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.

Crucial question. And I ask it with clean hands because I genuinely don’t know the answer.

To date, has GW actually tried to get any battle reports pulled?

 phandaal wrote:
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.

Do you know what a comparison is?

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.

To be more specific, GW took down certain content that violated their IP rules, and as far as anyone knows this was a perfectly legal thing to do. We can debate the moral implications until the heat death of the universe but from a legal standpoint, GW didn't do anything wrong.
Let's Play videos and BatReps would very likely fall under similar Copyright rules, which technically is nothing because no studio/publisher has ever challenged the collective system of Let's Play videos.
Nintendo tried to claim ad revenue off of some creator's videos containing Mario content but backed off from this and created a partnership program instead. The vast majority of studios/publishers support the Let's Play system because of the free marketing system that it is and of the numerous potential issues challenging its status could entail.
The point of comparing GW to larger studios/publishers is that it sets a precedent. If even the biggest game companies in the world either can't or don't want to challenge the system, then it is very likely GW will do the same.

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.

Yeah, YT is a bad platform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Crucial question. And I ask it with clean hands because I genuinely don’t know the answer.

To date, has GW actually tried to get any battle reports pulled?

I've never seen or heard anything to suggest the company has tried this.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Crucial question. And I ask it with clean hands because I genuinely don’t know the answer.

To date, has GW actually tried to get any battle reports pulled?

No, of course not. It’s almost as if all the outrage about GW amongst Youtubers has been to drive clicks

 kodos wrote:

IP rights have nothing to do with DMCA Strikes and Youtube removing Video

You do know that DMCA stands for Digital Millennium Copyright Act, right? It's right there in the name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Crucial question. And I ask it with clean hands because I genuinely don’t know the answer.

To date, has GW actually tried to get any battle reports pulled?

Not that we know of, as of yet, but if the logic behind why they're opposing animations holds, it make sense that they, or lore videos, will get the axe as well.


COPYRIGHT AXE THIRSTS FOR YOU!

Does it follow though?

There’s a world of difference between showing off their game, and using their IP to create something else.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Not that we know of, as of yet, but if the logic behind why they're opposing animations holds, it make sense that they, or lore videos, will get the axe as well.

Ah yes, the Slippery Slope fallacy. Because surely if GW took down animations that must mean they're going to eat babies, right?
There's a reason it's called a fallacy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


There’s a world of difference between showing off their game, and using their IP to create something else.

That would be an opinion, yeah?

To be clear: not saying Games Workshop is going to go after battle reports. We don't know what they're going to do either way.

We can absolutely say that Games Workshop has taken down content while they were in the midst of shifting said content into their new subscription service.

Whether it's legal or supported by Intellectual Property rights or any of that is irrelevant. None of the recent content creator takedowns made it to court. Games Workshop got what they wanted simply by claiming they could.

Taking all of that into consideration, it isn't crazy to point out that Games Workshop could use the same tactic to attempt to shift all battle report viewers onto their own service as well. In that case, it would be similarly pointless to argue over whether or not the law supports it unless someone actually decided to go to court against Games Workshop.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Crucial question. And I ask it with clean hands because I genuinely don’t know the answer.

To date, has GW actually tried to get any battle reports pulled?

Same question but did they ACTUALLY remove fan animation?

Making money off GW's IP by producing battle reports is not fundamentally different than making money off GW's IP by making animations. It's not an unreasonable slippery slope to suggest the one could lead to the other.

Now presumably GW is smart enough to realize that going after free advertising for its IP is deeply stupid...but then they went after fan animations, which were also free advertising for its IP. So you never really know.

 phandaal 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.

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.

What animations btw they shut down? Not if emperor had text to speech atleast. Don't follow animations that closely. Tts i keep mentioned but of course gw did nothing regarding that one.

They literally send review copies of games to channels that do battle reports, including kill team very recently. I don’t think they’d do that if they had an issue with battle reports (considering at least one channel is doing a KT battle report series).

 phandaal wrote:
That would be an opinion, yeah?

An opinion with more logic and fact behind it than anything suggesting GW would go after BatRep channels.

To be clear: not saying Games Workshop is going to go after battle reports. We don't know what they're going to do either way.

No, but we can look at previous evidence and similar situations.

We can absolutely say that Games Workshop has taken down content while they were in the midst of shifting said content into their new subscription service.

Which was going to have BatReps on it. So why didn't GW go after BatRep channels then?

Whether it's legal or supported by Intellectual Property rights or any of that is irrelevant. None of the recent content creator takedowns made it to court. Games Workshop got what they wanted simply by claiming they could.

