Intellectual property guidelines updated

[Raktra]

 

 

 

 

It’s interesting how some of you have decided that these rules are draconian, yet if I tried to rent out your lawn for parking spaces you would call the cops on me, when all I’m trying to do i is use your property to make a living.

Logic fail.

 

If you are taking someone else’s parking place, they lose it. If you are making Warhammer characters talk in silly voices and make a YouTube video about it, GW loses nothing.

Response fail, it’s about the use of property without consent. And also need we be reminded that *nobody did anything to Alfabusa other than Alfabusa*.

There is a difference between private and personal property.

Bloody hell, it’s a comparative metaphor. I’m autistic and not being that pedantic.

[BrandX]

 

It’s interesting how some of you have decided that these rules are draconian, yet if I tried to rent out your lawn for parking spaces you would call the cops on me, when all I’m trying to do i is use your property to make a living.

 

 

To be fair the draconian aspect is that GW using their legal team and vastly superior cash resources to shut people down is what got them their reputation. They don't need to call the cops, they try to be the cops and shut people down using fear of bankruptcy.

There are plenty of examples of where they are well within their rights to do so but if you have been in the hobby long enough you also know there are plenty of times they have pulled some seriously shady stuff.

 

I don't think either party are one hundred per cent squeaky clean in this case. And given GWs long and established history of directly "taking inspiration from such and such" they are not looking great right now to a lot of us.

 

I don't know if GW is legally/morally in the right or not right now but they most certainly have earnt their reputation.

 

Whatever the outcome, give it six months and a couple of big releases such as the Heresy boxed set and the majority will have pushed the whole episode to the back of their minds.

I haven’t been in this particular hobby that long, but I’ve seen plenty of other things that follow the same logic get taken down from the internet for similar reasons. Blaming a company for protecting its IP is kind of odd, we don’t see people boycotting Disney for not allowing Mickey Mouse to be on Cartoon Network. They took all there shows off other streaming services and moved it to Disney+. We’re only not mad at them because they aren’t shutting down other animators from making shows using their characters, except that’s only not happening because no one is making shows using Disney’s characters to begin with.

[Marshal Rohr]

Judging by Hexfire, it looks like the boycott was a massive success! GW is quaking in their boots.

[Doghouse]

 

I haven’t been in this particular hobby that long, but I’ve seen plenty of other things that follow the same logic get taken down from the internet for similar reasons. Blaming a company for protecting its IP is kind of odd, we don’t see people boycotting Disney for not allowing Mickey Mouse to be on Cartoon Network. They took all there shows off other streaming services and moved it to Disney+. We’re only not mad at them because they aren’t shutting down other animators from making shows using their characters, except that’s only not happening because no one is making shows using Disney’s characters to begin with.

 

 

Ah that might why then. It's not about blaming a company for protecting IP but more about how traditionally they have done it in the past which once earnt them the nickname of evil empire.

 

It's down to you to form your opinions based on your own experiences with the company and don't let anyone say otherwise but historically speaking for a lot of people they have swung the ban hammer first and claimed IP wrong doing whether they have a legal standing or not. So there is a history there which is why you may see some veteran players getting upset.

 

I sincerely envy you coming into the hobby with fresh eyes, I hope you have fun. :)

 

 

Judging by Hexfire, it looks like the boycott was a massive success! GW is quaking in their boots.

 

Wait till Horus Heresy 2.0 then we shall really put our foot down and empty our wallets, throwing large amounts of cash at them till we have taken all their stock and they have to make more which we will also buy!  That'll show them!

[Vazzy]

 

Judging by Hexfire, it looks like the boycott was a massive success! GW is quaking in their boots.

 

Wait till Horus Heresy 2.0 then we shall really put our foot down and empty our wallets, throwing large amounts of cash at them till we have taken all their stock and they have to make more which we will also buy! That'll show them!

 

Lmao. If the mk 6 is even relatively close to the Tortuga models it’s gonna be game over for me since I’m working on Fists and EC rn.

