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.
2021/09/03 12:18:55
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Mentlegen324 wrote: I think it's absurd how so many seem to be trying to make out GW as being bad by doing this. Should they not be allowed to stop unauthorized uses of their IP?
Exactly right. Also, it's important to note that IP infringement (of whatever kind) doesn't just hurt a business in terms of sales. There's reputational damage to take into account, plus long term damage to the brand. This has the potential to become a much bigger problem than merely losing the odd sale here and there.
In the other thread about the guidelines there were plenty of people making the baffling claim that they couldn't try and protect their reputation and goodwill or that they shouldn't be allowed to do anything to stop that sort of damage to their brand and/or business.
There seems to be a lot of poorly informed jumping to conclusions and misrepresentation that goes on with any sort of IP-law related news. Seems the facts of it don't matter to some.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 12:32:24
Seems like a lot of people here are saying this is a nothing burger due to the fact that Games Workshop isn't hiring an actual lawyer. Therefore, anyone who says this is another sign that GW is going to ramp up their IP enforcement attempts is a dum-dum, because a person in this role can't physically litigate anything themselves.
Is that the gist of it?
If so, then you should know that Games Workshop doesn't actually need lawyers for every aspect of their IP claims.
For example: Midwinter Minis got his YouTube channel copyright struck by Games Workshop yesterday for his review of Warhammer+. Think a lawyer did that, or was it some menial on Games Workshop's IP/copyright team who was tasked with finding things to strike - just like the role from the OP?
phandaal wrote: Seems like a lot of people here are saying this is a nothing burger due to the fact that Games Workshop isn't hiring an actual lawyer. Therefore, anyone who says this is another sign that GW is going to ramp up their IP enforcement attempts is a dum-dum, because a person in this role can't physically litigate anything themselves.
Is that the gist of it?
If so, then you should know that Games Workshop doesn't actually need lawyers for every aspect of their IP claims.
For example: Midwinter Minis got his YouTube channel copyright struck by Games Workshop yesterday for his review of Warhammer+. Think a lawyer did that, or was it some menial on Games Workshop's IP/copyright team who was tasked with finding things to strike - just like the role from the OP?
Except they didn't copyright strike, as Midwinter points out in the comments to his video himself. And it's still online.
The starting point of this discussion is a nothing burger. GW is hiring for a junior role, most likely a replacement for someone leaving.
Maybe GW is playing unfair with its IP law options. But them hiring some assistant is not a sign of impending doom.
Pacific wrote: That's very interesting to read StraightSilver - thanks for adding a bit of context there. Would certainly explain why GW recently seems to have been going back to the late 00's recently with the legal ongoings.
It's not just GW - TT Combat is doing it as well, and have banned discussion of 3D printing from their official channels:
We would like everyone to be aware that 3d printing of alternatives to official product is not something we want to encourage so any posts in regard to 3D printented models will be removed.
That's interesting, although I would have thought TT Combat probably have the least to worry out of anyone, as their prices probably undercut anyone doing re-casts or re-prints!
Except they didn't copyright strike, as Midwinter points out in the comments to his video himself. And it's still online.
Wondering why you would choose to represent this as if Games Workshop didn't actually do anything.
Games Workshop took copyright action against his channel, which you obviously know if you read the comment he left.
The word that Midwinter Minis uses to describe the action doesn't change the fact that Games Workshop had to have a person go to YouTube and make a claim against his video.
Except they didn't copyright strike, as Midwinter points out in the comments to his video himself. And it's still online.
Wondering why you would choose to represent this as if Games Workshop didn't actually do anything.
Games Workshop took copyright action against his channel, which you obviously know if you read the comment he left.
The word that Midwinter Minis uses to describe the action doesn't change the fact that Games Workshop had to have a person go to YouTube and make a claim against his video.
This. Further reviews are technically protected aswell.
Therefore shouldn't Midwinters video fall in most countries under Fair use and therefore GW shouldn't have a right to demonetize?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/09/03 13:09:34
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
StraightSilver wrote: Just to add a bit of context for those outside of the UK (where GW is based).
The UK used to be part of WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization).
This was a group of 193 member states who collaborated together to protect intellectual property.
However, from September 2021 (the end of the 9 month Brexit transition period), the UK actually leaves WIPO.
This was one of those "unforeseen" consequences of Brexit (which is ridiculous but hey, the whole thing has been a clown show...).
The UK may well rejoin WIPO but, for the time being, is on its own and is now UKIPO.
This has both weakened IP protection for UK companies, but at the same time because we now sit outside WIPO allows UK companies to go after infringements within those 193 member states that they couldn't before.
So if you're wondering why, all of a sudden GW seem to be making a big deal regarding IP protection, it's because UK companies are currently panicking as they don't actually know how to protect their IP.....
