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:


No it wouldn't. The context and meaning of the line is "don't use our IP in a way that aims to cause harm to our IP or business". That's the sort of thing slander/libel/defamation law and the like is for, those laws have their own criteria and cannot be done for things as simple as a bad review, unless it involves things like false statements.

And just like the rest of it, their previous guidelines (which, are actually still in place as they're on the forgeworld site) say the same thing.

Nope. It talks about fan sites in general. This is a fan site.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.

Unless I've missed something, the videos were taken down because he agreed to work with GW - so they were removed to be put on Warhammer+ as a result of that. He then changed his mind due to the community harassing him for taking the job.

They told him to take his videos down regardless of whether or not he worked with them.

Have you got a source for that? Tried to find it but can't

a_typical_hero wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
This is, again, not the choice some creators are saying they were given. At least one (SODAZ) is stating that they were told their content had to be taken down, not just demonetized, and the choice was whether or not it could reappear on Warhammer+.

It seems weird that some are allowed to go on without monetisation and some would have to completely take their stuff down.

Since the modder refuses to mention who actually contacted him it is entirely possible the game publisher and not GW asked for it. Their objective would be to simply remove the monetization which goes against the guidelines for the games mods. This might be at GW's request, or it might be preemptive to stop GW from stepping in.

My guess until more information comes out - the game publisher asked for the monetization to be removed and it had nothing directly to do with GW.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It seems you just entirely ignored the explanation for that line I just gave. If you don't think it's reasonable for a company to request in a set of guidelines that if you use their IP, then you don't use that IP to try and harm their buisiness, then yes, there's no point continuing.

'A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years.'

That is the claim in contention and what the person you replied to took issue with.

Is the new policy asserting long-standing legal rights? Or is it making requests that may not actually carry force of law? Pick one.

If it's asserting 'what was their right to begin with', then it's nuts, because GW has no right to demand you only use their IP if you're being nice to them. They just don't. That's not how fair use works.

If the policy represents pretty-please requests that go beyond their actual legal rights as a business, then clearly that line about GW merely asserting their legal rights is incorrect.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

No it wouldn't. The context and meaning of the line is "don't use our IP in a way that aims to cause harm to our IP or business". That's the sort of thing slander/libel/defamation law and the like is for, those laws have their own criteria and cannot be done for things as simple as a bad review, unless it involves things like false statements.

Completely ignoring the fact that GW *HAS DONE THIS ALREADY* and went about it by claiming that because the review included a picture of the product in question, it was an IP issue. (and libel doesn't really apply if the review is either objectively true or clearly spelled out as opinon rather than fact.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veldrain wrote:

Since the modder refuses to mention who actually contacted him it is entirely possible the game publisher and not GW asked for it. Their objective would be to simply remove the monetization which goes against the guidelines for the games mods. This might be at GW's request, or it might be preemptive to stop GW from stepping in.

My guess until more information comes out - the game publisher asked for the monetization to be removed and it had nothing directly to do with GW.

If it was, they would have gone after every mod that's monetized via Patrion, since CA have a pretty good idea who they are, they sort of advertise it and have for years, on CA's forums.

GW's policy can't be simultenously "simply restating what was their policy for years, with no actual changes, because it's their basic right as a company" and "absolutely un-enforcable due to fair use and nothing you have to worry about". Pick one, smh

 catbarf wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It seems you just entirely ignored the explanation for that line I just gave. If you don't think it's reasonable for a company to request in a set of guidelines that if you use their IP, then you don't use that IP to try and harm their buisiness, then yes, there's no point continuing.

'A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years.'

That is the claim in contention and what the person you replied to took issue with.

Is the new policy asserting long-standing legal rights? Or is it making requests that may not actually carry force of law? Pick one.

If it's asserting 'what was their right to begin with', then it's nuts, because GW has no right to demand you only use their IP if you're being nice to them. They just don't. That's not how fair use works.

If the policy represents pretty-please requests that go beyond their actual legal rights as a business, then clearly that line about GW merely asserting their legal rights is incorrect.

