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.

**Ghost** wrote:
Hi Everyone,

First time poster here.

As a banking professional (sorry about the GFC guys, our fault we know) there MAY be some point to what GW is doing and they may even be obliged to do so.

As you would know GW is a publicly listed company. Although its relatively small, it still answers to shareholders. A part of that responsibility involves keeping their company's business private so that the shares are traded fairly on market.

Imagine a Mining Exploration company whose business was to find gold. Now lets say they found a substantial amount of gold in Africa somewhere. If someone was to leak that information onto the market before the company made an official announcement - the share price will shoot up due to all those people with access to that information buying the shares - in this case the people who read the equivalent of Faeit212 and BOLs in the mining world.

On a much smaller scale - lets say Faeit212 posted rumours (substantiated by leaked photos, etc) that SPESH MARINES was getting massive new releases, followed by a plastic thunderhawk, SOBs, etc in 3 consecutive months prior to the end of a financial year.

That has the same effect (on a much smaller scale) as someone leaking the "gold found" info for a mining company.

GW is obliged as a listed company to prevent that from happening...

Just food for thought.

That still doesn't explain why the blog was taken down. It seems to be that GW's grudge seems to be the posting of WD pics, not the rumours.

Adding to the salad bowl.

 Janthkin wrote:
Obviously, it didn't usually rise to the level of posting the entire magazine, but it was certainly some portion. Which way would a court view that particular element, under these facts? Not sure; I just don't find it as open-and-shut as some of you seem to.

It's open and shut because the part that was posted has zero value. If they'd posted a complete scan of a painting guide there would be a legitimate argument that it devalued the real product, but we're talking about the catalog pictures. It's the exact same information that GW will have, for free, on their own website, and I'd be surprised if you can find even a single person who buys WD to see it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Obviously, it didn't usually rise to the level of posting the entire magazine, but it was certainly some portion. Which way would a court view that particular element, under these facts? Not sure; I just don't find it as open-and-shut as some of you seem to.

It's open and shut because the part that was posted has zero value. If they'd posted a complete scan of a painting guide there would be a legitimate argument that it devalued the real product, but we're talking about the catalog pictures. It's the exact same information that GW will have, for free, on their own website, and I'd be surprised if you can find even a single person who buys WD to see it.

Well, I think GW had more of a beef that it was posted, rather than the content.

 Timmy149 wrote:
Well, I think GW had more of a beef that it was posted, rather than the content.

That explains why GW was unhappy, but we're talking about the legal status of posting it. It doesn't matter how much GW doesn't like that something was posted, if it was done legally under "fair use" laws then GW's DMCA notices are blatant abuse of the legal system. And one of the important factors in determining whether something is covered by "fair use" is whether or not it devalues the product. If the copyright holder can't plausibly claim any financial harm then it's a strong argument that the use of copyrighted material was legal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Obviously, it didn't usually rise to the level of posting the entire magazine, but it was certainly some portion. Which way would a court view that particular element, under these facts? Not sure; I just don't find it as open-and-shut as some of you seem to.

It's open and shut because the part that was posted has zero value. If they'd posted a complete scan of a painting guide there would be a legitimate argument that it devalued the real product, but we're talking about the catalog pictures. It's the exact same information that GW will have, for free, on their own website, and I'd be surprised if you can find even a single person who buys WD to see it.

You're talking about the first look at the catalog pictures. Time is a factor here - if this was already posted on GW's website, we'd have a different set of facts.

If the pictures had no value, would they have been posted?

It's all well and good to make blanket statements as to whether or not a person who buys WD to see new release pictures exists, but that's an issue of fact, not of law. The difference between the two has a lot to do with whether a DMCA take-down request is eventually found to be valid, invalid, or inappropriate as a matter of law (and potentially sanctionable).

 Janthkin wrote:
You're talking about the first look at the catalog pictures. Time is a factor here - if this was already posted on GW's website, we'd have a different set of facts.