Except they didn't copyright strike, as Midwinter points out in the comments to his video himself. And it's still online.
Wondering why you would choose to represent this as if Games Workshop didn't actually do anything.
Games Workshop took copyright action against his channel, which you obviously know if you read the comment he left.
The word that Midwinter Minis uses to describe the action doesn't change the fact that Games Workshop had to have a person go to YouTube and make a claim against his video.
You chose this.
The claim apparently is that Midwinter used too much of their video content in his video, so he should not generate profit from said video. Midwinter's objection is that, although he did use their content, it was not enough to warrant de-monetization. So he objected.
I think this is enough of a grey area to give them both the benefit of the doubt - both probably thought they were doing the right thing. Let's just see how this plays out, shall we? And yes, it's not a good PR move on GW's part.
Except they didn't copyright strike, as Midwinter points out in the comments to his video himself. And it's still online.
Wondering why you would choose to represent this as if Games Workshop didn't actually do anything.
Games Workshop took copyright action against his channel, which you obviously know if you read the comment he left.
The word that Midwinter Minis uses to describe the action doesn't change the fact that Games Workshop had to have a person go to YouTube and make a claim against his video.
This. Further reviews are technically protected aswell.
Therefore shouldn't Midwinters video fall in most countries under Fair use and therefore GW shouldn't have a right to demonetize?
In that case he has nothing to fear and his objection will go through.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/03 13:13:03
2021/09/03 13:16:20
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
GW thinks anything with wings is going to cause "brand confusion".... give me a break.
The double headed eagle is public domain. The double headed eagle is a historical symbol used by many cultures and empires.
The GW aquila logo/design is a straight up ripoff of the motif. It should not be protected trademark for that reason
I suggest you read up on trademarks, unless this is some disingenuous take, because it sounds like you have quite a strange interpretation of how they work.
A trademark is there to show the source of something. The function of them is to give across a message of "This thing belongs to ___" so that you can tell whos it is or what it belongs to and so they have to be identifiable for a specific company or brand or thing in a way that means you can tell them apart from others. Their Aquila is a uniquely stylized design that is recognizable as identifier for GW and their brand within the contexts its used, it being broadly based on a historical motif doesn't change that.
2021/09/03 13:26:16
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
A copyright strike like that against Midwinter probably didn’t hurt his revenue at all.
If the strike did anything it most likely will have increased his channel subs, views and thumbs.
Simply because of this strike.
I’ve seen this happen several times now with a couple of different channels and it has done nothing but increase each channels subs, views, and watch time, which increases revenue.
While it might seem that GW is the evil empire (and don’t get me wrong, strikes like this are BS), but to even think it did Midwinter any harm at all in the short, or long term is a fallacy.
He’s likely making even more because supporters will flock to his channel solely for that reason. I don’t feel sorry for huge channels like that at all. They’re already cashing in on GWs IP, so it’s not really a big deal if a single video is flagged.
And it’s not like it’s difficult to find other companies that won’t hit you with C&Ds. It’s just that regardless of what GW does, gamers are so hopelessly enamoured with the company it won’t make any difference in the long run.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 13:29:06
2021/09/03 13:29:33
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Ghool wrote: A copyright strike like that against Midwinter probably didn’t hurt his revenue at all.
If the strike did anything it most likely will have increased his channel subs, views and thumbs.
Simply because of this strike.
I’ve seen this happen several times now with a couple of different channels and it has done nothing but increase each channels subs, views, and watch time, which increases revenue.
While it might seem that GW is the evil empire (and don’t get me wrong, strikes like this are BS), but to even think it did Midwinter any harm at all in the short, or long term is a fallacy.
He’s likely making even more because supporters will flock to his channel solely for that reason. I don’t feel sorry for huge channels like that at all. They’re already cashing in on GWs IP, so it’s not really a big deal if a single video is flagged.
And it’s not like it’s difficult to find other companies that won’t hit you with C&Ds. It’s just that regardless of what GW does, gamers are so hopelessly enamoured with the company it won’t make any difference in the long run.
Agreed.
Now having skimmed through the video in question, going against that is stupid by GW. Even if they might succeed in this case (unlikely, imo), it would still be stupid because there will be no benefit and they just alienate the community. But GW sometimes acts stupid, like all larger organizations.
TheGoodGerman wrote:In that case he has nothing to fear and his objection will go through.
I think the video was demonetised. Meaning they get no money during that time from that video and by the time his objection goes through and it's reinstated the peak monetisation phase is gone. You don't get that back just because your video is monetised later on (for the little bit of a long tail that a video tends to have on average).
If somebody makes their money from these reviews and a company were to do that every time a somewhat critical review appears then that creates a chilling effect for the reviewer, even if things are technically corrected after a few weeks. That's is one of these "technically correct" statements that are, in practice, ignorant of the circumstances that cause the real damage.
