Intellectual property guidelines updated

[Matcap86]

Quite a shame, but it looks like Administratum.net is shutting up shop over this, it was a fantastic web-based tool for managing Crusade Forces.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/40k_Crusade/comments/op6k3m/administratum_will_shut_down_in_90_days/

 

Seems like something of a knee-jerk reaction to me, but also completely understandable as it's a solo passion project and he likely can't be bothered with the stress of wondering IF he'll get a C&D and have to close up immediately with no way for users to get their data.

 

Rik

A shame, but this seems to me a complete overreaction spurred on by the community's 'GW BAD' reflex.

[Rik Lightstar]

 

Quite a shame, but it looks like Administratum.net is shutting up shop over this, it was a fantastic web-based tool for managing Crusade Forces.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/40k_Crusade/comments/op6k3m/administratum_will_shut_down_in_90_days/

 

Seems like something of a knee-jerk reaction to me, but also completely understandable as it's a solo passion project and he likely can't be bothered with the stress of wondering IF he'll get a C&D and have to close up immediately with no way for users to get their data.

 

Rik

A shame, but this seems to me a complete overreaction spurred on by the community's 'GW BAD' reflex.

 

 

Completely agree, I think this is just the kind of resource they'd completely ignore as it doesn't really reproduce content and it gets people playing more games which tends to mean buying more models.

 

Rik

[Arkhanist]

They didn't actually lose the Chapter House case outright - the majority of the claims they filed were upheld, they received confirmation that certain physical properties of their miniatures (i.e. Space Marine pauldrons) were a copyright unto themself, and Chapter Houses counter-suit (which included stupidity such as "Games Workshop doesn't do business in America" and "you should not be able to copyright fantasy fiction because what if someone else wants to make stuff for it") was violently dismissed.

 

I'm not sure where this meme about GW losing the case has come from.

 

 

 

Upon independent examination, the Court finds that GW’s shoulder pads involve enough originality to afford them copyright protection. The unusually large proportional size of the shoulder pads as compared to the Space Marine’s head (depicted in GW’s product at entry 49) is a creative addition to the common shoulder pads sometimes worn by real-life soldiers in battle. The shoulder pads created to fit onto GW’s physical figurines, though more proportionally accurate, are nevertheless still larger and boxier than those typically found outside of the Warhammer 40,000 fantasy world. The Court thus concludes that GW is entitled to copyright protection as to the design of its shoulder pads.

 

 

 

A skull is not protectable on its own, but GW’s particular depiction of a Chaplain in entry 3, which includes a skull with red eyes that wears a helmet, is copyrightable.

 

 

That was regarding whether the impact of the copyright office ruling that the pads were not copyrightable, which GW tried to keep secret, and so if a prior summary judgement by the court should be re-opened. GW used the court summary judgement to try and get the copyright office to change their mind, and failed. The shoulder pad design was considered not original enough to be registered. So although Chapterhouse studios weren't able to convince the court to revisit that specific ruling in that specific case, the copyright office ruling that they are *not* copyrightable would be extremely difficult for GW to overcome in any other case.

 

"[T]his particular shoulder pad submitted is not copyrightable. t is  simply circular, with an x or plus sign on it." Id., Ex. 6 at 2. In response, GW's attorney again brought up the Court's previous ruling and discussed the evidence upon which the Court had relied. On December 27, 2012, Carol Frenkel, a Supervisory Registration Specialist, notified GW's attorney that she had taken over the application and would make a determination shortly.

On January 4, 2013, Frenkel wrote GW a letter stating that the Copyright Office could not register the work. The letter laid out the basic standards for protection under the federal copyright law and stated that the office had "determined that this particular work will not support a claim to copyright for 2-Dimensional artwork or sculpture under the standards described above." Id., Ex. 7 at 1.

 

On the 92 trademark claims, chapterhouse won 55, GW 37. Chapterhouse also won on 2/3 of the copyright claims when it came to their products.

 

In general, chapterhouse lost on specific models that were considered too close to existing GW models (e.g. gender swapped eldar), and GW lost on the general principle that any models that imitated GW style should be infringing, or ones where rules existed but GW hadn't made models. You'll note that GW never publishes rules now for models that have not yet been released, specifically because chapterhouse won in that area.

