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 18:29:36
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Well I was wrong. I really thought it would be a bot. Instead it was just a preview for what this "Infringement Assistant" is likely to evolve into in the future.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Well I was wrong. I really thought it would be a bot. Instead it was just a preview for what this "Infringement Assistant" is likely to evolve into in the future.
I really wonder if the number of people they manage to herd onto their subscription is worth all of the negative attention they get by doing things like this.
It's almost like they want to refine their consumer / supporter base into only the most ardent, forgiving group possible.
2021/09/03 19:10:10
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
The next stage in this process is all of the folks who have been claiming it was an auto strike, will now tell us this shows GW isn’t so bad after all since they changed their mind.
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.
The issue is nutbag GW goes after designs which are nothing like ttheir ripoff double eagle. Like when they argued the chapterhouse logo caused "confusion".
The imp aquila may be stylised but it is in no damn way unique. One has to be insane and ignorant of history to believe it is "unique". It's derivative asf
"Broadly based" is a total spin. It's not broadly based, it is solely based on the double eagle, all the elements are in the same positions and even angles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 19:44:16
2021/09/03 19:53:38
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.
The issue is nutbag GW goes after designs which are nothing like ttheir ripoff double eagle. Like when they argued the chapterhouse logo caused "confusion".
The imp aquila may be stylised but it is in no damn way unique. One has to be insane and ignorant of history to believe it is "unique". It's derivative asf
"Broadly based" is a total spin. It's not broadly based, it is solely based on the double eagle, all the elements are in the same positions and even angles.
I said uniquely stylized. As in both terms together. Even though the concept itself isn't unique, their specific stylization of the double eagle is unique and distinct enough to serve as an identifier for GW and their brand, within the contexts applicable to it.
Broadly based meaning despite the idea of it being taken from a historical source, they've done their own thing with it.
The logo for their evil space empire takes inspiration from a motif commonly used by various empires throughout history. That doesn't mean it's a "ripoff", especially when it has thematic purpose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/03 19:55:40
2021/09/03 19:55:49
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
"Would you like to assist in protecting Games Workshop?
We are always keen to ensure continuous improvement of our processes, so you will be involved in researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing and counterfeit product removal and implementing improvements to the infringements process."
Brilliant! New assistant, no legal expertise(probably not 100% aware of what an infringement is), underpaid and instructed to find NEW ways to frag "infringements" if he wants to shine.
Brace yourself guys its going to be fun to watch this.... I would say to reviewers, content creators to simply drop GW but what do I know.
Or maybe you are reading too much into this. The advert says the new person will be part of the legal team. That team will also have lawyers.
The non-lawyer legal assistants I work with are brilliant. Still they wouldn't send out lawyerly stuff without at least a signoff.
"researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing" even in the hands of brilliant assistants does not bode well for the future of anyone doing content.
You trying to claim that there's "no way" that when a 10 minute video includes a mix of random video footage of the app in use including showing copyrighted content such as rules, articles, white dwarf pages, parts of several animations, music and more with quite a lot of it shown just shown because of a general theme of " it's part of warhammer+", that there's no chance at all that it could possibly be determined that it may feature too much of their copyrighted material without enough of a reason for all that (whether all that actually would count or not is besides the point as that could only be fully determined via things going further than this) and that instead GW demonetizing that video must be them knowingly trying to abuse IP law has to be the most absurd take of this whole thing I've seen.
Sooo....this didn't age too well, did it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/03 19:59:19
2021/09/03 19:59:22
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.
The issue is nutbag GW goes after designs which are nothing like ttheir ripoff double eagle. Like when they argued the chapterhouse logo caused "confusion".
The imp aquila may be stylised but it is in no damn way unique. One has to be insane and ignorant of history to believe it is "unique". It's derivative asf
"Broadly based" is a total spin. It's not broadly based, it is solely based on the double eagle, all the elements are in the same positions and even angles.
I said uniquely stylized. As in both terms together. Even though the concept itself isn't unique, their specific stylization of the double eagle is unique and distinct enough to serve as an identifier for GW and their brand, within the contexts applicable to it.
Broadly based meaning despite the idea of it being taken from a historical source, they've done their own thing with it.
The logo for their evil space empire takes inspiration from a motif commonly used by various empires throughout history. That doesn't mean it's a "ripoff", especially when it has thematic purpose.