TheGoodGerman wrote:In that case he has nothing to fear and his objection will go through.
I think the video was demonetised. Meaning they get no money during that time from that video and by the time his objection goes through and it's reinstated the peak monetisation phase is gone. You don't get that back just because your video is monetised later on (for the little bit of a long tail that a video tends to have on average).
If somebody makes their money from these reviews and a company were to do that every time a somewhat critical review appears then that creates a chilling effect for the reviewer, even if things are technically corrected after a few weeks. That's is one of these "technically correct" statements that are, in practice, ignorant of the circumstances that cause the real damage.
OK, that makes sense, I didn‘t take that into account.
I guess this is one of the risks when a „content creator“ signs up to that giant company YouTube’s terms.
TheGoodGerman wrote:In that case he has nothing to fear and his objection will go through.
I think the video was demonetised. Meaning they get no money during that time from that video and by the time his objection goes through and it's reinstated the peak monetisation phase is gone. You don't get that back just because your video is monetised later on (for the little bit of a long tail that a video tends to have on average).
If somebody makes their money from these reviews and a company were to do that every time a somewhat critical review appears then that creates a chilling effect for the reviewer, even if things are technically corrected after a few weeks. That's is one of these "technically correct" statements that are, in practice, ignorant of the circumstances that cause the real damage.
OK, that makes sense, I didn‘t take that into account.
I guess this is one of the risks when a „content creator“ signs up to that giant company YouTube’s terms.
Maybe I am misreading what you wrote, or not interpreting it correctly, and if so I apologize up front.
But, are you still saying that we should hold GW accountable? It looks like, and again maybe I am imputing something to you that isn't true, you are bending over backwards to not have any blame on GW. If that is the case I am interested to know why? YouTube's policies, or any other policies, don't seem to matter if GW's behavior was better.
2021/09/03 14:24:50
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Dudeface wrote: The job role feels like a standard legal assistant role that a qualified solicitor would have, they essentially do the pen pushing and leg work, then the documentation is filed under the solicitor who then conducts the serious litigation.
Well, except for the "no qualifications" part ^^
Or is that something usual?
Having worked in/alongside many UK legal firms, it's perfectly normal for the assistants to have at best a law degree (but not required). It's a good way of keeping salaries low, offloading menial tasks and the staff are usually there for work experience and on the hope of one day being offered a training contract to become a solicitor themselves.
2021/09/03 14:28:34
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
You're just projecting a benelevonce onto GW by making a totally arbitrary difference between "good" and "bad" non-authorised use of IP.
Based on recent events what possible reasons could one have to think that GW make any distinction?
I'm going by the mention of 'counterfeit product' in the job listing and not just blindly listing GW as the 'evil empire' as it seems like you and so many others are wanting to do. I'm sure GW already has eyes on YouTube as we've seen prior to the launch of Warhammer+.
Oh "its ok, they're just going after pirates and counterfeiters, anyone using the IP without permission in a positive way is going to be alright?"
I'm not painting GW as an evil empire, just this line of thinking as naive.
Not evil, just insane. Gone mad. Then again.. the whole world has gone bonkers so this isn't surprising.
#crushGW
#TeachGW a lesson.
Consummate 8th Edition Hater.
2021/09/03 14:31:07
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
phandaal wrote:Seems like a lot of people here are saying this is a nothing burger due to the fact that Games Workshop isn't hiring an actual lawyer. Therefore, anyone who says this is another sign that GW is going to ramp up their IP enforcement attempts is a dum-dum, because a person in this role can't physically litigate anything themselves.
Is that the gist of it?
Not really, it would also be a nothingburger if it was an actual lawyer.
GW has always had a team under legal looking at infringements, and given I've had half a dozen adverts on Facebook for that obvious scam advent calendar that came up the other day they clearly need them and it's appropriate for them to have some. Indeed, GW has had such a team since before some people posting in this topic were likely born.
TheGoodGerman wrote: Wondering why you would choose to represent this as if Games Workshop didn't actually do anything.
Games Workshop took copyright action against his channel, which you obviously know if you read the comment he left.
The word that Midwinter Minis uses to describe the action doesn't change the fact that Games Workshop had to have a person go to YouTube and make a claim against his video.
GW will not have had a person go to YouTube and make a claim against the video, no. GW uploads a fingerprint of the Warhammer+ content assets to YouTube's ContentID system, and from that point YouTube's bots do everything. GW have very likely never even seen the video.
It appears in this case GW have not permitted a short window (say 1 minute) of footage that is allowed, and the ContentID bot permits. They should do that to be honest, it's good practice, but I'm far from convinced them not doing so is anything more than a balls up. Trust me, the ContentID UI is nothing if not gak.
This. Further reviews are technically protected aswell.
