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.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
Important information from the video, though : GW has actually done nothing to the channel nor contacted the creator, and the creator hasn't contacted GW either.

He decided to do that on his own. He simply read the updated rules on GW's website and gave up. That's it.

I watched the full video and I don't really understand why it's so long just for that...oh, right. It's a youtube video.

Predictable how people are immediately raging about GW while GW...did nothing to him specifically. That guy is solely the only one responsible of his decision, here.

To be quite honest, that alone is a statement to how vague and threatening their IP rule changes are.

Copyright law means that the things covered in the document were protected regardless of them having written this.

Their previous IP policy article said fan sites and stories were allowed, but you need a license for games, apps, movies and "anything else" that uses their IP - - the very same stuff that the new version does with saying you need a license. Animations were already covered under that.

That same policy also included all the other stuff it says, so all that's happened is is a re-wording.

The re-wording comes across as harsher and less friendly...yet that applies to both the guidelines and the infringement-related stuff. It's a shortened version with clearer language, not something where they decided to make it sound more scary. Things have been split up into their own lines to spread them out rather than huge paragraphs with unnecessary length.

Neither have they acted aggresively towards anyone that we know of. No one has been threatened or sued or C&D. They've talked to animators who infringed on their IP and offered them a job instead of doing any of those things they were well within their rights to do, and all indication that we've had from those that refused is that GW were perfectly reasonable.

So if the law meant this stuff was active anyway, they had a previous IP policy that said the very same things and therefore animations were already not allowed for at east half a decade....just where is the "vague and threatening IP rule change"?

TTS will be missed. It isn't what got me into the hobby, but I have quite a few purchases which are "lol this model was funny on the cartoon" type purchases. This is no different from piracy. People pirated music because buying CDs was awful. People make money off fan content because the official content largely sucks. Horrendous quality control on video games, limited (preview trailers are cool but short) or terrible official animations. (Ultramarines movie) GW hiring/acquiring talent has also been poorly executed as seen by Sodaz being stuck in hiring limbo for too long. They shut down the best army builder at the start of 8th, and the app is still a dumpster fire so people use battlescribe. Sure, GW is absolutely in their legal right to be as heavy handed as they want, but being heavy handed with things people are passionate about is tone deaf at best. Personally, I am not going to boycott them over IP enforcement, but the lack of updates to CSM/Tau for 9th makes it a non-issue because I was painting my backlog and 3D printing terrain anyways. Just disappointed at a huge waste of potential.

DarkStarSabre wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
Important information from the video, though : GW has actually done nothing to the channel nor contacted the creator, and the creator hasn't contacted GW either.

He decided to do that on his own. He simply read the updated rules on GW's website and gave up. That's it.

I watched the full video and I don't really understand why it's so long just for that...oh, right. It's a youtube video.

Predictable how people are immediately raging about GW while GW...did nothing to him specifically. That guy is solely the only one responsible of his decision, here.

To be quite honest, that alone is a statement to how vague and threatening their IP rule changes are.

They are worded in such a way that creators simply don't feel safe, whether they're doing fan animations, parody, stickers etc for hobby streams or whatever.

IT's back to the draconian levels where GW literally sued Spot the Space Marine and tried to claim the words 'Space Marine'. Which went embarassingly awry for them as Starship Troopers was probably the first use of the term and it's also been used in the Alien franchise so I'm very much wondering how much GW would like to fight against those franchises - answer: not a lot.

The concern is that GW will once again resort to bully tactics, forcing smaller creators etc, into submission through sheer size and pressure. This is what happened to TTS - they decided to -not- take the risk despite effectively being protected by fair use laws regarding parody.

No the problem is that both a large swath of the community, and even Alfabusa to an extent, are being dishonest. I have yet to see anybody show a incident after this "change" to GW's IP policy (this has always been legally within GW's power and their statement has 0 impact on that) where someone has been forced to take their work down either due to threat or DMCA by GW.

Syama Pederson took a job with GW and agreed to move Astartes from Youtube to Warhammer Community.

Richard Boylan took a job with GW and is working on Angels of Death (I assume based on his channel post looking for animators). Helsreach is still up on his Youtube probably because GW legally can't host it on WarCom (since a lot of the early assets were ripped from various 40k games which, while GW owns the conceptual rights, they don't own the rights to the actual 3D assets and it was made in SFM).

