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.

 Albertorius wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The Lego case isn’t even about Lego being in a continuous fight to protect its Trade Mark. The patent on Lego has expired, so anyone can make Lego compatible bricks, but can’t call them Lego because that’s a registered trademark. The danger for Lego though, is that “Lego” becomes the common term for little plastic bricks and their trademark becomes undefendable as a result. GW isn’t in that situation.

...why is that not the case with Kleenex, or Post-it, then? Because those are still trademarks, enforced and enforceable, and also the common term for, respectively, paper tissues and adhesive notes.

Or, hell, Google. As far as I know, all these are still trademarks:

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names-generic-words-2018-5#bubble-wrap-1

I mean, I understand Lego (or GW, or whatever) would need to litigate if some other company were to use Lego in the name, but a random YT out of the internet? There's no case there to litigate. Like, at all.

I’m not a spokesperson for Kleenex, so I can’t answer your question.

Do people use “Kleenex” as a generic term? I’ve not come across that.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
The Lego case isn’t even about Lego being in a continuous fight to protect its Trade Mark. The patent on Lego has expired, so anyone can make Lego compatible bricks, but can’t call them Lego because that’s a registered trademark. The danger for Lego though, is that “Lego” becomes the common term for little plastic bricks and their trademark becomes undefendable as a result. GW isn’t in that situation.

...why is that not the case with Kleenex, or Post-it, then? Because those are still trademarks, enforced and enforceable, and also the common term for, respectively, paper tissues and adhesive notes.

Or, hell, Google. As far as I know, all these are still trademarks:

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-taser-xerox-brand-names-generic-words-2018-5#bubble-wrap-1

I mean, I understand Lego (or GW, or whatever) would need to litigate if some other company were to use Lego in the name, but a random YT out of the internet? There's no case there to litigate. Like, at all.

I’m not a spokesperson for Kleenex, so I can’t answer your question.

Do people use “Kleenex” as a generic term? I’ve not come across that.

I think Kleenex is more common as an American term for tissues? A more common UK example might be hoover, or hoovering, instead of vacuuming?

ERJAK wrote:
First of all, all of them. The good ones have Patreons and Twitch streams and subscriptions too. Second, you're looking for patterns in corporate policy making, which is silly. GW going after fan animations is just as likely to be a result of a VP who watched a hit piece about Anime's Loli problem the day before a big meeting and assumed all animation would have innapropriate content about underage girls, as it to be about anything more substantial or objective.

People aren't consistent and corporations are even less so.

Or, you know, maybe I would posit it's more likely that it was because of them launching a streaming plattform.

Because sometimes Occam's razor still cuts.

UK ones:
biro
hoover

US ones (that I know of and arent used in the UK:
band-aid - we just call them plasters

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Do people use “Kleenex” as a generic term? I’ve not come across that.

All the damn time, yes. Over here, it's about 60-40 against "paper tissue". Same as over here "sliced bread" and "bimbo bread" are one and the same, even if there's a lot of brands.



EDIT: The actual point, though, is that issuing takedowns on YT (or whatever) videos for using terms like "lego blocks" is bollocks, doesn't affect trademark and are simply strong arm tactics. They do it because YT takes down everything and it's the uploader who has to prove the lack of infringment. Or, in other words, they do it because they let them and because bullying people with bs works.

in Austria it very common to use the brand name, some examples:

Capy - Orange Juice
Chappi - Dog Food
Wetex - sponge cloths
Pril - dish soap, detergent
Tixo - office tape
Osram - light bulb
Stanley Messer (Stanley Knife) - utility knife with replaceable and/or snap off blade


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

EDIT: The actual point, though, is that issuing takedowns on YT (or whatever) videos for using terms like "lego blocks" is bollocks, doesn't affect trademark and are simply strong arm tactics. They do it because YT takes down everything and it's the uploader who has to prove the lack of infringment. Or, in other words, they do it because they let them and because bullying people with bs works.

hence why I used it as example how easy GW could do it
there is no need to have a real issue behind it, GW just need to make one by arguing that such thing harm their brand and YT will happily remove it without further questions

 Albertorius wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Do people use “Kleenex” as a generic term? I’ve not come across that.

All the damn time, yes. Over here, it's about 60-40 against "paper tissue". Same as over here "sliced bread" and "bimbo bread" are one and the same, even if there's a lot of brands.