 

In effect they both lost in the areas they actually cared about; chapterhouse had to pay damages of $25,000 for models that actually infringed, while GW managed to get a court ruling  and copyright office decisions that meant many of the models they thought should be illegal in fact, weren't.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Arkhanist

[Joe]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression it was changed and / or altered at some stage - the purge on imitation pauldrons that kicked off briefly on Shapeways in 2018/19 specifically referenced their "original pauldron design", parallel to iconography. Unless the legal department was lying (which is entirely possible), surely this would imply a change in circumstances?

 

Whilst Games Workshop doesn't publish rules for unreleased miniatures for the core ranges, they do actually publish models for rules that haven't been released and / or are out of production still - this never stopped in practice, it just scaled back.

Overall, it does seem I misread the document in places, my mistake - although I'm leery of SpikeyBits' summary given Rob Baer's history.

 

[Marshal Rohr]

The difference between what the trashcans at Chapterhouse tried to pull and fan animation is animations by nature have to deeply involve themselves with the IP. I guess you could do a normal human in a big industrial city that worships a god emperor but the minute you start referencing the wider universe or animating things and aliens that have models you’ve crossed a line. The Chapterhouse losers could get away with what they did because they were forcing GW to defend the most generic portions of their models designs. Edited July 23, 2021 by Marshal Rohr

[SkimaskMohawk]

The difference between what the trashcans at Chapterhouse tried to pull and fan animation is animations by nature have to deeply involve themselves with the IP. I guess you could do a normal human in a big industrial city that worships a god emperor but the minute you start referencing the wider universe or animating things and aliens that have models you’ve crossed a line. The Chapterhouse losers could get away with what they did because they were forcing GW to defend the most generic portions of their models designs. Either way everyone at Chapterhouse should go grocery shopping unvaccinated for what they did to make GW go nuclear on the universe.

Kind of an odd take.

 

Also the last time I saw any data on covid in grocery stores it was 1% of all cases in my province from retail/restaurants. Pair that with its general non lethality in age groups under 65 and youre kind of just telling them to do some groceries for causing GW to take the stance they did.

Edited July 23, 2021 by SkimaskMohawk

[Petitioner's City]

So this post by Ruo Yo might ease some of your worries:

 

 

So, the Warhammer fandom's been yelling about the Games Workshop licensing policies lately. I'm just going to take this opportunity to clarify how this will affect my Warhammer fanart.

TL;DR: The policy change doesn't affect me, don't worry!

The long version: GW's rules about not monetizing fanart have ALWAYS been there - this is standard for pretty much all IP-holding companies, and I specifically know that the rules have been in place ever since I read them 3-4 years ago before deciding to work with Games Workshop. The main difference is that all fan-animations are banned - which does put some of my ideas about future projects on hold, but does not affect me or my current plans for my Warhammer content. I am currently talking to my contacts at GW about the specifics of non-monetized video content, but have not received answers yet.

Either way, none of this affects my current Warhammer fanart/Patreon, as I have designed my fanart projects to work with GW's IP policies. None of my art/content is paygated - it's all public, and none of it requires payment of any kind to access. My website, https://www.ruohammer.com/, does not host ads, and I make no direct revenue from the fanart I make. This is both because this keeps my work from being taken down via IP infringement, and also because it's more accessible and thus better for the fan-community in general. My Patreon is also designed to be safe - anybody who contributes to the Patreon is directly supporting my continued presence as an artist, and NOT paying for specific content. Since my Patreons are only able to suggest ideas for what I draw with no guarantee of content, they are not paying for a service, and are simply giving me tips to continue being an artist. Patreons are not directed to suggest IP-specific subjects, and I would continue to make Warhammer content even without their influence. My Patreon is not for people paying me to draw Warhammer; it's for people who like what I draw and choose to support me doing art in general.

If you've read this far, thanks for taking the time to do so! You guys are awesome, and my content will keep coming. I super appreciate all the support that everyone has been showing for fan-creators, and I'm sure all the other artists do too. If you guys want to keep supporting artists, ask them if they take Paypal or Ko-fi donations!

 

Interesting to read, a good guide for content creators (especially one whose work features weekly on wHC), and hopeful sign for other fan creatives' efforts.

[excelite]

This reads a lot like the actual issue was in fact paywalling some content and not creating it

[Marshal Rohr]

If the issue is paywalling that makes more sense and would still allow content creators to do terrain and model tutorials behind a paywall since you’re paying to see the person do the conversions and builds.

[Arkhanist]

My Patreon is not for people paying me to draw Warhammer; it's for people who like what I draw and choose to support me doing art in general.

