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.

strange, i haven't seen a single book or mini price in my WD issues for the last few years...
the digital issues don't have prices either, but do have links to the product web pages...

that aside, my point is that there is creative writing involved in the new release pages of the magazine, wether or not people think it is good work...
it is also more in depth than the descriptions available for free on the GW website...
even the product pages online have a little fluff in the description, not just "multipart plastic kit containing three crisis suits and weapons"...

i'm not on either side of who is wrong and who is right in this case, but the people working at HQ on the minis, the paint jobs, the photography, the layout, and all the rest actually do produce some pretty creative stuff...
why argue so hard to take that away from the staff, who love minis as much as the fans and work damn hard to give us new toys every month???

cheers
jah

JWhex wrote:
If creativity is a criterion, then as well as the page layout, photography and text there is also the creativity of sculpting the model and painting it.

But Faeit 212 didn't use the models, only a few pages from WD. And on those pages there's very little, if any, creative work.

Anyone that doesnt know not to "poke tiger with sharp stick" pretty much gets what they deserve.

Yeah, that's a great attitude to have. Why have a legal system that defines what you can and can't do when you can just let the big companies tell you what is legal?

 jah-joshua wrote:
i'm not on either side of who is wrong and who is right in this case, but the people working at HQ on the minis, the paint jobs, the photography, the layout, and all the rest actually do produce some pretty creative stuff...

They do a lot of creative work, sure. But that's not the part that Faeit 212 used.

 Peregrine wrote:

JWhex wrote:
If creativity is a criterion, then as well as the page layout, photography and text there is also the creativity of sculpting the model and painting it.

But Faeit 212 didn't use the models, only a few pages from WD. And on those pages there's very little, if any, creative work.

Anyone that doesnt know not to "poke tiger with sharp stick" pretty much gets what they deserve.

Yeah, that's a great attitude to have. Why have a legal system that defines what you can and can't do when you can just let the big companies tell you what is legal?

 jah-joshua wrote:
i'm not on either side of who is wrong and who is right in this case, but the people working at HQ on the minis, the paint jobs, the photography, the layout, and all the rest actually do produce some pretty creative stuff...

They do a lot of creative work, sure. But that's not the part that Faeit 212 used.

how so???
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

honestly, i wish GW hadn't gone after the guy...
early leaks are always a treat, but when it comes right down to it, he is leaking proprietary material that he has no right to until it is officially shown by GW...

i myself have had to sign non-disclosure agreements to get into the design studios of a few mini companies, as they do like to protect the secrecy of future projects...
GW is just taking it to the extreme, and making themselves look bad....

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
i'm not on either side of who is wrong and who is right in this case, but the people working at HQ on the minis, the paint jobs, the photography, the layout, and all the rest actually do produce some pretty creative stuff...

They do a lot of creative work, sure. But that's not the part that Faeit 212 used.

how so???
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

If I'm understanding the argument correctly - and I am so not a lawyer - Peregrine thinks that the applicable creativity is only that of the photographer and the person who laid out the magazine, as that is what the unauthorised photos are of. The sculptor (and concept artist, potentially) would presumably come into play is Faeit was sculpting a duplicate of the model to show a new release off; not so sure about the painter.

I'd say there isn't much in the way of creativity in the sort of layouts we see (images in one column, captions in another highlighting points), but that's another matter entirely.

 jah-joshua wrote:
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

Please review the laws on fair use. If, say, you're copying a picture of a sculpture then the picture is the copyrighted work that you're claiming fair use of, not the original sculpture.

Also, doing work does not necessarily make something a creative work. Someone has to do a lot of work to make a phone book, but that doesn't make it a creative work.

i myself have had to sign non-disclosure agreements to get into the design studios of a few mini companies, as they do like to protect the secrecy of future projects...

The difference here is that a NDA is a contract with a specific person. GW has every right to go after whoever leaked a copy of the magazine if they signed a NDA agreeing not to, but Faeit 212 never signed a NDA so the terms GW would want to put in one are just wishful thinking.

 jah-joshua wrote:
strange, i haven't seen a single book or mini price in my WD issues for the last few years...
the digital issues don't have prices either, but do have links to the product web pages...

Just checked the only issue of WD I've picked up in years (October 2012, the first of the "new breed" - there's a double page spread after the pretty pictures (pages 47 & 48, I think) which lists the prices of all the new releases, in multiple currencies.

