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.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Getting a real sense of Deja vu from all this.

GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.

THIS.

Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.

Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.

Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?

Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.

All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

 RaptorusRex wrote:


Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.

All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?

There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.

Well yeah they talk like it's all new, their purpose is not to see what's actually new and what GW actually did to enforce these rules on the Internet so far.

So all they're talking about is, again, an imaginary situation we're still not in despite all these rules already be there for so many years thus far.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

Everybody gangsta till they actually make something worth a damn.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

They want to sanitise the hobby, and monetise everything.

No other company gets away with monetising a balance patch, except GW, and somehow their lazyness should be applauded cue 2 W csm... FOMO, blatant cut content DLC, preorder DLC.. etc.

I've been saying GW is the EA of tabletop games. EA screwed all their franchises by shoving DLCs, FOMO, and monetized BS up their franchises rear ends, and are rightfully the most hated company in the world, yet they are making billions. GW just hasn't figured out how to implement gambling to minors into their stuff... yet.

NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?

Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?

Thairne wrote:whelp
and to think I just tried to get another friend to play warhammer.
I have a feeling that was a mistake.

I hope Warhammer+ burns in a fairy fire. Slowly, painfully and with a gakload of money lost, just as their terrible app.

Introduce them to 3rd. Best rules, balanced armies, EVERYTHING is in one book. Also, I share that exact sentiment about Warhammer+ and hope it backfires in their face. (It's just the jaded cynic in me says it'll make them money despite this.) And yeah the app is terrible. Remember when that guy made a freaking web based list builder and it was free and awesome?

Aenar wrote:

EldarExarch wrote:
I'm not super knowledgeable when it comes to law, but isn't a lot of the things listed by GW protected under the Fair Use copyright law?

Is this GW flexing their muscles as a mega-corporation basically knowing they won't win court battles if it goes there but scaring off little guys who don't have the money to even fight the battles.

In any circumstance it is super unfortunate and definitely is linked to them pushing Warhammer +. "New" GW is starting to act a lot like old GW...

New GW is just old GW with a fresh coat of paint.

I dunno. Old GW happily showed people how to make hover tanks out of deodorant bottles, and how to make a Land Raider out of a WW1 tank model kit, and had Troll magazine that showed you how to build new and exciting things, and conversions with a few bits and bobs of their stuff. Hell they had entire articles on how to make Defilers for the Chaos 3.5 dex, BEFORE THE DEFILER HAD AN OFFICAL MODEL. And they had bit orders, and they loved the hobbyist, and were fine with people mixing and matching their stuff with other companies to make cool stuff. They didn't really start getting pissy about this stuff until they got the damn LOTR license. Cause I remember they were forced to outlaw players using LOTR bitz in their 40k and Fantasy armies. (At least that's what the manager at the old Concord Mills GW said to the guy that kit bashed a bloodthrister with a balrog) Even then AT THE STORE the rule was 75%=25% GW to other stuff. Cause they knew you'd buy 3rd party stuff they didn't have to make things, so what if you got that 3rd party chapter's shoulder pads. They still got their $$$ for that box of marines and/or tank.

Da Boss wrote:
And as to recasting, I can recast any of my models. They're mine. I fully own them after I buy them. I can recast any object I own, make copies of anything I have bought. I can scan them and make 3D prints. Of course I can. And then I can sell them as well, they're my property and I can go to a car boot sale or flea market or sell them to any other individual.

There's obviously a difference if I set up an online shop selling GW recasts and so on. That's fair enough. But any hobbyist can recast, scan, or 3D print whatever the hell they want, and yeah, they can go sell their army on ebay afterwards if they want to. GW cannot enforce that and look stupid for trying.

As for fan animations and creations, well, I hope people stop creating them then. Less advertisement for a stupid company with an asinine approach to their IP, most of which is stolen from Michael Moorcock or folklore in any case.

