Intellectual property guidelines updated

[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).

[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.

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

Yeah, that’s kind of my point? I’m not sure I get your point? I’m saying they could easily amend that to say you can’t make any animations using our IP that generate money and leave fans alone to make passion projects that are not monetised.

[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).

Yeah, that’s kind of my point? I’m not sure I get your point? I’m saying they could easily amend that to say you can’t make any animations using our IP that generate money and leave fans alone to make passion projects that are not monetised.

It’s not unreasonable to say, don’t make things with our IP unless you ask us, thanks very much. Monetising it is only one element, and it will be far from their biggest concern. Adverse PR, poor quality/offensive products contaminating the pool etc are far bigger risks than the money they might lose to people who monetise. As I said before - they’re probably gearing up to do something big over the next few years if everything goes to plan, and those elements are very real risks to that plan which could be a huge revenue stream for them, possibly bigger than anything they’ve ever seen before if they crack mainstream. If they’re going to try and break into mainstream media they would be foolish to have anything other than absolute control over their brand and media productions that are out there.

 

Also, allowing people to do what they want if it’s not monetised is not effective IP protection.

 

The reality is in your example of making something and sharing it with friends is that no enforcement action is ever going to be taken, so crack on. It hasn’t quashed that and it’s not reasonable to suggest it has. It’s a policy which is clearly designed to protect the IP in the public domain. Your example is like driving 51mph in a 50 zone - strictly it’s illegal - but nothing is ever going to come of it, and everyone knows that.

[excelite]

 

 

 

 

 

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).

Yeah, that’s kind of my point? I’m not sure I get your point? I’m saying they could easily amend that to say you can’t make any animations using our IP that generate money and leave fans alone to make passion projects that are not monetised.

Well what you’re asking is some kind of non commercial license… but it’s still a license…

 

The thing is GW tells you exactly what to do to be allowed to do stuff with their ip, but the common internet knowledge straight ignores that a license is not forced to have a cost associated as well as nobody even trying to find out details absolut licensing…

 

This whole debate is done in bad faith by people that are not even involved any further than being the folks who’s money is pulled out of their pockets and not even trying to understand the rules that are put up by the owner…

 

Just imagine how you (as in general, not anybody specific) would react if the person you play on the tabletop would refuse to use or even read a specific rule like charging. How would you handle this on the tabletop?

 

So is it really the fault of GW to have that rule? Or might it be some crappy move by creators refusing to take care of their duty and take care of the needed licensing?

 

In case somebody decides that it’s way too complicated and they prefer to stop making GW based stuff, that’s totally fine… but it’s their decision, blaming this on anything else is just plain wrong

[BluegrassGamer]

 

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.

 

Ah! Well, then. I apologize for being wrong on that specific point. And the point still stand: they ripped about three hours of narration out of a Black Library audio book, animated it, and then published on their monetized YouTube channel...  

 

 

Yeah, that’s kind of my point? I’m not sure I get your point? I’m saying they could easily amend that to say you can’t make any animations using our IP that generate money and leave fans alone to make passion projects that are not monetized.

 

I'm pretty sure almost every fan content creator has argued would argue that their channel truly is a passion project that they've spent lots of time on and only made out of love of the various GW settings... But we can't ignore that those same fan content creators then went on to put their monetized YouTube channels, started Patreons for their work, or both.  GW saw the interest in animated Warhammer content, saw how many fan creators there were, and how many had some form of monetization going on. 

 

It's not surprising GW went: "Huh, people like animated content based on our settings.  What if that, but the money went to the people who have actually have right to the IP?" It's also not surprising that GW also went: "And we're going to start enforcing our IP, too."

 

And we've been know GW's been recruiting some of the fan content creators.  Some said yes, some said no, and some that initially said yes ended up getting harassed by the fan base for being a "sell out" and then said no and that they were leaving the community...

 

I know that on creator said that they turned down GW's offer, agreed to stop monetizing their work, and then contacted saying they had to take their animations down regardless.  Which weird.  But I suspect that there was a corporate miscommunication somewhere. Either between a GW employee and their supervisor or two different departments at GW HQ. 

[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.

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

Yeah, that’s kind of my point? I’m not sure I get your point? I’m saying they could easily amend that to say you can’t make any animations using our IP that generate money and leave fans alone to make passion projects that are not monetised.