 

 

Uhuh. "The money people pay me because they like my warhammer art is in no way me making money from the warhammer art I make, it's just money they give me for doing art, that just so happens to be warhammer art!"

 

That's not as cast-iron a defence as he may think it is, iff GW decide to pursue it. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

My Patreon is not for people paying me to draw Warhammer; it's for people who like what I draw and choose to support me doing art in general.

 

Uhuh. "The money people pay me because they like my warhammer art is in no way me making money from the warhammer art I make, it's just money they give me for doing art, that just so happens to be warhammer art!"

 

That's not as cast-iron a defence as he may think it is, iff GW decide to pursue it.

Well if they do other art then its pretty impossible to parse. Especially if the Patreon says stuff like "this helps pay for art supplies and lets me spend time on it".

[Medjugorje]

No fan animations at all seems harsh but I suppose they don't want any competition now they have their own menagerie of official animations coming.

All big IPs have that. 

 

Its more important for our community that GW give an easy way to get their licences

[Lay]

they did this in the early 2000s late 90s too, it was promptly ignored by the community, then they lost the CH case, so... good luck GW /s

 

It wasn't really ignored. Many people had to cave in, which generated a lot of ill will. I particularly remember the wave of cease and desist letters around 2009 towards fansites using GW brand names or artwork and the like. For anyone interested, just make a google search capped around 2010 or check this old DakkaDakka thread.

Prominent targets of GWs policies back then were BoardGameGeek (over fan created game content), the fan movie Damnatus (a case which for the longest time prevented others from making fan movies) or Warhammer themed mods for VASSAL, an online tabletop sim.

 

What worries me is how their updated IP guidelines sound very close to the ones they had back in the day. I'm actually surprised by this turn of events. GW's growing lenience towards fan content over the years seemed to go hand in hand with them modernizing their online presence and properly supporting their games (like selling army bundles with actual discounts, lol).

[Beaky Brigade]

 

No fan animations at all seems harsh but I suppose they don't want any competition now they have their own menagerie of official animations coming.

All big IPs have that. 

 

Its more important for our community that GW give an easy way to get their licences

 

If it's as easy to make a licensed fan film as it seems to be to make GW licensed video game then people don't have much to worry about. The quality ship sailed with the latter a long time ago.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Beaky Brigade

[Plaguecaster]

The thing I found most stupid about it and makes them look bad is the fact they haven't announced any of this publicly all they did was edit their guidelines online with people finding out and some overreaching

 

With all the "we care about the community" with the bigger online presence it wouldn't of been that hard for a fb or one of their other social network pages making a post being a bit more open about this and maybe explaining some stuff in more detail

[excelite]

Why would they? It‘s legal mumbojumbo that nobody else than people that use their up has to care about… u want to use something, it’s your duty to check if you’re allowed to do so…

 

It was content creators that picked it up, didn’t fully understand the situation and went alarmist when the only thing they would have to do is to stop paywalling their derived work and/or check directly with GW what it would take them to get a proper license (which afaik none of the initiators has done yet).

[battle captain corpus]

=][= As GW have effectively announced this and that’s it from their point of view I’ve popped this over to Amicus for a more general discussion on the subject as it’s not really News or a Rumour anymore. =][=

 

BCC

[Arkhanist]

For those wondering if Gw would be taking more concrete action; two kickstarters in quick succession have had DMCA takedowns. Pictures are trickier to find because of course they are also now hidden, but I've found a few.

 

Dark Gods Eternal:

"Description of copyrighted material: The Death Guard Space Marines are a range of fictional warriors created by Games Workshop as part of its Warhammer 40,000 intellectual property. Having designed and developed the Death Guard Space Marines, Games Workshop owns the copyright in them. It is therefore an infringement for a third party to offer for sale, possess in the course of business, manufacture or import any product based on the Death Guard Space Marines without Games Workshop's permission.

 

Description of infringing material: As this miniature has not been created by Games Workshop or a licensed third party, it is in breach of copyright and an infringement of Games Workshop's intellectual property rights."

 

images in spoiler:

 

 

 

 

And The Wraith King's army:

 

"Description of copyrighted material: The Nighthaunt are a range of fictional characters created by Games Workshop as part of its Warhammer Age of Sigmar intellectual property. Having designed and developed the Nighthaunt, Games Workshop owns the copyright in them. It is therefore an infringement for a third party to offer for sale, possess in the course of business, manufacture or import any product based on the Nighthaunt without Games Workshop's permission.