That’s not really what it means though is it.

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen, or SS knights, or their characters being used as mascots for the Alt Right or other extremists, or similar things to what Arch got told to rename for.

And probably also actual libel (for which the UK had some of the strictest laws on the planet).

You’re just choosing to interpret it to an extreme to feed a ‘GW is evil’ narrative.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It seems you just entirely ignored the explanation for that line I just gave. If you don't think it's reasonable for a company to request in a set of guidelines that if you use their IP, then you don't use that IP to try and harm their buisiness, then yes, there's no point continuing.

'A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years.'

That is the claim in contention and what the person you replied to took issue with.

Is the new policy asserting long-standing legal rights? Or is it making requests that may not actually carry force of law? Pick one.

If it's asserting 'what was their right to begin with', then it's nuts, because GW has no right to demand you only use their IP if you're being nice to them. They just don't. That's not how fair use works.

If the policy represents pretty-please requests that go beyond their actual legal rights as a business, then clearly that line about GW merely asserting their legal rights is incorrect.

That’s not really what it means though is it.

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen, or SS knights, or their characters being used as mascots for the Alt Right or other extremists, or similar things to what Arch got told to rename for.

And probably also actual libel (for which the UK had some of the strictest laws on the planet).

You’re just choosing to interpret it to an extreme to feed a ‘GW is evil’ narrative.

I mean, have you seen what gets deleted on GW FB posts? Some of it is terrible gak like above but most of it is pretty innocuous.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It seems you just entirely ignored the explanation for that line I just gave. If you don't think it's reasonable for a company to request in a set of guidelines that if you use their IP, then you don't use that IP to try and harm their buisiness, then yes, there's no point continuing.

'A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years.'

That is the claim in contention and what the person you replied to took issue with.

Is the new policy asserting long-standing legal rights? Or is it making requests that may not actually carry force of law? Pick one.

If it's asserting 'what was their right to begin with', then it's nuts, because GW has no right to demand you only use their IP if you're being nice to them. They just don't. That's not how fair use works.

If the policy represents pretty-please requests that go beyond their actual legal rights as a business, then clearly that line about GW merely asserting their legal rights is incorrect.

That’s not really what it means though is it.

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen, or SS knights, or their characters being used as mascots for the Alt Right or other extremists, or similar things to what Arch got told to rename for.

And probably also actual libel (for which the UK had some of the strictest laws on the planet).

You’re just choosing to interpret it to an extreme to feed a ‘GW is evil’ narrative.

How do you know this? Have they stated this was the intent?

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I’m on the other side of the issue in terms of “stealing from many is research”. But that also means I support youtube creators’ rights to create parodies by slapping fart jokes on your IP.

I very much think that copyright as it works today is way too strict and tends to give too much power to huge companies, no matter what people naively say about it being good for everyone.

When it comes to Games Worksop then Sly Marbo, for example, was more parody of actor and character than "just inspiration" when he was first released. That goes for a lot of early GW stuff. Before they had solidly established their worlds and IPs they were much more direct in taking their inspiration. If they can "get inspired" by so much of the culture around us then somebody making silly animations with voiceovers based on their work shouldn't be a problem.

In a related note, has anyone read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies or Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters? Straight up plagiarism transformed (into parody?) through the addition of copious nonsense. I wonder how GW, or more importantly the fan community, would react to something like Eisenhorn in the Time of Cholera…

Plagiarism is mainly about attribution, meaning copying something and depicting it as one's own work without mentioning the original author/creator. The works these are based on are in the public domain (like most old creative work should be, in my opinion) and they don't try to claim that all the material was exclusively made by the author of these novels (it's transformative in nature and Jane Austen is clearly mentioned on the front and back cover, the attribution on the back even has a bit of fun with it), unlike how GW's representatives talked in the Chapterhouse lawsuit ("completely formed in their creatives' minds without outside inspiration" or whatever that laughable quote was).