Having said that, it'd be pretty easy to miss if you were flicking through.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

Please review the laws on fair use. If, say, you're copying a picture of a sculpture then the picture is the copyrighted work that you're claiming fair use of, not the original sculpture.

Also, doing work does not necessarily make something a creative work. Someone has to do a lot of work to make a phone book, but that doesn't make it a creative work.

i myself have had to sign non-disclosure agreements to get into the design studios of a few mini companies, as they do like to protect the secrecy of future projects...

The difference here is that a NDA is a contract with a specific person. GW has every right to go after whoever leaked a copy of the magazine if they signed a NDA agreeing not to, but Faeit 212 never signed a NDA so the terms GW would want to put in one are just wishful thinking.

i'm not implying Faeit signed anything, or is obligated in any way to GW's terms, just that i have seen how serious GW takes their secrecy...

obviously, we will never see eye to eye on my opinion that laying out a magazine is a more creative endeavor than laying out a phone book...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
i'm not implying Faeit signed anything, or is obligated in any way to GW's terms, just that i have seen how serious GW takes their secrecy...

Sure, but taking your secrecy seriously doesn't give you the right to abuse the legal system to keep it.

obviously, we will never see eye to eye on my opinion that laying out a magazine is a more creative endeavor than laying out a phone book...

And, once again, we're not talking about the whole magazine. Faeit 212 didn't post the articles, painting guides, etc. They posted the catalog pages which are just a straightforward list of product pictures/descriptions/prices. There's no creative work at all involved, the whole thing was probably copy/pasted into the standard catalog template in about five minutes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

Please review the laws on fair use. If, say, you're copying a picture of a sculpture then the picture is the copyrighted work that you're claiming fair use of, not the original sculpture.

Also, doing work does not necessarily make something a creative work. Someone has to do a lot of work to make a phone book, but that doesn't make it a creative work.

As I've said from the start, I am not an attorney, but I am a current law student at an accredited law school. I have reviewed the laws on fair use. I spent quite a bit of time reviewing fair use (both in general and as applied in the 6th Circuit in particular) early in the semester. I spent a lot more time later in the semester applying that understanding to a particular set of facts.

I am reasonably sure that I am not the only one here with legal training of some sort, and I have a very strong feeling that most of them have vastly more overall experience in the law than I do. As far as I can tell, there seems to be about a 50/50 split among those with legal training on whether or not there is a reasonable fair use defense in this case. At a minimum, there's enough disagreement going on that it seems reasonable to conclude that this is not an open and shut case. (There aren't a heck of a lot of fair use cases that are.)

17 U.S.C § 107 provides the statute that governs fair use, and reading that statute is an important part of reviewing the laws on fair use. It's also a small part of that process. The statute instructs courts to weigh a number of factors. We need to look at cases to see how courts have done that, which factors courts consider more important, what tests courts have devised for applying these legal standards to real-world facts, and so on. That process is complicated slightly because 17 U.S.C. § 107 was really an attempt to codify a common law doctrine with quite a bit of history, and courts still will occasionally reach back into that common law past to interpret the statute.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
i'm not implying Faeit signed anything, or is obligated in any way to GW's terms, just that i have seen how serious GW takes their secrecy...

Sure, but taking your secrecy seriously doesn't give you the right to abuse the legal system to keep it.

Like it or not, GW is operating well within their legal rights here. There is a very limited amount of precedent available to suggest that a company filing a DMCA takedown is required to assess whether the alleged infringement could be fair use, and none whatsoever to suggest that a company is not allowed to file a DMCA takedown when there is a plausible argument against fair use.

Fair use is a defense to a copyright claim. It is not the copyright holder's responsibility to show that infringement is not fair use; it is the alleged infringer's duty to show that the use in question is fair use.

obviously, we will never see eye to eye on my opinion that laying out a magazine is a more creative endeavor than laying out a phone book...

