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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
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?

Agreed. But I think the confusion is the same with a lot of legal things like this, the wording of the documents can be taken several different ways quite often.

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

It was more the claim that you can't paint GW miniatures exclusively that people were finding amusing.

Though, speaking as a painter - I paint what comes my way, and make no pretense of painting 'only' GW miniatures.

Heck, most of the miniature painting that I have done for hire in the past year has been Reaper, with some Stonehaven and Raging Heroes for variety.

GW miniatures have slowed way down, at least in terms of what I am hired to paint.

But then, I haven't painted to sell on eBay in ten years or more - their market might be different than mine, at this point.

Mostly, I paint for commission just to pay for my own miniatures addiction.

The Auld Grump

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
it seems sensible to me and don't get what people could possibly complain about?

It is this week's FESTIVUS thread where some random thing is posted and it becomes an excuse for the 'airing of grievances'.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
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?

This statement is the problem:

Nor must you exclusively paint Games Workshop's miniatures.

This isn't saying that you are saying *anything* about what you're doing, but is trying to say that you *can't* exclusively paint GW miniatures, because... money somehow? That sentence is illegal.

This is GW. They like to make their own laws.

So... it looks like GW rule-making has spilt over into their lawyer-speak.

On topic, its merely a clause to cover their bases. Why do we have warning stickers on obvious things? Because someone didn't think it was obvious. :I

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

In retail the contract is formed when a customer goes to the till and offers money (usually) in exchange for goods.

At that point the customer and retailer can vary the consideration and terms and conditions of the proposed contract.

GW's painting conditions are not binding on people buying stuff at the till, unless they are displayed at the till.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This is GW. They like to make their own laws.

This is Dakka. We like to jump to our own [worst possible] conclusions.

I'm impressed that we have squeezed two page out of this thread after it was suitably clarified in 3 or 4 posts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

In retail the contract is formed when a customer goes to the till and offers money (usually) in exchange for goods.

At that point the customer and retailer can vary the consideration and terms and conditions of the proposed contract.

GW's painting conditions are not binding on people buying stuff at the till, unless they are displayed at the till.

Pernickety adjustment: the contract is formed when the retailer accepts what the customer offers, which is the step after the customer making an offer.

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

If you'd rather live in a world without fiction and invention, then maybe it is. For those of us who aren't inhuman robots, not so much, friend.

Educate yourself before making statements like this, for all our sakes.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

No, you enter in to a sales contract when you buy something from a retailer. The law of the country may put some restrictions on what can and cannot be in the contract, and give you certain statutory rights, but you enter in to a contract with the retailer which may contain other terms and conditions. As long as those T&C's are not in conflict with the laws of the country in which the sale has taken place then they are fine.

As a simple example the amount of consideration is part of the contract, as are the payment terms, and things like the right of return above and beyond the legal minimums. Where a shop gives you a 1 year returns policy or extended warranty, that forms part of the sales contract.

Both parties must be "made aware" of any terms and conditions before the contract is formed, at least in most countries with a legal system with its roots in British common law. What exactly "made aware" means varies from country to country.

What Steve Said, up there ^^

I bought some Caterpillar boots for winter. The sole split and started leaking after a few weeks. I contacted Cat who responded "Not our problem, take them back to the retailer"

So my 'contract' isn't with the manufacturer, but the retailer.

Sadly, I don't remember where I got them from.

 Baragash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

In retail the contract is formed when a customer goes to the till and offers money (usually) in exchange for goods.

At that point the customer and retailer can vary the consideration and terms and conditions of the proposed contract.

GW's painting conditions are not binding on people buying stuff at the till, unless they are displayed at the till.

Pernickety adjustment: the contract is formed when the retailer accepts what the customer offers, which is the step after the customer making an offer.

Yes, that's what I meant. I had in mind an example where the customer offers a handful of nuts and the retailer asks for £50 and they argue about the price, etc. but I didn't bother to write it out.

It can go on for ages with car salesmen. Just at the point where they think you are going to say yes, you ask for a full tank of petrol and a spare set of wiper blades to be thrown in, and maybe they cave because they're already thinking about the £21,000.

But overall there is a meeting of minds through the process of a back and forth offer-refusal-new offer, and any terms and conditions have to be made plain during that process.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that's what I meant. I had in mind an example where the customer offers a handful of nuts and the retailer asks for £50 and they argue about the price, etc. but I didn't bother to write it out.

It can go on for ages with car salesmen. Just at the point where they think you are going to say yes, you ask for a full tank of petrol and a spare set of wiper blades to be thrown in, and maybe they cave because they're already thinking about the £21,000.

But overall there is a meeting of minds through the process of a back and forth offer-refusal-new offer, and any terms and conditions have to be made plain during that process.

Much as in any contract, meeting of minds is what is critical.

Gawd do I hate buying a new car! I do a lot of work in automotive product liability defense, and so I get the manufacturer employee prices. It's set. It's X price. You go online, pick out the vehicle, locate it at a dealership, print out the paperwork, and bring it in. Cut and dry...which it never is. Even with a guarantee of X price for X vehicle with no negotiation the dealer makes you say "No" for 5 hours.