1. If GW had their way, they'd do like the RIAA did and say hell no you DON'T own them after you buy them. You own the LICENSE to use them in the way THEY WANT. Making copies, even for no profit, or using the base material for anything other than it's intended purpose would be illegal. And if the RIAA won, GW could win that battle in theory very easily, cause 'hooray unregulated capitalism'. 'We'll shoot ourselves in the foot to over are costumers. Even if it makes us MORE money in the long run.'

2. It's just as illegal to sell as it is to give away, and technically illegal to just print them out for yourself.

3. Yeah, and I'd like to see more companies embrace fan animations and creations, especially if it helps create a serious competitor to GW. There's certainly alternatives to GW, but people need to stop kidding themselves if they think there's a Ford to GW's Chevy.

Polonius wrote: ...but it forgets the one key thing: GW doesn't want fans, it wants customers.

True. Again 'hooray capitalism' Screw people, buy our stuff! GW doesn't want fans, or hobbyists. They want people to buy whatever army they are pushing this week to 'Win on the table now' and when the next thing comes out, expects those same people to buy that too. It's very much geared now as a Pay 2 Win scheme for WAACers. And that's their bread and butter now.

Polonius wrote:

Billicus wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
This has the feelings of a company that actively dislikes its established fan base.

Yeah, I'm' a huge fan of 40! I've got my 3d printed models, and rules on battlescribe, and I read all the lore on wikis. Why does GW treat fans like me so badly?

Even that hypothetical person, who gets their rules online and 3D prints their own models, GW could be selling paint, brushes, scenery, gaming accessories, books and merch to, not to mention they're promoting 40k to their friends/family and thus creating new customers. Why you'd want to litigate that person out of your ecosystem is totally beyond me, sorry.

Because selling models is their core business.
Because a lot of 3d models looks slightly off, and they don't want people thinking that dodgy 3d prints are what GW actually sells.
Because why would a person who prints GW models buy GW terrain?

Not to mention that hypothetical person still BOUGHT GW models, but also BOUGHT 3rd party/3d printed icons, heads, arms, weapons, gear, etc, to use WITH their models that GW doesn't offer. Battlescribe is a tool that aids players, and lore on the wikis just helps people learn about the setting and give them inspiration.

Their core business if FLIPPING models and selling books, and being corporate predators. They don't want you to buy a space marine army, and collect space marines, they want everyone buy the NEW thing and the NEW things SUPERIOR rules so you win now, and not lose the game.

3d prints often looks as good if not better than GW

Because maybe the person likes the GW product when they see it in the store. Course now, if they even so much as alter a window with a 3d printed one or put a cat from reaper bones in on the piece, now it's illegal terrain to use!

Sim-Life wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Getting a real sense of Deja vu from all this.

GW have always been this way, they just managed to convince people that they were 'friendly' with their Social Media presence.

THIS.

Guys, this is GW. They didn't change, they just pretended to play nice for a while to get you all buying their gak again. As someone who was on the receiving end of this last time, I've been sitting here posting that GW's behavior was becoming more and more like the Bad Old Days of ten years ago when they were threatening their fans for supporting them.

Now, low and behold, I knew what I was talking about, and here we are again.

Just what is it those against this whole thing want? For GW to let anyone do anything they like with their IP?

For GW to not stop people from being creative. For GW to stop punishing people from being fans of the game. For GW to not treat the hobby as their personal monopoly where the filthy customers only exist at the behest of the GW overlords.

GW don't make a Carcharadons upgrade kit. They have no intention of ever doing so, so if someone wants to provide that for people the person making it shouldn't be slapped with the threat of legal action for making something GW has no intention if making themselves. Its not protecting their IP, they just don't want anyone else making money from it. It's just a crap way to treat people who love the setting and want to support it in a way that GW doesn't.

GW doesn't WANT people to HAVE a Carcharadons army. They don't have a rulebook out for them and until they do, they want you to only have an army of the chapters they give you in the box to make. And by god they better be painted in the approved colors of that chapter now. They want to control access to what you can make and do with the models you buy.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:


Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.