And, once again, we're not talking about the whole magazine. Faeit 212 didn't post the articles, painting guides, etc. They posted the catalog pages which are just a straightforward list of product pictures/descriptions/prices. There's no creative work at all involved, the whole thing was probably copy/pasted into the standard catalog template in about five minutes.

 jah-joshua wrote:


that aside, my point is that there is creative writing involved in the new release pages of the magazine, wether or not people think it is good work...
it is also more in depth than the descriptions available for free on the GW website...
even the product pages online have a little fluff in the description, not just "multipart plastic kit containing three crisis suits and weapons"...

i'm not on either side of who is wrong and who is right in this case, but the people working at HQ on the minis, the paint jobs, the photography, the layout, and all the rest actually do produce some pretty creative stuff...
why argue so hard to take that away from the staff, who love minis as much as the fans and work damn hard to give us new toys every month???

cheers
jah

With the caveat of course that there are different levels of quality of journalism - WD used to be a damned fine read, and you could easily spend a couple of hours of an evening perusing the magazine. That time seems a long time ago now though however. I think a lot of it comes down to the style; it reads like advertising blurb, and an extended form of what you get on the back of a box. Almost like a kind of in-house business magazine (although even those can often have some articles that don't feel like they have gone through some kind of censorship department).

Re. the prices, I think that was probably a business decision. Note also that the prices were removed from the 'A tale of x gamers' the last time they came around, which kind of removed one of the main reasons for that series of articles to exist in the first place.

Please stop feeding the trolls that think they are IP lawyer professionals...lets keep it to discussing faeit in particular. FYI, I heard that faeit is coming back online either through his normal original page or he will open the page on his own domain. Looking forward to the rumors flowing again!

 mortetvie wrote:

Please stop feeding the trolls that think they are IP lawyer professionals...lets keep it to discussing faeit in particular. FYI, I heard that faeit is coming back online either through his normal original page or he will open the page on his own domain. Looking forward to the rumors flowing again!

If you keep his site offline, the rumour signal-to-noise ratio is improved noticeably.

Avian wrote:
If you keep his site offline, the rumour signal-to-noise ratio is improved noticeably.

Wasn't worse than Warseer's ratio when ghost21 was active

Avian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

Please stop feeding the trolls that think they are IP lawyer professionals...lets keep it to discussing faeit in particular. FYI, I heard that faeit is coming back online either through his normal original page or he will open the page on his own domain. Looking forward to the rumors flowing again!

If you keep his site offline, the rumour signal-to-noise ratio is improved noticeably.

Using that logic, we could just wait until White Dwarf and the GW main site reveal everything and have a 100% success rate with information. Eliminate every third party site.

 Absolutionis wrote:
Using that logic, we could just wait until White Dwarf and the GW main site reveal everything and have a 100% success rate with information. Eliminate every third party site.

Just because the company wants to be the one to release its products first, or decide themselves through which third-party site they want to break the news (e.g. www.kickstarter.com for many miniature compnanies atm, traditionally news-sites they distribute press-releases to), wouldn't mean there'd be no room for third-party sites that write reviews, commentary, battle-reports, tutorials, etc.. .

Keeping a veil over all of their new releases until a couple of weeks before it's released accomplishes nothing. As a consumer, I like to know in advance where my money is going. I know I am buying GTA5 whenever that comes out. That money is already spent. Without knowing the new releases from GW, I might be buying a void raven for $85 in the future, but that money may already be spent on an upcoming video game or something else I have been able to plan for months in advance. I don't get worked up into a "it's brand new so I have to buy it NOW NOW NOW!" frenzy. Instead, I know the stuff will be there when I am ready to pay the discounted ebay price a mere month after the release. With the prices being what they are, every purchase must be planned in advance according to a budget, otherwise you're as good as a crackhead dishing out all of your money for your next rock....except that you're paying more for your drugs.

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
Keeping a veil over all of their new releases until a couple of weeks before it's released accomplishes nothing. As a consumer, I like to know in advance where my money is going. I know I am buying GTA5 whenever that comes out. That money is already spent. Without knowing the new releases from GW, I might be buying a void raven for $85 in the future, but that money may already be spent on an upcoming video game or something else I have been able to plan for months in advance. I don't get worked up into a "it's brand new so I have to buy it NOW NOW NOW!" frenzy. Instead, I know the stuff will be there when I am ready to pay the discounted ebay price a mere month after the release. With the prices being what they are, every purchase must be planned in advance according to a budget, otherwise you're as good as a crackhead dishing out all of your money for your next rock....except that you're paying more for your drugs.

If your purchases aren't time sensitive, it doesn't matter when GW pulls the veil. You can happily plan to purchase your Voidraven one year in advance, after GW revealed it, no? You can plan two, three, four years in advance to buy your next box of Tactical Marines or Vendetta, no?