The last time I did it I had to eventually tell the guy, "I'm setting an alarm on my phone. If it goes off before I drive off the lot I am leaving without buying a car."

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
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 stopped reading that sort of trite. I have an image in my mind of a homocidal Mr. Rodgers reading this sort of thing, and capping one of his puppets every now and then for the effect. That is the level of detail that they put into thier HHHobby propaganda arm, think of what that arm could do if they could crank out a coherent set of rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

Well, no, the "idea" of Intellectual Property in and of itself is not sound, and I would in fact say that in a purely abstract sense it is "abhorrent" because it necessitates that you argue one person can, in effect, own part of another person, that one individual has the right to control the thoughts of another, or at least the expression of those thoughts. In a practical sense, it is necessary to some extent, because in a capitalist system people should be allowed to earn a living by expending intellectual labour as well as physical labour, but even if you strip away the most egregious pro-corporate methods of enforcement as practiced today, IP law is still too far reaching and applies to too many things. Works should enter the public domain within a decade, two decades at the very most, more quickly even than that if the originator or owner(if different) doesn't choose to make continued use of the protected work - it's truly ridiculous that companies can buy up patents that would compete with their products and then bury them, or that someone can earn money from a work of music or fiction essentially indefinitely while simultaneously preventing anyone else from interacting with the works commercially(even sometimes non-commercially), or that drug companies can use patents and copyrights to establish functional monopolies on the treatment of certain diseases for long periods of time.

You would argue, then that if a musician makes a record, everyone who likes it can copy it without paying?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You would argue, then that if a musician makes a record, everyone who likes it can copy it without paying?

I believe he stated that "Works should enter the public domain within a decade, two decades at the very most" which is a bit different.

Imagine if the Da Vinci estate still held the rights to the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper today, or if Beethoven's heirs still owned the rights to the Fifth Symphony and its dramatic opening. Extreme examples, but even modern examples show we're already entering the territory of companies and estates owning the rights to an artwork decades after the creator has died (Tolkien estate, Disney, etc.). In truth, were copyright laws really originally created to protect the author, or to protect the publisher's investment in printing the author's work? For every instance of a legitimate right to control one's creation, we have another instance of a patent troll, and the current system makes it hard to protect the former while stopping the latter.

 monders wrote:
What Steve Said, up there ^^

I bought some Caterpillar boots for winter. The sole split and started leaking after a few weeks. I contacted Cat who responded "Not our problem, take them back to the retailer"

So my 'contract' isn't with the manufacturer, but the retailer.

Sadly, I don't remember where I got them from.

Are you sure, in Holland there is a law that says that the company products should work for a certain time (if used properly) if it breaks before that time the manufacturer is liable, i thought the EU had similar rules.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
For every instance of a legitimate right to control one's creation, we have another instance of a patent troll, and the current system makes it hard to protect the former while stopping the latter.

But that's a problem with the current system, not with the concept of IP.

If IP laws didn't exist I would cease having jobs and would literally starve to death.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 monders wrote:
What Steve Said, up there ^^

I bought some Caterpillar boots for winter. The sole split and started leaking after a few weeks. I contacted Cat who responded "Not our problem, take them back to the retailer"

So my 'contract' isn't with the manufacturer, but the retailer.

Sadly, I don't remember where I got them from.

Are you sure, in Holland there is a law that says that the company products should work for a certain time (if used properly) if it breaks before that time the manufacturer is liable, i thought the EU had similar rules.

The English law may be different. The contract for the boots is with the person who sold them to you. He gives you a refund and as a shop owner he then calls on the manufacturer for a refund in his turn.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 monders wrote:
What Steve Said, up there ^^

I bought some Caterpillar boots for winter. The sole split and started leaking after a few weeks. I contacted Cat who responded "Not our problem, take them back to the retailer"

So my 'contract' isn't with the manufacturer, but the retailer.

Sadly, I don't remember where I got them from.

Are you sure, in Holland there is a law that says that the company products should work for a certain time (if used properly) if it breaks before that time the manufacturer is liable, i thought the EU had similar rules.

The English law may be different. The contract for the boots is with the person who sold them to you. He gives you a refund and as a shop owner he then calls on the manufacturer for a refund in his turn.

The lesson here is 'Keep The Receipts'.

It is a lesson that I have had reason to learn, many times.

And just as many times forgotten. (Except for big ticket items... I remember it then.)

The Auld Grump

Indeed!

It annoys me that often when I buy wine at the local off-licence they ask if I want the receipt.

If the wine turns out to be corked I will need the receipt to claim a refund.

I'll need to go back and have a look at the CHS paperwork, but I thought that the Judge had said that a specific colour in conjunction with GW parts was copyrightable. This was in a discussion on what was or was not copyrightable and as to whether there was a case to answer.

I'm sure Weeble will set me straight if I've got that wrong. Which I probably have.

Cheers

Andrew