Hate to say it, but this is true. Think of the Lambda and the circle. Both of those symbols are some of the simplest designs in human history, yet no one is saying that this logo doesn't signify a particular brand:
Spoiler:
EDIT: Image now hopefully works
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 20:00:21
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.
The issue is nutbag GW goes after designs which are nothing like ttheir ripoff double eagle. Like when they argued the chapterhouse logo caused "confusion".
The imp aquila may be stylised but it is in no damn way unique. One has to be insane and ignorant of history to believe it is "unique". It's derivative asf
"Broadly based" is a total spin. It's not broadly based, it is solely based on the double eagle, all the elements are in the same positions and even angles.
I said uniquely stylized. As in both terms together. Even though the concept itself isn't unique, their specific stylization of the double eagle is unique and distinct enough to serve as an identifier for GW and their brand, within the contexts applicable to it.
Broadly based meaning despite the idea of it being taken from a historical source, they've done their own thing with it.
The logo for their evil space empire takes inspiration from a motif commonly used by various empires throughout history. That doesn't mean it's a "ripoff", especially when it has thematic purpose.
Hate to say it, but this is true. Think of the Lambda and the circle. Both of those symbols are some of the simplest designs in human history, yet no one is saying that this logo doesn't signify a particular brand:
Spoiler:
EDIT: Image now hopefully works
So what if valve were also lazy and derivative?
Missing the point completely.
2021/09/03 20:09:32
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.
The issue is nutbag GW goes after designs which are nothing like ttheir ripoff double eagle. Like when they argued the chapterhouse logo caused "confusion".
The imp aquila may be stylised but it is in no damn way unique. One has to be insane and ignorant of history to believe it is "unique". It's derivative asf
"Broadly based" is a total spin. It's not broadly based, it is solely based on the double eagle, all the elements are in the same positions and even angles.
I said uniquely stylized. As in both terms together. Even though the concept itself isn't unique, their specific stylization of the double eagle is unique and distinct enough to serve as an identifier for GW and their brand, within the contexts applicable to it.
Broadly based meaning despite the idea of it being taken from a historical source, they've done their own thing with it.
The logo for their evil space empire takes inspiration from a motif commonly used by various empires throughout history. That doesn't mean it's a "ripoff", especially when it has thematic purpose.
Hate to say it, but this is true. Think of the Lambda and the circle. Both of those symbols are some of the simplest designs in human history, yet no one is saying that this logo doesn't signify a particular brand:
Spoiler:
EDIT: Image now hopefully works
So what if valve were also lazy and derivative?
Missing the point completely.
Alright, how about you provide an example of what you would consider a properly copyrightable symbol?
GoldenHorde wrote: Those punks at AWS lambda are stealing valve's derivative trademark zOmG!!>!>!
Ignoring the fact that that's a blatant strawman, it's pretty interesting how you identified the owners of the symbol I posted without me ever mentioning them in the thread. It almost seems like that symbol has a distinct shape, style, and color scheme which separates it from other depictions of circles and lambdas in popular culture. Perhaps, since that symbol so clearly signifies a certain brand (which you yourself properly identified), there should be some sort of law which prevents others from associating that symbol with things which the owners of the brand do not endorse? An interesting thought.
Alright, how about you provide an example of what you would consider a properly copyrightable symbol?
Easy, since you're on corporate authoritarian vibes today...
Dear Sirs,
my name is Stefan Krilla. I work for Volkswagen AG section Corporate Identity/Design Wolfsburg/Germany. I was surfing through the internet, when I found a tutorial link about making the Volkswagen logo on your site.
The Volkswagen logo is a registered Trademark!!! No one is allowed to replicate it! Any offence against it will result in legal effects.
Therefore you have to delete the link “Make Volkswagen Logo – Learn an easy way to make the logo” from you list. The tutorial is submitted by “Rakker Design” in section “Drawing” (05-02-2006)
I also contacted the author and told him to delete this tutorial.
Thank you for your cooperation in this case.
Best regards.
Stefan Krilla
Corporate nazis looking to ban fan art lolz, seem familiar?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 20:22:22
2021/09/03 20:24:14
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Alright, how about you provide an example of what you would consider a properly copyrightable symbol?
Easy, since you're on corporate authoritarian vibes today...
Dear Sirs,
my name is Stefan Krilla. I work for Volkswagen AG section Corporate Identity/Design Wolfsburg/Germany. I was surfing through the internet, when I found a tutorial link about making the Volkswagen logo on your site.
The Volkswagen logo is a registered Trademark!!! No one is allowed to replicate it! Any offence against it will result in legal effects.