SODAZ was offered a job by GW and agreed to remove his videos pending a future announcement on WarCom. Then people harassed him so badly that it made him decide not to take the deal and turn away from 40k completely.

Tyler Portoghese, who made the animation for The Last Church, took down his animation willingly after GW contacted him with a job offer for a future project and he even says that it's possible that his original animation might find its way onto WarCom eventually.

AbsolutelyNothing was offered a job with GW, he turned it down. His videos are all still up on his channel. What changed is that Youtube demonetized his videos and Patreon pulled his account because both were profiting off of his 40k content. He has even stated that he will continue to make content independently because he wants to and he's a college student with free time.

Alfabusa is currently collecting 18k a month via his Patreon. That's not fan work at that point, it's a job. He has also outright refused to even try contacting GW about an agreement. The "purity of the content" seemingly has much less to do with this than the money involved.

Shadenuat wrote:

deano2099 wrote:
I remember in the 90s "fan works" meant stuff people did for fun in their spare time.

It's called progress. You couldn't just pick up a free engine, mess around with it and make a working playable computer game before either, but now you can.
The level of engagement people could get into with anything grown more and more, there was time when you couldn't buy paints and had to grind them in a workshop slaving off for a master, now you can make anything you want and share with a few button clicks. There were little animation assist tools before and animators did everything by hand, now there are.
Some studios react to this differently, TIE Fighter has 12 mln views, you can watch it for free; partly because Star Wars is now so big and ingrained into culture it's hard for one person to hold it in a cage forever.

No, you can watch Tie Fighter right now (as well as a bunch of other Star Wars fan films and animations) because they didn't try to build their fan work into a bootleg 6 figure income salary.

Also, everything you mention about technology improving and making independent works easier to create is exactly the reason why IP laws are still so relevant. Because compared to the past it is now cheaper and easier than ever before in history for someone to make a piece of media as long as they have a modicum of skill and enough time.

Take a step away from GW for a second and ask, "what if this was some small time author that had their book adapted into a youtube series that started raking in a 6 figure salary?".
Is that fair to the author? Sure it might raise awareness of their books but what about the author licensing out their work for an official series, which now has to compete with a popular established depiction? What if that youtube series takes creative liberties with the story that the community adopt as convention which essentially hijack the IP from it's author?

Most of these aren't even hypothetical.

The Game of Thrones HBO series was officially licensed and yet the directors by the end of it stopped following Martin's work to do what they wanted after growing arrogant based on the early success of the show. Success it turned out that was largely based on the quality of Martin's writing.

Starship Troopers, despite the book still being quite well known, is more often then not referenced in relation to the licensed 1997 film which has an entirely different message and purpose compared to the original.

And if we want to return to Text-to-Speech for a second, some of the depictions of certain characters (like Magnus and mustache Dorn) are so popular in the community that it led to people exclaiming actual disappointment upon seeing the official depictions of those characters.

I'm not here defending GW out of some misplaced loyalty to an economic entity, but if people want to discuss this honestly then you don't get to cherry pick who gets to be defended and when. If people legitimately want IP laws gone or weakened to the point of near irrelevance then that's their prerogative, but it's not going to be the glorious liberation they think it will be.

Shadenuat wrote:Time to begin selling licenses for fanart and animation and then stream best stuff made by fans monthly on your social media and YouTube channel.

This is literally what GW is doing though. The artist who does the graphics for GW's website was scouted from Adepticon. I remember meeting her at the booth she ran and getting a free coloring book. All of the 40k video creators of note have been approached by GW and offered jobs. The only consequence for turning it down being that you lose that source of revenue which under law you shouldn't have anyway. Any related content was either left in place, rehosted on WarCom, or taken down volitionally by it's creator as per their own statement.

I can read grey letters just as well as orange ones, no problems.

 Jack Flask wrote:
This is literally what GW is doing though.

What GW has done, is removed an option to create and draw from talent pool completely. Technically, you shouldn't make fan animations anymore, even if you don't monetize them.

Also, I do not believe that any artist under Daddy would make same or better content as if they were free and could fully realise their Vision. Nothing from GW came close to Astartes, because that one was made in such circumstances.

What happens if fans do better than you? Adapt. Whoever adapts business model to also implementing what fans want would be a long term winner.

