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.

 Balance wrote:
When was the Malal thing? It seems like ti's long enough ago that GW was probably a lot more loose about things like NDAs, contracts, etc. than they probably are now.

The first time I remember Malal being discussed was in the original WHFRP book that came out around 1988. The thing is that a lot of the core ideas that GW clings to as their IP were created during that same time period when they were very loose with their legal control of created items.

I know we're getting really hung up on an off hand comment in an unconfirmed rumor about a canceled project but...

Also don't forget that GW managed to lose the trademarks to the names of their entire paint line. Leading to the new, even stupider names.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
it's not impossible that some significant design/work was done by a freelancer with insufficiently tight contract (as was shown to be the case in the chapterhouse lawsuit where GW tried to con some old artists etc into signing over right's to a variety of stuff)

if the freelancer then became full time at the design studio and expanded on this work it would still be based on rights not owned by GW

a bit of a stretch, but possible

All the stuff I've written is property of GW (via FFG). Never really had a problem with that.

There is certainly stuff from the early days that GW do not hold copyright on, which came to light in the Chapter House case. That was stuff from the late 80s and early 90s, I believe.

I would think they have cleaned up their copyright contract provisions since then. It's not exactly rocket science as standard terms of contract have been around for many decades.

It is possible there might be projects started 20 years ago that weren't locked down properly and had to be canned due to some sort of copyright issue.

CATHAY

Saldiven wrote:

 Balance wrote:
When was the Malal thing? It seems like ti's long enough ago that GW was probably a lot more loose about things like NDAs, contracts, etc. than they probably are now.

The first time I remember Malal being discussed was in the original WHFRP book that came out around 1988. The thing is that a lot of the core ideas that GW clings to as their IP were created during that same time period when they were very loose with their legal control of created items.

It was also mentioned in one of the realm of chaos books

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
it's not impossible that some significant design/work was done by a freelancer with insufficiently tight contract (as was shown to be the case in the chapterhouse lawsuit where GW tried to con some old artists etc into signing over right's to a variety of stuff)

if the freelancer then became full time at the design studio and expanded on this work it would still be based on rights not owned by GW

a bit of a stretch, but possible

All the stuff I've written is property of GW (via FFG). Never really had a problem with that.

I suppose it's perhaps different because you are writing within an already established framework of a universe, that has boundaries set by other writers and artists before you.

If however you'd been doing it 25-30 years ago, the first daemons, marines, concepts of Eldar and the like, and really where the whole universe was being padded out by those guys, I think there is a lot more of a grey area. And obviously, being a vastly smaller company then with different priorities (and without a veracious legal department) I shouldn't think it was an issue.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Also don't forget that GW managed to lose the trademarks to the names of their entire paint line. Leading to the new, even stupider names.

I heard this as a vague rumour, connected to outsourcing it to China, any confirmations? They still use Chaos Black and Skull White though.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Also don't forget that GW managed to lose the trademarks to the names of their entire paint line. Leading to the new, even stupider names.

I heard this as a vague rumour, connected to outsourcing it to China, any confirmations? They still use Chaos Black and Skull White though.

Those paints are called "Abaddon Black" and "Ceramite White" now though. They only still have the original names in the spray paints.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


Also don't forget that GW managed to lose the trademarks to the names of their entire paint line. Leading to the new, even stupider names.

Those new paints names are cool.

 Grimtuff wrote:


Those paints are called "Abaddon Black" and "Ceramite White" now though. They only still have the original names in the spray paints.

The new skull white is actaully white scar.

 tau tse tung wrote:
CATHAY

Man I'd love a good Cathay or Nippon take, but I fear what GW would give us.

There was a rumor a while back GW planned to make them pig men and the 'joke' was they thought the white Europeons were barbarians. Funny stuff no? They'd fit in great with the frogmen Aztecs and orc Africans.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 tau tse tung wrote:
CATHAY

Man I'd love a good Cathay or Nippon take, but I fear what GW would give us.

There was a rumor a while back GW planned to make them pig men and the 'joke' was they thought the white Europeons were barbarians. Funny stuff no? They'd fit in great with the frogmen Aztecs and orc Africans.

Orcs* are Warhammer Scots. Read into that what you will.







*Not Savage Orcs, those have "real life" roots elsewhere; as you correctly pointed out.

Yeah I was thinking of savage orcs.

At least GW's pygmy army (black halflings with huge lips) never made it into production.

At least GW's pygmy army (black halflings with huge lips) never made it into production

They did make it into production. I have about a dozen of them in my collection.
Although they were never fleshed out into a full army, they did have an "allied contingent" mini-list in one of the WFB army book. (third edition perhaps...my copy is not handy)
But yes, the figures made it into production and were released.

TR

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Also don't forget that GW managed to lose the trademarks to the names of their entire paint line. Leading to the new, even stupider names.

How's that?

Yeah it wasn't them losing the original names, it was them wanting to have names that they could trade mark that gave us the change (and gave us such wonderfully non-descriptive names such as XV-88 and The Fang).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
(and gave us such wonderfully non-descriptive names such as XV-88 and The Fang).

No worse than some of the name P3 is takking onto their paints [bloodstone ]

I like the new GW names, they just don't give - well, anyone - an idea about the colour they're supposed to be.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I like the new GW names, they just don't give - well, anyone - an idea about the colour they're supposed to be.

Just look at the fething paint and get a good idea of it's colour.

 sing your life wrote:
Just look at the fething paint and get a good idea of it's colour.

Nah. He's got a legitimate complaint. Stop apologising for GW's crappy paint names.

If I go somewhere, and I'm advised to get "The Fang" colour, then what colour is that? At least with "Space Wolves Grey" or something you have a rough idea what it should look like (Though that is perhaps a bad example).

Grimtuff wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
They'd fit in great with the frogmen Aztecs and orc Africans.

Orcs* are Warhammer Scots. Read into that what you will.

In Poland, Orks=Germans.

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:I like the new GW names, they just don't give - well, anyone - an idea about the colour they're supposed to be.

Most names have a colour in them, like Wazdakka Red. If you find the old names descriptive, there are conversion tables:

And does everyone have internet with them 24/7?

@Kroothawk: Thanks for that, didn't know that existed!

 sing your life wrote:
Just typing in "the fang" on google got me an image of the paint in seconds.

You can learn pretty much the entire sum of human knowledge from google, doesn't mean that it's not stupid to name paints in a way that someone can't tell the colour from the name.

Also can you please stop with the facepalm images, or at least resize them down a bit.

One shouldn't need a search engine to figure out the colour of something.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Also can you please stop with the facepalm images, or at least resize them down a bit.

And it hurt my feelings :(

 sing your life wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
(and gave us such wonderfully non-descriptive names such as XV-88 and The Fang).

No worse than some of the name P3 is takking onto their paints [bloodstone ]

Do you mean the P3 Bloodstone that is actually fairly similar to the shade of red that actual bloodstones have on them?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah it wasn't them losing the original names, it was them wanting to have names that they could trade mark that gave us the change (and gave us such wonderfully non-descriptive names such as XV-88 and The Fang).

Yeah, that's what I thought it was. Especially if you consider the colour and almost-name matching of Vallejo Game Colour, which was created especially as a Citadel paint analog.

It's a shame Aspect Warriors didn't make it to the megadrive, that looked like a fun game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
One shouldn't need a search engine to figure out the colour of something.

The old names were just as ambiguous, it's just that we grew up with them. I actually prefer the old names to the New™ Ones™ but it's wrong to suggest that "Boltgun Metal" is somehow more helpful than "Russ Grey".