Therefore you have to delete the link “Make Volkswagen Logo – Learn an easy way to make the logo” from you list. The tutorial is submitted by “Rakker Design” in section “Drawing” (05-02-2006)
I also contacted the author and told him to delete this tutorial.
Thank you for your cooperation in this case.
Best regards.
Stefan Krilla
Corporate nazis looking to ban fan art lolz, seem familiar?
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
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.
It's one thing to take youtube's algorithms into account but companies who actively hunt down all kinds of "fair use" uses of their work are despised by youtube creators in general. They already have an uphill battle against youtube as the first layers of these systems are all automated so even if youtube were to hit you accidentally, it would take time to even get to a human who can reverse such accidents. And malicious hits from somebody who has an axe to grind with somebody are even worse. When companies actively go after such stuff (not wholesale copyright infringement but criticism they want to silence) then that's simply bad form and usually not an accident.
Nobody just slips on the mouse button a few times and accidentally clicks through the whole process of flagging something. At best some low level worker (like the one GW is looking for that started this thread) was overzealous and it was not company policy and at worst they are actively targeting "bad press" to make it disappear. Of course the creator on the other side doesn't know why it happens and simply has to deal with the fallout of it.
It seems that in GW's latest case the explanation is that somebody made a mistake. If, or to what degree, one trusts such a statement, everybody has to decide for themselves. To me it looks like a reaction to bad PR instead of an actual accident. Your mileage may vary.
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.
People do complain about those (and many others) all the time. That usually doesn't happen on a wargaming forum as those companies don't have a big presence in wargaming, unlike GW. Thus we talk about GW issues here, and not the others.
beast_gts wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote: 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.
If this is the case - report them to the relevant authorities. In the UK that's the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), as acting without honesty or integrity violates their principles.
That shouldn't work in this case. The system is a youtube one, and it's made to work with/around DMCA issues in the USA and the fact that youtube ingests hours of content every minute and can't be manually moderated. The system, as it is, is one of private agreements (between you when you click on the EULA and them), and a defensive one to protect youtube first. It favours those who do these takedown notices and there are little/no negative consequences for that within the youtube framework (as they need to do at least as well as the DMCA demands or be liable for stuff they leave on their servers). It has nothing to do with laws or lawyers. Those are a few layers away from what's happening on youtube when somebody clicks around on youtube to say "they are infringing on my stuff in their video".
Tom Scott has a video about that and copyright in general. The youtube specific stuff starts at about half of the video (chapter 3, at 22:23) but the whole video is worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU
phandaal wrote:Genuine question - how does a bot do this? Scan for any video mentioning Warhammer+ in the title and then use image recognition on every frame of the video to compare what's in the frame against the full library of Warhammer+ videos? Or is there some other method a bot would use to auto-flag video footage as opposed to something like music?
The most effective bots seems to be based on audio fingerprinting because music labels were some of the earliest who complained about this stuff. Fingerprint (computing)
There are similar systems for other stuff (text, video), and probably some "fancy" AI systems that try to do even more. I think some of those bots that youtube uses start looking into this stuff when a creator uploads a video and not randomly. I've heard from creators who had to re-edit their videos multiple times because the system caught something the moment they uploaded the video (before it even got published for the world to see). And even that can be a bit nebulous with the creator not knowing what exactly the bots were complaining about and them having to try many different versions until youtube accepts the video.
2021/09/03 20:28:06
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
"Would you like to assist in protecting Games Workshop?
We are always keen to ensure continuous improvement of our processes, so you will be involved in researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing and counterfeit product removal and implementing improvements to the infringements process."
Brilliant! New assistant, no legal expertise(probably not 100% aware of what an infringement is), underpaid and instructed to find NEW ways to frag "infringements" if he wants to shine.
Brace yourself guys its going to be fun to watch this.... I would say to reviewers, content creators to simply drop GW but what do I know.
Or maybe you are reading too much into this. The advert says the new person will be part of the legal team. That team will also have lawyers.
The non-lawyer legal assistants I work with are brilliant. Still they wouldn't send out lawyerly stuff without at least a signoff.
"researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing" even in the hands of brilliant assistants does not bode well for the future of anyone doing content.
If you take off your negativity glasses, it could also be a good thing. Such as, giving better guidance about where they draw the line for example so everybody knows how to continue.
Now they've withdrawn their claim against Midwinter, I can see 3 possible reasons:
1. It was an error. This is the reason given. If true, it's a good sign because they never really intended to go after this video.
