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.
*sigh* Those idiots are at it again. No, GW legal, purchasing your products and then selling them to someone else is not "copyright" infringement. If you did not intend for people to resell these boxes, why didn't you limit them to one per customer?
Blastaar wrote: *sigh* Those idiots are at it again. No, GW legal, purchasing your products and then selling them to someone else is not "copyright" infringement. If you did not intend for people to resell these boxes, why didn't you limit them to one per customer?
That isn't what they're doing.
They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
harlokin wrote: I believe the reason that GW were able to do this is that the scalpers were using GW's photographs of the product.
If you have your own copy, and take photos of it to sell, a similar situation wouldn't arise.
while I have no sympathy for the scalpers this is the same kind of garbage GW pulled when they had the third party store embargo for 15 years: they claimed that copyright over box art and that nobody could show pictures of their boxes except for their own store and that is why all the stores had to go around emailing you spreadsheets with the products and couldn't have it in an online cart.
This is not something that we should encourage no matter who it targets.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/19 00:55:37
Blastaar wrote: *sigh* Those idiots are at it again. No, GW legal, purchasing your products and then selling them to someone else is not "copyright" infringement. If you did not intend for people to resell these boxes, why didn't you limit them to one per customer?
That isn't what they're doing.
They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
Depending where someone lives that may be protected under trade laws, As Resale is legal and stores promoting the product need something to display. So GW may be overstepping depending on laws in some places. Its one of the issues with Scalping in the first place, Laws against it often step on legitimate selling to a great degree.
This also did come up 5 or so years ago, and GW effectively stopped enforcing just this as it was a legitimate issue with Competition. If there stores can show the product, but there competing stores cannot show anything, then they may be lining them selves up for large Fines that GW is not big enough to absorb indefinitely.
Blastaar wrote: *sigh* Those idiots are at it again. No, GW legal, purchasing your products and then selling them to someone else is not "copyright" infringement. If you did not intend for people to resell these boxes, why didn't you limit them to one per customer?
That isn't what they're doing.
They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
Depending where someone lives that may be protected under trade laws, As Resale is legal and stores promoting the product need something to display. So GW may be overstepping depending on laws in some places. Its one of the issues with Scalping in the first place, Laws against it often step on legitimate selling to a great degree.
This also did come up 5 or so years ago, and GW effectively stopped enforcing just this as it was a legitimate issue with Competition. If there stores can show the product, but there competing stores cannot show anything, then they may be lining them selves up for large Fines that GW is not big enough to absorb indefinitely.
Sticky This sorta is.
I wonder, are you allowed to selectively enforce? I mean can you say well THIS guy is using pictures of my product and I claim copyright infringement to stop him but this other guy who is doing the same thing is okay.
That doesn't seem like it should be allowed? This seems like it could get sticky if they allow online stores to do this but not people selling on eBay (even if they are scummy scalpers) when it's the same images.
Blastaar wrote: *sigh* Those idiots are at it again. No, GW legal, purchasing your products and then selling them to someone else is not "copyright" infringement. If you did not intend for people to resell these boxes, why didn't you limit them to one per customer?
That isn't what they're doing.
They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
Depending where someone lives that may be protected under trade laws, As Resale is legal and stores promoting the product need something to display. So GW may be overstepping depending on laws in some places. Its one of the issues with Scalping in the first place, Laws against it often step on legitimate selling to a great degree.
This also did come up 5 or so years ago, and GW effectively stopped enforcing just this as it was a legitimate issue with Competition. If there stores can show the product, but there competing stores cannot show anything, then they may be lining them selves up for large Fines that GW is not big enough to absorb indefinitely.
Sticky This sorta is.
I wonder, are you allowed to selectively enforce? I mean can you say well THIS guy is using pictures of my product and I claim copyright infringement to stop him but this other guy who is doing the same thing is okay.
That doesn't seem like it should be allowed? This seems like it could get sticky if they allow online stores to do this but not people selling on eBay (even if they are scummy scalpers) when it's the same images.
