Galactic Armoury received a C&D from GW

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

https://all3dp.com/4/galactic-armory-hit-with-cease-and-desist-over-warhammer-40k-models/

 

Bad news for 3D painters and Warhammer cosplayers,i think. Galactic Armoury has received a cease and desist from Games Workshop about some of their stuff (Physical and archives)

They announced they will comply,but the models and archives are still available. At least, for few days.

Edited Friday at 12:57 PM by Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf
Add picture

[TheVoidDragon]

This really doesn't seem a surprise at all considering they're outright copies of warhammer products, not something that's their own thing simply inspired by them. And they're selling them, too. 

I expect many go for the usual "GW bad!" over this regardless, though.

 

 I'm not even sure if they are copies or if they're actually taken from other places, that chaplain helmet looks remarkably similar to the one straight from Space Marine 2, but it's hard to tell. 

Edited Friday at 01:42 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Shadowshand]

7 hours ago, TheVoidDragon said:

I expect many go for the usual "GW bad!" over this regardless, though.

Yes. Because they are bad.

Edited Friday at 08:48 PM by Brother Tyler
Image size reduced

[Joe]

In general, a lot of the cosplay community will use raw files from games, extracted and then adjusted (or used as the base shape) for making the files and such - it's been a big thing in the Halo community for years (admittedly permitted there by and by the large, sales included when not infringing).

 

It's a dicey subject, and yeah, at a glance it does look like some of the files Galactic Armoury has (had) on offer are raw rips.

[Indy Techwisp]

6 hours ago, Shadowshand said:

Yes. Because they are bad.

As much as we may love to hate on GW, this is actually just copyright infringement, plain and simple.

GW are objectively correct this time.

Edited Friday at 08:48 PM by Brother Tyler
Size of image in quote reduced

[Vassakov]

Yes, they were doing a blatant copyright infringement. Not even vaguely arguable. Especially with GW's partnership with Weta now, this is exactly the kind of stuff that copyright law is designed to be used for.

 

If it was just generating the files and sharing them there might be a fair use/transformative works defence (#NotLegalAdvice) but the fact that this is essentially a business selling stuff copied from others makes it open and shut.

 

In fact, having had a look at their site, I am astonished that Diseny/Lucasfilm hasn't come down on them with the full weight of Micky Mouse's Boots (which are presently still subject to copyright....!)

[Shadowshand]

12 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

As much as we may love to hate on GW, this is actually just copyright infringement, plain and simple.

GW are objectively correct this time.

lol No. They are not objectively correct when they take from other IPs and call it their own. 

When a company deliberately alienates their base that propped up their franchise, they lose the moral right to defend their IP.

Edited Friday at 02:45 PM by Shadowshand

[Vassakov]

1 minute ago, Shadowshand said:

lol No. They are not objectively correct when they take from other IPs and call it their own. 

When a company deliberately alienates then base that propped up their franchise, they lose the moral right to defend their IP.

 

That's... that's just not how copyright, fair use and trademarks work.

 

Taking inspiration from other works is not only completely normal, it's arguably a pretty fundamental part of the creative process. Yes, a lot of GW's works are derivative in the sense that they've taken ideas from a whole load of places - but most of them have been reworked to a greater or lesser degree. Hence the point about transformative works, of which there are legion.

 

The profit factor is another one - if you're doing something for the love of it and sharing that with others, you're basically immune from claims. The moment you start monetising it, you're in trouble. It's why something like Ao3 doesn't run ads and is funded by donations as a non-profit, and 50 Shades of Grey ran a quick find & replace when it was published. 

 

Your opinion of their "moral right," whilst vaguely amusing, holds less legal water than my sieve I'm afraid. 

[Shadowshand]

13 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

 

That's... that's just not how copyright, fair use and trademarks work.

 

Taking inspiration from other works is not only completely normal, it's arguably a pretty fundamental part of the creative process. Yes, a lot of GW's works are derivative in the sense that they've taken ideas from a whole load of places - but most of them have been reworked to a greater or lesser degree. Hence the point about transformative works, of which there are legion.

 

The profit factor is another one - if you're doing something for the love of it and sharing that with others, you're basically immune from claims. The moment you start monetising it, you're in trouble. It's why something like Ao3 doesn't run ads and is funded by donations as a non-profit, and 50 Shades of Grey ran a quick find & replace when it was published. 

 

Your opinion of their "moral right," whilst vaguely amusing, holds less legal water than my sieve I'm afraid. 

 

Where does protecting the IP stop? Does it extend to forcing former fans to participate if sales are slumping? lol 

While them using legality is, as you put, vaguely amusing, as well, "legality" does not equal being morally or objectively correct here.