2. It was not an error, but they have seen the light. Meaning, they realized that this action would generate more negatives than positives. Would be a good sign also, maybe they've learned something.
3. It was not an error and they would like to continue, but backed down after the objection because they know they would lose. Intimidation attempt by bad-faith application of this tool failed. Would be a bad sign, but I think the least likely alternative.
2021/09/03 20:30:54
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Alright, how about you provide an example of what you would consider a properly copyrightable symbol?
Easy, since you're on corporate authoritarian vibes today...
Dear Sirs,
my name is Stefan Krilla. I work for Volkswagen AG section Corporate Identity/Design Wolfsburg/Germany. I was surfing through the internet, when I found a tutorial link about making the Volkswagen logo on your site.
The Volkswagen logo is a registered Trademark!!! No one is allowed to replicate it! Any offence against it will result in legal effects.
Therefore you have to delete the link “Make Volkswagen Logo – Learn an easy way to make the logo” from you list. The tutorial is submitted by “Rakker Design” in section “Drawing” (05-02-2006)
I also contacted the author and told him to delete this tutorial.
Thank you for your cooperation in this case.
Best regards.
Stefan Krilla
Corporate nazis looking to ban fan art lolz, seem familiar?
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I gave you an example of a registered trademark as per your request that is not derivative as the imperial aquila is.
The original had the circle in a cogwheel and was "broadly based" on a swastika
Now you know what broadly based looks like.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/03 20:33:04
2021/09/03 20:31:52
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
No One Important wrote: So what I'm getting here is I can drive job growth by posting silly Warhammer fanfiction online.
Time to do my part to help UK's economic recovery.
That's the spirit!
2021/09/03 20:35:14
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
"Would you like to assist in protecting Games Workshop?
We are always keen to ensure continuous improvement of our processes, so you will be involved in researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing and counterfeit product removal and implementing improvements to the infringements process."
Brilliant! New assistant, no legal expertise(probably not 100% aware of what an infringement is), underpaid and instructed to find NEW ways to frag "infringements" if he wants to shine.
Brace yourself guys its going to be fun to watch this.... I would say to reviewers, content creators to simply drop GW but what do I know.
Or maybe you are reading too much into this. The advert says the new person will be part of the legal team. That team will also have lawyers.
The non-lawyer legal assistants I work with are brilliant. Still they wouldn't send out lawyerly stuff without at least a signoff.
"researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing" even in the hands of brilliant assistants does not bode well for the future of anyone doing content.
If you take off your negativity glasses, it could also be a good thing. Such as, giving better guidance about where they draw the line for example so everybody knows how to continue.
Now they've withdrawn their claim against Midwinter, I can see 3 possible reasons:
1. It was an error. This is the reason given. If true, it's a good sign because they never really intended to go after this video.
2. It was not an error, but they have seen the light. Meaning, they realized that this action would generate more negatives than positives. Would be a good sign also, maybe they've learned something.
3. It was not an error and they would like to continue, but backed down after the objection because they know they would lose. Intimidation attempt by bad-faith application of this tool failed. Would be a bad sign, but I think the least likely alternative.
So tell me, what positive came out of the corporate harassment?
2021/09/03 20:38:43
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
What does being "an error" even mean, though? I mean obviously it was an error, because by definition if they're revoking it, it was an error.
If you mean it was an error as in they never intended to strike the video in the first place, that's just not plausible. You don't just accidentally issue a manual copyright strike. It doesn't work that way. If somehow GW did "accidentally" issue a copyright strike, that's hugely concerning because it shows the company is even more of a basket case than any of us thought.
The real possibilities are:
1. They thought it infringed for reasons inexplicable to anyone who knows anything about IP, but changed their mind. This isn't particularly reassuring, because it's not like the video changed. This means they're issuing copyright strikes before actually looking into them carefully enough to decide whether they're valid, based on a completely misunderstanding of what actual IP laws are. This possibility would indicate GW doesn't understand what the IP laws are in very basic ways.
2. They knew there was no basis, but decided to do it anyway, only to back off when it blew up in their faces.
GW comes out of this looking terrible no matter what. Either they are wildly operationally incompetent (accidentally issuing a manual copyright strike), wildly substantively incompetent (issuing the strike because they thought it infringed when it obviously did not), or malicious (issuing the strike knowing full well it was bogus).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 20:44:12
GoldenHorde wrote: Those punks at AWS lambda are stealing valve's derivative trademark zOmG!!>!>!
there should be some sort of law which prevents others from associating that symbol with things which the owners of the brand do not endorse? An interesting thought.
