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.

Paitryn wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.

"failing our duty to our shareholders"

This actually means "If we don't do this, the next stock meeting results in our termination followed by replacement by some jerk who cares even LESS about the product than is currently in place."

since all the shareholders are either GW or investment firms, It pretty much comes down to pure cold business.

While it sucks to be in GWs position, I have no sympathy. This is what you get for trying to trademark something that is simple and then be expected to enforce it later. The moment people are tired of your crap they cry foul and you get a mess. Now its getting larger international attention in areas they are not the king of. Looks like they may end up being the little guy on this one if the Writing community wants to push forward anyways.

Looks like they realized all that though as they are trying to back away peacefully. In the bigger picture, Its reasons like this they should not (including anyone) be capable of putting a trademark on any word commonly associated with something. (i.e. Warhammer, which is a medieval weapon). Copywriting a loco that uses the name Warhammer, and I feel thats fine, its your art. Trademarking a name you invented (like Jell-o) but trademarking something like Space marine, and your just asking for trouble later. Its damn near juvenile to think you can copyright the and actually expect people to pay you or ask your permission to put it into written works.

Of course its not like GW is the first or only, So truthfully I hope both this case, and the current Marvel/DC case both win out in the end, as corporations are starting to put too much strain on new ideas. Of course these also stem from companies trying to take ownership over something that is inherently not theirs. I'm almost certain they knew the risk of this biting them in the ass somewhere down the road if they had to enforce it. In GW's case I figure they probably didn't concieve having to actually enforce it as strongly as they do these days and just wanted some IP protection from blatant rip-offs.

Does that mean that one could in theory, find a way to contact Lucasarts about the 'Land Speeder' thing, which could, in theory, get GW utterly "in deep trouble."

that would be humorous
if I make a Norse Valkyrie, and not a plane Valkyrie, I wonder if GW would come after me since they probably feel they own that word (along with Norse)

weeble1000 wrote:

Paitryn wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.

Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?

It would be a bit of an unfair statement, considering some may have backed down without a fight or word. Also their statement mentions in the title, not body of text, which I have yet to see any taken down or mentioned. But be fair, GW isn't gakked in the head and going to sue Heinlein for Starship Troopers. Since this has gotten the EFF involved, and even GW has made an official statement, I would say that yes they did try to take her down, and now they are putting the blame on "duty to the faceless corporations that own our sorry tail"

Yeah but people won't take that as GW hopes, there are masses of unhappy customers and such waiting to pounce on GW, and they are I would assume since they have no net presence or feedback options, have no clue what people at large think of them, and expect everyone to blindly accept everything they say and that they have no competition...

But be fair, GW isn't gakked in the head and going to sue Heinlein for Starship Troopers.

I agree that they would not do that. Since even GW knows they would lose that fight.

Paitryn wrote:
"failing our duty to our shareholders"

This actually means "If we don't do this, the next stock meeting results in our termination followed by replacement by some jerk who cares even LESS about the product than is currently in place."

Do you really think a hedge fund manager gives are rats butt if GW slaps around some little guys with C&D letters and lawsuits? Nope - most of them wouldn't be able to tell you what GW does, let alone what their IP was. All they care about is that the stock performs. It would perform just as well or better if GW didn't do this sort of thing, as this sort of thing is generally bad for business - unless the whole of your business is licensing.

The "failing our duty to our shareholders" is a cop out - it gives them something to hide behind when these issues come up.

If they really were not trying to be turds and were interested in maintaining their tenuous grasp on their IP - they would have written up a contract for the author to sell her book as is for a $1 license fee. Takes 15 minutes to do, everyone is happy. Instead, they act the part of turds or imbeciles (not sure which, I leave that for you to decide) and attempt to have the book removed from sale. They even managed to succeed for a couple months time - now to see if they extend their fecalness even further by following up with an actual lawsuit, or if they remove their head from their butt and either drop it...or do the sensible thing and provide the $1 contract.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Do you really think a hedge fund manager gives are rats butt if GW slaps around some little guys with C&D letters and lawsuits? Nope - most of them wouldn't be able to tell you what GW does, let alone what their IP was.

I was kindof putting it out there as sarcasm, but it got missed. and you would be suprised what they take interest in. Its a long term investment firm, so they are a lot more scrupulous than comparitively a day trader. I've sat in (or rather phone in) on a stockholder meeting before, they have people who do nothing but stay on this stuff.

Its easier to shift the blame on the faceless corps that actually run the show. In a way they do care, as losing trademarks and copyrights will result in future sales decreses when everyone and thier dog can make a space marine mini legally. So yes, if they fail to protect thier IP a la chapterhouse, it can go bad for them in the shareholders department. and yes, the CEO/CFO/president, whatever you want to be called today fails to protect something as simple as the IP fails to do so and its public, you better believe they will move to have him removed. Shareholder meetings are generally about keeping updated on sales figures and increases, but also about important moves in business.