I understand, legal matters, IP, etc. What I don't understand is why should we care, or I care. We've had something we liked, made by other fans. As fans, our whole deal must be demanding more of what we like and protecting it from being taken away. Why all the knee bending, counting others money, and fear of the Law, I don't get it at all. Our job is just to Demand. But I am a simple person.

you can watch Tie Fighter right now (as well as a bunch of other Star Wars fan films and animations) because they didn't try to build their fan work into a bootleg 6 figure income salary

https://www.patreon.com/otaking77077

people legitimately want IP laws gone or weakened to the point of near irrelevance

I am not a master of lawl (any, and even more British), but surely a way that can keep talent coming, videos watched, IP safe and NOT pissing fans off can exist. UK is such a civilized nation, it can figure it out.

 Jack Flask wrote:
...

Exalted for spitting straight facts.

 Shadenuat wrote:
I can read grey letters just as well as orange ones, no problems.

 Jack Flask wrote:
This is literally what GW is doing though.

What GW has done, is removed an option to create and draw from talent pool completely. Technically, you shouldn't make fan animations anymore, even if you don't monetize them.

No, they have not. Read the previous version of the guidelines. The same things are said - you need a license to make things and it even says that's regardless of if you monetize them or not. That has not changed.

Here's the quote:

If you think you have a winning idea and want to make a video game, an app, some merchandise, a movie or anything else that you will be distributing (either for free or at a cost) using Games Workshop’s IP then you need permission in the form of a license from Games Workshop.

That covers animations too, either as "movies" or "anything else". Saying you need a license now because you are not allowed because you don't have the copyright has been their stance for at least half a decade. the only things the article says you're allowed are fan sites and stories even, just like the updated version that people are complaining about here does despite them both saying the same things.

The rules are the same now as they were then.

Pretty sure they were changed exactly to acommodate for latest trends. "Movie" and "distribution" have a specific connotation to it, as in, full scale motion pictures and selling product in a traditional way (as opposed to rising non-traditional ways of monetization).

 frankelee wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 frankelee wrote:
While the protests over shutting the animation channels has definitely reached some big names like Valrak, people's general unwillingness to understand the situation means they can flail around with videos and online petitions all the want, nothing will change. And I also don't look for GW to put out any sort of statement on the matter as all that will do is add fuel to the fire.

Every fan I've seen complaining about this shows a simple (non-legal, non-technical, non-business) understanding of the situation at best, and I don't say that to diminish them, but rather to note GW's actions all stem from legal, technical, and business facts and pressures. The problem even with a big boycott movement is that GW's not taking these actions as some personal caprice, they can't let people use their IPs in this way now, no matter what. Even if GW had to find some way to break the boycott and appease fans, the answer still couldn't be 'change their minds and let these animators keep their operations going.'

As I mentioned earlier I am interested to see if there is indeed a huge backlash, as the animation sub-community for 40K is something I barely knew even existed before now.

And yet GW let them do it for years and years, and not only did the sky not fall, but GW did better than they've ever done before.

But I'm sure anybody who challenges your supposedly superior understanding is just simple. That's very convincing. Not quite as convincing as the guy who stopped by just to tell everyone they were wrong and didn't understand how anything worked, but we can't all be that legendarily persuasive.

You come here to persuade people? I couldn't care less, I just like filling computer down time with idle discussion. And yes, their understanding of it is simple, they go on about the situation in a sort of "colloquial" way, as if legal matters for big companies were the same as working out an issue between neighbors. Take your comment that they've let the animations go for years and the sky didn't fall. Nice, simple, farm logic to it. Wouldn't work in court, wouldn't work in a board room. My point was and is, all the angry consumers are on a different level of reality than Games Workshop is. But stop buying their products, I don't mind, I have.

You come here to condescend to people and tell them they're wrong, simple, and "on a different level of reality" and then not explain yourself? I guess that's your right, but it's a deeply unpleasant way to interact with people, as well as being incredibly hypocritical. "You hoi polloi couldn't possibly understand the workings of more sophisticated people like me or GW, so I'll just call you simple instead" displays exactly the "simple" attitude towards the subject you are supposedly decrying. For all your posturing about who's simple and who's sophisticated and "different levels of reality," you haven't demonstrated any understanding of the issue yourself - all you've done is say that people other people are simple. This is a terribly unconvincing way to debate, and is usually the province of people who don't actually have any idea what they're talking about.

