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.

I'm going to pop into GW and ask if they have any copies of Lensman.

Boy! This media storm has really piqued my interest!

The article in the Guardian, for anyone interested:

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

A friend of mine just sent me this email from someone's twitter account regarding this whole ordeal.

A Space Marine @howardtayler
Games Workshop's official Twitter Feed, @Voxcaster, has started blocking Space Marines and critics. Because they can't sue us all, I guess?

that was a tweet from someone who's participating in the "I'm a Space Marine" thing on Twitter...lotsa folks are renaming themselves to "A Space Marine" and things like that.

GW don't do interviews so how they manage this publicly, or not, will be interesting.

Fair amount of really spiky comments on Twitter - and somewhat amusingly a lot of it coming from seemingly middle aged people completely unconnected with anything to do with GW previously. Not often that a company's behaviour escapes the niche that the wargaming hobby occupies, but this looks like one of those times - and not in a good way.

This was really stupid move from their side... so what if she used "Space Marine" in her book? That word is used all over sci-fi, not just 40k.

And general term "Space Marine" is already connected with Adeptus Astartes a LOT, type "Space Marine" in Google search and I can guarantee you that first 3 or 5 pages will be just about them. This move could only hurt their already bad publicity with people.

If they want to repair the damage all they have to do is publicly apologize to the author and put her book back to the Amazon. But seeing how she will then have right to sue them and get a LOT of money from them that is not going to happened.

Now, if it ends up on the BBC, GW are going to have quite a problem now.
A new article is up on the Australian International Business Times

Although, I think the Kotaku article will be the one that will snowball most of the publicity.

 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?

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.

I did read the few sample chapters she put online when this whole mess started, yes. You can still catch them on Smashwords, if interested. Mediocre is a fair term to describe it. A serialized novel titled Earthrise is also sampled, accesible from Hogarth's site.

I used hack as in "hacker". Sorry, but this entire ride-an-internet-lynchmob-to-fame scenario sounds like social engineering to me. Regardless, what I'm saying is that the entire "legal issues" may have sparked from a misunderstanding or, let's hope not, be a deliberate forgery. So far the only proof we have for GW's intent to claim the term "Space Marine" is an email she's not bothered to copy and paste for us all to see. Remember when GW stalled that fan film "Exterminatus"? The production team victimized by the Workshop's IP claims made sure we heard both sides of the story. Now all we have is her take on things, a couple lines copypasted from the trademark database, and the presumption that GW will never, ever do anything right.

At the very least, and given that GW won't do anything but block users in Twitter and pretend it's not happening, she could make her correspondence with GW public. That'd be the honest thing to do IMHO.

Aren't there laws governing publishing correspondence that say you should get permission from the other party first?

 Compel wrote:
Aren't there laws governing publishing correspondence that say you should get permission from the other party first?

She's already done enough by claiming that she's "talking with Games Workshop" and that they are "suing her" that I can't see her really giving a crap about the legalities of consent regarding correspondence.

There's quite a difference between saying you're in correspondence, and publishing that correspondence.

That and she has never said they are suing her...

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
That and she has never said they are suing her...

Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".

I thought such restrictions only apply to private and confidential information, Compel. There's little private or confidential in a Cease and Desist letter.

In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats.

And that's all we know about the content of such emails. Doesn't seem threatening. The threat is mostly inferred by the following paragraphs, in which the author claims GW's words suggest their intentions to stamp their copyright on a common sci-fi term.

Again, her words, not GW's.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
That and she has never said they are suing her...

Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".

I see no quote, rather a different author not understanding the difference between a legal demand letter and a threat of lawsuit. They are two very, very different things. The take down letter isn't a lawsuit, it isn't even a threat of a lawsuit. They may have threatened a lawsuit with her in the correspondence, but I have not seen her say they have actually threatened a lawsuit (which brings with it it's own legal actions and reactions).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
I thought such restrictions only apply to private and confidential information, Compel. There's little private or confidential in a Cease and Desist letter.

In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats.

And that's all we know about the content of such emails. Doesn't seem threatening. The threat is mostly inferred by the following paragraphs, in which the author claims GW's words suggest their intentions to stamp their copyright on a common sci-fi term.