Spoiler:

EDIT: The actual point, though, is that issuing takedowns on YT (or whatever) videos for using terms like "lego blocks" is bollocks, doesn't affect trademark and are simply strong arm tactics. They do it because YT takes down everything and it's the uploader who has to prove the lack of infringment. Or, in other words, they do it because they let them and because bullying people with bs works.

That isn’t how YouTube works, you contest it. This can depend on a lot of things, but ultimately they have to respond in a time or drop the accusation.
One of the issues is, since it takes time. And they can hold it up for a while, if you get a number against a channel all at once it can be a real pain. As YouTube will place restrictions on a channel if you have too many strikes against you all at once.

At a point, they have to say yes. We will move it to the courts to decide or concede the claims. The issue comes, that smaller channels don’t really have the means to fight it once it leaves YouTube. So if they are not sure about there legal grounds they will concede it even if they may not have too.

For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

Apple fox wrote:
That isn’t how YouTube works, you contest it. This can depend on a lot of things, but ultimately they have to respond in a time or drop the accusation.
One of the issues is, since it takes time. And they can hold it up for a while, if you get a number against a channel all at once it can be a real pain. As YouTube will place restrictions on a channel if you have too many strikes against you all at once.

At a point, they have to say yes. We will move it to the courts to decide or concede the claims. The issue comes, that smaller channels don’t really have the means to fight it once it leaves YouTube. So if they are not sure about there legal grounds they will concede it even if they may not have too.

Not quite. First YT takes the content down, then you can contest it. That's the important part.

As it happens, the first thing that will come to pass is that the videos will be taken down for however it takes for the uploader to contest it... and in many occasiones that's enough.
Other times the uploader gets scared and doesn't even contest it, which also is a good outcome for the company.
Other times yet, it is simply harassment tactics: you contest everything from a specific channel, and every new thing they release, which will make sweet hell out of the uploader's life, if you just want to be petty about it.

Taking content down might not even be the point at all, on this, and YT's TOS work towards the claimant unless the uploader resists.

 Gert wrote:
For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

difference is, GW does not want free advertising if they cannot control it

Nintendo and a number of other companies did use to go after LPlayers and monetize their videos for themselves. It's how Jim Stephanie Sterling came up with the youtube copyright jam where they included footage of multiple games and music properties to ensure no one could claim monetization.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
GW can't close down BatReps, IP rights just don't even begin to spread that far.

Doesn't seem to stop that speculation though. Seen that claim on dakkadakka quite a lot.

So as a Warhammer+ subscriber I should have access to the battleforge and the pre-9th edition codexes in the Warhammer 40,000 app. But that’s not the case (yet) - instead I only have the option to take out an app subscription (which I’m obviously not going to do). Anyone else have that problem? Is there a solution or have they simply not gotten round to fixing that yet?

 CMLR wrote:

Take a photo with your phone FROM you computer...

Computer isn't even involved with me and warhammer+.

It's been almost week since i have even touched computer. I used warhammer tv app on my phone to view videos.

 kodos wrote:

 Gert wrote:
For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

difference is, GW does not want free advertising if they cannot control it

So why were they sending out free advance copies of Kill Team to content creators mere days before the launch of Warhammer+?

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Gert wrote:
For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

difference is, GW does not want free advertising if they cannot control it

So why were they sending out free advance copies of Kill Team to content creators mere days before the launch of Warhammer+?

because this way they have control over the review

 Insane Ivan wrote:
So as a Warhammer+ subscriber I should have access to the battleforge and the pre-9th edition codexes in the Warhammer 40,000 app. But that’s not the case (yet) - instead I only have the option to take out an app subscription (which I’m obviously not going to do). Anyone else have that problem? Is there a solution or have they simply not gotten round to fixing that yet?

I had to delete/reinstall, fixed it for me.

Is it just me or is there no way of watching the streamed content on PC in full screen or with the mouse cursor hidden? This just seems so fundamental I keep thinking I must be missing something...

 Unknown_Lifeform wrote:
Is it just me or is there no way of watching the streamed content on PC in full screen or with the mouse cursor hidden? This just seems so fundamental I keep thinking I must be missing something...