All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?

There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.

Huge companies wouldn't exist in my ideal world, which you would know if you'd actually read whose writing I was quoting.

But to answer your question, here's a snappy little video.

In the end, it always revolves about how people feel and see what should be done about IP - those say it shouldn't exist at all, others say it's really needed, and others don't care.

In a word ; politics. Wonder why it still up here in the News and Rumors, honestly...after just the first page, it's clearly going into a general discussion. It's not about the "news" (and certainly not rumors) anymore.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:


Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.

All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?

There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.

Huge companies wouldn't exist in my ideal world, which you would know if you'd actually read whose writing I was quoting.

But to answer your question, here's a snappy little video.

That's a nice ideal that totally ignores what made it possible to communicate such ideas across the world or to enjoy a game that would otherwise be bound to the island in which it was founded.

And I wasn't talking about whether copy is theft. Even if you lack large businesses there will always an unequal distribution of resources until we reach post scarcity. I don't quite think individuals can overcome such challenges without a mechanism to protect them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:


Yes. GW should have as little right to control specific ideas as the feudal lord should have to his serfs. The alternative disincentivizes free and creative expression. Not that I expect you to understand that. In fact, I expect you to play dumb and defend copyright in spite of what I'm saying in this post.

All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

So, say a little guy makes something cool. And then a huge company with a ton of resources comes in and steals it. Copyright is still stupid, right?

There's a middle ground between too much and nothing at all, you know.

I’ve seen this story in the papers again and again.

The little guy goes bankrupt and the company makes a fortune.

That’s how the legal system works.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?

Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?

Spoiler:

Especially adult content

Derivative art has always been an infringement, they've just historically not bothered to chase it.

As far as I'm aware (not an IP lawyer) commission painters would generally be fine. Streaming themselves painting would likewise be fine (although including attribution for the minis would be a good idea). Using GW logos or artwork in your videos would potentially be an issue, from GW's point of view.

Da Boss wrote:
And as to recasting, I can recast any of my models. They're mine. I fully own them after I buy them. I can recast any object I own, make copies of anything I have bought. I can scan them and make 3D prints. Of course I can. And then I can sell them as well, they're my property and I can go to a car boot sale or flea market or sell them to any other individual.

This is not actually true in most countries, despite being a commonly held belief.

In the end, their IP rules mostly serve :
- to be clear towards people who legitimately ask themselves about what they can hope if they ask the question
- to be deterrent

As for the actual use...depends of the risks and the target. In the case of an individual...if he's blatantly public about this and reach a lot of persons, well he's painting himself a pretty target and could be used as perfect example of what not to do if GW wishes to do so.

If the individual is more elusive and quiet about this...may not be worth the pain (and money spent) for no real gain back.

Rest of the debate is nice and all, but mostly theorical and turned towards personnal beliefs about IP. And it belongs certainly more to Dakka Discussions, IMHO.

 insaniak wrote:

Derivative art has always been an infringement, they've just historically not bothered to chase it.

Since Games Workshops work is typically itself derivative, I can't imagine why they wouldn't pursue this.

 insaniak wrote:

This is not actually true in most countries, despite being a commonly held belief.

That's... thorny, I'll admit. In the US at least, I believe that they'd have a hard time with this, as long as he didn't sell it.

I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That's... thorny, I'll admit. In the US at least, I believe that they'd have a hard time with this, as long as he didn't sell it.

Yup, recasting for personal use would be largely impractical to prosecute in most countries. That doesn't change the fact that it's still an infringement, though.

 insaniak wrote:

Yup, recasting for personal use would be largely impractical to prosecute in most countries. That doesn't change the fact that it's still an infringement, though.

Copyright was created to defend little guys against companies, not the other way around, no matter what GW currently thinks. It is a hilariously long way from the days when Ian railed against Copyright bullying in White Dwarf though, isn't it?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

You can always have fun with this old topic about that very subject instead : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/689643.page

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Copyright was created to defend little guys against companies, not the other way around, no matter what GW currently thinks.