[Brother Tyler]

Let's keep this discussion on topic. We're talking about Games Workshop's recent update to their intellectual property guidelines, the impact on the community, and potential reactions/responses from the community. By extension, general information about intellectual property is valid.

 

We don't need to be talking about other companies, their own intellectual property guidelines (except as compared to GW), or how we respond/react to those companies.

[MegaVolt87]

Eh, eventually GW will tread on a rock that breaks it's ankle like chapterhouse did sooner or later.

[mel_danes]

Do we have a single example of a take down notice being sent, or implied, to any creator of "non-monitized" video content?

 

If you make ad revenue, or accept donations, or run a Patreon that's immediately profit. If said profit is driven by IP protected content you are asking for legal action.

 

I really think this is about money, plain and simple.

In that regard I'm totally onboard with GW.

I made some fan stuff back in school, 11 years ago, all of it no ads, clearly marked as not affiliated or official. I'm in no way worried about this not because it's old content, but because I've never earned a cent from it.

 

As I've written before, in the DoW 1 mod days the mod leaders spent thousands on mod content creation paying for sound effects, voice actors, texture artists e.t.c. Some of us contributed our time and skills for free, I was just happy to help.

We all knew we could never make any money, it was never about that, we wanted to see these factions in the game, and if we didn't do it, no one would.

 

In closing the only "fear" I have is Battle Reports. They are on thin ice, but I think they provide far more value than could be generated by the parent company. They truly provide advertising, and clarity, and engagement in a way far more targeted at the game, then a bunch of loosely associated moving meme's.

Edited August 8, 2021 by mel_danes

[Azekai]

In closing the only "fear" I have is Battle Reports. They are on thin ice, but I think they provide far more value than could be generated by the parent company. They truly provide advertising, and clarity, and engagement in a way far more targeted at the game, then a bunch of loosely associated moving meme's.

How in the actual heck could GW claim people playing their game is copyright infringement? Unless it is a GW venue that they are telling people not to make vids of, then maybe they could stop people from uploading those. But thin ice? Yeah right. Playing a game with your miniatures is not a copyrightable act.

 

Nine hells, this conversation is dystopian.

[Halandaar]

 

It’s interesting how some of you have decided that these rules are draconian, yet if I tried to rent out your lawn for parking spaces you would call the cops on me, when all I’m trying to do i is use your property to make a living.

Logic fail.

 

If you are taking someone else’s parking place, they lose it. If you are making Warhammer characters talk in silly voices and make a YouTube video about it, GW loses nothing.

He's renting out your lawn, not your parking space. He's creating more spaces and you don't lose yours. What's the issue?

[Arkhanist]

It’s interesting how some of you have decided that these rules are draconian, yet if I tried to rent out your lawn for parking spaces you would call the cops on me, when all I’m trying to do i is use your property to make a living.

Copyright isn't property, and never has been. If you rent out my lawn, I can't use my lawn any more. Property, by its very nature, can only be controlled by one thing at a time. That's a material loss on my part - I've lost control of my lawn! If I make a million copies of say, a space marine dreadnought and keep them on my harddrive, GW has lost nothing - they still have their dreadnought copyright, and can continue to sell copies of it as much as they like. I've committed a million examples of copyright infringement, and GW couldn't even notice!

 

A better comparison would be if you took one sentence out of all of my comments, put them on a blog saying 'look at this guy!', with adverts - now you're 'taking' something of mine, and making money on it.

 

I'd be a) fine with that, and b]  even if I wasn't, fair use would mean there's nothing I could ultimately do about it but c) if I had a load of lawyers on staff, I could still cost you a lot of money until you took it down anyway,

 

Copyright is the time-limited exclusive right to make, well, copies of something specific. It doesn't apply to general ideas, concepts, or styles. If something is not a copy or close to a copy (derivative work), then copyright doesn't even apply. Once you sell a physical copy, what someone does with it is up to them (first sale doctrine), including reselling it (but not making more copies, obvs)

 

Now for works that are a copy of something, or significant parts of it, there are 4 guideline factors over whether something is still a legal fair use, or an illegal copy. Any one test is not definitive, and a work can still be considered a fair use even if it only 'wins' on one.