If copyright didn't get Disney-fied then GW stuff from about 20 to 30 years ago would be in the public domain by now and free to use by anyone and we wouldn't even have this discussion. There might even have been big Hollywood blockbusters based on it (besides stuff like Event Horizon) by now ;-)

 catbarf wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It seems you just entirely ignored the explanation for that line I just gave. If you don't think it's reasonable for a company to request in a set of guidelines that if you use their IP, then you don't use that IP to try and harm their buisiness, then yes, there's no point continuing.

'A company updating their copyright guidelines to explicitely include/mention what was their right to begin with and has been for the past umpteen years.'

That is the claim in contention and what the person you replied to took issue with.

Is the new policy asserting long-standing legal rights? Or is it making requests that may not actually carry force of law? Pick one.

If it's asserting 'what was their right to begin with', then it's nuts, because GW has no right to demand you only use their IP if you're being nice to them. They just don't. That's not how fair use works.

If the policy represents pretty-please requests that go beyond their actual legal rights as a business, then clearly that line about GW merely asserting their legal rights is incorrect.

The illustrates a problem I have with a lot of the arguments - it involves simplifying and taking out of context what has been said in order to make an extreme or absurd version, and then arguing against that. It's a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. That, alongside all the hyperbole I've seen with some of this, is really misconstruing the whole thing to such a level that it's not even really botherhing to to contend with what is actually said.

Your claim of "GW has no right to demand you only use their IP if you're being nice to them." is the specific part I'm referring to, because that is not what is presented within the guidelines. You've taken it to such an absurd simplification that, to me, comes across as somewhat disingenuous, especially given I've already said on the past few posts that's not the case. Nowhere in those guidelines does it say you can only use the IP "if you're being nice to them". What it does say however, is not to use their IP to try and cause harm relating to the intangible assets of their IP/company, which they absolutely can try and protect - those are the sort of things libel, slander and defamation laws are for, but even beyond that it's important to remember there have been certain youtubers who GW have stopped using parts of their IP because of the utterly hateful content they produced and not wanting to be associated with that, and also the whole "Warhammer is for everyone" thing where they condemned such horrible views.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

If it was, they would have gone after every mod that's monetized via Patrion, since CA have a pretty good idea who they are, they sort of advertise it and have for years, on CA's forums.

Apparently something will be stated soon about this. Look at the Da Modding Den discord server (I put the link last page) for more details about why others are silent for now.

Sarouan wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

If it was, they would have gone after every mod that's monetized via Patrion, since CA have a pretty good idea who they are, they sort of advertise it and have for years, on CA's forums.

Apparently something will be stated soon about this. Look at the Da Modding Den discord server (I put the link last page) for more details about why others are silent for now.

He posted a comment on one of his workshop items saying "wait for official announcement which should arrive in few days/weeks max" too, whatever that meant.

Edit: I don't quite get what the situation is here, actually. Was he contacted and told to remove stuff, or not? Because he's said he's been contacted and asked to remove stuff, but then says he's removed the patreon/paid links and the mentions of Warhammer and says "Hopefully this concludes the steps necessary to be in compliance with GW's new policy and we can continue to get on with our work" as if he doesn't really know or hasn't been told what they want him to do.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Nowhere in those guidelines does it say you can only use the IP "if you're being nice to them". What it does say however, is not to use their IP to try and cause harm relating to the intangible assets of their IP/company, which they absolutely can try and protect

Yes, they can try and protect their IP. But if a use of their IP is fair use, it doesn't matter if it causes them harm or not, it's legal. You can absolutely criticize GW, trying to cause harm to the intangible assets of their IP/company, and use their IP to do it provided you obey the restrictions provided by fair use.

They are asserting that you cannot use their IP to cause harm to their property, when in actual fact you very well can. But that doesn't mean they can't sue you, even if the lawsuit is ultimately baseless.

We don't know whether this is merely politely asking that nobody use their IP to promote hateful views as you suggest, or if they actually intend to sue people who use their IP in ways protected as fair use. It's happened before. You're asserting the former without giving us any reason to believe it beyond 'dude trust me'.