Does anyone think it would be interesting to have a conversation with say the operator of their local gw store, for me that would be the chicago battle bunker. The manager seems in general like a pretty nice guy, I think it would be interesting to have a beer with him outside of "GW" and hear what he really thinks of the company. Ive been a disgruntled hobbist for a while. I still love the game and ficitional setting, however I dont buy much anymore.

I mean as far as I can tell, every single person on the planet that I have spoken to about this in the past day or so, has agreed that it is absolute nonsence.

In the realm of all seriousness, I understand the right to protect intellectual property. But I think scope of said property should be part of the context, we aren't talking about the cure for cancer here.

I find it laughable that the lawyers would even entertain the idea.

lawyers are paid to do this kind of fighting, so they will entertain whatever keeps their 350/hr paycheck rolling in. Your local manager may feel the same way about GW as my local FLGS owner does. He loves GW because it keeps him in cash pretty well. They also give him good rates because he sells more, which no other mini company is even willing to do, so naturally he sells even more! so GW treats the business side pretty good.

Im sure even Matt Ward is facepalming on this one thinking it was a pretty dumb move on the legal department. Your manager will probably feel the same as well as any other grunt working for the company, but this isn't the first time any company has made a purely boneheaded move and you really cant do more than chuckle at it.

GW is pretty ballsy considering they use terms such as power armour and stormtrooper.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Paitryn wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.

Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?

Obviously, none. But you knew that anyway.

I would imagine that in this instance a self published authour would have GW's legal team salivating while going after a publishing house would leave them in the corner whining with pee dribbling out of their doggy whatsits.

If this author is lying in anyway about the take down, which I do not think is the case btw, GW could rightfully pursue them for making malicious claims and maybe libel.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Harriticus wrote:
GW is pretty ballsy considering they use terms such as power armour and stormtrooper.

Your IRS is in serious trouble if they trademark the timelines.

40-1K anyone?

Paitryn wrote:
They also give him good rates because he sells more, which no other mini company is even willing to do, so naturally he sells even more! so GW treats the business side pretty good.

Bit off topic - but most companies give you a better rate if you sell more. If you sell enough to justify ordering direct from the manufacturer as opposed to using a distributor...they will often give you distributor pricing as well, but even discounting that - Alliance uses tiered pricing on their wholesale prices and two others will also give you an increased discount for volume.

 Harriticus wrote:
GW is pretty ballsy considering they use terms such as power armour and stormtrooper.

well given that the IP infringement "courts" are really just trial by correspondance for the most part, the fact that they do wont be part of the question most likely. It will come down to pure facts of the Word usage at hand.

GW coming in to swat people using anything like their copyright is pretty old actually. Look at when they went in full
l force on people using the title 'dark future' even after it was out of print.

http://news.ansible.co.uk/a66.html

And that was 20 years ago.

weeble1000 wrote:

Paitryn wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.

I think they have managed to do so this far because their targets in the tabletop wargames industry are usually so small and weak. It is easy to win fights if your opponent daren't even step into the ring. (Not that this invalidates GW's claims.)

The Chapter House case is the first time GW have come up against someone with the guts and legal support to come to the scratch, and GW's case looks to be in significant trouble.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Paitryn wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW has claimed a trademark to the word mark "Stormtrooper" and actually sought to enforce it in a lawsuit, not just a C&D or a DMCA takedown notification. And "Stormtrooper" is not the only such term allegedly trademarked by GW, there is a long, long list.

If they have stormtrooper, Dreamforge games is in for a C&D for their Stormtrooper models. But I don't think they have stormtrooper, That would be pushing it way too far off the cliff as that term is pretty generic and is more in tune with Star Wars. They wouldn't win a case if they wanted to in that department.

Reading the BBC article...that "Blanket Policy" must be pretty warm if it works against the media, IP laws, copyright infringement....They sure do like their blankets.

GW arguably shouldn't have "Space Marine" and yet the company enforces it broadly.

Would you kindly point me to any other instances of books taken down for featuring space marines, please?

Obviously, none. But you knew that anyway.

I would imagine that in this instance a self published authour would have GW's legal team salivating while going after a publishing house would leave them in the corner whining with pee dribbling out of their doggy whatsits.

If this author is lying in anyway about the take down, which I do not think is the case btw, GW could rightfully pursue them for making malicious claims and maybe libel.

Spot on, though I don't think it's just a case of GW playing bully the indie - Back when Starcraft was published Blizzard wasn't the media giant it is now. If GW was claiming said "broad trademark" over Space Marines then they wouldn't have missed the chance to litigate over it. Thing is, for every similarity between a Terran Marine and an Astartes, Blizzard's IP lawyers would have pointed at least ten features where the designs diverge or draw from common sources. GW hasn't been holding back their lawyers out of fear of or benevolence to other companies - GW's trademark claims are not so broad. They can't ban portrayals of power armored future soldiers, called "Space Marines" or not, in every media, and they know it. But then, there are few products out there that pose a direct challenge to GW's IP.

