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.
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 support this post, because it's the most pragmatic, I think.
In any case those who are upset have one action - convince people to not sign up for Warhammer+. I don't know that it will succeed, but not supporting GW financially is probably the only effective message you can send.
2021/07/31 19:34:18
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
...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.
The first one I can understand being unhappy with the article not saying things like parodies are allowed, when it really should. However, that is not an issue exclusive to this article - the previous version that has been in place for at least half a decade did not say that, either. They haven't suddenly decided to say that stuff isn't allowed, they've said you need a license for the past 6 years. In general though they are right, you cannot make animations, games etc using their IP without a license.
The second point though, those are guidelines for how to behave in an acceptable manner with their IP, it's absurd to try and make it out that "oh you posted a stat, now you'll be sued" as if that's all it takes. Especially when, again, asking not to post their copyrighted material is something they've said for the past 6 years.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't know that it will succeed, but not supporting GW financially is probably the only effective message you can send.
Well, I mean, that's demonstrably not true. GW has got an author in the Guardian to post not one but two different articles now aimed at blowing back against the low pay / maternity leave discrimination allegations that surfaced on twitter. It's only been a couple weeks, far too early to say whether there has been any actual financial backlash against them. But they've seen the need to seed the papers with favorable versions of the story. That demonstrates concern.
I have no doubt GW's PR team is carefully watching this whole thing to see how it's going to shake out, just like they're carefully watching the pay claim situation. This isn't the Kirby-era GW that explicitly dismissed social media and the importance of cultivating a good image. Whether that means GW is going to do anything I don't know, but the suggestion that the only way to send a message is financially is belied by GW's actual actions.
2021/07/31 19:35:52
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
IP law requires GW to defend their lisence or they lose it. don't like it? write to your congressman.
I corrected you on this previously. This is absolutely not true. Please stop repeating this verifiably wrong assertion. Whether you have enforced your copyright rights has zero impact on your future ability to enforce. Trademarks must only be enforced to stop the terms becoming generic - someone creating works set in your own universe using your trademarked terms is not diluting the trademark, if anything they are strengthening it.
...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.
The first one I can understand being unhappy with the article not saying things like parodies are allowed, when it really should. However, that is not an issue exclusive to this article - the previous version that has been in place for at least half a decade did not say that, either. They haven't suddenly decided to say that stuff isn't allowed, they've said you need a license for the past 6 years. In general though they are right, you cannot make animations, games etc using their IP without a license.
The second point though, those are guidelines for how to behave in an acceptable manner with their IP, it's absurd to try and make it out that "oh you posted a stat, now you'll be sued" as if that's all it takes. Especially when, again, asking not to post their copyrighted material is something they've said for the past 6 years.
You just changed the conversation. You asked what in there is inconsistent with copyright law. I gave you two examples. Now you're saying "yeah, but that doesn't mean they're actually going to sue." But that was my whole point: they claim you are not allowed to do a wide range of things here that you are, in fact, completely allowed to do, and that GW would never try to sue you over because they know there is zero chance they would win.
Hence my claim: those guidelines dramatically misstate the extent of the IP rights GW actually has under the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here's the most ridiculous example of all:
According to GW, fan sites must "not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property."
The idea that Games Workshop has any right to force fan sites to not say bad things about GW is so far beyond absurd that we're honestly into 1984 land.
Those guidelines are a statement of what Games Workshop wishes the law was, and what Games Workshop wants you to think the law is. Games Workshop is well aware that they are not reflective of what the law actually is, but they would be happy if they could fool you into thinking it is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 19:50:04
2021/07/31 19:58:07
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
yukishiro1 wrote: The idea that Games Workshop has any right to force fan sites to not say bad things about GW is so far beyond absurd that we're honestly into 1984 land
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.
And you won't, not because GW won't do it, but because they'll use Youtube and Patreon as cut outs so they don't have to take the heat.
As far as things being legal, there are plenty of things that it's legal to do that are generally frowned on. Just because something is legal does not mean there should not be repercussions from having done it.
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.
That's his legal right. Under the law, as stands in the US and UK, his parody is legally protected. He could make a billion dollars a month on it and it would still be protected. The issue is, and you seem to be in utter denial of it, that GW has a long history of not particularly giving a gak what the law actually says, and a long track record of indulging in what might be called 'vexatious litigation'.
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.
[b]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.
Hold on a sec, I want you all note of this here statement he makes.
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.
Unless you legally should. I'm sorry, btw, but don't lecture us about honesty and then proceed to the sort of dishonest argument you just did.
The first one I can understand being unhappy with the article not saying things like parodies are allowed, when it really should. However, that is not an issue exclusive to this article - the previous version that has been in place for at least half a decade did not say that, either. They haven't suddenly decided to say that stuff isn't allowed, they've said you need a license for the past 6 years. In general though they are right, you cannot make animations, games etc using their IP without a license.
Or review their products, or any other form of fair use. Which is, the problem. GW refuse to acknowledge that fair use 'exists'.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 20:22:22
2021/07/31 20:25:05
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
It's arguable whether his stuff is protected as parody, I don't think it's a legal slam dunk one way or the other; fair use claims almost never are. There's quite a range of stuff on his channel too, it's very conceivable that some of it would be found to be protected and some of it not, if it ever went to court.
That said: that's the whole point. There's a very plausible argument that what he is doing is legal. And his making money from it is irrelevant here, as the fair use case isn't based on it being non-commercial.