Again, her words, not GW's.

Reread her words - she actually doesn't imply that they intend to "stamp their copyright" on anything. She does say:

Even more than I want to save Spots the Space Marine, I want someone to save all space marines for the genre I grew up reading. I want there to be a world where Heinlein and E.E. Smith’s space marines can live alongside mine and everyone else’s, and no one has the hubris to think that they can own a fundamental genre trope and deny it to everyone else.

That doesn't imply they want to copyright (being the wrong application here) anything - but that she does think it is important that generic staples of science fiction and fantasy are swallowed up simply because someone has a lawyer on retainer to file DMCA complaints.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
That and she has never said they are suing her...

Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".

I see no quote, rather a different author not understanding the difference between a legal demand letter and a threat of lawsuit. They are two very, very different things. The take down letter isn't a lawsuit, it isn't even a threat of a lawsuit. They may have threatened a lawsuit with her in the correspondence, but I have not seen her say they have actually threatened a lawsuit (which brings with it it's own legal actions and reactions).

That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.

It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

 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".

The placements along side BL novels is the fault of Amazon's programs, not the author. As for the reviews, I'm not going to be so quick to call them "fake", and comparing it to Starship Troopers is not at all related to the GW case.

It's clear you have a low opinion of this author and her books, but that's just your opinion and not really material to the case.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
That and she has never said they are suing her...

Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".

This is an alleged trademark violation case, not a copyright case, which is exclusively what the invocation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is for, so it looks like your site got that wrong too.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.

It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

How easy is it to rapidly correct poor journalism occurring on news... uh, "blogs", that one might not even be aware exists? In particular, when the story is "spreading like wildfire"?

I've never been in that situation, so I'm asking here.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
That and she has never said they are suing her...

Then she is continually being misquoted, because this article is not the only one which equates the DCMA takedown notice as "the author being sued".

I see no quote, rather a different author not understanding the difference between a legal demand letter and a threat of lawsuit. They are two very, very different things. The take down letter isn't a lawsuit, it isn't even a threat of a lawsuit. They may have threatened a lawsuit with her in the correspondence, but I have not seen her say they have actually threatened a lawsuit (which brings with it it's own legal actions and reactions).

That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.

It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

No - the story is that the trademark complaint was filed incorrectly. She has said that the section of law which they used to file the initial complaint against the Kindle edition refers to printed works - stationary, wrapping paper and the like (not books at all). It was filed to Amazon UK. It was later expanded with a DMCA (which is related to copyrights not trademarks) in the US. Neither of the standings which GW used is valid, though in order for her to continue selling the eBook through Amazon she needs either GW to withdraw their complaint or a court order saying her works do not infringe - I do not see anything within what she has done as fanning the flames.

GW has done a dumb move on many different levels. Space marines is a generic term - especially when used generically. Even without the threat of lawsuit, there is still the threat to the creative process which is as important or more so than an actual lawsuit.

Still, what makes the "Spots" case unique is that 40k and its tie-in media have coexisted with previous and later incarnations of the "space marine" concept in different media without GW raising a finger, even if they supposedly held a trademark over the term.

According to Hogarths/GW, they should have sued EA over Timesplitters (2002), since GW's first venture into videogames dates back to 1993.

Don't know. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe it's a side effect of the DMCA making IP lawyers even more trigger-happy than before.

Anyways, worry no more ladies/gents. Looks like Spots is back on sale. http://www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-Fiddler/dp/1470131056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360280615&sr=1-1&keywords=spots+space+marine

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's kind of my point here Sean. The story is spreading like wildfire and the author keeps fanning the flames of it and yet is not correcting any of the articles such as the one I linked.

It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

How easy is it to rapidly correct poor journalism occurring on news... uh, "blogs", that one might not even be aware exists? In particular, when the story is "spreading like wildfire"?

I've never been in that situation, so I'm asking here.

The problem with that though is that you have to educate people first on the different types of IP (copyright, trademark, patent in the US...copyright, patent, trademark, design in Europe...) and how they are all applied. Many in the legal field don't have a solid grasp on it, journalists...whether bloggers or traditional media...generally are even less well tied into the specific intricacies of IP law. Correcting is pretty easy though if you manage to get it through their thick skulls as to what is going on.