But yea, some moron probably thought an upstart writer with her inopportunely named book would be an easy picking. Wrong idea.

As for Hogarths' lying... well. The takedown notice is real, that's for sure. However, she omitted mentioning in her blog posts that GW had only complained about her book's TITLE. Furthermore, she made it appear like GW was claiming an ownership to the idea, the very concept of space marines. Without these claims her story would have gathered sympathies -independent writers, IP freedom advocates would have surely rallied to her cause- but wouldn't have generated such an echo amongst the sci-fi community. Again, she hasn't lied outright, but she has let the rage wave lift her to the top (currently ranked #13 amongst Amazon's military sci-fi athors). She has seen people flying her flag make false claims and hasn't move a finger to stop them or clarify the situation at the very least. Not the most honest thing to do.

BTW, Weeble, sorry if I sounded harsh. No offense intended.

Are book and essay titles excluded from free speech?

 Compel wrote:
That is a very comment-ey 'no comment.'

Another example of left hand vs right hand?

Actually I think it's a case of 'oh feth our stock just dropped four points'.

@Kilkrazy They are not, but only if they don't conflict with an existing trademark, and even in those cases you may get a pass if you manage to prove your title holds artistic significance or is integral to the book's contents.

Of course, I think GW would have failed miserably had this case been taken to court. Mostly because Games Workshop's trademark claims are quite weak - Their registered trademark applies to miniatures, videogames and "printed matter"(?) only, and they haven't been stamping the "Space Marine" brand on ebooks long enough to establish a goodwill.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

As for Hogarths' lying... well. The takedown notice is real, that's for sure. However, she omitted mentioning in her blog posts that GW had only complained about her book's TITLE. Furthermore, she made it appear like GW was claiming an ownership to the idea, the very concept of space marines. Without these claims her story would have gathered sympathies -independent writers, IP freedom advocates would have surely rallied to her cause- but wouldn't have generated such an echo amongst the sci-fi community. Again, she hasn't lied outright, but she has let the rage wave lift her to the top (currently ranked #13 amongst Amazon's military sci-fi athors). She has seen people flying her flag make false claims and hasn't move a finger to stop them or clarify the situation at the very least. Not the most honest thing to do.

BTW, Weeble, sorry if I sounded harsh. No offense intended.

We don't actually know that. If it were simply a question of the title - I would presume that an amicable agreement would likely have been able to have been achieved between now and back in December when it was first removed from the Kindle listing. We actually know next to nothing about what GW may or may not have claimed during their discussions with her and likely will not unless she releases copies of the letters/emails or if it goes to court and they are entered into evidence.

Now, GW did make a statement that they are just an innocent victim of circumstance, having to take action against the author...however, that was a CYA move based on a story they thought would die down (which is why they ignored the initial request for comment from the BBC) and didn't (so someone tossed something on Facebook).

EFF declares Victory...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online

A statement from the author herself on the invaluable contribution of the EFF (and asking for donations to the EFF, quite fairly): M.C.A. Hogarth on Trademark Bullying and Free Speech .

@Sean - Occam's razor. You can't claim trademark to anything but a brand or, in this case, a title. Hogarth herself made it clear: The book had been taken down over allegations of trademark infringement.

But then...

I used to own a registered trademark. I understand the legal obligations of trademark holders to protect their IP. A Games Workshop trademark of the term “Adeptus Astartes” is completely understandable. But they’ve chosen instead to co-opt the legacy of science fiction writers who laid the groundwork for their success. 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.

... she goes on to suggest that GW's claim would result in them OWNING the idea, thus robbing science-fiction of one of its most beloved tropes. Basically she confuses trademark with copyright.

As for modifying the title... I think she never intended to, and I personally don't have a problem with that. She has all the right to challenge GW's trademark in court if she believes it's bogus or weak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This just came up on her site...

we must continue to protect common terms by refusing to reshape our creations to placate over-zealous legal teams

Basically right. But, see, common terms CAN be trademarked. "The Avengers" is as common as "Space Marine" can be. Still, the movie was renamed "Marvel Avengers Assemble" in the UK

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/02/28/the-avengers-to-be-renamed-avengers-assemble-in-the-uk/

Notice how Marvel published a comic book with the same title in the US shortly after, in order to cover both jurisdictions and media...

 daedalus wrote:
It's a trademark. Not sure about UK law, but US law, you have to proactively defend it, or you risk losing it.

It's asinine, but then again, the law is asinine.

US Copyright law in summary

There's currently 453 comments on Games Workshop's facebook post concerning the matter now.

By tomorrow, I'm thinking there will be oh, 5?

or none

I find it amusing that...

That the GW hate squad have rallied to the 'Defense of the Fiddler'.

That GW have sought to defend the earning potential of Black Library by targetting a title that by the authors own admission was not making money.

Roll dice and tie.