Intellectual property guidelines updated

[Dark Shepherd]

Would be a larf if GW backtracked and said sorry the inhouse lawyers we hired for 18k a year were overenthusiastic

[BluegrassGamer]

 

Most folks agree that you shouldn't go around thieving comic book artwork, sprucing it up photoshop, and selling it as your own. Right?  And if that's the case, why should fan content creators who've monetized their YouTube channels or set up Patreons and infringe on GW's IP be treated differently?  

 

Because there's a significant legal and moral difference between passing off a slavish copy as your own work, and taking a small part of someone else's work to make something entirely different and new?

 

Recasters would be the equivalent of your comic book "artist", and they get short shrift here. Perhaps go and have a watch of some TTS and tell us if you still think it's a slavish copy of GW's work, or something using bits of their work to make something entirely different.

 

Anyway, I'm in danger of thread sitting, so I'm going to take a break from posting here for a bit.

 

Well, that's a weird bit of gatekeeping.  Automatically assume that I haven't seen TTS and thus decide that I'm not able to discuss IP infringement...

 

Rather happily, frater, I have seen episodes of TTS.  The Lamenters episode, the one making use of Sly Marbo's old metal miniature, and the one with the Eversor living in his van.  Some others, I suppose? Which is how I know that TTS has used everything from GW models, images from a range of GW projects such as codexs, army books, and roleplaying games, to illustrate their episodes. Each episode using material blatantly ripped from GW sources.  Which TTS acknowledged in their hiatus video.  Going a step further, other fan creators - such as MajorKill - have also admitted that fan animations infringe on GW 's IP. 

 

All of these fans and fan creators who are going going on elaborate rants or think pieces about how GW is hurting the fan community by enforcing their IP just make me think of "Consequences!? For my actions!?" meme.

[Balerion84]

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

[Joe]

As a few people have pointed out - parody is a minefield, particularly in the UK where it isn't really codified under any one particular law. It's not as clear cut as you'd think.

 

Courtesy of another user, here's Games Workshop's Complaints form. I would flag your displeasure with the company here. That said...

 

• Don't identify specific content creators. All this does is paint a target on their back.

 

• Be civil - don't swear, and don't be snide. If you can't provide criticism without being rude you shouldn't be opening your mouth in the first place.

 

• Suggest alternative solutions to the current IP issue - in this case, point to Xbox's Game Content Usage Rules as a positive example.

 

• And most importantly - flag that the lack of communication to the community is incredibly harmful and may drive you to other brands. This is something that should have been rolled around more than it was.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Joe

[Guest]

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

There is but its not a ironclad guarantee. But regarding TTS I personally believe he should reach out to GW for a definitive answer.

[sitnam]

 

 

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

There is but its not a ironclad guarantee. But regarding TTS I personally believe he should reach out to GW for a definitive answer.

I'd assume he would of done that without just shutting down his channell. If he hasn't atleast try to contact them, I feel more justified thinking this is an overreaction on his part.

[Guest]

 

 

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

There is but its not a ironclad guarantee. But regarding TTS I personally believe he should reach out to GW for a definitive answer.

I'd assume he would of done that without just shutting down his channell. If he hasn't atleast try to contact them, I feel more justified thinking this is an overreaction on his part.

 

From what I gather he has not.

 

[Brother Tyler]

I've removed some bickering that provided no constructive value.

 

This is a very contentious issue, but we still need to remain civil and carry out a reasonable dialog, even when we disagree.

[Balerion84]

He has not. And he said in his video why he's hesitant to do so, which I can understand. But as someone who knows nothing about law, I'd say he should probably take the chance and contact them about it.

 

But then again, I know nothing about law, so he shouldn't be taking my advice.

[Raktra]

 

 

 

 

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

There is but its not a ironclad guarantee. But regarding TTS I personally believe he should reach out to GW for a definitive answer.

I'd assume he would of done that without just shutting down his channell. If he hasn't atleast try to contact them, I feel more justified thinking this is an overreaction on his part.

From what I gather he has not.

He hasn’t, it makes me wonder if he was just using this as an out? Not meaning to put negative intent on him, but with how slow the updates became, maybe he wasn’t feeling it anymore and now has a chance to leave without the backlash going onto him.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

There is but its not a ironclad guarantee. But regarding TTS I personally believe he should reach out to GW for a definitive answer.

I'd assume he would of done that without just shutting down his channell. If he hasn't atleast try to contact them, I feel more justified thinking this is an overreaction on his part.

From what I gather he has not.

He hasn’t, it makes me wonder if he was just using this as an out? Not meaning to put negative intent on him, but with how slow the updates became, maybe he wasn’t feeling it anymore and now has a chance to leave without the backlash going onto him.

