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.

 alienvalentine wrote:

And where, pray tell, is that?

I have no idea but I can all but guarantee that something like it exists.

 pretre wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
So..... how long before they come after Dakka?

I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?

Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.

Apart from the fact that "Dakka" may in fact be a trademarked term for GW. They went after warhammer.org.uk; so it's within their MO to do so.

 pretre wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 alienvalentine wrote:

I can clearly see how GW can claim the right to publish any copyrighted material first, but posting excerpts of it after the fact is commonly considered fair use, an exception to GWs copyright claim.

I think the idea is that it hasn't been 'published' until the street date. I.e. if you got a copy of the Avengers 2 a month early and posted screenshots as part of a review, the studio would probably have a problem with that.

Agreed, but what happens if I were to post those same pictures today, in an article on my blog reviewing the film? This is exactly the kind of thing fair use is supposed to cover. It's no defense for natfka posting the pictures before the WD came out, I'm just pointing out that he's only in trouble because he posted them before GW released them.

Was the movie already released? Then you're probably fine. We're talking about pictures of something that hasn't been released yet. i.e. Leaked pictures. That's kind of a problem. Him releasing before GW is exactly the problem. Just as you releasing before the Avengers 2 hits theatres is the problem.

My point exactly, he's in trouble not because of what he posted but when he posted it.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

Since when has that mattered on the internet?

It's great because people will continue to support them and these kind of actions... hypocrites.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

Since when has that mattered on the internet?

Since the internet.

Getting away with a crime does not make it less of a crime.

You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.

Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.

At this point if someone posted videos of Alan Merret water boarding a third party bits maker asking where he got his ideas from I don't know if I'd be shocked or not.

Now its just a constant reminder not to spend money on this company's product.

 pretre wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
So..... how long before they come after Dakka?

I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?

Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.

The problem with that is that as far as GW thinks, ALL images of their products are their own copyright.

How many avatars on this forum are original art? How many pics from GW's pages get posted here? Even hotlinked? GW is harboring an attitude of demanding action against ANY use of their pictures, which by themselves I don't think SHOULD qualify for copyright. 90% of GW"s pictures are product description photos designed to sell a product, not to be recognized as art.

The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.

So sharing movies freely, should be legal then.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

Apart from the snippet detailing about products being leaked before they are on sale.

 Aerethan wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
So..... how long before they come after Dakka?

I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?

Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.

The problem with that is that as far as GW thinks, ALL images of their products are their own copyright.

How many avatars on this forum are original art? How many pics from GW's pages get posted here? Even hotlinked? GW is harboring an attitude of demanding action against ANY use of their pictures, which by themselves I don't think SHOULD qualify for copyright. 90% of GW"s pictures are product description photos designed to sell a product, not to be recognized as art.

The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.

I think it unlikely that GW will ask for every picture of a space marine on the internet removed. But feel free to rub my nose in it when they issue the C&D to dakka for having pictures of space marines.

As well, it would probably not be terribly difficult for Lego to shut down images on the site for any amount of time he needed to to keep operations running.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

But you overlook Pretre's answer: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/524002.page#5560552 where this is mentioned as an example of criminal activity: "Pre-release piracy, i.e., willful infringement "by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.""

It is specifically mentioned that unreleased items can in fact be illegal to show. A similar case just happened with a 5 minute gameplay trailer of "The Elderscrolls Online" that no one is showing anymore.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.

So sharing movies freely, should be legal then.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

Apart from the snippet detailing about products being leaked before they are on sale.

Did you even read my post? I was talking about PRODUCT PHOTOS. I.e. pictures taken with the express intent of showing a product for sale. A movie is a finished media product that(granted subjectively) is generally considered art, the same as music or final product paintings, art etc.




That picture was taken ONLY to sell the model, the picture is not art, nor is it a product in any way. It exists only as a description of the product it's attached to.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.

So sharing movies freely, should be legal then.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

Apart from the snippet detailing about products being leaked before they are on sale.

Did you even read my post? I was talking about PRODUCT PHOTOS. I.e. pictures taken with the express intent of showing a product for sale. A movie is a finished media product that(granted subjectively) is generally considered art, the same as music or final product paintings, art etc.




That picture was taken ONLY to sell the model, the picture is not art, nor is it a product in any way. It exists only as a description of the product it's attached to.

The movie is designed to sell the movie. Its not designed to do anything else but to sell the movie (on dvd) and tickets. I don't see the difference? There is even trailers, snippets of the movie, for offering constructive criticism too.

 Aerethan wrote:
That picture was taken ONLY to sell the model, the picture is not art, nor is it a product in any way. It exists only as a description of the product it's attached to.