However, since a copyright law was used in an attempt to correct a perceived trademark violation by formally trained legal professionals - you can see how it can be easy for a lay person to confuse things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

Anyways, worry no more ladies/gents. Looks like Spots is back on sale. http://www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-Fiddler/dp/1470131056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360280615&sr=1-1&keywords=spots+space+marine

Formats
Amazon price New from Used from
Kindle Edition -- -- --
Paperback $19.79 $15.79 $38.02

Physical - not Kindle. The physical copy would require a judge to issue an injunction as it isn't electronically transmitted. The Kindle version is covered under safe harbor rules in the DMCA and only requires a claim to be made. Amazon could choose to force GW to prove it - though then they open themselves up to more legal issues...so they simply drop it from their inventory.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

Anyways, worry no more ladies/gents. Looks like Spots is back on sale. http://www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-Fiddler/dp/1470131056/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360280615&sr=1-1&keywords=spots+space+marine

That's the paperback. Amazon only pulled the Kindle version.

Ops, noticed a tweet saying so and didn't bother to check for kindle availability. Speak about unsubstantiated claims

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


GW has done a dumb move on many different levels. Space marines is a generic term - especially when used generically. Even without the threat of lawsuit, there is still the threat to the creative process which is as important or more so than an actual lawsuit.

And I think that is why most people are narked at GW - not because of anything else, but because they have had the audacity to try and take ownership of such a generic term.

 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".

Blame Amazon then. or better yet, blame GW for being stupid and trying to trademark generic terms they didnt come up with. But dont defend gakky behavior with "well, they have to act like tools otherwise their tool rights might be contested". Frankly, GOOD.

Kanluwen wrote: It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

This, while possible, in no way rules out the possibility that GW is overreaching with their legal claims...

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 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?

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.

I did read the few sample chapters she put online when this whole mess started, yes. You can still catch them on Smashwords, if interested. Mediocre is a fair term to describe it. A serialized novel titled Earthrise is also sampled, accesible from Hogarth's site.

I used hack as in "hacker". Sorry, but this entire ride-an-internet-lynchmob-to-fame scenario sounds like social engineering to me. Regardless, what I'm saying is that the entire "legal issues" may have sparked from a misunderstanding or, let's hope not, be a deliberate forgery. So far the only proof we have for GW's intent to claim the term "Space Marine" is an email she's not bothered to copy and paste for us all to see. Remember when GW stalled that fan film "Exterminatus"? The production team victimized by the Workshop's IP claims made sure we heard both sides of the story. Now all we have is her take on things, a couple lines copypasted from the trademark database, and the presumption that GW will never, ever do anything right.

At the very least, and given that GW won't do anything but block users in Twitter and pretend it's not happening, she could make her correspondence with GW public. That'd be the honest thing to do IMHO.

So, like any of the lame 40k, Fogotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc novels. The same hacky drivel, but you know, without the branding, so clearly one sucks while the other is spikey, skullz covered GOLD.

 Lanceradvanced wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: It's why I am firmly of the belief that the author was looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

This, while possible, in no way rules out the possibility that GW is overreaching with their legal claims...

Which they have time and again, GW hands out C&D's out like candy, even if they have no leg to stand on. Hell, they did it to dakka for posting the dark angel pics from white dwarf.

well I should cash in on this craze and stick space marine into my novel... though it's a fantasy...

ooh there's an alicorn in there... wonder if hasbro will come after me...

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
well I should cash in on this craze and stick space marine into my novel... though it's a fantasy...

ooh there's an alicorn in there... wonder if hasbro will come after me...

Nope - part of the reasoning behind the SRD/Open Gaming thing they did was that when they bought out WotC was that the Hasbro lawyers sat down and looked over the new IP that came with the acquisition. They came to conclusion that very little was actually protectable (well - not very little, but huge chunks and swaths were in the public domain). They ended up breaking it down into the open content (monsters, rules and the like) and "Product Identity" materials like beholders, yuan-ti and slaad as well as the various specific settings like Faerun.

GW could very well learn a few things from Hasbro.