 

Description of infringing material: The miniatures have copied a significant part of Games Workshop's expression of the Nighthaunt. As these miniatures have not been created by Games Workshop or a licensed third party, it is in breach of copyright and an infringement of Games Workshop's intellectual property rights."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I can see their argument for the Dark Gods one, they are skating pretty close, but 'ghosts with weapons' is not a concept that GW alone can make models for. For reference, I'm not a backer of either, but I am concerned this presages a more aggressive DMCA approach for STLs more generally.

Edited July 27, 2021 by Arkhanist

[MARK0SIAN]

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

[Halandaar]

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

 

I don't know; "ghost with a scythe" might sound generic enough but viewing the renders, it's immediately obvious which specific GW kit each one is supposed to be aping.

[MegaVolt87]

 

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

 

I don't know; "ghost with a scythe" might sound generic enough but viewing the renders, it's immediately obvious which specific GW kit each one is supposed to be aping.

 

 

Ghosts, spirits and demons are fairly generic by themselves so there will be crossover. The dark gods one, skates way too close to the DG source models IMO. However, the wraith ones if I was that kick-starter organizer and had the resources I would be sitting down with lawyers to get advice at a minimum and proceed to take GW to court if I was advised I had a viable case. I think those kick-starter wraiths look better than GW's nighthaunt too. Also with the patreon, if the artist isn't exclusively doing GW fan art and isn't getting direct payment to do a piece or take specific ideas from supporters to do such art and says the money is for art supplies, living expenses so they aren't starving etc- thats not really under the scope of being paid to make GW fan art. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

I don't know; "ghost with a scythe" might sound generic enough but viewing the renders, it's immediately obvious which specific GW kit each one is supposed to be aping.

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

[AenarIT]

 

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

I think that the most popular patreons of sculptors of alternative models have the money to call that bluff and go to court if necessary.

One of the most popular ones rakes in at least $30k per month from patreon subscribers plus who knows how much more from sales of older file sets on various websites.

When faced with a C&D, that's a lot of money at stake so I can only imagine they would have the willingness to fight that in court (and the resources to do so). 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

I think that the most popular patreons of sculptors of alternative models have the money to call that bluff and go to court if necessary.

One of the most popular ones rakes in at least $30k per month from patreon subscribers plus who knows how much more from sales of older file sets on various websites.

When faced with a C&D, that's a lot of money at stake so I can only imagine they would have the willingness to fight that in court (and the resources to do so).

Then if the guy who did those nighthaunt models he the resources he should. I’m not saying every case would be a bluff, I think GW would win those Deathguard ones for example, I just think GW themselves can’t be confident in winning one on something like the nighthaunt where the archetypes and imagery are so generic. I’m pretty sure even one of the ghosts that visits Scrooge has been portrayed in a robe and chains.

[Halandaar]

Ghosts, spirits and demons are fairly generic by themselves so there will be crossover. The dark gods one, skates way too close to the DG source models IMO. However, the wraith ones if I was that kick-starter organizer and had the resources I would be sitting down with lawyers to get advice at a minimum and proceed to take GW to court if I was advised I had a viable case. I think those kick-starter wraiths look better than GW's nighthaunt too. 

 

Whether they look better (which is obviously subjective) is completely besides the point. They are clearly designed as 1:1 proxies of GW Nighthaunt models, right down to the number of models offered in each pack and the base sizes they are designed for. The only one of the four that seems even slightly removed from the original here is the Black Squires which do feel stylistically a bit different from Chainrasps, but even then they are very clearly derived from GW product to the point that they are essentially miniature Mournghuls.

 

I mean sure, at it's most reductive level "ghost" is a generic descriptor but it's not like it's a Kickstarter full of Caspers is it? Or Scooby-Doo ghosts? These designs cleave very closely to the Nighthaunt's particular version of what a ghost or spirit looks like. The sculpts themselves might be technically original, but the specific concept they follow is GWs, the design cues are GWs. It seems disingenuous to me to assert that these designs are just ghosts.

 

FWIW I'm not at all saying GW is right in every instance, I've seen plenty of Kickstarter and Patreon sculpts that, while obviously aimed at GW's audience, are far enough removed from GWs own designs (or genuinely generic enough) to be fair and GW wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of litigating against them. I'm saying in this specific case, I agree with them.