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.

Anyone had a read of this?

I was browsing to see what I'd need to be wary of as I monetized my blog, I didn't want the angry emails from the finelawyer team coming down upon my head (and I think it's sad that I have to be.)

Anyway, I stumbled upon this little gem

GW IP Policy wrote:
Painting Services

We often get e-mails from hobbyists regarding our position on providing painting services for third parties. As always, we do not allow third parties to make money from our IP. Accordingly, any "painting service" must be entirely generic, i.e., it cannot state that it is a Games Workshop, 'Eavy Metal, or Golden Demon painting service. The service must not be based on the intellectual property, i.e., using the intellectual property (images, trademarks etc.) to "sell" itself. Nor must you exclusively paint Games Workshop's miniatures. The same would be true of any painting companion or guide - you must not make money from Games Workshop intellectual property without a license.

Huh. So I have to paint sombodies warmahordes army once in a while if I want to paint spehs marheens for coin. Now I'm pretty sure most of our finer services here on dakka will paint whatever the hell you ask them to paint, so it doesn't matter, but GW doesn't want you making money off of their IP in any way, shape or form.

I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, but I thought it was really really weird that they'd specify this. I suppose it's just designed so that you can see they're aware that puny painting posts do exist, and that they know they can't in their right mind crush them under foot.

I think it means dont paint Aquila symbol on 3rd party "guardsmen" for example.

http://www.warringsouls.com/

He did these for me and the first thing that came to mind was:

The plasma guns on 3rd party models

the banner on the command squad.

The non GW commissars

I think thats what GW doesnt want.

It reads more like they don't want you representing yourself as a GW service, which seems completely reasonable.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I think it means dont paint Aquila symbol on 3rd party "guardsmen" for example.

No, it means exactly what it says: You can't promote yourself as a 'Games Workshop' painting service, and you can't advertise that you only paint GW miniatures.


Not painting GW's symbols, or using GW parts on other models is covered in the part of their Legal statement that deals with 'diluting' their ip... That's the part that tries to claim that all conversions are technically IP infringements, IIRC.

 plastictrees wrote:
It reads more like they don't want you representing yourself as a GW service, which seems completely reasonable.

Yea after re reading it slowly it does mean this...

"Nor must you exclusively paint Games Workshop's miniatures"

They have no legal resource to control what you do here. You are buying their product, altering it and reselling it. You are not infringing on their IP, this is standard value-add retail.

They can lay claim to their trademarks and symbols, as well as representing yourself as their company, but they can't stop you saying "I specialise in painting Games Workshop miniatures", and good luck to them for trying.

GW can suck it. Ill paint whatever the hell I want on what ever the hell I want, for whoever the hell I want.

It's a 'cover your bases' document. They go on to say (or said earlier) that any conversion is a violation of their IP.

If you paint a GW model with an official GW paint scheme, you have copied their artwork.

GW are within their legal rights to issue a general licence for hobby painters to do this, and not to issue a licence for painters for hire to do this.

This of course assumes that GW own the copyright of the paint scheme, which is a disputable point.

It seems a bit unlikely that GW can actually prevent you from painting and selling only GW models. It would be like Ford stopping a body shop from respraying only Ford cars. However IANAL.

Pretty confident they can't call artwork copyright on colour schemes for publicly provided models. I think they would have a really, really hard time prosecuting.

The car example is a good one - if I respray someone's Ford blue with white stripes, Ford can't claim copyright on the colour scheme.

Intellectual property is an absolutely abhorrent idea.

 Cadichan Support wrote:
Intellectual property is an absolutely abhorrent idea.

Well, no, it's not. It's just been abused a very great deal.

You write a kickarse story and send it in to see if someone wants to publish it. They say "No thanks you suck", publish it anyway, make billions, sucks to be you UNLESS of course, there's provisions in place for you to claim the ownership of the IP involved.

Like other aspects of patent law, it is designed to, (and when working correctly, does), *protect* and *encourage* sharing. People like GW and the MPAA/RIAA see it as a weapon they can use to *prevent* sharing, which is a distortion of it's original intention.

 Cadichan Support wrote:
Intellectual property is an absolutely abhorrent idea.

No, intellectual property is what allows artists and creators to actually get paid for their work.

The problem is just that the system used in most of the western world to 'police' IP is rather unevenly skewed in favour of large corporations with big legal budgets.


The idea is sound. It's the execution that is lacking.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you paint a GW model with an official GW paint scheme, you have copied their artwork.

GW are within their legal rights to issue a general licence for hobby painters to do this, and not to issue a licence for painters for hire to do this.

This of course assumes that GW own the copyright of the paint scheme, which is a disputable point.

Then there's the idea of a company putting out painting equipment and guides how to paint their miniatures whilst at the same time going after someone for following those guides. There's not a court on this planet that would entertain such a claim, so GW would never even think to do it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you paint a GW model with an official GW paint scheme, you have copied their artwork.

GW are within their legal rights to issue a general licence for hobby painters to do this, and not to issue a licence for painters for hire to do this.

This of course assumes that GW own the copyright of the paint scheme, which is a disputable point.

Then there's the idea of a company putting out painting equipment and guides how to paint their miniatures whilst at the same time going after someone for following those guides. There's not a court on this planet that would entertain such a claim, so GW would never even think to do it.

You say that, but then GW have tried to claim a copyright on fur...

 insaniak wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I think it means dont paint Aquila symbol on 3rd party "guardsmen" for example.

No, it means exactly what it says: You can't promote yourself as a 'Games Workshop' painting service, and you can't advertise that you only paint GW miniatures.


Not painting GW's symbols, or using GW parts on other models is covered in the part of their Legal statement that deals with 'diluting' their ip... That's the part that tries to claim that all conversions are technically IP infringements, IIRC.