GW's policy to get the "impulse-buyers" hyped for the newest release does not impede the people "planning" their next purchase carefully in any way, as far as I can see.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, that's a great attitude to have. Why have a legal system that defines what you can and can't do when you can just let the big companies tell you what is legal?

To keep the masses in line by selling them on a fairytale of equality before the law? People with money know better.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
Keeping a veil over all of their new releases until a couple of weeks before it's released accomplishes nothing. As a consumer, I like to know in advance where my money is going. I know I am buying GTA5 whenever that comes out. That money is already spent. Without knowing the new releases from GW, I might be buying a void raven for $85 in the future, but that money may already be spent on an upcoming video game or something else I have been able to plan for months in advance. I don't get worked up into a "it's brand new so I have to buy it NOW NOW NOW!" frenzy. Instead, I know the stuff will be there when I am ready to pay the discounted ebay price a mere month after the release. With the prices being what they are, every purchase must be planned in advance according to a budget, otherwise you're as good as a crackhead dishing out all of your money for your next rock....except that you're paying more for your drugs.

If your purchases aren't time sensitive, it doesn't matter when GW pulls the veil. You can happily plan to purchase your Voidraven one year in advance, after GW revealed it, no? You can plan two, three, four years in advance to buy your next box of Tactical Marines or Vendetta, no?

GW's policy to get the "impulse-buyers" hyped for the newest release does not impede the people "planning" their next purchase carefully in any way, as far as I can see.

That's entirely true but it is generally considered bad business sense not to hype up your big releases.
Yes someone might by that storm raven a year from now, but odds are a year from now they won't be nearly as excited about it as when it came out. People excited about it coming out will be more likely to buy it, but not if they can't afford it that week.

This is another case of 'GW are being stupid and I like the game and want to see it do well so this annoys me' not a 'this is inconveniencing me, GW should take the less profitable path to please me'.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

Please review the laws on fair use. If, say, you're copying a picture of a sculpture then the picture is the copyrighted work that you're claiming fair use of, not the original sculpture.

Also, doing work does not necessarily make something a creative work. Someone has to do a lot of work to make a phone book, but that doesn't make it a creative work.

Actually, Fair Use applies only to published works. If Faeit, or whoever other site, were to post up the pictures of the magazine after release, then they would have grounds to declare Fair Use. If the magazine has not been published, then that is blatant theft of IP. Also, as another user pointed out, doing work DOES make something a creative work if it is printed material or something similar, like, I dunno, sculpting. This is actually covered under United States Copyright laws, and is among the first items that you would read about when applying for a copyright on your own work.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Faeit post rules taken from the new HE release ahead of the release date?

I seem to recall reading the rules for the new Phoenixes there, down to point cost and statline.

Posting rules like that is enough to draw some negative attention--perhaps that had something to do with the action taken?

After all, a site would get in trouble if it posted rules from old releases. New releases aren't any different.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
Keeping a veil over all of their new releases until a couple of weeks before it's released accomplishes nothing. As a consumer, I like to know in advance where my money is going. I know I am buying GTA5 whenever that comes out. That money is already spent. Without knowing the new releases from GW, I might be buying a void raven for $85 in the future, but that money may already be spent on an upcoming video game or something else I have been able to plan for months in advance. I don't get worked up into a "it's brand new so I have to buy it NOW NOW NOW!" frenzy. Instead, I know the stuff will be there when I am ready to pay the discounted ebay price a mere month after the release. With the prices being what they are, every purchase must be planned in advance according to a budget, otherwise you're as good as a crackhead dishing out all of your money for your next rock....except that you're paying more for your drugs.

If your purchases aren't time sensitive, it doesn't matter when GW pulls the veil. You can happily plan to purchase your Voidraven one year in advance, after GW revealed it, no? You can plan two, three, four years in advance to buy your next box of Tactical Marines or Vendetta, no?

GW's policy to get the "impulse-buyers" hyped for the newest release does not impede the people "planning" their next purchase carefully in any way, as far as I can see.

That's entirely true but it is generally considered bad business sense not to hype up your big releases.
Yes someone might by that storm raven a year from now, but odds are a year from now they won't be nearly as excited about it as when it came out. People excited about it coming out will be more likely to buy it, but not if they can't afford it that week.