Since going to court is always benefitting to the side with more money, I find your belief quite adorable to have. To me, it was always the opposite.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

They've gone after Marvel comics a few times.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

They want to sanitise the hobby, and monetise everything.

No other company gets away with monetising a balance patch, except GW, and somehow their lazyness should be applauded cue 2 W csm... FOMO, blatant cut content DLC, preorder DLC.. etc.

I've been saying GW is the EA of tabletop games. EA screwed all their franchises by shoving DLCs, FOMO, and monetized BS up their franchises rear ends, and are rightfully the most hated company in the world, yet they are making billions. GW just hasn't figured out how to implement gambling to minors into their stuff... yet.

NAVARRO wrote:Hum I wonder If a commission painter on YouTube cannot paint GW minis anymore if he wants to profit from the videos?

Or my case a commission artist and painter. Is it illegal now for me to be hired to draw 40K content?

Spoiler:

Especially adult content

No, it's not illegal "now". It was already illegal before. Not being able to use someone elses creations without permission, outside of certain contexts, was already enshrined in copyright law and has not changed just because GW have wrote an article.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

They've gone after Marvel comics a few times.

Maybe Marvel's settlement with Games Workshop was the Marneus Calgar comic book series...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

They've gone after Marvel comics a few times.

They're partnered....why would they?

 insaniak wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That's... thorny, I'll admit. In the US at least, I believe that they'd have a hard time with this, as long as he didn't sell it.

Yup, recasting for personal use would be largely impractical to prosecute in most countries. That doesn't change the fact that it's still an infringement, though.

No, I don't think that's true. You have the right to recast for personal use, just like you have the right to make copies out of a book you own for personal use. I don't think any attempt to restrict that right would hold up in court, and I'm not aware of GW actually trying to assert that right either in terms of anything you agree to when you make a purchase from them. I mean they can say whatever they want on their website, but they can't bind you with a unilateral statement to that effect, and they certainly can't restrict your right to recast GW products you buy from a 3rd party (i.e. a retailer) where GW isn't even a party to the transaction.

Togusa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

They've gone after Marvel comics a few times.

They're partnered....why would they?

Sarouan wrote:

Spoiler:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

You can always have fun with this old topic about that very subject instead : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/689643.page

Certain GW words are trademarked and cannot be used. To identically copy their models (whether through recasting or digital sculpting and printing) is illegal and always has been. To take money for artwork/games/anything really designed upon their IP is also illegal, although there is always room for artisanal one-offs and free fan stuff (fanart, online encyclopedias, fanfiction etc). Such things will likely continue to thrive, because it isn't worth anyone's time to police it, doing so generates illwill, and unlike trademarks you don't lose IP by not prosecuting.

These things are the law and centrepiece of our IP system. They apply for every big company, and will never change. GW is not special or cruel for adopting these stances. So t's mostly the same as their old statement, just with additional emphasis on the whole 'better not make stuff that looks like ours!' angle. Which they've had, in all fairness, for the last twenty years. Putting a little extra emphasis on fan animations and 3d technology is not particularly out of step with their usual behaviour.

Those who say that Games Workshop is legally overstepping their bounds with the whole 'based upon' and 'copy heavily' phrases are not wrong. Nor are those people who point out the hypocrisy of the company who ripped so many other franchises in the past. But at the end of the day, none of that matters if you're not prepared to put up in court. If a company/patreon was owned by a part-time IP lawyer or bored millionaire and the case wasn't clear-cut, GW would back off from many of their claims faster than lightning. But most such people aren't, and so GW feels it can do whatever it likes. It's no wonder that one patreon owner just sent out the following:-

Hello,

Unfortunately I need to pause the Patreon. It appears GW is on a rampage and while I haven't received any communication from them I certainly have been hearing about it from many corners of our little hobby. So Im going to lay low at least for August and see what happens.

I hope you all will hold out til I know what direction the channel will take, but understand one way or another.

