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.

hellpato wrote:
Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.

Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.

Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!

Confusion.....maybe?

As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.

I can't see how there would be confusion that this is part of the 40k universe:



Lack of skulls and all.

 marielle wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:


still was nice to see GW get taken down a peg

Only if you are a teenage bedroom revolutionary high on Adderol.

Or literally anyone who wants to make a creative work in the future incorporating the space marine trope?

 marielle wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 marielle wrote:
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.

still was nice to see GW get taken down a peg

Only if you are a teenage bedroom revolutionary high on Adderol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
There's always Beyond The Gates of Antares. The best bits of Games Workshop - Rick Priestley, Bob Naismith and Paul 'Fat Bloke' Sawyer, without all the annoying corporate rubbish...

Yet.

no because I don't like them, but disliking GW is a crime to some of you, so you resort to childish name calling and call me a teenager high on adderol (whatever that is) because I like to see GW fail
you truly took the high road here

hellpato wrote:
Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.

Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.

Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!

Confusion.....maybe?

As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.

Games Workshop and their creations have a significantly smaller degree of name recognition that you might believe.

My previous D&D group consisted of eight people; I was the only person who played any sort of table top wargame and the only one who knew anything about GW. This was a group of people that had been playing D&D and other RPG's since the early 1990's when we were in college together.

If you do not regularly patronize a table top gaming store, the only likely way you're going to have heard of GW is from a friend telling you about it. GW doesn't advertise outside of their own stores and White Dwarf. A person might have discovered GW from their black library books if they happened to wander down to the end of the bookstore shelving to get to the serial novels and pick one up at random.

In the larger Sci-Fi/Fantasy world, GW is literally a blip on the radar. For example, I did a bit of research, and some of the iconic science fiction titles, like Orwell's 1984, have sold more copies by themselves than the Black Library has sold in years and years, all titles combined.

By best estimates, there are only a few million players of GW games in the entire planet. The last major world-wide campaign that GW held, The Eye of Terror campaign, had approximately a half million people participate, world wide. World of Warcraft, in comparison, peaked at somewhere around 11 million subscribers at one point, and that was just a single one of the MMO's that were out there at the time, and didn't include all the people who liked reading Sci-Fi/Fantast, but didn't want to play an MMO (like myself).

 heartserenade wrote:

hellpato wrote:
Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.

Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.

Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!

Confusion.....maybe?

As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.

I can't see how there would be confusion that this is part of the 40k universe:



Lack of skulls and all.

No skulls and presence of a women: it's like the polar opposite of Games Workshop.

And a living alien on the cover of a book featuring Space Marines!

Don't know how many times I have to repeat this: A trademark does not give its owner any rights to an idea. Thinking that by taking down Spots GW was claiming ownership over half the military sci-fi genre is mostly male bovine droppings.

Surprise

http://www.trademarkia.com/CTM/homeworld-107844_en-US.htm

"Homeworld" is a trademark owned by THQ, now possibly Sega, covering novels amongst many others. Does this mean we can't mention the word "Homeworld" in any works of fiction? NO.

and a black guy

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Don't know how many times I have to repeat this: A trademark does not give its owner any rights to an idea. Thinking that by taking down Spots GW was claiming ownership over half the military sci-fi genre is mostly male bovine droppings.

Surprise

http://www.trademarkia.com/CTM/homeworld-107844_en-US.htm

"Homeworld" is a trademark owned by THQ, now possibly Sega, covering novels amongst many others. Does this mean we can't mention the word "Homeworld" in any works of fiction? NO.

GW tried and have failed to "take down" Spots. It is back on sale following pro bono legal intervention by the EFF.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:

hellpato wrote:
Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.

Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.

Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!

Confusion.....maybe?

As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.

I can't see how there would be confusion that this is part of the 40k universe:



Lack of skulls and all.

No skulls and presence of a women: it's like the polar opposite of Games Workshop.

I heard that she will be co authoring the next instalment with CS Goto. So it'll be even less likely to be compared with GW canon.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Don't know how many times I have to repeat this: A trademark does not give its owner any rights to an idea. Thinking that by taking down Spots GW was claiming ownership over half the military sci-fi genre is mostly male bovine droppings.