For something like Astartes, yes GW was well within its legal rights to issue a takedown. But instead, the company sent a job offer. IP rights aren't irrelevant because the only content that has been taken down is content that has actively violated GW's IP policy. Yes, it didn't get to court but such cases often don't. Astartes wasn't a parody of 40k nor was it using assets that were similar but not quite 40k assets, it was clearly 40k. It literally used a GW copyrighted term as its title.

Taking all of that into consideration, it isn't crazy to point out that Games Workshop could use the same tactic to attempt to shift all battle report viewers onto their own service as well.

Crazy? No, there's a distinct line where insanity comes into play. Wrong and pointless fearmongering purely to fan the flames of GW hatred? Yes, absolutely.

In that case, it would be similarly pointless to argue over whether or not the law supports it unless someone actually decided to go to court against Games Workshop.

If a channel refused a takedown request/order then it would be up to GW to prove the channel's content was in violation, something that has never been done before not even by video game companies. The BatRep scene also has companies that produce content rather than simply individuals like with animation. I'm not saying it's a clash of the titans or anything but MWG is hardly going to take it sitting down is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Making money off GW's IP by producing battle reports is not fundamentally different than making money off GW's IP by making animations. It's not an unreasonable slippery slope to suggest the one could lead to the other.

It would likely fall into the same untested legal grey area that Let's Play videos fall. An area that again I will add, hasn't even been tested by companies with revenue streams and corporate power many times that of GW.

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.

Isn't it just in a browser window? Mine was. Just pressed F11 to go full screen.

 Gert wrote:


Lots of emotional stuff, then this:

Crazy? No, there's a distinct line where insanity comes into play. Wrong and pointless fearmongering purely to fan the flames of GW hatred? Yes, absolutely.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that anyone should hate Games Workshop for what they are doing.

Relax yourself. Everything's gonna be alright. Games Workshop isn't going to get hurt because people on the internet are wondering if GW will decide that all batreps should be on Warhammer+.

Also have to ask, how is it fearmongering to suggest that content might move onto Warhammer+? Is content being on Warhammer+ somehow worse than that same content being on YouTube? As far as I know, Astartes didn't get any worse after the creator shifted it onto the Warhammer Community site.

Point of order, the IP laws which allow GW to remove animations made with their IP has no provisions protecting them from battle reports, and would not allow them to take down battle report videos.

To suggest that their lawyers would not point this out and recommend against trying to do so/even refusing to personally draft the cease and desist orders is naive.

Yes, when dealing with Youtube you can put in unlawful DMCA claims, and hope it never gets to court. They could hire professional killers to eliminate their competitors and hope it never gets to court too, if that's your standard. As we can see from the failed boycott petitions, most adults aren't buying that standard.

I’m actually just shocked this didn’t crash and burn like Amazon on a Black Friday where so many folks were trying to register/get on at once that no one could.

Though I’m already signed up for too many streaming services as is, so this isn’t for me. Just slowly going through Love Boat while I wait for the next season of Picard to air, for example…

 phandaal wrote:

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that anyone should hate Games Workshop for what they are doing.

Relax yourself. Everything's gonna be alright. Games Workshop isn't going to get hurt because people on the internet are wondering if GW will decide that all batreps should be on Warhammer+.

Very cool of you to reduce my arguments to "emotional stuff", very mature of you
For what it's worth, the only thing I'm actually worried about is the people who are the faces of GW, the WarCom team and store workers. When Alfabusa decided to put TTS on hiatus, people jumped at the opportunity, despite being asked not to, to send harassing messages to the WarCom accounts and posted in random completely unconnected posts and threads about how evil GW was, perpetuating an untrue narrative simply to be hateful. I've always had the utmost respect for the Twitch Mods and social media team for the bile that gets spewed towards them.
All these "You could be next!" posts help perpetuate that toxic narrative.

 frankelee wrote:
Point of order, the IP laws which allow GW to remove animations made with their IP has no provisions protecting them from battle reports, and would not allow them to take down battle report videos.

To suggest that their lawyers would not point this out and recommend against trying to do so/even refusing to personally draft the cease and desist orders is naive.

When did GW's lawyers share this opinion with you?

Yes, when dealing with Youtube you can put in unlawful DMCA claims, and hope it never gets to court. They could hire professional killers to eliminate their competitors and hope it never gets to court too, if that's your standard. As we can see from the failed boycott petitions, most adults aren't buying that standard.

That is no one's standard. Be better.

 GrosseSax wrote:
The absolute hubris...

This^^

No-one still been able to name animation gw shut down?

 Gert wrote:

 phandaal wrote:

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that anyone should hate Games Workshop for what they are doing.

Relax yourself. Everything's gonna be alright. Games Workshop isn't going to get hurt because people on the internet are wondering if GW will decide that all batreps should be on Warhammer+.