This is another case of 'GW are being stupid and I like the game and want to see it do well so this annoys me' not a 'this is inconveniencing me, GW should take the less profitable path to please me'.

Again, I don't see what changes.

If you agree that hype can "wear off", it makes sense to build the hype as close to the actual release as possible.

If the "hype-machine" starts up a day before the pre-orders, you can get both those customers that buy on impulse right that moment, and you get those customers that need the hype to build up a week or a month or a year, because stuff will still be available for sale (oddities like Crusade of Fire excepted).

If the "hype-machine" stats up six months before the pre-orders, you may get the latter kind of customers, but certainly lose former.

The "I didn't have money in precisely that week" doesn't make sense to me. You can still by stuff the next week. On the other hand, the loss of "I-buy-stuff-on-impulse" is a rather clear type of customer that you loose by too much lead-time between announcement and actual release.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 EYEofTERROR wrote:
Keeping a veil over all of their new releases until a couple of weeks before it's released accomplishes nothing. As a consumer, I like to know in advance where my money is going. I know I am buying GTA5 whenever that comes out. That money is already spent. Without knowing the new releases from GW, I might be buying a void raven for $85 in the future, but that money may already be spent on an upcoming video game or something else I have been able to plan for months in advance. I don't get worked up into a "it's brand new so I have to buy it NOW NOW NOW!" frenzy. Instead, I know the stuff will be there when I am ready to pay the discounted ebay price a mere month after the release. With the prices being what they are, every purchase must be planned in advance according to a budget, otherwise you're as good as a crackhead dishing out all of your money for your next rock....except that you're paying more for your drugs.

If your purchases aren't time sensitive, it doesn't matter when GW pulls the veil. You can happily plan to purchase your Voidraven one year in advance, after GW revealed it, no? You can plan two, three, four years in advance to buy your next box of Tactical Marines or Vendetta, no?

GW's policy to get the "impulse-buyers" hyped for the newest release does not impede the people "planning" their next purchase carefully in any way, as far as I can see.

That's entirely true but it is generally considered bad business sense not to hype up your big releases.
Yes someone might by that storm raven a year from now, but odds are a year from now they won't be nearly as excited about it as when it came out. People excited about it coming out will be more likely to buy it, but not if they can't afford it that week.

This is another case of 'GW are being stupid and I like the game and want to see it do well so this annoys me' not a 'this is inconveniencing me, GW should take the less profitable path to please me'.

Again, I don't see what changes.

If you agree that hype can "wear off", it makes sense to build the hype as close to the actual release as possible.

If the "hype-machine" starts up a day before the pre-orders, you can get both those customers that buy on impulse right that moment, and you get those customers that need the hype to build up a week or a month or a year, because stuff will still be available for sale (oddities like Crusade of Fire excepted).

If the "hype-machine" stats up six months before the pre-orders, you may get the latter kind of customers, but certainly lose former.

The "I didn't have money in precisely that week" doesn't make sense to me. You can still by stuff the next week. On the other hand, the loss of "I-buy-stuff-on-impulse" is a rather clear type of customer that you loose by too much lead-time between announcement and actual release.

I disagree, videogame hype can last over a year before the hype fades due to release dates being pushed back or some other calamity. We know GW doesn't even confirm release dates internally until 6 months out, 3 months out wouldn't be too much to ask. Video game stores still get massive sales due to impulse buy.

In regards to "I didn't have money precisely that week" he is discussing his preference to have new stuff on launch day. This is important to some people. Again: VERY easy with his example of video games. very difficult to manage with GW.

Starting your preorders earlier also has the advantage of being better able to gauge demand so you can avoid stock shortages on release.

Alfhedil wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
without the sculptors, painters, photographers, and layout artists all doing their bit, he would have had nothing to preview on his site...

Please review the laws on fair use. If, say, you're copying a picture of a sculpture then the picture is the copyrighted work that you're claiming fair use of, not the original sculpture.

Also, doing work does not necessarily make something a creative work. Someone has to do a lot of work to make a phone book, but that doesn't make it a creative work.

Actually, Fair Use applies only to published works. If Faeit, or whoever other site, were to post up the pictures of the magazine after release, then they would have grounds to declare Fair Use. If the magazine has not been published, then that is blatant theft of IP. Also, as another user pointed out, doing work DOES make something a creative work if it is printed material or something similar, like, I dunno, sculpting. This is actually covered under United States Copyright laws, and is among the first items that you would read about when applying for a copyright on your own work.