Surprise

http://www.trademarkia.com/CTM/homeworld-107844_en-US.htm

"Homeworld" is a trademark owned by THQ, now possibly Sega, covering novels amongst many others. Does this mean we can't mention the word "Homeworld" in any works of fiction? NO.

GW tried and have failed to "take down" Spots. It is back on sale following pro bono legal intervention by the EFF.

Yes I know, I've keeping track of this. But I'm still amazed to see that the underlying falsehood under all this keeps popping up over and over again.

I see two totally different things behind the "Spots" affair.

1) GW's absurd attempt to establish an IP beachhead on the ebook category by threatening an inde on extremely weak legal grounds.

2) Said indie author's claim that GW's trademark would forbid any science-fiction writers from using the space marine trope.

GW have failed to assert their claim, but mostly because, as many have said, their trademark doesn't extend to ebooks and their presence on the ebook market is marginal. Not because the trademark was diluted (dilution requires many trademarks in non-competing markets) nor because common terms and phrases cannot be trademarked.

Also, the fact that GW has failed does not make the autor's statement any true. She could just have defended her legitimate right to use the "space marine" phrase in a field where no conflicting trademarks existed.

FInally, It may seem that I'm a GW fanboy whiteknighting for them. Kinda not. It's just that Twitter-spawned instant consensus scares me. No matter how many times you tweet a false statement doesn't make it true.

edited for massive spelling fails

SPECIAL EDITION*** On-Air Episode #4: Maggie Hogarth & Games Workshop
Maggie Hogarth does an exclusive interview with Gamers on Games about the "space marine" trademark situation with Games Workshop.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Not really understanding much about that kind of thing, what is that indicative of?

Listen to the first couple of minutes of the BoW Weekend show : http://www.beastsofwar.com/the-weekender/weekender-entitled-space-marine/

A lot of shares have been sold yesterday and the price offered was low because people did not want strongly to buy.

However, without knowing the normal volume of trading (number of shares sold per day) we cannot tell if it is merely a blip -- Kirby selling enough for his summer holiday -- or a general bailout of investors.

I sold about half my holdings in GW yesterday; dumped it in a nice little bio-tech stock and ended the day up a fair amount.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Not really understanding much about that kind of thing, what is that indicative of?

Listen to the first couple of minutes of the BoW Weekend show : http://www.beastsofwar.com/the-weekender/weekender-entitled-space-marine/

A lot of shares have been sold yesterday and the price offered was low because people did not want strongly to buy.

However, without knowing the normal volume of trading (number of shares sold per day) we cannot tell if it is merely a blip -- Kirby selling enough for his summer holiday -- or a general bailout of investors.

I sold about half my holdings in GW yesterday; dumped it in a nice little bio-tech stock and ended the day up a fair amount.

Smart. Very smart in investing in the biotech industry. I'm dabbling in the health care stocks myself (as well as other kinds of stock). Not too much though as my specialty is in real estate.

I invest small amounts into companies just because I can (A) Go to a casino and gamble my "play money" away or (B) I can invest in the stock market, which to me is a form of legalized gambling. . Keeps my mind in shape so to speak.

Back on topic. Every corporation has a right to defend their IP's and trademarks. But there is a line between defending and out right aggression.
GW has a tendency to cross that line a lot.

 Kroothawk wrote:
SPECIAL EDITION*** On-Air Episode #4: Maggie Hogarth & Games Workshop
Maggie Hogarth does an exclusive interview with Gamers on Games about the "space marine" trademark situation with Games Workshop.

Wow well at least if something comes from all of this, she'll have enough money to get that beard dealt with.

hellpato wrote:
Think about that. You wrote a story with this title : the last stand of the space marines.

Your story have nothing to do with GW and 40k.

Your are a SF fan and you see a title like that, your first tought will be : that a 40k novel!

Confusion.....maybe?

As a corporation, you ask to your lawyers to take actions if it is a case of trademark/copyright.