 

1) is it transformative; is the use different to the original, has something new been added that changes the nature of it? Parody is one thing considered transformative, as is commentary about it, with copies of parts of the copyrighted work. An unlicenced Harry Potter dictionary was considered slightly transformative, but not enough to be considered fair us by a court.

 

2) nature of the work. Factual information has much less copyright protection than truly unique, imaginative works. If you're both drawing from 3rd party sources, it's more likely to be fair use. For example, imperial guard designs clearly derive much from real-world militaries, so drawing from the same source - even if there are some similarities in your alternative model - is more likely to be fair use. A fairly subjective test.

 

3) how much was taken? The whole thing? Very likely not fair use. Only a bit? could well be. This is again a fairly subjective test. Parody is generally allowed to take more here, because effective parody requires audiences to recognise what is being parodied in the first place. Where the amount taken is very small, judges can skip the fair use test entirely and just declare it permitted.

 

4) the impact on the sale of the original, or potential sales. If I'm selling recasts of your model, then clearly, I'm taking sales you might have gotten. I'm probably selling them at a discount, so people may buy them who couldn't afford the original, but this is still very unlikely to count as fair use. Whereas it's hard to say someone contributing to TTS' patreon is doing so as a direct alternative to buying say, a custodes mini, because they're simply not equivalent. Note, this doesn't include reputation loss, i.e. a parody or bad review might make nobody take the original work seriously again, but that's not considered a market loss for this test - they're looking at what literal like-for-like sales may be being lost.

 

Note - making money from your new work is not one of the tests. Only how much your new work impacts on the market for the original. If your original work has no real value, then it's hard to prove a market loss.

 

 

So if we look at TTS. It's clearly transformative; it's a parody of 40k lore and GW illustrations. For the nature of the work, they're just using GW artwork pretty much is, so fails there. I haven't watched every TTS episode, so I could be wrong here, but on how much was taken, they've snipped out only the character pictures from larger artworks, which themselves are only a small part of what GW sell. GW has sold large prints of their artwork, so it may or may not fail test 3.

 

On test 4, it's hard to argue that contributing to TTS by patreon, and helping fund a new parody video is a substitute for what GW actually sell. So a clear pass on test 1 and 4, debatable on 2 & 3. Parody is generally given more leeway on 2 and 3, so it's very likely, in my laymans opinion that it's a fair use - and thus not copyright infringement, so GW have no basis to go after them; but that doesn't mean they won't threaten it anyway under these new guidelines.

 

Let's look at that 'deathguard' kickstarter vs deathguard minis. It's only limited transformative, because the designs are pretty similar, and for the same purpose, so a soft fail on test 1. Deathguard designs are pretty creative which the kickstarter imitates, so that's a fail on test 2. Selling STLs of the design so people can print at home? Yeah, that's gonna stop people buying the originals, so that's a fail on 4.

 

The key test here is test 3, how much was taken from the original models, and how much is different. If it's close, but not similar *enough*, it's still a fair use. If it's too much, that's copyright infringement. Personally, I think they're taking too much, and it's too close to the originals to pass as a whole, but there are some differences, so with some tweaks, or removal of some models, it could pass. The chapterhouse case decided a lot of models that were clearly similar to GW designs were still not infringing, and the same is true for other cases, so this is harder to prove than people think for stuff that is similar, but not actual clones.

 

Copyright law is mainly designed to go after people selling complete, identical copies of your works. Copies of the rules online. 100% copies of the models to 3d print. fake handbags that look exactly like yours bar some tiny difference. That bootleg DVD stall in the local market. Those are all clearly illegal. Stuff that isn't that, that's inspired by, draws from similar sources, or only uses small parts for a different purpose can all fall under fair use, and thus not be copyright infringement.