Therefore shouldn't Midwinters video fall in most countries under Fair use and therefore GW shouldn't have a right to demonetize?
The video is likely fair use/fair dealing in most countries yes (though I'd note that it probably isn't fair dealing in the UK because the credit isn't explicit enough. Obvious cockup that MWM should fix). But YouTube's contentID system isn't a legal system, it's a YouTube system and the law is pretty irrelevant. You want a video host that will respond properly and have a robust IP process? There are thousands available, they're just not free. You use YouTube, a free hosting service, and you get what you pay for there. It's crap. That's why it's free.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
StraightSilver wrote: This was a group of 193 member states who collaborated together to protect intellectual property.
I'd never heard of WIPO before. That's interesting.
Let's see who some of their members are...
Russia
China
So what does WIPO do again?
The reputation China and Russia have here isn't entirely deserved. Russia is *very* hot on IP infringement, it's just only hot on IP infringement for Russian companies and doesn't give much of a toss if you're not. But most corporations get around this by having a shell company that's 51% Russian controlled to conduct takedowns in Russia. Yandex does a lot more copyright filtering than it used to once Western companies figured this out.
China has very inconsistent enforcement, but when it does enforce (and it does! A lot!) the penalties are extremely harsh. Multiple factories producing unlicensed Marvel and Transformers merchandise have been shut down this year, with the owners dragged out in cuffs and it being aired on television in China. But it's a big country and some areas are extremely corrupt and you end up with the consequences of that.
Still, I think anyone arguing WIPO doesn't result in enforcement of IP in those nations isn't correct.
Dudeface wrote: The job role feels like a standard legal assistant role that a qualified solicitor would have, they essentially do the pen pushing and leg work, then the documentation is filed under the solicitor who then conducts the serious litigation.
Well, except for the "no qualifications" part ^^
Or is that something usual?
Having worked in/alongside many UK legal firms, it's perfectly normal for the assistants to have at best a law degree (but not required). It's a good way of keeping salaries low, offloading menial tasks and the staff are usually there for work experience and on the hope of one day being offered a training contract to become a solicitor themselves.
Indeed. For example, BBC Worldwide have a large infringement team, but only a few of them are lawyers. And they have an outsourced vendor too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/03 14:43:14
2021/09/03 15:03:19
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
If you're gonna take down GW for being too reporty about Youtube videos, take down Sony and Disney while you're at it. They used to go nuts with copyright claiming reviewers.
2021/09/03 15:06:25
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Except they didn't copyright strike, as Midwinter points out in the comments to his video himself. And it's still online.
Wondering why you would choose to represent this as if Games Workshop didn't actually do anything.
Games Workshop took copyright action against his channel, which you obviously know if you read the comment he left.
The word that Midwinter Minis uses to describe the action doesn't change the fact that Games Workshop had to have a person go to YouTube and make a claim against his video.
This. Further reviews are technically protected aswell.
Therefore shouldn't Midwinters video fall in most countries under Fair use and therefore GW shouldn't have a right to demonetize?
From what I've read this seems like a bit of a common misconception, really. Yes, things like parody and review are part of the stuff that can come under Fair Dealing exemptions in the UK, but it doesn't appear to be so much a case of "This is a parody, therefore I can use what i want with it" , they can still be infringement and it isn't automatically not infringement just because its a review or parody or whatever. The exemptions more so mean those might not be infringement, but whether they are or not doesn't get determined until action is taken and it goes far enough to properly evaluate either way. Fair dealing exemptions come down to judging the specific situation as to whether it's actually infringing or not, but there isn't so much strict criteria and its instead determined on a case-by-case basis. With this video it appears like quite a bit of GWs copyrighted stuff was included and they may feel that too much was used, it being a review doesn't necessarily mean it avoids that problem. The exceptions are for a limited use of copyright material, it's possible to use too much to be classed as Fair Dealing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 15:16:50
2021/09/03 15:33:39
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
frankelee wrote: If you're gonna take down GW for being too reporty about Youtube videos, take down Sony and Disney while you're at it. They used to go nuts with copyright claiming reviewers.
This is just a great illustration of a misguided way to defend someone. It's both irrelevant - like a drunk driver who defends himself at trial by saying "everybody does it! if you don't prosecute all of them too it's unfair to prosecute me!" - and wrong even on its own terms: you state that these companies "used" to do the thing GW is doing now, by definition implying they no longer do so.
Some things can't be defended, and all attempting it does is void one's own credibility. GW's action on Midwinter's video is one of these times. It is clearly a review, and the amount of content he shows is clearly for the purpose of reviewing it. There's no way GW's IP objection here would be upheld. But it doesn't need to be, because GW knows it can make the objection in bad faith and still achieve its objective even if it is ultimately overturned. It's the definition of abuse of the legal process.
