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.

 mattyrm wrote:
[ But.. I dunno, I can see both sides of the debate certainly. If you say Space Marine, I think most people do think of the big shouldered giants that GW makes.

Id wager most people think of the guys in Aliens, Halo or any other mass media. Trademarks have to be specific. For it to infringe, it would need to step on the characteristics of SPACE MARINES that are trademarkable (big shoulderpads, skullz, spikez, crappy rules.. not generic power armor and lasers) as opposed to just being space marines, who are marines in space.

Glad to hear that the author is getting some pro-bono legal services. Usually these things are unfortunately a case of

"we're bigger than you, so give up before we take you to court because you certainly can't afford it!"

I do think alot of folks who are talking about GW's space marine novels or games are missing the point. It's a widely used term, that predated GW, and one which has already been demonstrated by the courts to not be the sole property of GW (I believe this was the 2nd circuit case mentioned above) .

Regardless of the intentions of the author, with the above established, this seems like a pretty clear case of C&D Lawyer bullying.

Eilif wrote:
Glad to hear that the author is getting some pro-bono legal services. Usually these things are unfortunately a case of

"we're bigger than you, so give up before we take you to court because you certainly can't afford it!"

I do think alot of folks who are talking about GW's space marine novels or games are missing the point. It's a widely used term, that predated GW, and one which has already been demonstrated by the courts to not be the sole property of GW (I believe this was the 2nd circuit case mentioned above) .

It's not as widely used as you think, not in any meaningful way at least.
You might have organizations referred to as "Space Marines" or some variant of that nature("Galactic Marines" was E. E. Lensman but I can't remember which book/short story had them), but not to the extent where someone says "Space Marine" and you go "Oh! Like Bob Olsen's Amazing Stories novella?" or "Oh, like Robert A. Heinlein's guys from 'Misfits' and 'The Long Watch'?".
The immediate recognition that most people who even have a passing familiarity with Games Workshop get when confronted with the term "Space Marine" is the GW version.

Regardless of the intentions of the author, with the above established, this seems like a pretty clear case of C&D Lawyer bullying.

Except as mentioned before, trademarks have to be defended. At this point in time we now have a series of Black Library novels called the "Space Marine Battles Series"...which somehow Amazon's search trending/related items was including "Spots the Space Marine" in that listing.

 chromedog wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
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

Don't know about Lucas trying it, but TSR sure as hell tried to. In the Indiana Jones games they published back in the late 80s.
Didn't stand up at all, but didn't stop them trying it on.

GW is just following in the footsteps of another idiotic game company.

That was TSR publishing Lucas' Nazi(TM) - the same (TM) is also found on the Kenner Indiana Jones(TM) toys of the time.

Because they were publishing a Lucas property they had to list all of the included tributary properties, which included Nazi(TM).

So, in this case TSR is having poo slung at it that should more accurately be aimed at Mr. Lucas. Gamers just noticed it while the parents buying toys for their kids either did not, or just did not care. (Not that TSR was any great shakes in the suits over IP department - folks used to joke that TSR stood for 'They Sue Regularly'. And they lost or settled every single suit - usually paying the second party's legal fees....)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* For the giggles - from the Dark Days of 1997 came a movie titled:

I believe there was mention of someone taking on this case pro-bono, so hopefully she will be allowed to continue to sell the book. I do think that to take offence at her trying to free-load on the back of GW* is missing the point a bit here. Namely, that a company shouldn't be allowed to trademark such a generic term in the broader field of fantasy and sci-fi literature - the failing on GW's part here being even more apparent considering the classic sci-fi influences there 40k game universe originally drew upon.

Above and aside from anything else, what the hell is wrong with GW these days? It's like they are trying to paint the biggest possible sign saying "We are a bunch of cnuts" at every instance possible - doing things like this does absolutely nothing to endear them to either the science fiction and fantasy writing fraternity (who are conscious that it is setting a dangerous precedent), the fans or anyone from the public who reads about it for that matter.

*(I don't think she is - there are other far more likely candidates, and as has been mentioned there is a strong possibility that 'Adeptus Astartes' will not be the first thing people think of when they think the term 'Space Marine').

Ouze wrote: Razor

Be right back, calling University of Arkansas about GW's egregious attempt to profit at the cost of their sports department...