So enlighten us, the unwashed, simple masses on the farm: why did GW "have" to take these particular steps at this particular time?

 Shadenuat wrote:
Pretty sure they were changed exactly to acommodate for latest trends. "Movie" and "distribution" have a specific connotation to it, as in, full scale motion pictures and selling product in a traditional way (as opposed to rising non-traditional ways of monetization).

No, it is not different.

Even if you disagree with an animation counting as a movie, then it comes under the "anything else" part of the line.

Uploading a movie or animation to youtube for example, is distributing it.

It covers animations.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Uploading a movie or animation to youtube for example, is distributing it.

Is it? By the letter of Lawl?

If it's "anything" then pictures are also out of the question.

I personally, don't even understand difference between fanart and small animation. Is a 5 second gif animation allowed? If not, why? What's the problem specifically with a short animation as compared to just a still picture? It's just a series of pictures.

So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that GW wants a particular segment of art for themselves 100% because they know how much important that part is and because they can easily grab that slice of the pie, using, if needed, red utub buttons/strikes etc.

(Obviously they also updated it all to be more direct, since "money can't change hands" and other simple speech doesn't suit a document of rules.)

It doesn't really matter what those guidelines say except as a way to try to intimidate people into doing what GW wants. GW can put whatever it wants on its website, it has no actual legal authority. Many things in that statement of IP rights blatantly contradict the law and could never be enforced (in court, on youtube or patreon it doesn't matter that your infringement claim is totally bogus, as long as you're a big company YT and Patreon will happily do your bidding), which GW knows perfectly well - they post it because they hope that you don't know that, and therefore will think their guidelines are actually an accurate summary of the law.

 Plant wrote:
For everyone who is joining the boycott, can you please keep it up until I get a copy of the new kill team?

Problem is gamer boycotts usually come down to "company x has done something shifty, im only buying half of what I planned to"

yukishiro1 wrote:
It doesn't really matter what those guidelines say except as a way to try to intimidate people

Yeah, and now fans police themselves and would probably be drawn to making stuff about something else. An apt tactic based on fear; very healthy for community.

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Uploading a movie or animation to youtube for example, is distributing it.

Is it? By the letter of Lawl?

Are you not aware of the concept of film distribution and the like? Uploading to a media platform to be viewed by others is distribution.

If it's "anything" then pictures are also out of the question.

Yes, they're out of the question, of course they are. You cannot distribute their copyrighted pictures without permission. What they do allow however is completely fan-made images. Have you not read the articles? That seems like a bit of a disingenuous thing to say, if you actually have.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Many things in that statement of IP rights blatantly contradict the law and could never be enforced (in court, on youtube or patreon it doesn't matter that your infringement claim is totally bogus, as long as you're a big company YT and Patreon will happily do your bidding), which GW knows perfectly well - they post it because they hope that you don't know that, and therefore will think their guidelines are actually an accurate summary of the law.

...Such as? Just what do you think that article says that isn't allowed under copyright law? There's nothing in those articles that goes against what copyright law says, it's the protections it allows in the first place.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Yes, they're out of the question, of course they are. You cannot distribute their copyrighted pictures without permission. What they do allow however is completely fan-made images.

No, I meant that old rules seemed to specifically not allow selling fan art; but didn't allow actually making it, and if you did, it belonged to GW anyway, just as "(derivative) miniatures they didn't even make yet".

Removed - Rule #1

 Shadenuat wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Yes, they're out of the question, of course they are. You cannot distribute their copyrighted pictures without permission. What they do allow however is completely fan-made images.

No, I meant that old rules seemed to specifically not allow selling fan art; but didn't allow actually making it, and if you did, it belonged to GW anyway, just as "(derivative) miniatures they didn't even make yet".

The article outright says you're allowed to make fan images as long as you don't sell them.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Plant wrote:
For everyone who is joining the boycott, can you please keep it up until I get a copy of the new kill team?