No but it still infringes on pre-release rights.

Just as if I host pictures of Avengers 2 stills on my blog as part of 'news' and 'criticism' a month before release. Guarantee a DMCA is on the way.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.

Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.
.

I think the same.. I should stop keeping on being surprised by all of this kind of stuff really.

It's quite incredible how they manage to keep on finding new ways to shaft their fanbase - and those blogs have been some of the most ardent supporters of GW over the years (although BoLS had started to introduce other non-GW stuff onto their blog).

[assuming that GW requesting it is the reason why Faeit is down:]

Look everyone, let's not get bogged down in the technicality of copyright law here - I think it's pretty clear that releasing images of magazine early is both covered by and sensibly covered by legislation - but this is not the point.

The point must be that GW has made a move against man who almost never had a bad word for GW, was always talking up their releases with infectious genuine enthusiasm that you couldn't help but share, always increased my excitement and anticipation of each GW release - and this most likely increased the amount I would shell out on GW products (if my intangible excitement can be linked to my tangible financial output - which I think it can). GW must be kididng themselves if they think White Dwarf revenue will increase as a result of this - without Natfka getting me excited about White Dwarf I would probably forget about it, as the content is ususally so advert heavy and content light. I've never been one to beef about GW but this is so clearly stupid!

End of the day, this is a dick move by a company who clearly doesn't understand their own fanbase and is shooting themselves in the foot, big time.

 Pacific wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.

Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.
.

I think the same.. I should stop keeping on being surprised by all of this kind of stuff really.

It's quite incredible how they manage to keep on finding new ways to shaft their fanbase - and those blogs have been some of the most ardent supporters of GW over the years (although BoLS had started to introduce other non-GW stuff onto their blog).

Here's a pic from GW's HQ.



Just keep on diggin' GW.

Palindrome wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

Since when has that mattered on the internet?

That doesn't matter. Just because other people do it doesn't make it acceptable.

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:You know, watching GW dig its own grave is just that gift that keeps on giving.

Every day I click my Dakka link thinking, "I wonder if GW kicked another hornets nest again today, surely they are running of out nests to kick." at least twice a week i am not disappointed.

At this point if someone posted videos of Alan Merret water boarding a third party bits maker asking where he got his ideas from I don't know if I'd be shocked or not.

Now its just a constant reminder not to spend money on this company's product.

...And yet they continue to grow at a steady and healthy rate.

Aerethan wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
So..... how long before they come after Dakka?

I toyed with posting this question as its own thread before but do we need to discuss how to crowdfund yakfaces defense of the forums at some point in the future?

Dakka doesn't post copyrighted material and specifically sanctions users for attempting to do so. So never.

The problem with that is that as far as GW thinks, ALL images of their products are their own copyright.

How many avatars on this forum are original art? How many pics from GW's pages get posted here? Even hotlinked? GW is harboring an attitude of demanding action against ANY use of their pictures, which by themselves I don't think SHOULD qualify for copyright. 90% of GW"s pictures are product description photos designed to sell a product, not to be recognized as art.

The internet and pic sharing is a new territory for IP, and I think original intended use of a photo should be considered before granting it artistic rights.

People are somehow continuing to ignore the fact that it's not the pictures or articles that are the problem, but the TIMING of the pictures and articles.

Over-reaction (re: hatred) towards GW for the sake of it.

At least when news makes it out of North Korea, you don't have worry about being sued about talking about it.

 brassangel wrote:
...And yet they continue to grow at a steady and healthy rate.

faeit or BoLS?

Please tell me you meant one of those two.

 Gorlack wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

But you overlook Pretre's answer: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/524002.page#5560552 where this is mentioned as an example of criminal activity: "Pre-release piracy, i.e., willful infringement "by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.""

It is specifically mentioned that unreleased items can in fact be illegal to show. A similar case just happened with a 5 minute gameplay trailer of "The Elderscrolls Online" that no one is showing anymore.

No, not an image - the entire work. The leaked images might be a violation of an internal employment contract between the employee who manages to get the pre-release image and the company who owns the image...but that is not a violation on its own. The issue with it being a specific crime under Section 506 only if it is 1) Software/AV Works or 2) A Movie - and then only if it is a complete release, not a limited excerpt for purposes of review, new or criticism. That particular section is very limited in scope and relates to the criminal activity of releasing bootlegged videos (from prescreenings) and late Beta test software or other AV work:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —

(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —

(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or

(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —

(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

There is no inclusion for literary works - which is what books and magazines fall under. Regarding the Eldar Scrolls issue...lots of huffery goes into DMCA requests, and lots of sites will roll over on them as they either don't know the law or don't want to fight the fight. Just because something is taken down and people broadly comply - it doesn't actually mean that there are any grounds to do so.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
It also is another illegal use of the DMCA.