Quick, someone tell the Greeks that their alphabet is infringing on 'mericun trademark.
Tell them everytime they type or draw that letter they need explicit corporate permission for the 'fanart'
I'm going to draw the double headed eagle, oh noes can't do that despite the historicity of the motif.
Ofc law is perfect and has no flaws or inherent problems, you got me with that GOTCHA, right
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/03 20:42:50
2021/09/03 20:39:49
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
caladancid wrote: The next stage in this process is all of the folks who have been claiming it was an auto strike, will now tell us this shows GW isn’t so bad after all since they changed their mind.
"Would you like to assist in protecting Games Workshop?
We are always keen to ensure continuous improvement of our processes, so you will be involved in researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing and counterfeit product removal and implementing improvements to the infringements process."
Brilliant! New assistant, no legal expertise(probably not 100% aware of what an infringement is), underpaid and instructed to find NEW ways to frag "infringements" if he wants to shine.
Brace yourself guys its going to be fun to watch this.... I would say to reviewers, content creators to simply drop GW but what do I know.
Or maybe you are reading too much into this. The advert says the new person will be part of the legal team. That team will also have lawyers.
The non-lawyer legal assistants I work with are brilliant. Still they wouldn't send out lawyerly stuff without at least a signoff.
"researching and identifying new ways for Games Workshop to approach infringing" even in the hands of brilliant assistants does not bode well for the future of anyone doing content.
If you take off your negativity glasses, it could also be a good thing. Such as, giving better guidance about where they draw the line for example so everybody knows how to continue.
Now they've withdrawn their claim against Midwinter, I can see 3 possible reasons:
1. It was an error. This is the reason given. If true, it's a good sign because they never really intended to go after this video.
2. It was not an error, but they have seen the light. Meaning, they realized that this action would generate more negatives than positives. Would be a good sign also, maybe they've learned something.
3. It was not an error and they would like to continue, but backed down after the objection because they know they would lose. Intimidation attempt by bad-faith application of this tool failed. Would be a bad sign, but I think the least likely alternative.
Lol. I hope you did this on purpose.
2021/09/03 20:41:25
Subject: Games Workshop Hiring Infringement Assistants
Alright, how about you provide an example of what you would consider a properly copyrightable symbol?
Easy, since you're on corporate authoritarian vibes today...
Dear Sirs,
my name is Stefan Krilla. I work for Volkswagen AG section Corporate Identity/Design Wolfsburg/Germany. I was surfing through the internet, when I found a tutorial link about making the Volkswagen logo on your site.
The Volkswagen logo is a registered Trademark!!! No one is allowed to replicate it! Any offence against it will result in legal effects.
Therefore you have to delete the link “Make Volkswagen Logo – Learn an easy way to make the logo” from you list. The tutorial is submitted by “Rakker Design” in section “Drawing” (05-02-2006)
I also contacted the author and told him to delete this tutorial.
Thank you for your cooperation in this case.
Best regards.
Stefan Krilla
Corporate nazis looking to ban fan art lolz, seem familiar?
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
I gave you an example of a registered trademark as per your request that is not derivative as the imperial aquila is.
The original had the circle in a cogwheel and was "broadly based" on swastika
Now you know what broadly based looks like
Frankly, I think stacking the letters "V" and "W" inside a circle is just as derivative as the other logos you've discussed. Yes, you can recognize that specific logo as Volkswagen's, but that's exactly my point. Trademarks are simple, easy-to-recognize shapes which are almost universally either extremely simple to replicate or draw upon some recognizable symbol in human history. Unlike copyright, originality is not a defining characteristic of a trademark. Distinctiveness is.
The GW Aquila in particular is different from other Aquilas in that it's extremely sharp, minimal, and angular, especially around the wings. If you gave me a selection of aquila images and asked me which one was from Warhammer, I would be able to identify it ten times out of ten. Trademarks gain legal protection based on their distinctiveness, and the Imperial Aquila does that, regardless of whether it's derivative.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should mention there's a significant political difference between copyright and trademark. Copyright is often used to increase the power of corporations, as it can under many circumstances remove competition and cultivate brand identity. Trademark almost universally benefits the consumer, as it prevents the spread of misleading or counterfeit goods. Copyright laws are bad right now, but trademark laws are great. Again, a difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/03 20:46:05