 Kanluwen wrote:

The immediate recognition that most people who even have a passing familiarity with Games Workshop get when confronted with the term "Space Marine" is the GW version.

I'm willing to bet a lot more people think "Starcraft" than GW when they hear the words "space" and "marine" in conjunction. That thought most likely accompanied by the sounds of stimpacks and death.
Anyway, if it goes to court, GW will lose. You can't trademark space marine anymore than you can trademark "werewolves" or "vampires" (as White-Wolf found out when they sued the makers of Underworld).

weeble1000 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

But.. I dunno, I can see both sides of the debate certainly. If you say Space Marine, I think most people do think of the big shouldered giants that GW makes.

That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.

I gotta agree, the term space marine is in wide use, but we're still in very much a small niche here. I have to explain 40k to most people I bring up the hobby to most times provided they aren't active gamers.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.

I gotta agree, the term space marine is in wide use, but we're still in very much a small niche here. I have to explain 40k to most people I bring up the hobby to most times provided they aren't active gamers.

Generally speaking when one admits to engaging in absolutely no advertising of any kind whatsoever it is pretty hard to establish that one's alleged trademarks are famous.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Regardless of the intentions of the author, with the above established, this seems like a pretty clear case of C&D Lawyer bullying.

Except as mentioned before, trademarks have to be defended. At this point in time we now have a series of Black Library novels called the "Space Marine Battles Series"...which somehow Amazon's search trending/related items was including "Spots the Space Marine" in that listing.

Defending where there's good reason to defend I expect, not whenever someone uses generic language you happen to share. This just comes across as GW looking for an excuse to pick on a very weak target and hope that Amazon will simply remove the book rather than bother fending off their unwarranted claim on generic terms. Is that really what constitutes 'defending your copyright'?

Or is that just what GW legal think 'defending your copyright' means? Coming up with spurious cases to make a show of it, rather than actually doing all the things that has caught them with their pants down in the Chapterhouse case, such as establishing exactly what they have protection on and whether they can locate all the paperwork to prove their ownership?

I'll leave this here.
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/67991_556088641075937_25322784_n.jpg

An article from WD. GW fighting for the little guy and games producers world wide.

Sweet delicious irony.

How old is that article?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I'll leave this here.
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/67991_556088641075937_25322784_n.jpg

An article from WD. GW fighting for the little guy and games producers world wide.

Boy, that shows how far they've fallen.

For those of you who would like to actually make yourselves heard, there's a wonderful twitter hashtag going around, #spacemarineforaday. Add Space Marine to your name, toss in the hash tag, and mention @voxcaster. Apparently it's doing well enough that @voxcaster is going through and blocking anyone who uses it. Can't argue with results like that.

 Infreak wrote:
Sweet delicious irony.

How old is that article?

Its really really fething old.

Ian Livingstone and his buddy Steve Jackson were known to me as a kid, ever since I read one of those "go to page 23 if you want to stab the knight, go to page 47 if you gak yourself and run into the woods" fighting fantasy books as a kid.

Anyways, I think they set up GW in a little tiny place in London in the 70s, and sold it in the late eighties or early 90s. Regardless, the bloke isn't practising rank hypocrisy because he sold GW fething ages ago.

Id guess that articles at least twenty years old.. its probably from the eighties or something when Star Wars was in its heyday.

Yeah, Livingstone is now well, basically in charge of a little company called Eidos....

You might have heard of them :p

Ugh. Now every single person I know is Facebooking me 'Hey, you play 40K, have you heard...?'

It's really spreading fast (and annoyingly).

No hashtags for me, thanks.

I'm not buying into this crap. The more I read about this story, the more it seems like a carefully crafted piece of artificial drama to me.

I won't be defending GW either. They seem to be fully commited to letting this escalate to a major PR setback for them. But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Infreak wrote:
Sweet delicious irony.

How old is that article?

Its really really fething old.

Ian Livingstone and his buddy Steve Jackson were known to me as a kid, ever since I read one of those "go to page 23 if you want to stab the knight, go to page 47 if you gak yourself and run into the woods" fighting fantasy books as a kid.

Anyways, I think they set up GW in a little tiny place in London in the 70s, and sold it in the late eighties or early 90s. Regardless, the bloke isn't practising rank hypocrisy because he sold GW fething ages ago.