 

The problem is, the only way to actual know is to defend a lawsuit over it and win, and that's an expensive option. Merely proving what you're doing is legal is weighted very heavily to the side that has the most money and can afford to fight it. So you need to rely on the goodwill of big companies not trying to take down stuff that is very likely fair use. And that is a dicy proposition, in the end.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Arkhanist

[Bryan Blaire]

IP law also goes through protections for more than just copyright, but also things like trademarks, patents, etc.  I doubt GW has any patents on what they do (general production methods, etc.), but they likely do have numerous claimed and a fair few registered trademarks (which can protect certain things beyond what copyright can protect).  IP protection also necessitates them working to retain all of those elements, as not doing so allows for the erosion of what they can even fight to protect/retain in the future.

[Arkhanist]

Trademarks primarily protect trading and product names - it's so that a customer can know what they're buying comes from the company they think it is. Trademarks can be eroded if they become the common name for a class of product, instead of referring to a specific one. Sellotape, for example in the UK is what people call adhesive cellulose tape, even though it was originally a unique brand (and technically still is, but generic); aspirin, in the US, is another. Companies do actively have to try and defend trademarks to prevent erosion in reporting etc and try to keep them, because if everyone is selling velcro products, then velcro as a brand becomes meaningless. People selling products using GW trademarks can get sued, yes (and the solution is generally, stop doing that), but generally, legitimate 3rd party model sellers don't do that anyway - it's only the recasters on alibaba etc.

 

If you leave it as very long time before trying to make a copyright claim, then you can only claim for the last 3 years of damages; but not enforcing your copyright against people who are likely not infringing it anyway (per fair use) will not damage any subsequent claims against clear violators.

 

Patents, well GW does have 3 patents on injection moulding processes, but are unlikely to apply to anything we're discussing here.

 

See, this is why I hate the term 'Intellectual Property'. It conflates 3 different protective rights, none of which have the character or legal basis of property, and people mix them up all the time, like the 'they have to be defended' which has come up a fair few times. Yes, to trademarks, but only when they're in danger of becoming a generic term for a class of product; it really doesn't mean they have to send a C&D to every tom dick or harry who makes a model a bit like a GW one, or a fan video, or they lose everything.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Arkhanist

[Bryan Blaire]

Trademarks can also be very specific visual representations of things that are associated with a company - terms specific to a company for what it does that other companies of similar types don’t, logos, very specific types of items/visuals (such as the specific outline of a certain mouse) - these can all be trademarks.  Trademark infringement in international trade can very much be used to keep products out of the U.S. during border searches, and the guys selling knock-offs on the streets of New York can very much lead to investigations by multiple groups of officials here when certain operations get a little too big for their britches.

 

Yes, they do have to defend their trademarks with the same vigor that they do things like copyright infringement in the U.S. - if they don’t, yes, they can lose them when they become “common use” associations for a certain type of product.

 

GW has also claimed trademarks over things that very much wouldn’t stand up in court without some serious explaining - things like “Space Marine” - which would only be supported in so far as it relates to their very specific type of Space Marine.  The use of the term “Space Marine” referring to some other kind of “marine in space” wouldn’t be considered a trademark infringement (not even sure if they do have that term trademarked in the U.S., and I don’t think it would be worth the time to figure out).

 

Neat on the G.W. patents!

 

Copyright also has limitations regarding media production types as well - hence the reason depictions of 2D art being made into 3D models by a different company wasn’t the “copyright infringement” that GW alledged.

[depthcharge12]

Unpopular opinion here - I think Alfa was looking for an easy out and he got it with this. The later episodes (in muh opinion) were very forced and you could tell he was slowing down.

 

Alfa saves face with this for his next projects and manages to keep all of his old fans in the process.

 

 

There will be little financial backlash from the community that cares (let’s be honest, a good 80% of us 3D print, recast, or use patreons instead of buying GW), GW will remain aloof and intractable as they always have been, and in 2 years, fans will be making more fan crap on their favorite medium of choice.

 

I hate sounding apathetic or cynical about it all, and guys usually id be barking up and down about GW pulling this, but it really doesn’t matter :shrug:

[Wulf Vengis]

I've been reading through back issues of Citadel Journal and i have to say, it is a fabulous read. The love and recognition for the hobby, the players and even the staff themselves is palpable from page to page. The humor and playful tongue in cheek nature combined with a silly-seriousness of the whole thing is better than most modern hobby magazines of any sort.