But it IS already posted by the time people get their WD. The first look (in the absence of leaks) doesn't come from WD, it comes from GW's website (which is free).

If the pictures had no value, would they have been posted?

Of course not, but they had value that the WD issue does not. Getting pictures early is worth something to some people, but getting them in WD after GW has already put everything up on their website is worthless. If WD came out a month before GW put the pre-orders up it would be different, but since they do everything they can to make sure that you don't see anything until pre-order day that value just doesn't exist.

I am so considering changing over to Warmachine. I loved Faiet 212. Where most people wake up and read the morning paper I'd wake up and read Faiet 212. Now I have nothing to read in the mornings.

I played Warmachine when it first came out and thought it was ok. After some looking into it a bit more the game looks like a lot of fun. Now I just need to decide if I'm going to sell all of my 40k and go Warmachine or buy shares in GW and fix there terrible business for them.

Yes: because I totally LOVE how GW waits until a week prior to announce entire new ranges of their products for me to impulse buy...

Check this out its an interview with Naftka done by blue table gaming. Looks like he might shove GW right back into thier corner of the ring. Enjoy.

http://masterminis.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/interview-with-faeit-212s-own-nafkta.html?m=1

Sinji wrote:
Check this out its an interview with Naftka done by blue table gaming. Looks like he might shove GW right back into thier corner of the ring. Enjoy.

http://masterminis.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/interview-with-faeit-212s-own-nafkta.html?m=1

Cheers for that!

I see what everybody else means by the legality of the image posting. I agree with what you are saying, but I still don't think that GW should have attacked google and Natfka.

 Timmy149 wrote:


I see what everybody else means by the legality of the image posting. I agree with what you are saying, but I still don't think that GW should have attacked google and Natfka.

What?! When did GW attack google?! Think you have misunderstood the situation here... And besides, since BoLS wasn't taken down by a DMCA act I don't think we can assume that Faeit was either...

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The Auld Grump, just when they thought I was out....

You continue to be awesome!!!

Timmy149 wrote:Thats point that most people are making. They seem to think only about their short term profits rather than their long-term profits.

Melissia wrote:In other words, they're a corporation.

Civik wrote:Actually, more like they have a modern western CEO.

Actually, no. They don't think of long term NOR of short term profits. They barely have a flat revenue in a growing market, keeping it flat only by raising prices far above inflation, so selling less each year. No other CEO would keep his job doing this for 7 years.

(GW total revenue, adjusted for inflation)

 Timmy149 wrote:

EDIT: BoLS going down is reputed to be a server outage, not a GW attack.

Yea, well it may have been a mistake, but I do not believe it had nothing to do with the takedown of Faeit.

Hey guys,

First of all thanks for the many messages and comments I received from some of you. When I wrote the article about faeit 212 being taken down by GW I did not realize the amount of views our little insignificant blog would receive ^^

Even before yesterday, we were kinda afraid about what GW's Legal Department might do to us with regards to some of the products and services we have planned for our little company. So we had already set up a meeting with a specialized IP lawyer to cover our bases (mid may). Our findings will be valid for every country under the DMCA (which means most of the western world).

We intend to share our findings and give 'advice' to all of you who are interested in this subject. This mostly goes for bloggers, forum owners and users, website owners, commission painters and workshop holders. The 'what can you and what can't you do' question is so fuzzy that we want to at least narrow down the risk for everyone involved. I know many friends who gotten 'Cease and Desist' Letters from GW for example for sculpting an orc bust. As if GW invented orcs...

So if you are interested, hop over to this article. There are more to follow.

Cheers!

Has anyone heard from nfkta yet?

As well GW should stop worrying about the sites posting leaked content and rather deal with it at the source and find the people leaking the content. A durrr

Hell with it, been awhile ... no more lurky, lurk ...

I am not a lawyer by any means - I used to be a graduate researcher for a university library and used to work on legal arguments, so I have a bit of background in this vein.