You're confusing "published" with "released to the public". For him to have pictures of the magazine it has to already have been published.

GBL wrote:


In regards to "I didn't have money precisely that week" he is discussing his preference to have new stuff on launch day. This is important to some people. Again: VERY easy with his example of video games. very difficult to manage with GW.

Sure it is important to people. As is the "impulse" to buy. Hence why GW's strategy works.

Not to mention that hyping the release 3 months from now, will cannibalize the release you are releasing right now.

But the argument was that temporary liquidity shortages were - on a large scale across GW's market - a factor more important than all the others, overriding all the obvious advantages of GW's current marketing approach, which arguably works so well because the "preference to have new stuff on launch day" combined with the hype of the moment overrides the "sensible budget planning" in 999 cases out of a 1000, leading people to spend more than if they'd have time to plan their budget.

GBL wrote:
I disagree, videogame hype can last over a year before the hype fades due to release dates being pushed back or some other calamity. We know GW doesn't even confirm release dates internally until 6 months out, 3 months out wouldn't be too much to ask. Video game stores still get massive sales due to impulse buy.

In regards to "I didn't have money precisely that week" he is discussing his preference to have new stuff on launch day. This is important to some people. Again: VERY easy with his example of video games. very difficult to manage with GW.

Video Games diminish in value over time. A $50 game on release could be found for $15 a year later. Wait another year and it'll be a $5 Steam Sale. GW products, and pretty much all miniatures in general do not diminish in value nor MSRP. You can usually get things for a discount, but a $7 Wraithguard model on release currently has not diminished in price over time; it actually usually goes up.

Video Games get hyped because that pre-review sales spike is crucial for them. They compete with everything on sale at the time and their product diminishes in value. Games Workshop cares about the timing of the sale almost as much as it cares about their customers.

Another comparison would be CCGs and RPG books. Games such as Magic release previews far in advance and build up tons of hype. The reasoning for that is because many of their formats cycle out older cards in favor of newer ones. Their value may not diminish over time, but their tournament structure and casual play focuses on newer and more novel cards/sets to keep things interesting. Wizards (makers of Magic) still cares about the timing of the sales because their business structure depends on Magic sets being released and for sale for only a limited time. GW, on the other hand, really doesn't have a set time for their products. The ancient Eldrad Ulthran model is still available for sale and hasn't even cycled out even though the character is dead and we've been through multiple editions. If anything, the price hikes by gW benefit them more when you buy the model later rather than earlier.

 Baragash wrote:


You're confusing "published" with "released to the public". For him to have pictures of the magazine it has to already have been published.

Doesn't matter.

Just because something is out there, doesn't mean you're free to plaster it onto your own website. Magazines, even online magazines and blogs, have copyright protection even after they are published.

If I go out and simply re-publish articles published by .. dunno .. the Huffington Post or NYTimes.com on my blog, I'll be in trouble soon enough. Just because they published it, or released it to the public, doesn't give me the right to take it.

I can "review" it or provide commentary, but to do that under the terms of fair use, certain conditions need to be filled. These include substantive amount of original discussion to go with it (if you go to court, the judge will have to make that call) and a convincing effort to quote no more than is necessary for a review or commentary.

seriously, unless you are an IP lawyer, you really have no idea what you are talking about people!

Its frustrating to read some posts here as some people will take the words of a law or something pertaining to the law and run with it without realizing that what matters is not necessarily the plain English meaning of the words but the specific meaning courts have given the words and law as a whole...And for that you need to go to specific, relevant (and still good) cases!

So unless you can say "according to this case at this place in the case, x, y, z" your analysis is nothing more than your opinion rather than legal fact that anyone should accept. So, no offense but the majority of people posting here have no legal basis for their positions, as well reasoned as their positions may seem...

What is more frustrating is people from other countries putting in their legal analysis that is not based on American law!

You don't need to be an IP lawyer or familiar with american IP law to know that IP can be protected, even post-publication.

Or do you want to argue that everything ever published is fair game under fair use?

No, clearly not.

If there is such a thing as IP protection for published content, there'll be criteria that distinguish between fair use of content quoted by a third-part, and not-fair use of content quoted by a third-party.


Whatever these rules may be, I have yet to see one referenced in this thread - American, British, Chinese, I don't care - that could cover Nafka-style "leak-posts".