It really depend on how far there copyright gets them i think on the issue, since someone with a trade account could be selling copy on ebay as well to make ends meet during things like lockdown. At which point i think GW would need to provide them with images for use if they dont allow them to use store images.
This comes mostly from GW having there own stores, and selling direct online in direct competition to other stores they sell to. The laws here can get specific in a lot of places, So it also would depend on where it is enforced.
Voss wrote: If 'someone' has a trade account, reselling prior to the sale date on Ebay more than likely violates the terms of their agreement with GW.
At least in most regions GW where operates. That would move it from a copyright thing to breach of contract.
We would need to see the contract, But it is a possibility. But i wonder how many Scalpers would have a trade account with GW.
There is another interesting thing as well that pop up in our conversation here, was investment stock. Normal more for collectables but i think may apply here, is someone buying product with the idea to hold onto it for years, but making it available to purchase now at a high price.
Blastaar wrote: *sigh* Those idiots are at it again. No, GW legal, purchasing your products and then selling them to someone else is not "copyright" infringement. If you did not intend for people to resell these boxes, why didn't you limit them to one per customer?
That isn't what they're doing.
They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
Yes, I i'm aware now, having read the rest of the 1st page. Assuming that is all they're doing, fine, that's their right.
Aash 790111 10870379 wrote:. A business that overproduces a product is not likely to continue to be profitable. It was my understanding that GW have come out and said that they produced more Indomitus boxes than they sold Of Dark Imperium in its entire run. I don’t think GW can be blamed for not anticipating the demand for this one.
You know that sounds a lot like our state road cleaning administration that each year is suprised by the amount of snow that falls down, always has not enough snow, send plows and sand carts too late. To a point that is has become a living meme. GW knows very well how many units of Dark Empire they sold, and when they sold them. And considering the box has marines in it and all models they knew, there was no reason to think that a starter set, even if GW claims it aint one, would be less popular.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: You know that sounds a lot like our state road cleaning administration that each year is suprised by the amount of snow that falls down, always has not enough snow, send plows and sand carts too late. To a point that is has become a living meme.
to a point, you constantly injecting barely relevant analogies as a thinly veiled excuse to talk about about your government/FLGS/wrestling/high school/etc, has become a living meme.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/19 05:19:50
Karol wrote: You know that sounds a lot like our state road cleaning administration that each year is suprised by the amount of snow that falls down, always has not enough snow, send plows and sand carts too late. To a point that is has become a living meme.
to a point, you constantly injecting barely relevant analogies as a thinly veiled excuse to talk about about your government/FLGS/wrestling/high school/etc, has become a living meme.
That is the way I think, I am not very good with words , so the only way to explain the way I think is through analogies. GW is on their 9th ed, they have data for 9 editions of sells of starter sets. Saying they were suprised how many people wanted a starter set makes as much sense, as snow clearers in a snow country saying they are suprised by winter yet again. I don't think GW is stupid, so the only other explanation to this is that they are being malicious in what they do.
If they knew they did not have enough products ready for 9th ed, then maybe they shouldn't have started 9th ed. Also the fact that they put priority on their online store, and not stores makes them even more of donkey-caves. There would be far less problem with scalping, if the starter boxs, were send to stores and sold localy.
Instead they splurged their stuff on their stores and their online stores, and left places without GW stores dry on any of the boxs. And then wondering why in those places that got fewer then 10 boxs per store, have scalper is very disingenuous. Same way it is for a state run company in a place where a lot of snow falls every year, to be suprised that yet again snow fell in large amounts.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Voss wrote: They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
A highly dubious one.
They don't have to win. I don't think if this was ever challenged, that winning is the priority. I think its more about protecting their own best interests. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that.
Turnip Jedi wrote: So are they going after every item that uses cut/paste images or just the new hotness as a sop to the squeeky wheels ?
It's selective in some fashion. The listings for the necron figures I'm ordering haven't been taking down (they aren't scalping prices either).
I'm betting far more of the scalpers ordered these off the GW website or at an FLGS - which GW can't really do much about (other than the Made To Order). Only the foolish with a trade account would do any scalping, and using a false account would be risky if they got traced back.
harlokin wrote: I believe the reason that GW were able to do this is that the scalpers were using GW's photographs of the product.