Section 3, Ammendment V of the FAIR Use Act allows for unauthorized use of materials for "criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research."

While they are not the AP or Reuters...they are news.

So wait. You're saying that "unauthorized use of materials" contradicts the ability for someone to publish their own material and make it available first?

See above, and further below...

In journalism, "journalists" receive broad protections under the law. If a journalist uses a leaked image they are not required to abide by laws and contracts which a company might implement in order to keep things confidential (See Johns-Byrne Co. v. TechnoBuffalo). It is quite common to have various prerelease leaks of all manner of products - from cars, to phones and even software and videos. These are all protected aspects of journalistic reporting. If they were posting a complete video or copy of software...or even somehow posting a 3D scan of a model - there might be some aspect with which GW could grasp at. However, the early posting of images from a magazine which is largely a product catalog does not amount to damaging to the product that GW is attempting to sell and is protected.

The illegal use by GW goes to this point here...quoted from their DMCA take-down request:

Sworn Statements
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [checked]


Because of the nature of the DMCA, attorneys and companies who use it are expected to make a sworn statement that what they are targeting is in fact illegal - they also must sign the document under penalty of perjury that they have done their due diligence in ensuring that the law is actually being broken. The above quoted statutes (both the FAIR Act and the refutement of the pre-release issue) should make it clear that Nafka is a news site performing a news function - which is legal. Because it is authorized by law explicitly and does not infringe on any exclusive rights of GW...it would in fact be an illegal use of the DMCA. Either GW's legal team is not doing their due diligence in research or they are but are perjuring themselves - both of which are illegal uses.

 brassangel wrote:

...And yet they continue to grow at a steady and healthy rate.

Do we need to go over this again?

GW clamping down on online rumors that are already effectively only coming out a pathetic few weeks before the codex release? I'm not surprised but I can't seem to work myself up into a tizzy either. I mainly stopped buying their stuff except for codex books a few years back so this doesn't really affect me much regardless. At least I've got X-wing and Heavy Gear in the meantime and Robotech coming up for Christmas.

 brassangel wrote:

That doesn't matter. Just because other people do it doesn't make it acceptable.

The free passage of information forms the very bones of the internet and the legality of data sharing means very little in the scheme of things given how widespread it is. Acceptable or not it is reality.

Wow...more for the fire. Some of you still want to support this company?

 Gorlack wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:
Surely he can just move his blog somewhere that will simply ignore the frequent tantrums of GW's lawyers?

Doesn't make it any less a crime.

No, but my post pointing out explicitly why the law in question isn't illegal to do what is alleged (on the same page no less!) does.

But you overlook Pretre's answer: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/524002.page#5560552 where this is mentioned as an example of criminal activity: "Pre-release piracy, i.e., willful infringement "by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.""

It is specifically mentioned that unreleased items can in fact be illegal to show. A similar case just happened with a 5 minute gameplay trailer of "The Elderscrolls Online" that no one is showing anymore.

I have him on ignore, so that's why I missed it, but in fairness, it's mistaken and irrelevant in any case. Had he actually followed the citiations in the article he quoted, he would have noted that the statute (17 USC § 506(a)(3)) specifies that it applies to;

(3) Definition.— In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means—
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution—
(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture—
(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.

Emphasis mine.

That said, it would be irrelevant anyway, because, if one were to read my post...

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Isn't it illegal to take a copyrighted magazine and post pictures of it online?

It would certainly be illegal to scan an entire magazine and place it (without comment) online, but that does not appear to be what is alleged at the moment.

Rather, it appears (from the reports) is that various blogs posted images of upcoming releases taken from WD for the purpose of news reportage/criticism.

Which is explicitly allowed under the terms of the Copyright act;

§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Fair use is fair use, even if something is unpublished.

Incidentally this differentiates from the Elder Scrolls example in two ways: first it's a motion picture or audiovisual work, and second, it's a simple reproduction, not a use that falls under the terms of the fair use exception.

If you were to have clips from that on your blog examining it, that would be fair use. Simply rehosting it? That fits under no fair use categories.

I swear GW must feed off ill feeling from its fanbase. It's the only explanation....

There were more than images on Fait212,

They had whole pages of the magazine, and I suspect the whole of the high elves article, which moves it right into pre-release piracy teritory

Sorry to hear about the site but it's just a rumor blog.

I wish the blogger well and hope he doesn't get too much fallout from all this.