Either way, since their new policies extend beyond their actual legal reach, the statement that this policy represents merely an assertion of their long-standing legal rights is factually untrue. The record company can tell you that copying their CDs isn't allowed, and you can create excuses for them like supposing that they'll only use it to go after bootleggers, but the fact is that fair use provisions allow copying CDs under certain conditions and the company's policy is legally unenforceable. Same deal.

 catbarf wrote:
But if a use of their IP is fair use, it doesn't matter if it causes them harm or not, it's legal.

and this is decided by court, if it is in the USA, while UK has nor "fair use" in copyright law

they have "fair dealing", which is also a case by case basis, yet if the company can make the point that they lose money because of it, it is not fair and therefore illegal

and GW can perfectly claim that with people paying for animations that are not from them while not buying their animation (specially after WH+ running), so all those are illegal by "fair use" in the UK

 kodos wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
But if a use of their IP is fair use, it doesn't matter if it causes them harm or not, it's legal.

and this is decided by court

Which will end badly regardless of the verdict, as we've seen before. Games Workshop won the GW vs Chapterhouse lawsuit, but they completly bled Chapterhouse dry of their funds, ending in them bankrupting, and GW having the last laugh.

 catbarf wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
Nowhere in those guidelines does it say you can only use the IP "if you're being nice to them". What it does say however, is not to use their IP to try and cause harm relating to the intangible assets of their IP/company, which they absolutely can try and protect

Yes, they can try and protect their IP. But if a use of their IP is fair use, it doesn't matter if it causes them harm or not, it's legal. You can absolutely criticize GW, trying to cause harm to the intangible assets of their IP/company, and use their IP to do it provided you obey the restrictions provided by fair use.

They are asserting that you cannot use their IP to cause harm to their property, when in actual fact you very well can. But that doesn't mean they can't sue you, even if the lawsuit is ultimately baseless.

We don't know whether this is merely politely asking that nobody use their IP to promote hateful views as you suggest, or if they actually intend to sue people who use their IP in ways protected as fair use. It's happened before. You're asserting the former without giving us any reason to believe it beyond 'dude trust me'.

Either way, since their new policies extend beyond their actual legal reach, the statement that this policy represents merely an assertion of their long-standing legal rights is factually untrue. The record company can tell you that copying their CDs isn't allowed, and you can create excuses for them like supposing that they'll only use it to go after bootleggers, but the fact is that fair use provisions allow copying CDs under certain conditions and the company's policy is legally unenforceable. Same deal.

You trying to make out its a situation of "they're claiming this is part of IP law when its not" is misconstruing what's said again. Nowhere do they claim that the "don't use our IP to cause harm to us" has anything to do with the copyright or trademark law side of things in itself, that's something you've stuck onto that to try and discredit it. Neither do they say you "cannot" actually do that as if that's what the law says, the words used are "must not" because they're guidelines to follow in order to try and avoid situations where they might have to sue you for defamation and such. The whole point of these - at least for the guidelines part - is to give a basis for how to use their IP in a way that limits the need for them to do that sort of thing.

There's also the obvious thing about "fair use" not being a thing in the UK, but rather "Fair Dealing" which is determined on a case by case basis without so much as defined criteria of what does and doesn't count. That something may or may not be exempt depending on the situation does not change that the infringement related stuff here is what the law says.

kodos wrote:and this is decided by court, if it is in the USA, while UK has nor "fair use" in copyright law

Exactly. That's why this is a problem- nobody wants to go to court, no matter how airtight their use of copyrighted material. That's why things like the legal posture of a company are important, especially when they start throwing up red flags for overreaching. That's why chilling effects happen.

Mentlegen324 wrote:Nowhere do they claim that the "don't use our IP to cause harm to us" has anything to do with the copyright or trademark law side of things in itself

Then don't defend the claim that all the policy is doing is restating their legal rights?

I wouldn't take very seriously anyone arguing GW's guidelines are a reasonable expression of their legal rights. It's simply not true - see the discussion a few pages ago, I went into this in some detail. The guidelines are full of truly ridiculous restrictions that would be literally laughed out of court if GW ever tried to action them.