2021/07/31 20:36:00
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
yukishiro1 wrote: There's a very plausible argument that what he is doing is legal
But it doesn't matter, because he is smaller than the opponent, and thus most likely it would be impossible for him to protect himself.
Which is also largely irrelevant, as his opponent hasn't actually asked him to do anything for the last eight years, and hasn't really shown any sign they're about to change.
2021/07/31 20:42:16
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Which is also largely irrelevant, as his opponent hasn't actually asked him to do anything for the last eight years, and hasn't really shown any sign they're about to change.
Other than, you know, specifically calling out what he was doing as something they're going to crack down on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 20:44:46
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2021/07/31 20:43:55
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Which is also largely irrelevant, as his opponent hasn't actually asked him to do anything for the last eight years, and hasn't really shown any sign they're about to change.
Other than, you know, specifically calling out what he was doing as something they're going to crack down on.
Except, you know, the previous version of the guidelines that were there for over half a decade also said the same thing about needing a license.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 20:44:31
2021/07/31 20:45:30
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
People being able to do whatever the hell they want (including make an income) with fanworks is a good thing for communities, actually. The fact that anyone actually defends the further corporatization of the internet is proof of the cyberpunk hell world we live in.
2021/07/31 20:48:06
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Except, you know, the previous version of the guidelines that were there for over half a decade also said the same thing about needing a license.
Specifically? Or did it say 'any other'?
Are you trying to say that the line "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP" in a context involving things that are similar to " a video game, an app, some merchandise, a movie" wouldn't have animations coming under "anything else"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 20:49:32
2021/07/31 20:52:00
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Are you trying to say that with the line "anything else that you will be distributing using Games Workshop’s IP" in a context involving things that are similar to " a video game, an app, some merchandise, a movie" wouldn't have animations coming under "anything else"?
I'm saying that there's a degree of implied threat from going from a general statement like that to specifically calling out something.
Think the difference between 'Jimmy, deal with the Trash' and 'Jimmy, shoot this fether in the head'.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2021/07/31 20:55:07
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Acting like it's irrelevant that GW has recently been going around giving people similar to him a "work for us or get shut down" ultimatum is truly strange.
I mean if you want to argue it was premature of him to do this before GW actually brought down the hammer that's a fine argument to make. But to act like there hasn't been a significant change in GW's approach in the last couple months is to willfully deny reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 20:55:41
2021/07/31 20:58:37
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
BaronIveagh wrote: It'd be better to say 'break their legs' instead. Better Mob equivalent.
Shoot their legs then? Very Dakka. Ugh, and one admin said I am a warrior-poet of Eldar community. Can't even keep up with you guys.
yukishiro1 wrote: I mean if you want to argue it was premature of him to do this before GW actually brought down the hammer that's a fine argument to make.
It's probably legally easier to stop than wait for "choice" or C&D letter or some such. He has a kid, he doesn't need all that gak, I would prefer him standing up for his work but I fully empathize.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 21:04:09
2021/07/31 21:02:23
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
I dunno, if I was raking in 18k a month from patreon I'd probably keep doing it until I got an actual letter from GW, especially if I had a much better case for legality than most animators do.
But I understand his decision, and the idea that it was just some decision he made freely without any pressure from seeing the guy to the left and the guy to the right both get "work for us or be closed down" ultimatums is beyond silly.
2021/07/31 21:02:32
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
"Anything else" is super vague and I think thats the point people are getting at. What happens if you name your pet after a Warhammer character, set up a social media account then monetise that account? Can GW legally sue you? Think of the most out-there reason of how someone could end up monetising GW content and that technically could apply. "Anything else" wouldn't hold up in a court.
2021/07/31 21:04:09
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Very little of those guidelines would hold up in court. But GW wants to make you think it would, and a lot of it would be enforced by youtube and patreon even if it isn't legally enforceable, because they will shut down almost anything if they get a complaint from a big company about it, regardless of the merits.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 21:04:50
2021/07/31 21:06:54
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
yukishiro1 wrote: Very little of those guidelines would hold up in court.
Such as? Other than situations involving the obvious parody/review/abstract quotation etc fair dealing exceptions it doesn't mention.
Gert wrote: "Anything else" is super vague and I think thats the point people are getting at. What happens if you name your pet after a Warhammer character, set up a social media account then monetise that account? Can GW legally sue you? Think of the most out-there reason of how someone could end up monetising GW content and that technically could apply. "Anything else" wouldn't hold up in a court.
Making things less-vague is the purpose of the re-wording, they removed all the unnecessary length from the main parts of it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/31 21:09:37
2021/07/31 21:22:28
Subject: Re:If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
I already gave you three specific examples. Your response was "yeah ok but they wouldn't actually sue over that," which is precisely my point: they would never sue, because their guidelines aren't legally enforceable.
The guidelines wildly overstate GW's IP rights.
2021/07/31 21:29:31
Subject: If the Emperor had a Text to speech device on indefinite hiatus
Such as? Other than situations involving the obvious parody/review/abstract quotation etc fair dealing exceptions it doesn't mention.
Which they have previously threatened lawsuits over.
This one probably wouldn't make it.
"not be publicly distributed, except for no-charge digital distribution" as by including it in the 'hobby magazines' section, it would, by it's very nature, have to be allowed to be physically mailed. It fails the 'reasonable person' test that most courts in the US would apply in this situation. GW themselves would fail this requirement, having done exactly this in the past.
"not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property" from the fan sites section is utter garbage, and could run into issues with US law regarding legal protections of service providers and website owners.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 21:41:49
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