 

I have to agree this seems like the perfect storm for him to step back, this provided him an out.

[BluegrassGamer]

 

So what about parody? Shouldn't that be protected?

There is but its not a ironclad guarantee. But regarding TTS I personally believe he should reach out to GW for a definitive answer.

 

Except the TTS folks also said they pulled stuff from non-GW sources as well.  They'd likely have to contact each entity whose IP they used and go "Hey, is it okay if we riff on your IP?"  The answer could vary from entity to entity. 

 

And sure, parody should be protected...  Provide that it's protected in both the fan creator's geographical area and whichever geographical area GW occupies.  "A multinational corporation shopping around for a judge or jurisdiction that would be favorable to them? It's more likely than you'd think!" /s

[Guest]

:- Except the TTS folks also said they pulled stuff from non-GW sources as well.  They'd likely have to contact each entity whose IP they used and go "Hey, is it okay if we riff on your IP?"  The answer could vary from entity to entity.

 

 

Ahhh that's not something I was aware of... Might make it a minefield of hell.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Wolf Guard Einar

[Joe]

Aye, I mentioned it in the breakdown I posted a few pages ago - it's one reason why they are leery about getting in touch with GW about Text-to-Speech moving to Warhammer+, as they'd have to re-work a lot of the series.

[Arkhanist]

Well, that's a weird bit of gatekeeping.  Automatically assume that I haven't seen TTS and thus decide that I'm not able to discuss IP infringement...

 

Rather happily, frater, I have seen episodes of TTS.  The Lamenters episode, the one making use of Sly Marbo's old metal miniature, and the one with the Eversor living in his van.  Some others, I suppose? Which is how I know that TTS has used everything from GW models, images from a range of GW projects such as codexs, army books, and roleplaying games, to illustrate their episodes. Each episode using material blatantly ripped from GW sources.  Which TTS acknowledged in their hiatus video.  Going a step further, other fan creators - such as MajorKill - have also admitted that fan animations infringe on GW 's IP. 

 

All of these fans and fan creators who are going going on elaborate rants or think pieces about how GW is hurting the fan community by enforcing their IP just make me think of "Consequences!? For my actions!?" meme.

Let's try this again. I was working on the basis you were unaware TTS is a parody before deciding TTS is infringing content, that should rightly feel 'consequences'. Clearly I was mistaken in that belief.

 

Fair use protects parody, along with multiple other significant uses of other's IP. If it's fair use (or fair dealing in the UK), then it is by matter of law NOT infringing on GW's IP, and there should be no consequences to face.

The US version of fair use is the most likely to apply initially, as youtube and its implementation of DMCA are based in the US.

 

The process of *proving* something is fair use and thus not infringing is never simple of course, but TTS is pretty much a textbook example of parody, and ultimately would very likely prevail on fair use grounds.

 

Since you're aware TTS is parody, but still think any use of GW's IP should have 'consequences', regardless of the circumstances then I think we'll just have to agree to differ.

[BluegrassGamer]

 

Let's try this again. I was working on the basis you were unaware TTS is a parody before deciding TTS is infringing content, that should rightly feel 'consequences'. Clearly I was mistaken in that belief.

 

Fair use protects parody, along with multiple other significant uses of other's IP. If it's fair use (or fair dealing in the UK), then it is by matter of law NOT infringing on GW's IP, and there should be no consequences to face.

The US version of fair use is the most likely to apply initially, as youtube and its implementation of DMCA are based in the US.

 

The process of *proving* something is fair use and thus not infringing is never simple of course, but TTS is pretty much a textbook example of parody, and ultimately would very likely prevail on fair use grounds.

 

Since you're aware TTS is parody, but still think any use of GW's IP should have 'consequences', regardless of the circumstances then I think we'll just have to agree to differ.

 

Everything has consequences.  Some consequences pleasant, others less so.  It's just that the consequences of IP infringement tend to fall on the 'less pleasant' side of things. And fan creators made infringing on GW's IP an issue when they started monetizing their fan projects.  A multinational corporation is going to multinational corporation.  Especially if they have to juggle a slew of different IP and trademark laws.  "Is IP law in Region A more stringent than in Region B? Better cover our bases and have our IP rules able to fully meet Region A's requirements!"  Which also applies since the UK and the US don't seem to have the same standards of fair use/fair dealings. 

 

But, yeah.  Agree to differ here. 