You can't dilute GW's marks, at least not according to a judge in the Northern District of Illinois, and probably most anywhere else when GW is on record multiple times stating that it does not advertise. Only a famous mark can be diluted. Fame is typically evidenced by recognition outside of one's category of goods (GW has done no consumer surveys as of a few years ago), and admitting that you have done no advertising makes it very hard to make a case for one's mark being recognized at all, much less broadly when it comes to the average joe on the street.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you paint a GW model with an official GW paint scheme, you have copied their artwork.

GW are within their legal rights to issue a general licence for hobby painters to do this, and not to issue a licence for painters for hire to do this.

This of course assumes that GW own the copyright of the paint scheme, which is a disputable point.

It seems a bit unlikely that GW can actually prevent you from painting and selling only GW models. It would be like Ford stopping a body shop from respraying only Ford cars. However IANAL.

You cannot copyright a color scheme according to the US Copyright Office. It is something the USCO specifically declines to consider copyrightable. There's also a really big equitable estoppel issue since GW has for decades specifically encouraged customers to paint its models in its color schemes.

You can paint what you like, I think GW are asking that you don't claim you are a Games Workshop painting service or that you will only do GW products. You can offer yourself as a generic painting service, and if you coincidentally only do GW jobs that woud be ok. What you can't do is have a painting company that tells the customer you will only accept GW jobs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

This of course assumes that GW own the copyright of the paint scheme, which is a disputable point.

Not without precedent though. Universal own the rights to the Frankensteins Monster make up, and Disney couldn't use the 'proper' Wicked Witch green for that dreadful Oz movie because MGM 'own' that particular shade.

Bonkers!

Since GW sell painting guides telling you exactly how to paints Ultramarines like you see in White Dwarf, it gets murkier still.

You follow the instructions to buy a box of Marines, and buy the correct paints, glue and brushes.
When applied the same as the guide shows, are you then able to sell on "Space Marines painted as Ultramarines"?
If you use non-GW paints, can you then claim that as a non-exclusive service?
How about using non-GW heads on the GW bodies?

It looks like you can do what you want, as long as you only post pictures of the models you're painted, and leave images posted by GW out of the advertising.

It's not really an issue anyway, if you paint miniatures for a living all you have to do is not state "I paint only GW models". And why would you state that anyway, when you're technically limiting your market? Some potential customers would be put off by seeing that if you did state it.
And it would be silly anyway to have let's say a website advertising your services as "I am a GW paint service for commission" That would definitely piss GW off lol.

 Glaiceana wrote:
It's not really an issue anyway, if you paint miniatures for a living all you have to do is not state "I paint only GW models". And why would you state that anyway, when you're technically limiting your market? Some potential customers would be put off by seeing that if you did state it.
And it would be silly anyway to have let's say a website advertising your services as "I am a GW paint service for commission" That would definitely piss GW off lol.

These are exactly the two scenarios -
1 - "I paint only GW models"
GW has no right to stop you saying or doing this.

2 - "I am a GW paint service"
GW has every right to stop you saying and doing this.

Well theres nothing wrong with saying the words "I paint only GW models", its if you are making money by doing that, that's what they mean, and by having that written I'm pretty sure that is their right now.

 Glaiceana wrote:
Well theres nothing wrong with saying the words "I paint only GW models", its if you are making money by doing that, that's what they mean, and by having that written I'm pretty sure that is their right now.

The fact that GW wrote it on their website doesn't make it actual law. You don't sign a contact when you purchase a miniature from them to abide by their terms.

No but I guess they are covering their bases, they won't allow people to make money in their name.

I think it's more a case of GW wanting to stop people cashing in on their name, and not having angry customers complaining to their store reps about the shoddy paint jobs the 'GW painting service' have done on their new £80 Knight.

 insaniak wrote:

 Glaiceana wrote:
Well theres nothing wrong with saying the words "I paint only GW models", its if you are making money by doing that, that's what they mean, and by having that written I'm pretty sure that is their right now.

The fact that GW wrote it on their website doesn't make it actual law. You don't sign a contact when you purchase a miniature from them to abide by their terms.

Yes you do. Any time you buy anything from any company you agree to a contract and agree to abide by its terms. Whether those terms are legal, fair or enforceable is a different question, but you do enter in to a contract.

On topic, I would say this is just another way to stop people implying they are official GW painters. It covers a gray area where people imply they are official but don't explicitly say it.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Yes you do. Any time you buy anything from any company you agree to a contract and agree to abide by its terms.

No, you don't.

You enter into a 'contract' as defined by retail law in your country. There is no agreement, implied or otherwise, with the retailer beyond that.

I have bought many a GW product in my life and was unaware of this untill now.
I'm pretty sure that legally speaking to be able to enforce a contract I need to know I'm bound by it to begin with...

 jonolikespie wrote:
i'm pretty sure that legally speaking to be able to enforce a contract I need to know I'm bound by it to begin with...

More specifically, they would have to be able to prove that you were aware of it ... Which would generally mean advising you of it and obtaining some sort of recorded agreement before you actually make the purchase.

Putting a statement on their website is not going to cut it.

There is no horse here to beat.

This is a non-issue, they claim you can't market yourself as a 'Games Workshop' painter, or an 'Eavy Metal' painter or a 'Golden Demon' painter.

There is nothing there that says you can't say in your credentials that you've won a Golden Demon or been featured in Eavy Metal or paint GW miniatures, just that you can't be a sly dog and lead a customer towards a conclusion that you're working for or affiliated with Games Workshop.


I entirely agree with the company's statement here, it seems sensible to me and don't get what people could possibly complain about?