Ignore the previous arguments, here is the situation:

Games Workshop Limited has filed 4 DMCA Notices regarding Faeit212, and as of February 20, 2013 (the 3rd notice), Games Workshop legal who issued the notices indicated, "This user, 'Natfka', is a repeat infringer and I request that Google disable the account in accordance with Google's terms of service."

Here is the problem ... per US law, Faeit212 has not violated the DMCA because of the tort restrictions that specifically apply to ONLY new media (audio/video) and would be fully covered by the legal exclusions that protect other journalists, this includes providing copies of images from unreleased editions of White Dwarf. So, technically, Natfka has not violated any US laws nor the Blogger ToS (that I know of, you can twist a ToS) and the site should not have been taken down and should be restored.

This is where things get interesting -- GW legal did not issue the notice against the US version of the blogger pages, they specifically targeted the UK version of the domain name (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/lots-of-new-pics-for-high-elves.html) and invoked "As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of the material to the public."

Unfortunately for GW Legal, this is not how "right of first publication" works in the United States, as it is meant to protect a publisher or writer from having a work superseded in publication by another individual or group. Faeit212 did not publish anything that had not already been printed and bound, and merely awaiting release. The law would apply, had Faeit212 recieved a copy of the electronic files used to publish the magazine, then printed or displayed those on the website -- which he certainly did not. Additionally, the usage of "copyright before publication" has only been upheld in previous legal cases when involving commercial intent, and does not extend to journalistic endeavors.

Think of it in the terms of the previous leaks of unpublished novels (think Harry Potter) -- the news outlets would not get sued because they displayed content from the leaks, but had someone attempted to publish the book before it was technically "in-print" this would be a violation of the law. Additionally, once the work was published, showing photographs or images of copies of the work on the internet in a journalistic setting would be protected.

I am willing to bet that the law may be applied differently in the UK (copyright and journalistic laws vary greatly across the pond), which is why the notice was issued in response to the UK version of Blogger for Faeit212 -- so essentially, GW Legal issued a US legal notice about the UK version of a site based upon an infringement of the UK version of right of first publication. The UK may well have a version of "right of first publication" that extends to "rights to first release" in which case, this case may or may not apply - not an expert in UK copyright law, hell, you can barely call me on in US copyright law.

Here are the important facts for Faeit212:
1. The White Dwarf articles had already been published, being present in hard copy, from which photographs were taken and then displayed on the accused website -- this would be excluded from legal action by journalistic protections under US law.
2. GW Legal filed a legal notice under US law against the UK version of a website, in an possible attempt to apply a reading of UK copyright law regarding right of first publication, which in this case may well extend to "rights to first release"
3. Even should this be the case, it would only justify the closure of the UK version of the site (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/) and would not extend to the shuttering of the US/International version of the site (http://natfka.blogspot.com)

I would STRONGLY, STRONGLY suggest Natfka file a 512 Counter-Notification and explain the situation from a journalistic perspective -- which I would hope Google Legal would recognize.

http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/05/bols-faeit212-takedown-attorneys.html

I thought you all might be interested in an attorney's perspective.

Alec

 Kazwulf wrote:
Hell with it, been awhile ... no more lurky, lurk ...

I am not a lawyer by any means - I used to be a graduate researcher for a university library and used to work on legal arguments, so I have a bit of background in this vein.

Ignore the previous arguments, here is the situation:

Games Workshop Limited has filed 4 DMCA Notices regarding Faeit212, and as of February 20, 2013 (the 3rd notice), Games Workshop legal who issued the notices indicated, "This user, 'Natfka', is a repeat infringer and I request that Google disable the account in accordance with Google's terms of service."

Here is the problem ... per US law, Faeit212 has not violated the DMCA because of the tort restrictions that specifically apply to ONLY new media (audio/video) and would be fully covered by the legal exclusions that protect other journalists, this includes providing copies of images from unreleased editions of White Dwarf. So, technically, Natfka has not violated any US laws nor the Blogger ToS (that I know of, you can twist a ToS) and the site should not have been taken down and should be restored.