 

What happened to the James Workshop who encouraged, requested, accepted and proudly displayed fan art, articles, conversions in the Citadel Journal and White Dwarf?

 

The modern/corporate aspect of the company has them feeling more like a shadowy cabal with secrets and dire intentions than a happy group of creators and gamers these days.

 

I get that there is precedence to protect the IP etc but they try to hard and it just "feels" aggressive and "over the top" regardless of their overall intentions.

 

I hope to see the return of this part of James soul, I miss when things were happier.

[Domhnall]

It's been quiet on this thread for a day or so, let's stir things up a bit. 

 

I'm going to be focusing on 3D printing: obtaining the files etc and how GW are supposedly the big bad for not letting us print our own copies of their models. 

 

Has anybody asked one of the 3rd party miniature makers for their 3D files? Artel W, Vanguard miniatures (and all the ones that showcase their work on this forum) must have the files to be able to print for yourself.

Surely if you asked nicely they'd say "yes of course! For the Community!" Or do you think they'd be saying 'No Way! That's my work, you're not getting it!" 

 

They're not going to give away what makes them money. 

 

Unless it was a similar thing to Hero Forge, where you get your template, personalise it and then they give you the file for that *Specific* model and pose. That could be an interested new direction... Log onto Warhammer+ (because it's only for those wanting a premium service  ), fiddle about, save, pay, bam! Space Marine in your inbox! 

[Grotsmasha]

Artel does (or did) files, I nabbed a sample group a while back.

[Kastor Krieg]

Artel does (or did) files, I nabbed a sample group a while back.

They didn't sell files, they released the files for the sculpts GW specifically forbade them from producing and selling.

[Grotsmasha]

 

Artel does (or did) files, I nabbed a sample group a while back.

They didn't sell files, they released the files for the sculpts GW specifically forbade them from producing and selling.

 

 

Noice, that's one way to handle it :tu:

[Arkhanist]

It's been quiet on this thread for a day or so, let's stir things up a bit. 

 

I'm going to be focusing on 3D printing: obtaining the files etc and how GW are supposedly the big bad for not letting us print our own copies of their models. 

 

Has anybody asked one of the 3rd party miniature makers for their 3D files? Artel W, Vanguard miniatures (and all the ones that showcase their work on this forum) must have the files to be able to print for yourself.

Surely if you asked nicely they'd say "yes of course! For the Community!" Or do you think they'd be saying 'No Way! That's my work, you're not getting it!" 

 

They're not going to give away what makes them money. 

 

Unless it was a similar thing to Hero Forge, where you get your template, personalise it and then they give you the file for that *Specific* model and pose. That could be an interested new direction... Log onto Warhammer+ (because it's only for those wanting a premium service  ), fiddle about, save, pay, bam! Space Marine in your inbox! 

Anvil Industries have a patreon where you get digital STLs of new models, or you can buy the monthly bundles later on at a higher price - or wait a while for them to come out on the normal resin store. There are other designers who have gone straight to a similar patreon and/or individual sales rather than set up their own resin bits store, such as the makers cult. There are those that sell on shapeways, or you can buy the designs. And there a number that do just give their designs away for free, and riff on other free ones. Personally, I'm happy to pay for good quality designs, because that means they keep making more.

 

GW aren't the big bad for not letting us print their models for free. They're the big bad because they try and stop people printing models that *aren't* their models.

 

If GW wanted to set up their own digital STL subscription or store (because obviously they wouldn't use any popular existing service) it would be great! But I can't see that happening any time soon.

[Commisar Necros]

 

GW aren't the big bad for not letting us print their models for free. They're the big bad because they try and stop people printing models that *aren't* their models.