Here, let me violate GW's guidelines right now: Intercessors have a BS of a 3+. There, I'm in violation according to the guideline that states you must not post stats. Let's all wait for GW to haul me away, along with probably ever other person who's ever posted on dakka.
Yes, GW actually does claim that you cannot include stats in your posts on fan forums. That's an actual thing. I'm sure GW would like you to think they have a right to stop you including stats in posts on the internet, but needless to say, they do not. The guidelines are not a summary of what IP law is, they're a summary of what GW would love IP law to be if they were the masters of the universe.

If someone continues to argue that the guidelines are a reasonable and accurate expression of the extent of GW's IP rights despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, it probably isn't worth arguing with that person.

It is, they are just acting according to UK law and not US law

and for now, fan-creations have always just been tolerated if they were for free

as soon as you made money, every company was going after you
this does not change because the earnings are donations, or because it is GW and not Star Wars

there are a lot of things people can be angry for what GW have done
but in this case, making money with someone else work and than the people giving that money complain because this is not fair as they lose on something they paid for

fair use is not an argument as you don't know if it was fair use until you go to court
yet it was not fair use under UK/EU law because they made money with it

I mean, that's just wrong. It is not the case that making money automatically disqualifies one from a fair dealing claim under UK law, any more than it disqualifies one from a fair use claim under US law.

 catbarf wrote:

kodos wrote:and this is decided by court, if it is in the USA, while UK has nor "fair use" in copyright law

Exactly. That's why this is a problem- nobody wants to go to court, no matter how airtight their use of copyrighted material. That's why things like the legal posture of a company are important, especially when they start throwing up red flags for overreaching. That's why chilling effects happen.

Mentlegen324 wrote:Nowhere do they claim that the "don't use our IP to cause harm to us" has anything to do with the copyright or trademark law side of things in itself

Then don't defend the claim that all the policy is doing is restating their legal rights?

I see you ignored all the rest of what was said in order to cherry-pick one specific line and attempt to use that as a "Gotcha!" moment.

Despite what some claim, the guidelines do not go against what the law says. It's either something covered by IP law directly like the part about needing a license and not posting copyrighted material, or it's related to the concept of protecting their brand/business from harm as the result of using their IP. These are guidelines in order to try and minimize the need to take further action.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen,

Um, GW themselves have already done this. Who, pray tell, do you think the Steel Legion is modeled after? It's a fallschirmjäger wearing a British gas mask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

I see you ignored all the rest of what was said in order to cherry-pick one specific line and attempt to use that as a "Gotcha!" moment.

Pot, Kettle Black.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

I see you ignored all the rest of what was said in order to cherry-pick one specific line and attempt to use that as a "Gotcha!" moment.

Pot, Kettle Black.

Care to elaborate?

yukishiro1 wrote:
I mean, that's just wrong. It is not the case that making money automatically disqualifies one from a fair dealing claim under UK law, any more than it disqualifies one from a fair use claim under US law.

but it makes it much much easier to claim that the original owner of the IP lost income

if it is for free, harder to claim that people would have paid for it if made by the IP owner

if the others make money with something like Patreon, you even have a number to show your losses


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen,

Um, GW themselves have already done this. Who, pray tell, do you think the Steel Legion is modeled after? It's a fallschirmjäger wearing a British gas mask.

which is still different from showing up with swatiska or SS symbols on your minis

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

He posted a comment on one of his workshop items saying "wait for official announcement which should arrive in few days/weeks max" too, whatever that meant.

Edit: I don't quite get what the situation is here, actually. Was he contacted and told to remove stuff, or not? Because he's said he's been contacted and asked to remove stuff, but then says he's removed the patreon/paid links and the mentions of Warhammer and says "Hopefully this concludes the steps necessary to be in compliance with GW's new policy and we can continue to get on with our work" as if he doesn't really know or hasn't been told what they want him to do.

That's the thing. We actually don't know. His statement is too vague about that, which leads to anyone making assumptions based on their beliefs (which is why the GW haters jump the gun and say it's GW).