In a small niche sub-genre of sci-fi where GW is king, maybe...but GW is not well known outside of gaming. I work at a library and when I asked the old sci-fi grognards what they thought of when I said space marine they immediately did not say 40k or anything related to it; in fact they didn't even know about this whole fiasco. Granted, your mileage may vary but I doubt it.

Amusingly, the extra news associated with discovering that 40K is in fact a minor niche may have enhanced its profile more than the past 25 years of assiduous (cof cof) marketing by GW.

Sadly, in a negative way, though they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Amusingly, the extra news associated with discovering that 40K is in fact a minor niche may have enhanced its profile more than the past 25 years of assiduous (cof cof) marketing by GW.

Sadly, in a negative way, though they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity.

True.

Yeah, I would imagine this is not the kind of publicity a company wants; and I do think there is such a thing as bad publicity. I know upon hearing of this news from me the librarian who handles the sci-fi section has decided to not order anymore GW novels until this dies down. They don't want to purchase books that will not circulate.

I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..

So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..

Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..

 Lanceradvanced wrote:
I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..

So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..

Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..

But does that affect "Inferno Blast?"

 Amaya wrote:

 Lanceradvanced wrote:
I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..

So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..

Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..

But does that affect "Inferno Blast?"

"Inferno" is likely a reference to the now defunct magazine of the same name published by Games Workshop which was used for short stories and novellas, not the template.

Inferno was actually more like "Hammer and Bolter" than a 'specialist games' magazine.

The novel 'Trollslayer' was actually made out of the Gotrek and Felix short stories found in it.

The Citadel Journel was more specialist games-ey. However, it had stuff for the core games too. Then you also had magazines like Epic's Firepower.

Of course, this isn't forgetting Warhammer Monthly, which came later.

 Compel wrote:
Inferno was actually more like "Hammer and Bolter" than a 'specialist games' magazine.

The novel 'Trollslayer' was actually made out of the Gotrek and Felix short stories found in it.

The Citadel Journel was more specialist games-ey. However, it had stuff for the core games too. Then you also had magazines like Epic's Firepower.

Of course, this isn't forgetting Warhammer Monthly, which came later.

Thanks for the correction. I only vaguely remember "Inferno" and must have been confusing it with the Citadel Journal.

 Pacific wrote:
Wow well at least if something comes from all of this, she'll have enough money to get that beard dealt with.

Erm .. you are aware that she is the one in the small pic on the right, right?

Remembered the titles of the two books that caused me confusion at work..

Rapture (Fallen Angels Series #4)
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rapture-jason-e-ward/1006118443?ean=9780451414793

vs.

Rapture (Lauren Kate's Fallen Series #4)
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rapture-lauren-kate/1105808559?ean=9780385739184

And not to be confused with this one, which apparenly is not trademarked in the field of computer games..

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bioshock-john-shirley/1103087248?ean=9780765367358

So, did GW back down or was it Amazon?

My money is on Amazon.

The Auld Grump

If you watch that interview with her you can tell see is holding back, which spells "here's some money, please shut up" and they allowed the book to be sold. Guess GW didnt like the attention of the BBC showing up to their door.

No thats the standard legal advice of "shut up or you will ruin your own potential case" part. she does have to watch what she says.

 Lanceradvanced wrote:
I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..

So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..

Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..

Fun fact: The Dark Angels Chapter and their primarch owe their names to the 19th century poet Lionel Pigot Johnson, whose literary masterpiece was a poem called "Dark Angel."

 deathholydeath wrote:

 Lanceradvanced wrote:
I was reminded of somthing that came up at work a little bit ago, two Paranomal Romances, one Teen, one Adult with identical titles..

So I checked on Amazon.. -LOTS- of books titled "Dark Angel" I wonder when the C&D's will start moving..

Oh, and the next "DaVinci Code" novel.. "Inferno" also GW Trademarked..

Fun fact: The Dark Angels Chapter and their primarch owe their names to the 19th century poet Lionel Pigot Johnson, whose literary masterpiece was a poem called "Dark Angel."

I wrote the entire poem on my local GW's facebook page when the Dark Angels were redone... no one understood why