[Inquisitor lorr]

I think a lot of people are taking a very narrow and simplistic approach to this. GW have to take steps to protect their IP - they literally have to do so in respect of certain avenues of IP or they forfeit the right to later protect it. So they need to have a policy that adequately seeks to do that, that actually seeks to prevent mis-use of their IP (rather than simply pay lip-service so as to not lose the right - ‘prevention is better than the cure’ is the number one rule of litigation - even huge firms like GW will not want to get embroiled in a dispute), but has a degree of flexibility. That is incredibly hard to do - how do the people decrying this policy propose that they have a policy which offers the necessary legal protection, says to some people ‘don’t worry, we don’t care about you, we’re chill’ but ‘oh you, nah you’re screwed if you start anything’. It is impossible to legislate for everything.

 

Perhaps the Xbox approach is an alternative, but they will naturally be very cautious about their IP at this point in time - they are clearly gearing up for a huge investment, probably hoping they can beeline into mainstream media in a few years. In today’s climate, all it takes is one silly post, even from an independent source, which leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the public or garners enough press to dissuade a deal with studio, for example. And with that risk hanging over them, you’re back to the above - how do you mitigate against that whilst explaining you’ll let the inoffensive people play ball?

 

Not trying to be facetious, or say I agree - it’s just a very tricky balance to achieve.

[Azekai]

I think a lot of people are taking a very narrow and simplistic approach to this. GW have to take steps to protect their IP -

 

That is because IP law is protectionist garbage. GW is trying to use bad laws to beat the competition down with a cudgel. If other people can make better minis that resemble space marines or eldar, let them. But GW is terrified of competition, healthy or otherwise, because that might mean less money. It's easier to intimidate the tiny creatives and kill off some youtube channels than it is to actually compete in an open market where other people might make equally-good little toy roided out space soldiers.  

 

Intellectual property protections don't help the little guys, they let giant corps dominate by throwing their money around and crushing their lessers with decades old properties.

 

I don't understand how anyone could be in favor of something so anathema to the creative process.

[Inquisitor lorr]

 

 

I think a lot of people are taking a very narrow and simplistic approach to this. GW have to take steps to protect their IP -

 

That is because IP law is protectionist garbage. GW is trying to use bad laws to beat the competition down with a cudgel. If other people can make better minis that resemble space marines or eldar, let them. But GW is terrified of competition, healthy or otherwise, because that might mean less money. It's easier to intimidate the tiny creatives and kill off some youtube channels than it is to actually compete in an open market where other people might make equally-good little toy roided out space soldiers.

 

Intellectual property protections don't help the little guys, they let giant corps dominate by throwing their money around and crushing their lessers with decades old properties.

 

I don't understand how anyone could be in favor of something so anathema to the creative process.

That is again a narrow and simplistic view. As I said above, it is impossible to legislate for everything. You would presumably be in favour of copyright laws which protect the ideas of a one man band operation just starting out, and which operate to stop a big corporation simply copying that and rolling it out with more resources? If not, then I’m confused. If so, on your rationale, where do you propose to draw the line in the sand - at what point does this little guy become a medium guy, and when does your perception start to shift towards him no longer using IP laws to protect his new start up, but now he’s throwing his weight around and stifling other start ups?

 

Believe me - I think 99% laws are farrrrr from perfect (or even fit for purpose), but this is an area fraught with difficulties for the legislature and regulators, let alone for those trying to work within the framework. It’s not easy at all.

 

Your gripes seem to rest more broadly with capitalism as a whole, which is a whole different discussion.

 

Edit - damn autocorrects on the mobile!

Edited July 30, 2021 by Inquisitor lorr

[MARK0SIAN]

I think a lot of people are taking a very narrow and simplistic approach to this. GW have to take steps to protect their IP - they literally have to do so in respect of certain avenues of IP or they forfeit the right to later protect it. So they need to have a policy that adequately seeks to do that, that actually seeks to prevent mis-use of their IP (rather than simply pay lip-service so as to not lose the right - ‘prevention is better than the cure’ is the number one rule of litigation - even huge firms like GW will not want to get embroiled in a dispute), but has a degree of flexibility. That is incredibly hard to do - how do the people decrying this policy propose that they have a policy which offers the necessary legal protection, says to some people ‘don’t worry, we don’t care about you, we’re chill’ but ‘oh you, nah you’re screwed if you start anything’. It is impossible to legislate for everything.

 

Perhaps the Xbox approach is an alternative, but they will naturally be very cautious about their IP at this point in time - they are clearly gearing up for a huge investment, probably hoping they can beeline into mainstream media in a few years. In today’s climate, all it takes is one silly post, even from an independent source, which leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the public or garners enough press to dissuade a deal with studio, for example. And with that risk hanging over them, you’re back to the above - how do you mitigate against that whilst explaining you’ll let the inoffensive people play ball?