From the discord, it seems someone contacted a handful of modders (known to have patreon apparently) in anticipation of something that will be stated officially later, but another modder who supposedly is in the know says he can't talk about it for now. Radious seems to have decided to make that public statement by himself, and it seems like what he's saying is not entirely true.

Better wait and see, and enjoy the current debate right now about "do they have chances in court ?" or "do you think it's right / wrong to do that ?". Which is endless, by the way, everyone is camping on their positions and it's clear they won't change their mindset, since it's just opinions, not facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arbitrator wrote:

Spoiler:

By the way, that picture could be taken from anywhere.

Also, Sodaz is korean and doesn't speak english well. This looks more like a bad translation from Google Trad and can easily distort the original sense of the post.

Like explained here :

The only suggestion at all that GW gave him an ultimate is one post he made on a Korean forums that was badly mangled by Google translate (or similar) in every English version of it I've found and sounds more like a transcript of a chat or of emails back and forth than any kind of actual instructions.

Valrak gave some details here but the long and the short of it is that he chose to abandon Warhammer as a community because people treated him like gak for even considering to work with GW.

It sounds like, absolute worst case scenario, GW exercised their IP rights and asked him to take his videos down, THEN offered him a job. I can think of absolutely no world in which that makes GW the bad guys unless you're someone so entitled that you can't stand the idea of not being able to get things for free.

What we know about Sodaz's story is this :

Yes, they made a statement saying that after they announced they'd been approached by GW to start working with them, and took their Warhammer videos down at GW's request as part of those negotiations, that people started harassing them, going into even non-Warhammer videos they'd created to insult and degrade them for "selling out" and the like, and as a result not only did they turn down the job with GW but they are not putting their Warhammer videos back up and are not making any future Warhammer animations as they no longer want to be associated in any way with this community.

Source : https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/olntkj/todays_sodaz_reactions/h5h5f2h/

 kodos wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I mean, that's just wrong. It is not the case that making money automatically disqualifies one from a fair dealing claim under UK law, any more than it disqualifies one from a fair use claim under US law.

but it makes it much much easier to claim that the original owner of the IP lost income

if it is for free, harder to claim that people would have paid for it if made by the IP owner

if the others make money with something like Patreon, you even have a number to show your losses


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen,

Um, GW themselves have already done this. Who, pray tell, do you think the Steel Legion is modeled after? It's a fallschirmjäger wearing a British gas mask.

which is still different from showing up with swatiska or SS symbols on your minis

Have you looked at the very basic symbol of the Imperium, the Aquilla? That's the Nazi Eagle, just Legally Distinct.

Eagles feature on loads of historic and current flags around the world. Both single and duel headed ones.

If I buy a boardgame in presence of a 40k box, can GW sue me for lost profits? I was near their IP and didn't give them money...

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 kodos wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I mean, that's just wrong. It is not the case that making money automatically disqualifies one from a fair dealing claim under UK law, any more than it disqualifies one from a fair use claim under US law.

but it makes it much much easier to claim that the original owner of the IP lost income

if it is for free, harder to claim that people would have paid for it if made by the IP owner

if the others make money with something like Patreon, you even have a number to show your losses


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

It’s to avoid things like Nazi Guardsmen,

Um, GW themselves have already done this. Who, pray tell, do you think the Steel Legion is modeled after? It's a fallschirmjäger wearing a British gas mask.

which is still different from showing up with swatiska or SS symbols on your minis

Have you looked at the very basic symbol of the Imperium, the Aquilla? That's the Nazi Eagle, just Legally Distinct.

The very fact that's officially known as an Aquilla means it is a Roman Eagle, not a Nazi one.

I know the Nazis did stylise themselves on the Roman Empire but the fact that the 40k Aquilla has 2 heads and is stylistically different means it isn't a Nazi Eagle.

It supposed to infer a fascist, totallitarian regime so obviously will draw parallels, but it isn't specifically a Nazi symbol. And sci-fi uses eagles to represent bad guys all the time, it isn't distinct to 40K.

And single and 2 headed eagles are common in the real world - they aren't all Nazi flags.