Very cool of you to reduce my arguments to "emotional stuff", very mature of you

Well, yeah. Lots of emotional words like spew, bile, fearmongering, hateful, toxic, fan the flames of hatred. We aren't charging once more unto the breach, we're talking about Games Workshop's new streaming channel.

For what it's worth, the only thing I'm actually worried about is the people who are the faces of GW, the WarCom team and store workers. When Alfabusa decided to put TTS on hiatus, people jumped at the opportunity, despite being asked not to, to send harassing messages to the WarCom accounts and posted in random completely unconnected posts and threads about how evil GW was, perpetuating an untrue narrative simply to be hateful. I've always had the utmost respect for the Twitch Mods and social media team for the bile that gets spewed towards them.
All these "You could be next!" posts help perpetuate that toxic narrative.

There is nothing hateful about suggesting that Games Workshop might follow a path with battle reports that is similar to the path they took with fan animations.

You can disagree that they will do that, of course.

Some of the big content creators have reached out to lawyers etc to see if they are protected from GW in regards to battle reports. Whilst it is not tested in legal battle (much like streaming video games etc) the consensus seems to be that GW would not win that legal battle.

Unless we have actual legal professionals on this forum, who crucially are also experts within this area and can add significant insight to the debate, can this back and forth argument stop?

By all means re-start if GW do go down this route, but it seems just from the fact they use these content creators/influencers as advertising by handing out review copies, that bat rep videos won't be treated the same as animation videos.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Crucial question. And I ask it with clean hands because I genuinely don’t know the answer.

To date, has GW actually tried to get any battle reports pulled?

So far, no that I know of.

Of course, I could have said the same about other stuff a couple months ago...

But seriously, other than pure pettyness, I don't know what would they expect to accomplish if they did.

 ImAGeek wrote:
They literally send review copies of games to channels that do battle reports, including kill team very recently. I don’t think they’d do that if they had an issue with battle reports (considering at least one channel is doing a KT battle report series).

I hate to bring up, you know, GW's history and all, but that doesn't mean anything. I literally got a copy of one of the 40k RPG books in the mail to review the day we got a cease and desist letter demanding we stop showing pictures of their products.

With GW, if you assume logic, reason, or basic competence, you're already failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
No-one still been able to name animation gw shut down?

Effectively, all of them. According to several of the animators that GW approached, they were given the option to keep animating, but do it on Warhammer+ or cease and desist.

Darren Latham's YT channel got nuked today. Ofc he had been inactive for a while due to GW's intent to take this space with Masterclass. The disappointing thing about this is that they've apparently replaced Razza's stuff with tutorials by Louise Sugden aka SavageOrkGuy, which is akin to replacing Shang dynasty silk with 4ply toilet roll. No offence to Louise ofc, they are big shoes to fill and anyone making the attempt is likely to fail, but w/e, we've lost this prime and also free resource and instead of having it replaced with an equally great but paid resource we've now got something much worse and also not free.

Oh well. I was waiting to see if the new Masterclass would be worth £5 a month (which I'd happily pay for more Razza videos at the rate of one or two pm) but it looks to be about as good as the current free content (Peachy and what Duncan Rhodes used to do), but costs money now. I'll pass thx, but if anyone form GW is reading this I'd like to reiterate my desire to buy a steady stream of Darren Lathan vids, should you ever wish to sell them.

 Gert wrote:

No, but we can look at previous evidence and similar situations.

Because THAT paints GW in a great light!

 Gert wrote:

Which was going to have BatReps on it. So why didn't GW go after BatRep channels then?

One, we don't know if they have or not. BatRep channels don't always have fixed release dates. Two, it's entirely possible they have not gotten that far yet. Recalling that they got badly burned on their last mass Cease and Desist.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:
Darren Latham's YT channel got nuked today. Ofc he had been inactive for a while due to GW's intent to take this space with Masterclass.

Damn.

Regarding painting videos, what I’d like to see is videos which tackle different styles of painting. The Eavy Metal style has never appealed to me no matter how well it’s done.

Latham knew his channel was going to be taken down about a year ago, he even posted about it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Because THAT paints GW in a great light!

In the context of the discussion, yes. GW hasn't gone after BatRep channels before and as someone has just said several have checked and been told by actual lawyers that GW would find it very difficult to get such a case going.

One, we don't know if they have or not. BatRep channels don't always have fixed release dates. Two, it's entirely possible they have not gotten that far yet. Recalling that they got badly burned on their last mass Cease and Desist.

We know GW hasn't gone after BatRep channels because none of the big BatRep channels or even smaller ones have been C&D'd.

Yes we all knew his channel was being culled to make room for WH+, the question was whether the paid successor would retain the quality of the unpaid predecessor. The answer is a clear "Oh fk no" and I for one am greatly disappointed by this.

Hmm, I was hoping to see a thread about Warhammer + and its pros and cons. This thread seems to be about something else entirely.