Edited Friday at 03:03 PM by Shadowshand

[Joe]

I'd be curious to see where the claim of "the sales are slumping" comes from, as the last few years worth of financial reports have never indicated as such - and we get fairly detailed breakdowns from @N1SB parsing the information for us commoners.

 

I'm going to assume it's one of the resident drama-tubers looking to generate clicks.

[Shadowshand]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

I'm going to assume it's one of the resident drama-tubers looking to generate clicks.

Um, sure, if you have nothing else to state on the matter, just call me a "drama-tuber".  lol

[Antarius]

17 minutes ago, Shadowshand said:

 

Where does protecting the IP stop? Does it extend to forcing former fans to participate if sales are slumping? lol 

Sir, step away from the internet.

[Vassakov]

10 minutes ago, Shadowshand said:

 

Where does protecting the IP stop? Does it extend to forcing former fans to participate if sales are slumping? lol 

 

I'm genuinely not clear on what you mean here? If you're saying that they're trying to force people to buy their product and products derived from their IP through channels they control or license... yes? That's how licensing and copyright protections work. Sorry if you dislike that.

 

As for the slumping sales, well the point at which GW started to really clamp down was following the Chapterhouse ruling in 2012. For context, this is GW's share price since Jan 1 2012. It has accelerated in recent years as they've expanded their licencing operations. As we can see, it seems to be going catastrophically for them...

 

As @Joe has pointed out, @N1SB has done extensive reporting on their financial reports which tell the same story from the perspective of sales.

 

17 minutes ago, Shadowshand said:

While them using legality is, as you put, vaguely amusing, as well, "legality" does not equal being morally or objectively correct here.

 

Actually, in legal matters "Objective" is a term used by the courts although it is not strictly speaking applicable to this discussion (it primarily focuses on what a hypothetical "reasonable" person would know of a situation.) Confusing the law with what is moral has resulted in a great many people getting into varying degrees of bother and an individuals moral view on matters of law are not generally relevant. 

[Antarius]

9 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

Confusing the law with what is moral has resulted in a great many people getting into varying degrees of bother and an individuals moral view on matters of law are not generally relevant. 

Indeed. 

One might add that, while there can certainly be situations where laws ought to change or where the argument that a specific law can lead to immoral outcomes might be relevant, in a discussion of a specific matter such as this, it would probably be more persuasive to try to actually demonstrate that this is the case in this particular situation by the use of arguments and evidence, rather than simply stating that laws and morals are not the same and adding "lol" and/or memes as if it they constitute some kind of point.

Edited Friday at 03:32 PM by Antarius

[TheVoidDragon]

2 hours ago, Shadowshand said:

 

Where does protecting the IP stop? Does it extend to forcing former fans to participate if sales are slumping? lol 

While them using legality is, as you put, vaguely amusing, as well, "legality" does not equal being morally or objectively correct here.

 

That you seem to think it's "morally" and/or "objectively" alright for someone else to plagiarize their work and profit off it, simply because they did something that you personally dislike,  is just completely absurd. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 05:26 PM by TheVoidDragon

[Wispy]

3 hours ago, Shadowshand said:

lol No. They are not objectively correct when they take from other IPs and call it their own. 

When a company deliberately alienates their base that propped up their franchise, they lose the moral right to defend their IP.

Lol, 21 

Edited Friday at 05:49 PM by Wispy

[Toxichobbit]

1 hour ago, Wispy said:

Lol, 21 

 

66 if you total the entire thread. In just 4 posts. I'm genuinely impressed, I don't think I've ever seen anyone pull off that many dislikes in such a short time on here.

[Joe]

Agreed - that's a new record.

[Waaagh?]

Now we know why!

[Toxichobbit]

And now we know why they've sent the C&D. Joy Toy is making licensed helmets.

[Vardus]

OK Joytoy Lt Titus Helm explains this!

[Vassakov]

Preorder for a licenced Space Marine helmet from JoyToy later today.

 

That's probably the answer.

 

Edit: and here it is. https://merch.warhammer.com/products/joytoy-warhammer-40-000-space-marine-2-lieutenant-titus-mkx-helmet-display-stand-1-1-scale-preorder?variant=55460562436471

Edited Friday at 07:36 PM by Vassakov

[Brother Tyler]

For those who want to understand the situation in question, please follow the link in the first post. For those who are interested in the issue of intellectual property (IP), I've included a link to the UK's IP page (since GW is headquartered in the UK) below.

 

https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-an-overview

 

That page has links relevant to information about points that have been brought up in the discussion.

 

While WH40K cosplay is relevant to the hobby (hobby adjacent?) and suitable for discussion and content sharing here at the B&C, this legal matter is not. Those who wish to pursue discussion of the matter further are invited to take it to communities dedicated to cosplay (and who may wish to discuss the impacts and implications of this and similar legal action on that hobby) and legal issues, especially those pertaining to IP.