 

Not trying to be facetious, or say I agree - it’s just a very tricky balance to achieve.

The thing is, it’s not impossible or even really difficult to say “you can make as many fan animations as you want so long as you don’t profit from them financially and they are not offensive/sexist/racist etc.”

 

It’s even easier for them to communicate with their fans and the community about these changes and they haven’t done that. I think that’s what some of the major grievances are concerning.

[BluegrassGamer]

 

The thing is, it’s not impossible or even really difficult to say “you can make as many fan animations as you want so long as you don’t profit from them financially and they are not offensive/sexist/racist etc.”

 

It’s even easier for them to communicate with their fans and the community about these changes and they haven’t done that. I think that’s what some of the major grievances are concerning.

 

 Isn't that exactly what GW is doing? Saying "don't make a profit off our stuff"?  It's in their "new" IP guidelines. It was probably in their "old" IP guidelines.  And the issue is that fan content creators themselves have talked how they have monetized their video and run Patreons.  Pretty sure clauses about not harming the brand has been in GW's IP guidelines for a while, too. 

 

One of the things that used to surprise me a lot was that GW was just letting the animated Helsreach series stay on YouTube. Especially since it was just animations being played over the near-entirety of a Black Library audio book's narration.

[Uprising]

You know, I think with the recent events, the orkz are right again. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svIJxu_kxAQ

 

It seems like GW wants to kill the community, so why not do the right thing and help them with that goal? 

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

Especially since it was just animations being played over the near-entirety of a Black Library audio book's narration.

The fan animation is about 2 hours 30 minutes in total? The audiobook is 12 hours 15 minutes. It skips a lot

 

And they hired the man, so there's that.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

The thing is, it’s not impossible or even really difficult to say “you can make as many fan animations as you want so long as you don’t profit from them financially and they are not offensive/sexist/racist etc.”

 

It’s even easier for them to communicate with their fans and the community about these changes and they haven’t done that. I think that’s what some of the major grievances are concerning.

 

Isn't that exactly what GW is doing? Saying "don't make a profit off our stuff"? It's in their "new" IP guidelines. It was probably in their "old" IP guidelines. And the issue is that fan content creators themselves have talked how they have monetized their video and run Patreons. Pretty sure clauses about not harming the brand has been in GW's IP guidelines for a while, too.

 

One of the things that used to surprise me a lot was that GW was just letting the animated Helsreach series stay on YouTube. Especially since it was just animations being played over the near-entirety of a Black Library audio book's narration.

No it’s not exactly what they’re saying. They’re saying you can’t make any animations full stop, whether you make money from them or not. That’s the problem. If you or I sat at home on our computer and made an animation of anything GW related, even if we only showed it to our friends we would be breaking the guidelines.

 

So why they can’t add that simple clause in that the animations can’t be for profit but you can make them if you want just seems petty.

 

As for Helsreach, it goes with what I said in an earlier post that they’re being hypocritical. They have benefited from and even hired the Helsreach guy but now they’re saying no one else can do it.

Edited July 30, 2021 by MARK0SIAN

[Inquisitor lorr]

 

 

 

The thing is, it’s not impossible or even really difficult to say “you can make as many fan animations as you want so long as you don’t profit from them financially and they are not offensive/sexist/racist etc.”

 

It’s even easier for them to communicate with their fans and the community about these changes and they haven’t done that. I think that’s what some of the major grievances are concerning.

 

Isn't that exactly what GW is doing? Saying "don't make a profit off our stuff"? It's in their "new" IP guidelines. It was probably in their "old" IP guidelines. And the issue is that fan content creators themselves have talked how they have monetized their video and run Patreons. Pretty sure clauses about not harming the brand has been in GW's IP guidelines for a while, too.

 

One of the things that used to surprise me a lot was that GW was just letting the animated Helsreach series stay on YouTube. Especially since it was just animations being played over the near-entirety of a Black Library audio book's narration.

No it’s not exactly what they’re saying. They’re saying you can’t make any animations full stop, whether you make money from them or not. That’s the problem. If you or I sat at home on our computer and made an animation of anything GW related, even if we only showed it to our friends we would be breaking the guidelines.

 

So why they can’t add that simple clause in that the animations can’t be for profit but you can make them if you want just seems petty.

 

As for Helsreach, it goes with what I said in an earlier post that they’re being hypocritical. They have benefited from and even hired the Helsreach guy but now they’re saying no one else can do it.

Well, they’re actually saying you can’t make any animations using our IP without our permission (a licence).