Problem is gamer boycotts usually come down to "company x has done something shifty, im only buying half of what I planned to"

I saw a discussion on another board that basically boils down to everyone planning to boycott GW over this was probably already boycotting GW, which is certainly true for me. However, public shaming of companies, as well as hitting critical mass on YouTube creators revolting, might have a more pronounced effect, maybe. I doubt GW will lose more than a few percentage points of profit n the next year, however if they make some boneheaded decisions in terms of price hikes or TOW’s release, something that affects current customers, then the underlying community discontent from this and other recent events could have a multiplier effect for them as we saw in the Kirby years. Maybe.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


No, they have not. Read the previous version of the guidelines. The same things are said - you need a license to make things and it even says that's regardless of if you monetize them or not. That has not changed.

Except they clearly have changed. The original language in that link you provide uses "ask, don't tell" with them calling your bluff and asking you not to use their IP without permission. "Please do not..." etc. The current one straight up orders you ("But these must...") not to use them in much more threatening terms. Those are, quite literally not the same things being said.

The word "please" appears 15 times in the page you linked. It appears twice in the current one.

yukishiro1 wrote:

You come here to condescend to people and tell them they're wrong, simple, and "on a different level of reality" and then not explain yourself? I guess that's your right, but it's a deeply unpleasant way to interact with people, as well as being incredibly hypocritical. "You hoi polloi couldn't possibly understand the workings of more sophisticated people like me or GW, so I'll just call you simple instead" displays exactly the "simple" attitude towards the subject you are supposedly decrying. For all your posturing about who's simple and who's sophisticated and "different levels of reality," you haven't demonstrated any understanding of the issue yourself - all you've done is say that people other people are simple. This is a terribly unconvincing way to debate, and is usually the province of people who don't actually have any idea what they're talking about.

So enlighten us, the unwashed, simple masses on the farm: why did GW "have" to take these particular steps at this particular time?

Let's get real, you're not debating with me or offended by what I said, you're angry at the way things are washing out back in the real world. You're not here to learn and you're not here to debate, you just want to argue because you're upset. And all I can tell you is, I'm sorry things aren't going the way you want them to. Thems are the breaks.

I'd hope you know GW is coming out with a new streaming service featuring a slate of animated series, and I'd also hope you'd put two and two together to realize that's why "today is the day" for GW stamping out IP violators in this domain. That's what changed.

If you want to do something about it, you'll have to talk to GW. They won't change just because you do, but that's at least a realistic avenue for addressing the situation. Warring on message boards isn't, I don't need to convince you of anything for GW to crush people unlawfully using their IP, and you can convince me of anything about the situation, and GW will still happily crush anyone unlawfully using their IP. We don't always get what we want, legal situations included, and I understand a lot of fans are not getting what they want here.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:


No, they have not. Read the previous version of the guidelines. The same things are said - you need a license to make things and it even says that's regardless of if you monetize them or not. That has not changed.

Except they clearly have changed. The original language in that link you provide uses "ask, don't tell" with them calling your bluff and asking you not to use their IP without permission. "Please do not..." etc. The current one straight up orders you ("But these must...") not to use them in much more threatening terms. Those are, quite literally not the same things being said.

The word "please" appears 15 times in the page you linked. It appears twice in the current one.

My post was in reply to was a claim that they've suddenly "removed an option" that was there before, when no, that is not the case. The rules themselves have not changed. Fan animations were not allowed in the old version, either.

What has changed is the wording of the article overall to shorten it and remove the unnecessary lengthy paragraphs. The actual rules there are the same as what was said before. The less friendly language applies to both sections, the guidelines and infringement, and instead is just part of the introduction paragraph - it just the result of that shortening.

 frankelee wrote:
and I'd also hope you'd put two and two together to realize that's why "today is the day" for GW stamping out IP violators in this domain. That's what changed.

of course this is the reason that started the latest wave of "letters" from GW

as well a making a new show in the pre-Kirk timeframe was the reason CBS acted against Axanar

yet for the legal situation, they were always on thin ice just being tolerated by the IP holders and nothing more (and those can change their mind from one day to another if it does not fit their business plans any more

 Shadenuat wrote:
Pretty sure they were changed exactly to acommodate for latest trends. "Movie" and "distribution" have a specific connotation to it, as in, full scale motion pictures and selling product in a traditional way (as opposed to rising non-traditional ways of monetization).