Id guess that articles at least twenty years old.. its probably from the eighties or something when Star Wars was in its heyday.

It's not hypocrisy on the part of Ian Livingstone, it's just funny how once the company was arguing against the over litigious nature of media companies trying to shut down SF and fantasy projects, yet years on and now they are the big company, they are doing exactly the same thing in the most unreasonable manner. It's a bit like that old George Lucas speech where he argues against allowing directors to go back and tinker with their works as it will destroy the cultural significance of the original piece. Then years on he did that repeatedly and made it pretty difficult to get copies of the original.

 Pacific wrote:
I believe there was mention of someone taking on this case pro-bono, so hopefully she will be allowed to continue to sell the book. I do think that to take offence at her trying to free-load on the back of GW* is missing the point a bit here. Namely, that a company shouldn't be allowed to trademark such a generic term in the broader field of fantasy and sci-fi literature - the failing on GW's part here being even more apparent considering the classic sci-fi influences there 40k game universe originally drew upon.

Above and aside from anything else, what the hell is wrong with GW these days? It's like they are trying to paint the biggest possible sign saying "We are a bunch of cnuts" at every instance possible - doing things like this does absolutely nothing to endear them to either the science fiction and fantasy writing fraternity (who are conscious that it is setting a dangerous precedent), the fans or anyone from the public who reads about it for that matter.

*(I don't think she is - there are other far more likely candidates, and as has been mentioned there is a strong possibility that 'Adeptus Astartes' will not be the first thing people think of when they think the term 'Space Marine').

they don't understand how fast word travels on the net, and think its an annoying fad that will go away

weeble1000 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


That is fine to say, but we do know that a federal Judge in the 2nd circuit dismissed GW's claim of trademark dilution related to the exact same word mark ("Space Marine") for lack of evidence. And that claim was made against products in a much, much more closely related category of goods. Clearly, the Court felt that there was no evidence that the "consuming public" would associate the word mark "Space Marine" with Games Workshop, outside of the company's very narrow niche market.

I gotta agree, the term space marine is in wide use, but we're still in very much a small niche here. I have to explain 40k to most people I bring up the hobby to most times provided they aren't active gamers.

Generally speaking when one admits to engaging in absolutely no advertising of any kind whatsoever it is pretty hard to establish that one's alleged trademarks are famous.

The thing is that it isn't even wide use. WIthin the tiny segment of the population who are fantasy/sci-fi wargamers - it is generally connected to GW, though with all the examples of prior and concurrent use of the term Space Marine in miniatures gaming...their claim would be tenuous at best for a simple text mark "space marine". It is a generic term, and like most generic terms - people have one company or another within a niche that they think of first when you mention that generic term. Being connected, even strongly, to that term does not grant a specific ownership though.

Outside of the realm of miniature gamers though, Games Workshop is almost unknown. I would be surprised if it had actual name recognition with more than 5-10% of the population. I would guess that less than half of that number would make the connection between Space Marine and Games Workshop. Most would not make a specific connection between the term space marine and anything - though based on casual reading of the comment streams on this article...it would appear that the Aliens' franchise would be more likely as many have been erroneously connecting the Colonial Marines to space marines.

In other news - this story has legs and is starting to run:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/feb/07/superheroes-space-marines-lawyers-copyright?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/07/games_workshop_in_spurious_space_marines_claim/

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/432520/20130207/space-marines-warhammer-ultramarines-hogarth-games-workshop.htm

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

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/06521321890/games-workshop-proves-it-would-rather-bully-authors-than-be-culture-participant.shtml

http://www.nodwick.com/?p=4573

http://kotaku.com/5982343/author-says-games-workshop-is-trying-to-own-the-term-space-marine

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/06/1185161/-Games-Workshop-trademarks-space-marine

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/02/06/1834250/games-workshop-bullies-author-over-use-of-the-words-space-marine

http://www.bigshinyrobot.com/reviews/archives/48490

http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/warhammer-40000-space-marine/news/warhammer_40_k,46208,3009186.html

http://www.themarysue.com/games-workshop-space-marine/

In the realm of corporate goodwill, a small fish like GW can't expend much on lawsuits like this. They aren't a big dog like Marvel, Disney or DC who can afford to wage unpopular campaigns against broad public opinion. They are not a holding company who only sells ideas so that their public perception is irrelevant. The more press they get from mainstream outlets will connect the trademark "Games Workshop" not to space marine but to spanker.