Did you try to move the cursor all the way to the right?

 kodos wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Gert wrote:
For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

difference is, GW does not want free advertising if they cannot control it

So why were they sending out free advance copies of Kill Team to content creators mere days before the launch of Warhammer+?

because this way they have control over the review

But they don’t. I’ve seen at least one content creator talking about how disappointed they were with Kill Team. In fact, it was after seeing several reviews of Kill Team that I now feel glad that I didn’t order the box and have no interest in getting into Kill Team.

You could maybe argue that GW might not send more review copies to people who give them bad reviews, but it’s also easy to see why that’s not a good idea.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Insane Ivan wrote:
So as a Warhammer+ subscriber I should have access to the battleforge and the pre-9th edition codexes in the Warhammer 40,000 app. But that’s not the case (yet) - instead I only have the option to take out an app subscription (which I’m obviously not going to do). Anyone else have that problem? Is there a solution or have they simply not gotten round to fixing that yet?

I had to delete/reinstall, fixed it for me.

That worked, thanks!

To go full screen do a quick double click.

Then your mouse pointer will disappear after a while of being left alone, similar to other full screen apps like youtube.

I have no idea why there is no view full screen button though. Seems a strange oversight.

 kodos wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Gert wrote:
For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

difference is, GW does not want free advertising if they cannot control it

So why were they sending out free advance copies of Kill Team to content creators mere days before the launch of Warhammer+?

because this way they have control over the review

Oh lol. So your theory is gw wants bad negative reviews? Loool

Doohicky wrote:
To go full screen do a quick double click.

Then your mouse pointer will disappear after a while of being left alone, similar to other full screen apps like youtube.

I have no idea why there is no view full screen button though. Seems a strange oversight.

Thank you! Yes that works. I agree, it is baffling to me there is no button on the interface for it, especially as the capability is actually there.

People who got sent copies of Indomitus or Dominion haven't been saying 9th Edition and AoS 3.0 are super amazing perfect systems. GW sends out review copies, people review them and AFAIK nobody is contractually obliged to say anything is good. The only thing they won't be allowed to say is anything libelous, which would hardly be a shock considering libel is illegal.

None of those reviews I have seen, were they got a free copy, was negative

they just did not talk about the negative parts like talking about how awesome the models are while showing pics with the worst mould lines on new models I have ever seen and not talking about gameplay at all

the negative ones were about the compendium, which was not with the free box

but if you have a link for reviews that got free copy and talked negative about the it, would like to see it

 Gert wrote:
People who got sent copies of Indomitus or Dominion haven't been saying 9th Edition and AoS 3.0 are super amazing perfect systems. GW sends out review copies, people review them and AFAIK nobody is contractually obliged to say anything is good. The only thing they won't be allowed to say is anything libelous, which would hardly be a shock considering libel is illegal.

Yeah, I mean, that gives GW publicity and some control over what channels get traffic, as they can dictate who gets advance stuff and who don't (and they can also dictate when some information gets available, as we saw with the KT compendium), but in this case we're talking more of a sort of "soft power", I don't think they could exert any hard control over those channels.

It will likely be a case of "Hey! Here's a review copy of X! Hope you enjoy it *wink*".

 Gert wrote:
For those saying GW will go after BatRep channels, has 343 gone after Halo Let's Play channels? What about all the channels that play CoD, does Activision go after them?
No. Because its free advertising. There are far more BatRep channels than animation channels and on top of that the BatRep channels use GW products 90% of the time, with terrain or boards/mats being the biggest 3rd party products. BatRep channels aren't using the IP, they're using the product.

Don't point at other studios for examples of what Games Workshop will and won't do, because (here's a shocker) Games Workshop isn't those studios.

We don't know what Games Workshop is going to do. We can comment on what they have done, however, and what they have done is take down a portion of the fan-created content on YouTube right before they launched their own service to replace that content.

We can also comment on what YouTube does in terms of video takedown requests - namely, YouTube errs on the side of taking the video down and then figures out who was right later.

 Albertorius wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Do people use “Kleenex” as a generic term? I’ve not come across that.

All the damn time, yes. Over here, it's about 60-40 against "paper tissue". Same as over here "sliced bread" and "bimbo bread" are one and the same, even if there's a lot of brands.

Spoiler:

I spent the first 30 years of my life not knowing that the polish word my family used for vacuum was a brand name because the company wasn't popular in the US and only started advertising on tv about 10-15 years ago!