Well you are entitled to think so. Facts and laws disagree though

 frankelee wrote:

Let's get real, you're not debating with me or offended by what I said, you're angry at the way things are washing out back in the real world. You're not here to learn and you're not here to debate, you just want to argue because you're upset. And all I can tell you is, I'm sorry things aren't going the way you want them to. Thems are the breaks.

This is amazing projection. I have asked you to discuss the subject, you respond with insults while refusing to discuss the topic, while saying I'm the one here who isn't interested in the topic.

 frankelee wrote:

I'd hope you know GW is coming out with a new streaming service featuring a slate of animated series, and I'd also hope you'd put two and two together to realize that's why "today is the day" for GW stamping out IP violators in this domain. That's what changed.

Ah, so here we go: the supposed reason they "have" to do this is because they made a decision to do so. That's circular reasoning. Nothing GW has done here has been inevitable, nor was GW forced into any of it. GW has made a choice to step up enforcement of its IP. We can discuss that choice. But nobody forced them to, and they absolutely had the choice not to.

tneva82 wrote:
Well you are entitled to think so. Facts and laws disagree though

"Privileged to" would be even more awesome.

Yes, the rules never allowed anything, but things were allowed, except now when suddenly they are double un-allowed.

I feel like I'm in a madhouse.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

...Such as? Just what do you think that article says that isn't allowed under copyright law? There's nothing in those articles that goes against what copyright law says, it's the protections it allows in the first place.

Well, for starters, the blanket prohibition on fan animations, what we're all talking about here? It is a completely inaccurate expression of copyright law to claim a blanket right to prohibit all fan animations and movies. This completely ignores the concept of fair use. It is flat-out wrong as a statement of their rights. They do not have the right to prohibit all fan animations and movies. We can discuss whether a particular fan animation or movie would qualify for a fair use exemption, but to blanket state that all such animations are violations of GW's IP rights is flat-out wrong.

If you want a second example, they claim that fan sites must not post rules or stats from GW publications. This is also a truly laughable claim from a copyright point of view. Games Workshop doesn't have an enforceable IP right to enjoin you from posting the ballistic skill of an intercessor.

 Shadenuat wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well you are entitled to think so. Facts and laws disagree though

"Privileged to" would be even more awesome.

Yes, the rules never allowed anything, but things were allowed, except now when suddenly they are double un-allowed.

I feel like I'm in a madhouse.

I don't get what is meant to be so hard to understand here.

It allows the things it say are allowed. Fan images, sites, stories etc without making money on them.

It doesn't allow the things it says aren't allowed. Games, app, movies, anything else that hasn't been allowed, regardless of if you make money off it or not.

Honestly I think what happened is GW went to recruit some of these fan animators, started looking at them in more detail as a result and discovered all of their youtube animations are monentized, and most of them have a patreon, once that was discovered they almost certinly thought that seemed odd, talked to their lawyers who said "yeah dude thats a copyright breach" and GW acted in turn, first they acted on the ones they contacted, letting any who declined their job offers know that they had to demonentize their video. and then they updated their rules to reflect the fact that an aweful lot of fan movie makers are making a profit and endangering their control of the IP

"Oh, GW hasn't done anything to make Alfabusa stop!"

Well, no, but their policies have created a chilling effect. This is what everyone reasonable has been saying. Laying aside whether copyright law should be a thing or not, because you all know my positions on that, this is immoral. It is base intimidation.

I thought better of Kirioth and the like, but their position on this is clearly an attempt to not rock the boat.

BrianDavion wrote:
Honestly I think what happened is GW went to recruit some of these fan animators, started looking at them in more detail as a result and discovered all of their youtube animations are monentized, and most of them have a patreon, once that was discovered they almost certinly thought that seemed odd, talked to their lawyers who said "yeah dude thats a copyright breach" and GW acted in turn, first they acted on the ones they contacted, letting any who declined their job offers know that they had to demonentize their video. and then they updated their rules to reflect the fact that an aweful lot of fan movie makers are making a profit and endangering their control of the IP

That is definitely not what happened. That's not how corporate decisions are made. The decision to create warhammer+ would have been made at least a year ago, and every single animator was approached not with a "come work for us!" offer but a "you are violating our IP, either come work for us or we'll shut you down" ultimatum - worded less bluntly than that, but every single person who has talked about it admitted there was both the carrot and the stick from the very start.

GW had a plan here from the start.