fantasy wargames enthusiasts.

Edit: Not to be rude to Ms. Hogarth of course.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's trademarked for games and toys, not for books.

GW has quite a large line of fiction novels too.

Does not really have suasion, given the prior history of the term.

It is rather like Lucas trademarking Nazi(TM). But at least Lucas had better sense than to try to press the matter....

The Auld Grump

weeble1000 wrote:
She has a page on WikiFur. I don't think that there is a substantial amount of crossover between her fan base and fantasy wargames enthusiasts.

Which is chuckle-worthy, if only for the amount of strife I've seen between wargamers and furries.

In retrospect, that makes the title "Spot the Space Marine" make that much more sense.

 Hordini wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Upon further review, it looks more like a guy trying to drum up free publicity.

How so? It's the ebook version that GW is contesting, and that is what Amazon pulled. The print version isn't part of it, as far as I can tell, and that's why it is still available.

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

Is it really that hard to believe? Do you suppose the author just made up the whole story after the ebook was taken off of Amazon?

I think that the "free publicity" angle is right on the money.

If you're naming something Space Marine, in this age, you're probably hoping for publicity from it: either search results that give you a bump in traffic or a suit and the publicity from that.

Having published comics and knowing a number of authors and aspiring authors, if you're in it legitimately, you're looking to make a name for yourself/your book/ your series.

An example: I knew someone writing a fantasy book. They started reading Game of Thrones, realized that a number of details were, coincidentally, unfortunately close to stuff from the Game of Thrones setting. So as to not appear too close, those details got changed where they could be, and the ones that remain are sporadic enough to not be concerning.

This goes doubly for titles-- If I was writing a book with the working title, "A Tournament of Thrones," and I had never heard of A Game of Thrones, if I spent 10 minutes on google (I actually tried for about that many seconds, with success), I'd find a whole bunch of suggestions related to a popular series. Then, even if my title fit perfectly, I'd swear a lot, then, wanting to distinguish myself from the popular series, try to figure out a distinct title that works as well.

Similarly, it makes me think that the author in this case is either intentionally trying to get some publicity or they're too lazy or ignorant to react to, or consider, the problems associated with said title. Harsh, but, that's how I feel...



No, it isn't right that a company try to maintain copyright on a common term, but I also don't think that using a similar title to a well-known company is very creatively legitimate.

IANAL, yet I am not sure you can actually trademark the title of a book. Perhaps it depends on how specific it is to a real world product like a car repair manual.

http://io9.com/5982201/games-workshop-is-still-claiming-to-own-the-trademark-to-space-marine-time-to-get-pissed-off

Looks like it's spreading.

For a company that doesn't advertise, irking the SFWA and getting a bad rep amongst sci-fi writers and aficionados is certainly a BAD business move.

GW probably didn't start this (I'd rather blame Amazon's crazy legal enforcement department - I've already heard more than my share of stories about their "professionalism"), but should take action before this becomes a massive PR disaster that ends up taking its toll in their sales figures...

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
No, it isn't right that a company try to maintain copyright on a common term, but I also don't think that using a similar title to a well-known company is very creatively legitimate.

I think that "Games Workshop" and their particular "Space Marines" are not nearly as well-known in reality as you think they are, even amongst males between the ages of 14-30, the typical "gamer type", if you were to ask them what a "Space Marine" was, you'd probably get something between Master Chief and the guys in Aliens.

At least, that's what happened when I did it, just now, with the three goofballs I work with who fit the description.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IANAL, yet I am not sure you can actually trademark the title of a book. Perhaps it depends on how specific it is to a real world product like a car repair manual.

You cannot copyright the title of a book, but it is sometimes possible to trademark a title.

The question then, is can you trademark part of a title and deny the use of that part within any other title?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question then, is can you trademark part of a title and deny the use of that part within any other title?

You can't use that question. I trademarked the word "The" when used in a question.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The question then, is can you trademark part of a title and deny the use of that part within any other title?

Not completely, no. There are limits to trademark protection. It's been a few years since I took a media law class (Just to be clear, I am not a lawyer), but if I remember correctly part of it has to do with whether or not a reasonable person would be confused by the product. Like, would someone think "Spots the Space Marine" is a book about GW Space Marines? Some of our resident lawyers could explain it better than I, but the information is out there in a form that is generally accessible to non-lawyers. A lot of it boils down to "it's complicated" and "it depends."

 Hordini wrote:
if I remember correctly part of it has to do with whether or not a reasonable person would be confused by the product.

The problem with this is (or, at least was) that the terms regarding similarity etc. are all highly subjective and/or poorly quantified, so it generally comes down to the person with more lawyers.

weeble1000 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

This is seriously weird. I can understand a healthy amount of skepticism, but this degree borders on neurosis.

Ultimately, you have the fact that the e-book was on Amazon and that it was subsequently removed. You have the author's word that it was due to a Games Workshop claim. You have Games Workshop's long pattern of behavior to date.

Yea, you need to take the author's word for it at this point,

The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.

Wait, the author in question works for FoxNews?

edited by Manchu

Well, I sent a wee message to Amazon saying that as a 'concerned customer' I'm not pleased with their decision on this.

Not that they'll care, or do anything about it but meh, made me feel like I was doing something. Heck, I even half contemplated sending an email to the Daily Express, since they seem to like their crusading.

I really am getting more and more fed up of GW's random stupidity...

*Stares longingly at Gates of Antares and crosses fingers.*

makes me wonder what else they think they own
I imagine them trying to sue someone over the word orc, or god of chaos (ala Discord, for example-though I don't think GW is that stupid to sue Hasbro)

They couldn't sue over Orc as that word is owned by the Tolkien Estate IIRC.

Didn't GW rip the look of the MK 6 marines from an anime movie titled Nausica, Valley of the Wind?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

You have evidence then that GW is involved at all?

This is seriously weird. I can understand a healthy amount of skepticism, but this degree borders on neurosis.

Ultimately, you have the fact that the e-book was on Amazon and that it was subsequently removed. You have the author's word that it was due to a Games Workshop claim. You have Games Workshop's long pattern of behavior to date.

Yea, you need to take the author's word for it at this point,

The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.

FoxNews Koolaid? You do realize that you, as an intelligent adult, can make reasonable inferences. Which is more likely: the author made it all up as a publicity stunt, or GW once again filed an unwise and poorly considered claim of infringement against an individual without the means to challenge the claim? How many authors have made up fake GW infringement claims as publicity stunts versus how many such notices of infringement has GW sent?

How would a normal, reasonable person act: by creating an elaborate hoax destined to inevitably be revealed and blow up in her face, or to be angry and offended by an unreasonable legal claim with nothing to do about it but publicize the circumstances?

An inference is a glorified guess, but if one never used logical reasoning to make reasonable inferences it would be socially paralyzing, hence why I said your skepticism borders on neurosis. if it interferes with normal day to day activity, it is a psychological problem.

 Grey Templar wrote:
They couldn't sue over Orc as that word is owned by the Tolkien Estate IIRC.

And Michael Moorcock owned the 8 pointed star as a symbol of Chaos.

And wow, this is really getting some traction.

DarknessEternal wrote:
The heck we do. You're welcome to drink the FoxNews koolaid if you're willing to accept unverified claims as true, but no one should accept any unsubstantiated claim as fact on the internet.

Well, if you have better information on this whole thing than Scalzi, Doctorow, et al, then why don't you post it? Otherwise, you're just the one making the unsubstantiated claim that this is a hoax, or publicity stunt.

I did a little checking before I posted.. and I evidently wrongly assumed others could do the same for themselves..