I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.

I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".

Hah, the Guardian is commenting on it. That's just awesome.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.

So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.

So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?

I'm assuming he's saying that because her "book" has very few actual reviews, one of which says to read the extract so as to avoid the mistake of buying it like the reviewer did...

And the extract is a disjointed mess which reads more like someone trying their hand at writing a play or a script than a book.

Fake reviews aside, is it the author's fault if Amazon associates BL books and this book?

Many years ago, I bought "Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism". Next thing I know, I'm getting recommendations for copies of the Communist Manifesto.

The two are, well, not similar.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.

I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".

Which would only be relevant if it were relevant.

Most of those listings are simply generated on text entries. Book A has Space Marine in the description, Book B has Space Marine in the title - the database says they much be related, especially when you do a text search of Amazon for "space marine". Getting bent out of shape about that is like getting all twisted up when I get suggestions for Star Wars when looking for a book on H.R. Giger...it isn't evidence of anything in particular.

Further, claims of dilution require fame, which GW does not have.

Now, apparently you do not like the book - that is fine and good, but has no actual bearing on the legal issues. The courts have long since held that they are not to determine between good and bad art, just application of the law relating to art.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
But I certainly won't help a mediocre writer hack her way to sci-fi stardom.

So you've read her book then? Or are you just assuming she's a bad writer and a hack because you're a GW fan?

And the extract is a disjointed mess which reads more like someone trying their hand at writing a play or a script than a book.

You do know that that is a particular style of writing which a lot of readers actually enjoy, right? The book is even mentioned as such in a number of the articles.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.

I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".

Just assuming all that were true, I would still say that what GW is doing is wrong, and a slap to the face of the community on the same level as Disney copyrighting the Birthday Song. Whether or not the author is good or not, if poking GW was part of the advertising strategy then it's a genius one.

This reminds me of that episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the Owner of the restaurant copyrighted the Baltimore slang word 'Hon'. And even that was an actual legal copyright, GW is just bullying the smallest victim with nothing to back it up.

 Meade wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.

I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".

Just assuming all that were true, I would still say that what GW is doing is wrong, and a slap to the face of the community on the same level as Disney copyrighting the Birthday Song. Whether or not the author is good or not, if poking GW was part of the advertising strategy then it's a genius one.

This reminds me of that episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the Owner of the restaurant copyrighted the Baltimore slang word 'Hon'. And even that was an actual legal copyright, GW is just bullying the smallest victim with nothing to back it up.

I am hoping for a grand humiliation on GW's part myself

 Meade wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really wish more of these stories would include the fact that the "book"(I hesitate to call it that) was continuously placed into listings with Black Library novels, had some 25 fake reviews equating it to "Starship Troopers" in terms of cultural and literary significance, and was regularly showing up as a "Suggested Item" for anyone who looked at Games Workshop stuff on Amazon.

I know that when I went to order a few BL novels from Amazon in December, that author's "book" kept showing up in "Customers who looked at X, also bought Y".

Just assuming all that were true, I would still say that what GW is doing is wrong, and a slap to the face of the community on the same level as Disney copyrighting the Birthday Song. Whether or not the author is good or not, if poking GW was part of the advertising strategy then it's a genius one.

This reminds me of that episode of Kitchen Nightmares where the Owner of the restaurant copyrighted the Baltimore slang word 'Hon'. And even that was an actual legal copyright, GW is just bullying the smallest victim with nothing to back it up.

It's not smart. It's exploitation of the stupid. Like when you see an Ipad BOX sell for 60 quid on eBay to people too dumb to know the difference.

You will be surprised how many grannies will end up buying gak like that because they are new to amazon and little timmy is into "them space marines things"

It's the same as getting Carol vorderman to sell loans to thick people on council estates "oh look she does math on telly it must be good"

Just because we would not fall for any of it doesn't mean it's not morally wrong and I've long been against ambiguous marketing and I think that we should be doing more about it, not less. If what kan said is correct I expect the dubiously named god awful book was made for that very reason.
We have to pay for the sick lame and lazy, so we should take care of the gak for brains members of our society as well!