If you have your own copy, and take photos of it to sell, a similar situation wouldn't arise.
while I have no sympathy for the scalpers this is the same kind of garbage GW pulled when they had the third party store embargo for 15 years: they claimed that copyright over box art and that nobody could show pictures of their boxes except for their own store and that is why all the stores had to go around emailing you spreadsheets with the products and couldn't have it in an online cart.
This is not something that we should encourage no matter who it targets.
I disagree. Assuming the reasoning is the sellers are using images pulled from GW's website, that's completely different to trying to prevent someone using their own photographs of your products to resell them. This actually seems like a pretty neat way to target scalpers since they currently have no way of showing a meaningful image while being compliant with copyright legislation.
Voss wrote: They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
A highly dubious one.
Not really. If you surf photography forums then issuing dmca takedowns and such does happen when people find their photos being used by other people/firms etc... In fact its encouraged by people to reduce the amount of photo theft. GW is fully within their legal right to do so. Heck they can, technically, also tell you to take down an avatar based on their art if they wanted too.
The only reason people are getting noticed at present is because its hitting big box selling scalpers who everyone generally dislikes anyway and because GW took the odd choice of enforcing their takedown policy on stores selling GW's product brought from GW under trade agreements - which is very strange
Voss wrote: They're only [allegedly] going after ones that used GW art and photography in their sales listing, because that is a copyright issue.
A highly dubious one.
Not really. If you surf photography forums then issuing dmca takedowns and such does happen when people find their photos being used by other people/firms etc... In fact its encouraged by people to reduce the amount of photo theft. GW is fully within their legal right to do so. Heck they can, technically, also tell you to take down an avatar based on their art if they wanted too.
The only reason people are getting noticed at present is because its hitting big box selling scalpers who everyone generally dislikes anyway and because GW took the odd choice of enforcing their takedown policy on stores selling GW's product brought from GW under trade agreements - which is very strange
Art theft really sucks, but people flip entirely on music use. And are actively campaigning now for the laws protecting music to be lifted. Which is sorta funny to see when looking at things like this.
The whole area of copyright is messy. On the one hand you've firms like Disney looking to try and perpetually claim copyrights forever; whilst on the other you've got big firms who'd rather like to be able to push for "copyright orphan bills" on the internet. Which basically lets them claim anything they want if the ycan't "find" the owner.
Of course that whole copyright orphan system is also tied to money through the idea of instead of one national copyright office you'd have multiple. So then to protect your work you'd have to either go with the biggest or several of the biggest firms to protect your work - paying a fee each time.
Overread wrote: The whole area of copyright is messy. On the one hand you've firms like Disney looking to try and perpetually claim copyrights forever; whilst on the other you've got big firms who'd rather like to be able to push for "copyright orphan bills" on the internet. Which basically lets them claim anything they want if the ycan't "find" the owner.
Of course that whole copyright orphan system is also tied to money through the idea of instead of one national copyright office you'd have multiple. So then to protect your work you'd have to either go with the biggest or several of the biggest firms to protect your work - paying a fee each time.
It's not exclusive. It's about big companies able to take copyrights from individuals while keeping their own copyrights in perpetuity.
harlokin wrote: I believe the reason that GW were able to do this is that the scalpers were using GW's photographs of the product.
If you have your own copy, and take photos of it to sell, a similar situation wouldn't arise.
while I have no sympathy for the scalpers this is the same kind of garbage GW pulled when they had the third party store embargo for 15 years: they claimed that copyright over box art and that nobody could show pictures of their boxes except for their own store and that is why all the stores had to go around emailing you spreadsheets with the products and couldn't have it in an online cart.
This is not something that we should encourage no matter who it targets.
I disagree. Assuming the reasoning is the sellers are using images pulled from GW's website, that's completely different to trying to prevent someone using their own photographs of your products to resell them. This actually seems like a pretty neat way to target scalpers since they currently have no way of showing a meaningful image while being compliant with copyright legislation.
When the third party store thing happened stores were showing stock images of the boxes/models from the official site (think like the same images on GW's own store) and that was GW's basis for the claim.