 

 

I think this puts it better than most. I dont think anyone thinks it should be free reign to reprint GW stuff, but they shouldn't stop other people from sculpting models and selling them. I think its a huge pile of money they leave on the table to not sell files for simple things like bases or shoulder pads as bitz since they dont want to dedicate production time to that. I agree there are people who would just pirate the digital files, but there is always that segment. I'd honestly feel safer paying GW than yeggi or one of the other 3-d sites for an stl.

[chapter master 454]

I mean, one possible angle GW could do instead of going against the grain is actually harness the power of these companies that print stuff. Not sure how the legal side works with it but wouldn't it be easy for GW to have a look at these companies, go through their products and what they produce and the final quality of them, then select some companies to reach out to with a simple offer:

 

"Hey, that's kind of cool and we notice you are doing something that people want but we can't offer because making a mould for that would be far to expensive. Tell you what, what if we give you a special license for thus; you get to use our special IP designs to create things we don't like shoulder pads with special icons on them, you get to sell them with the actual name they are for however we get a cut of the profit. Also if we get reports of dipping quality we come knocking and the license will be in dispute for faulty quality"

 

BOOM, suddenly you have made a positive move within the community. You also don't stop them making their own things, you just work with them. Those companies get the benefit of using GW IP, GW are getting a cut with no investment needed and people get product they want. GW can even take a back-seat on certain things like shoulder pad stuff, instead reaching out to these 3D printing companies to help cover these far more niche markets.

 

I feel like I am repeating myself...like serious deja vu...including seeing commisar Necros avatar in that position...the warp is a strange and fickle means of communication.

[Bung]

I mean, one possible angle GW could do instead of going against the grain is actually harness the power of these companies that print stuff. Not sure how the legal side works with it but wouldn't it be easy for GW to have a look at these companies, go through their products and what they produce and the final quality of them, then select some companies to reach out to with a simple offer:

 

"Hey, that's kind of cool and we notice you are doing something that people want but we can't offer because making a mould for that would be far to expensive. Tell you what, what if we give you a special license for thus; you get to use our special IP designs to create things we don't like shoulder pads with special icons on them, you get to sell them with the actual name they are for however we get a cut of the profit. Also if we get reports of dipping quality we come knocking and the license will be in dispute for faulty quality"

 

BOOM, suddenly you have made a positive move within the community. You also don't stop them making their own things, you just work with them. Those companies get the benefit of using GW IP, GW are getting a cut with no investment needed and people get product they want. GW can even take a back-seat on certain things like shoulder pad stuff, instead reaching out to these 3D printing companies to help cover these far more niche markets.

 

I feel like I am repeating myself...like serious deja vu...including seeing commisar Necros avatar in that position...the warp is a strange and fickle means of communication.

 

Why should anyone buy such a license if GW doesnt offer anything.

Those third party bits shops are fine as long as they declare "for use with GW model xy". GW cant do anything about it, as third party products are a stable in scale modelling and other hoibbies,

Courts in the EU would GW to shove their claims to a location where the sun never shines as long as the bits sellers dont claim the same names as for their produucts as GW.

 

GW would need to offer more than acknowledgment for that companies or they wont see the need to buy said licence.

 

The best example i know for such stuff is Corvus Belli - Infinity and Aristeia! 

They alllow their partners to use the "Made for Infinity" logo and show their stuff in the rulbooks with company names where you can get it.

They even have a partners guide on their website:

https://infinitytheuniverse.com/blog/partners-guide-2021

 

Thats how GW must embrace other smaller companies for making such licences viable for others.

But i doubt that wont happen as long as GW is a joint stock company.

[StraightSilver]

Haven't read through the entire thread but has anybody mentioned the UK leaving WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) as part of Brexit?

 

GW will now have to be protected under UKIPO, rather than the global WIPO, after the Brexit transition period.

There aren't huge changes as most agreements will remain in place, but UK companies will be afforded less IP rights than they were before for future IP.

This could well be one of the reasons GW is strengthening it's IP terms and conditions.

 

My understanding is that the UK has 9 months from the end of the transition period to transfer from EUIPO/WIPO over to UKIPO - which takes us to end of August 2021, which ties in with GW's new terms?

Edited August 14, 2021 by StraightSilver