Thanks a ton for being here and willing to support my work. I'll definitely be back but it remains to be seen in what capacity.

At the end of the day, if GW stomps too loudly and often, someone will get pro-bono again and we'll have Chapterhouse Mark II: Electric Boogaloo. But until then, the little businessmen will get squashed, whether the law agrees with it or not.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No, I don't think that's true. You have the right to recast for personal use, just like you have the right to make copies out of a book you own for personal use.

You really, really don't. That's not just an amateur, personal opinion, it's been the position of various IP professionals involved in the hobby over the years.

In the US, the 'Fair Use' clause allows you to make personal back-up copies of things like books and CDs (but not DVDs with DRM) to protect the original. It could arguably allow you to make a personal copy of a miniature in order to similarly put the original aside somewhere safe and use the copy in your games instead. It does not grant you wholesale right to make as many copies as you want.

It would be difficult to prove a specific amount of damage if you're not selling your recasts, which is what makes it impractical to prosecute. But the idea that you can legally make as many copies as you want of a thing you bought is a myth.

Well, the Press has gotten wind of it.


https://www.pcgamer.com/games-workshop-is-trying-to-shut-down-fan-animations/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sarouan wrote:

Since going to court is always benefitting to the side with more money, I find your belief quite adorable to have. To me, it was always the opposite.

Might want to read up on the history of copyright. The Berne Convention in particular.

Fair Use covers whatever it covers, and we know it covers making copies of other things for personal use - and not just one. No case I'm aware of has ever said you can make a copies from a book you own, but only one copy. You don't really know what it covers until someone sues you to establish whether the given use is fair or not. I'm not aware of any published case that's ever actually opined on whether fair use would cover making multiple reproductions for personal use. I don't think it is a clear answer - factor 4 is about the impact on the market value of the product, it's not about whether you making a copy saves you buying more copies of the product. If it did, we'd say that you can't make a scanned copy of your print book if there's an e-book version available for purchase, because by doing so you're avoiding buying the e-book. But we don't say that. We say it's fair use, even though it means depriving the rights holder of a possible second purchase, because we don't consider that a diminishment of the overall market value.

But you're right in the sense that fair use is a defense to infringement, so I guess technically you would say it is an infringement, but one that cannot realistically be punished, both because it's unclear whether it's covered by fair use and because proving damages is impossible. And in a civil setting, if you can't realistically establish a violation of the law or prove damages, saying it's illegal in the abstract is rather meaningless.

We'll likely never know whether GW could actually prohibit you from recasting for personal use, because GW is never going to risk going to court over it and getting an adverse judgment.

Funny, I have a zero tolerance policy on their new streaming platform after reading the OP.

 Ghaz wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I do find it hilarious that GW has not as of yet gone after Marvel or Disney for violating their IP.

They've gone after Marvel comics a few times.

Maybe Marvel's settlement with Games Workshop was the Marneus Calgar comic book series...

it honestly wouldn't suprise me if that was the defacto situation. their lawyers started talking, marvel's response was "ohh wow we obviously didn't know about this but jesus that would make an AWESOME comic"

Spots the Space Marine 2.0


Yet GW can't make any more Cursed City...


We can see that SOMEONE has their priorities straight.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
All should belong to all. All have need of creative endeavors, all have worked in their endeavors to produce them, and it is not possible to quantify individual contributions.

Everybody gangsta till they actually make something worth a damn.

Yeah, just ask GW.

Did Kirby sneak back in through the back door or something?

 Stormonu wrote:
Did Kirby sneak back in through the back door or something?

Kirby never left. He's still part of the company, just not the same part.

 Ghaz wrote:
Maybe Marvel's settlement with Games Workshop was the Marneus Calgar comic book series...

Whilst I doubt Marvel could be forced into making anything they don't want to make, it is plausible that the situation at the very least opened the door for their partnership. Kind of a "Why are we fighting? Let's just make 40k comics! Everybody* wins!".


*Except my half brother...