Unless I missed something I don't see how this is different. Which is why it shouldn't be encouraged. We don't want them to try that bullgak again.
When the third party store thing happened stores were showing stock images of the boxes/models from the official site (think like the same images on GW's own store) and that was GW's basis for the claim.
Unless I missed something I don't see how this is different. Which is why it shouldn't be encouraged. We don't want them to try that bullgak again.
The target is different. The 'don't do anything because it might be the thin end of the wedge' argument is pretty reductive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/19 12:35:29
harlokin wrote: I believe the reason that GW were able to do this is that the scalpers were using GW's photographs of the product.
If you have your own copy, and take photos of it to sell, a similar situation wouldn't arise.
while I have no sympathy for the scalpers this is the same kind of garbage GW pulled when they had the third party store embargo for 15 years: they claimed that copyright over box art and that nobody could show pictures of their boxes except for their own store and that is why all the stores had to go around emailing you spreadsheets with the products and couldn't have it in an online cart.
This is not something that we should encourage no matter who it targets.
I disagree. Assuming the reasoning is the sellers are using images pulled from GW's website, that's completely different to trying to prevent someone using their own photographs of your products to resell them. This actually seems like a pretty neat way to target scalpers since they currently have no way of showing a meaningful image while being compliant with copyright legislation.
When the third party store thing happened stores were showing stock images of the boxes/models from the official site (think like the same images on GW's own store) and that was GW's basis for the claim.
Unless I missed something I don't see how this is different. Which is why it shouldn't be encouraged. We don't want them to try that bullgak again.
I think it's different because of who they're targeting. The slippery slope argument is only compelling if there's any evidence of a slope. Given that GW seem to have been fine with this up to now and are apparently only targeting the scalpers I don't see a problem other than the possibility that something might happen in the future which I'll worry about if and when it happens (seems doubtful to me). Given that all the official 3rd party sellers seem to be able to use the official images no problem I'd say this is not something to be too concerned about yet.
harlokin wrote: I believe the reason that GW were able to do this is that the scalpers were using GW's photographs of the product.
If you have your own copy, and take photos of it to sell, a similar situation wouldn't arise.
while I have no sympathy for the scalpers this is the same kind of garbage GW pulled when they had the third party store embargo for 15 years: they claimed that copyright over box art and that nobody could show pictures of their boxes except for their own store and that is why all the stores had to go around emailing you spreadsheets with the products and couldn't have it in an online cart.
This is not something that we should encourage no matter who it targets.
I disagree. Assuming the reasoning is the sellers are using images pulled from GW's website, that's completely different to trying to prevent someone using their own photographs of your products to resell them. This actually seems like a pretty neat way to target scalpers since they currently have no way of showing a meaningful image while being compliant with copyright legislation.
When the third party store thing happened stores were showing stock images of the boxes/models from the official site (think like the same images on GW's own store) and that was GW's basis for the claim.
Unless I missed something I don't see how this is different. Which is why it shouldn't be encouraged. We don't want them to try that bullgak again.
I think it's different because of who they're targeting. The slippery slope argument is only compelling if there's any evidence of a slope. Given that GW seem to have been fine with this up to now and are apparently only targeting the scalpers I don't see a problem other than the possibility that something might happen in the future which I'll worry about if and when it happens (seems doubtful to me). Given that all the official 3rd party sellers seem to be able to use the official images no problem I'd say this is not something to be too concerned about yet.
It wouldn't surprise me if "official" third party retailers now effectively have a license to use official images as part of their trade agreement with GW. Not sure how that'd work with companies that work through a distributor, though.
I should probably ask one of the FLGS near me if they can comment on the imagery situation, thinking about it.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
If they use an image of the box from GW website they can have eBay pull the listing.
If they are an official retailer they can't list the item by more than 10% above MSRP due to price gouging laws in most states. Well they can but their state department can put a cease and desist on their entire business and prosecute them for fines.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/19 17:43:33
They are well within their rights to defend their website content from those who do not have permission to use it. Even more so when the perps also have the cheek to scalp stock with said content.