This is where things get interesting -- GW legal did not issue the notice against the US version of the blogger pages, they specifically targeted the UK version of the domain name (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/lots-of-new-pics-for-high-elves.html) and invoked "As copyright owner, Games Workshop also has the rights to first release of the material to the public."

Unfortunately for GW Legal, this is not how "right of first publication" works in the United States, as it is meant to protect a publisher or writer from having a work superseded in publication by another individual or group. Faeit212 did not publish anything that had not already been printed and bound, and merely awaiting release. The law would apply, had Faeit212 recieved a copy of the electronic files used to publish the magazine, then printed or displayed those on the website -- which he certainly did not. Additionally, the usage of "copyright before publication" has only been upheld in previous legal cases when involving commercial intent, and does not extend to journalistic endeavors.

Think of it in the terms of the previous leaks of unpublished novels (think Harry Potter) -- the news outlets would not get sued because they displayed content from the leaks, but had someone attempted to publish the book before it was technically "in-print" this would be a violation of the law. Additionally, once the work was published, showing photographs or images of copies of the work on the internet in a journalistic setting would be protected.

I am willing to bet that the law may be applied differently in the UK (copyright and journalistic laws vary greatly across the pond), which is why the notice was issued in response to the UK version of Blogger for Faeit212 -- so essentially, GW Legal issued a US legal notice about the UK version of a site based upon an infringement of the UK version of right of first publication. The UK may well have a version of "right of first publication" that extends to "rights to first release" in which case, this case may or may not apply - not an expert in UK copyright law, hell, you can barely call me on in US copyright law.

Here are the important facts for Faeit212:
1. The White Dwarf articles had already been published, being present in hard copy, from which photographs were taken and then displayed on the accused website -- this would be excluded from legal action by journalistic protections under US law.
2. GW Legal filed a legal notice under US law against the UK version of a website, in an possible attempt to apply a reading of UK copyright law regarding right of first publication, which in this case may well extend to "rights to first release"
3. Even should this be the case, it would only justify the closure of the UK version of the site (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/) and would not extend to the shuttering of the US/International version of the site (http://natfka.blogspot.com)

I would STRONGLY, STRONGLY suggest Natfka file a 512 Counter-Notification and explain the situation from a journalistic perspective -- which I would hope Google Legal would recognize.

GW legal having no idea what they're doing? Color me surprised.

We have an attorney's perspective in Janthkin but sure

After reading all of this all I can say its wow I'm glad I chose Infinity over 40k. Thank you cb for a great game with good community support.

linnear wrote:
http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/05/bols-faeit212-takedown-attorneys.html

I thought you all might be interested in an attorney's perspective.

Alec

So Naftka said he was doing something illegal? GW Legal sent the letter to Naftka because he said he was doing something illegal. But turns out neither knew the situation had changed and wasn't illegal.

\(^o^)/ Technicality FTW \(^o^)/

But does that mean according to you IP Lawyer friend GW would have been in the right if the German WD hadn't been released?

silent25 wrote:

linnear wrote:
http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/05/bols-faeit212-takedown-attorneys.html

I thought you all might be interested in an attorney's perspective.

Alec

So Naftka said he was doing something illegal? GW Legal sent the letter to Naftka because he said he was doing something illegal. But turns out neither knew the situation had changed and wasn't illegal.

\(^o^)/ Technicality FTW \(^o^)/

But does that mean according to you IP Lawyer friend GW would have been in the right if the German WD hadn't been released?

I think the point, right or wrong, is that given the circumstances the DMCA was objectively wrong and GW knew it was or should have known it. GW had all of those facts in its hands.

Also, the distinction made was between something that had already been published (whether or not it had been released to the public), and something that had not yet been formally published. Within that context, the release of the German WD is not so important, because released or not, the WD had been printed and bound. If I understand the argument correctly, the public availability of the German WD at the time of the posting is a fact that further solidifies that the WD had already been printed and bound.

Either way though, the photos were taken from a completed, published work, i.e. photographs of a printed page bound in a magazine, and were taken by a third party. That is what the argument is focused on.

He's already trying to get back.

I hope he will succeed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L02uNG9sl5Y

weeble1000 wrote:

I think the point, right or wrong, is that given the circumstances the DMCA was objectively wrong and GW knew it was or should have known it. GW had all of those facts in its hands.

Also, the distinction made was between something that had already been published (whether or not it had been released to the public), and something that had not yet been formally published. Within that context, the release of the German WD is not so important, because released or not, the WD had been printed and bound. If I understand the argument correctly, the public availability of the German WD at the time of the posting is a fact that further solidifies that the WD had already been printed and bound.

Either way though, the photos were taken from a completed, published work, i.e. photographs of a printed page bound in a magazine, and were taken by a third party. That is what the argument is focused on.

So you are saying then the second something becomes physical and in print it is no longer protected? I think there is a difference between posting pictures from a magazine yet to be released in the warehouse before distribution and pictures from the back room of the game store after it was distributed, but before street date.

*edit* Just to add, reason I'm asking, this whole argument can be boil down to people arguing if a car is parked too far into the red or not and then a cop comes along and say, doesn't matter, it's past 6:00 PM. No parking only applies till 6:00. The original question isn't answered.

silent25 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

I think the point, right or wrong, is that given the circumstances the DMCA was objectively wrong and GW knew it was or should have known it. GW had all of those facts in its hands.

Also, the distinction made was between something that had already been published (whether or not it had been released to the public), and something that had not yet been formally published. Within that context, the release of the German WD is not so important, because released or not, the WD had been printed and bound. If I understand the argument correctly, the public availability of the German WD at the time of the posting is a fact that further solidifies that the WD had already been printed and bound.

Either way though, the photos were taken from a completed, published work, i.e. photographs of a printed page bound in a magazine, and were taken by a third party. That is what the argument is focused on.

So you are saying then the second something becomes physical and in print it is no longer protected? I think there is a difference between posting pictures from a magazine yet to be released in the warehouse before distribution and pictures from the back room of the game store after it was distributed.

I'm not saying that. I was attempting to clarify a point made in the argument you were referring to, but the argument I was thinking of was made by Kazwulf above, not in the Apok 40K post. Sorry about that.

Copyright or not ... Faeit was actually helping GW by pushing the hype and promoting their products for free.

The way GW is dealing the IP issue just pisses off the fanbase and their customers.

They should really rethink this. I.e. they could give some sort of license allowing certain sites to "deal" with rumours and news.

weeble1000 wrote:

I'm not saying that. I was attempting to clarify a point made in the argument you were referring to, but the argument I was thinking of was made by Kazwulf above, not in the Apok 40K post. Sorry about that.

NP. Just a little annoyed that someone goes out of their way to bring in an IP Lawyer and doesn't answer the question most people are wondering. Or at least I'm wondering.

I am not a lawyer, but I find it hard to see how Faeit212 could get in under the label of "journalism" or "review".

At least on the UK side of things, things like that need to comply with a few criteria, including

•The material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment (to warrant the criticism or review classification).
•The amount of the material quoted is no more than is necessary for the purpose of the review.

Faeit212 posts usually were quite the opposite. There wasn't much text with them, or any review. Mostly it was "new pics... look!" Second, he didn't try to keep the "material quoted" to the necessary minimum. Quite the opposite, he was trying to show everything he humanly could. That was the point.

I cannot really think of a judge who, presented with a typical Faeit212 article, would rule in his favour as his work being journalism or product-reviews.

 Gorlack wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:


I see what everybody else means by the legality of the image posting. I agree with what you are saying, but I still don't think that GW should have attacked google and Natfka.

What?! When did GW attack google?! Think you have misunderstood the situation here... And besides, since BoLS wasn't taken down by a DMCA act I don't think we can assume that Faeit was either...

GW had a DCMA complaint put through to google. BoLS was unrelated, Faeit was taken down by google following the DCMA.