It’s not unreasonable to say, don’t make things with our IP unless you ask us, thanks very much. Monetising it is only one element, and it will be far from their biggest concern. Adverse PR, poor quality/offensive products contaminating the pool etc are far bigger risks than the money they might lose to people who monetise. As I said before - they’re probably gearing up to do something big over the next few years if everything goes to plan, and those elements are very real risks to that plan which could be a huge revenue stream for them, possibly bigger than anything they’ve ever seen before if they crack mainstream. If they’re going to try and break into mainstream media they would be foolish to have anything other than absolute control over their brand and media productions that are out there.

 

Also, allowing people to do what they want if it’s not monetised is not effective IP protection.

 

The reality is in your example of making something and sharing it with friends is that no enforcement action is ever going to be taken, so crack on. It hasn’t quashed that and it’s not reasonable to suggest it has. It’s a policy which is clearly designed to protect the IP in the public domain. Your example is like driving 51mph in a 50 zone - strictly it’s illegal - but nothing is ever going to come of it, and everyone knows that.

I don’t think we will see eye to eye on this. When you say it’s not unreasonable to ask people not to make things with your IP I think the total opposite. To me, a fan animation is no different than fan art. So long as someone isn’t making money from it and not making GW look bad then I think it’s fine. The success of their ventures into the mainstream is not going to hinge on some fan animation.

 

I think it’s frankly ridiculous to explicitly change your IP policy to try and prohibit anyone making an animation involving your IP. Whether enforcement action would ensue or not is not the point. Explicitly ruling it out in all situations is an unnecessarily overzealous application of IP protection and, as I said, hypocritical considering how they’ve promoted and taken things like Astartes in house.

 

EDIT - Just seen your other post. I’m not arguing for people like Astartes etc who were making thousands from their various patreons etc. As much as I love those animations, that was a clear cut case of someone making a fortune infringing someone else’s IP. I’m talking solely about the lack of distinction on GWs part between those people making money and a blanket ban.

Edited July 30, 2021 by MARK0SIAN

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

It's not surprising GW went: "Huh, people like animated content based on our settings.  What if that, but the money went to the people who have actually have right to the IP?" It's also not surprising that GW also went: "And we're going to start enforcing our IP, too."

 

 

It's not surprising, but it does run directly against the 'good GW' PR that they've (mostly successfully) been trying to push since 2016/17-ish. Also, it's not 'if you want to do the animation people like here's how you do it/get a license, we just want our cut', it's 'this stuff is now explicitly banned, you get nothing except uncertainty about when the law hammer drops' (sure you can argue about whether its' legally enforceable, but most people can't fight something like this regardless of the truth, and we're already seeing the shilling effect with stiff like TTS).

 

 

And we've been know GW's been recruiting some of the fan content creators.  Some said yes, some said no, and some that initially said yes ended up getting harassed by the fan base for being a "sell out" and then said no and that they were leaving the community...

Doesn't this create something of a 'killing the golden goose' effect though? Sure, they might be OK for now, having picked the cream of the animator crop for the launch of Warhammer Plus. But (assuming it's a 'success' of course) what happens in a couple of years when contracts run out and the guys they've currently got want to do something else/get better offers? It sure looks like they're dead set on burning the pipeline that produced the guys they've just hired, so there's unlikely to be a next generation when the current guys have had enough.

 

 

I know that on creator said that they turned down GW's offer, agreed to stop monetizing their work, and then contacted saying they had to take their animations down regardless.  Which weird.  But I suspect that there was a corporate miscommunication somewhere. Either between a GW employee and their supervisor or two different departments at GW HQ.

Why give the multinational, multi-million pound corporation that much of a benefit of the doubt? They've got enough resources (especially when it comes to IP law) that they shouldn't be making 'miscommunications' at that scale (I know I'd be the the for a 'miscommunication' like that at my work). Simple fact, this is a pretty bad look for GW at the moment. Will it matter? Will the current outrage stick? I have no idea (though the cynic in me suggests this will all blow over inside a month). But this is still a colossal move by GW. They're making Disney look like the the 'light IP touch' atm.

[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).

Yeah, that’s kind of my point? I’m not sure I get your point? I’m saying they could easily amend that to say you can’t make any animations using our IP that generate money and leave fans alone to make passion projects that are not monetised.

It’s not unreasonable to say, don’t make things with our IP unless you ask us, thanks very much. Monetising it is only one element, and it will be far from their biggest concern. Adverse PR, poor quality/offensive products contaminating the pool etc are far bigger risks than the money they might lose to people who monetise. As I said before - they’re probably gearing up to do something big over the next few years if everything goes to plan, and those elements are very real risks to that plan which could be a huge revenue stream for them, possibly bigger than anything they’ve ever seen before if they crack mainstream. If they’re going to try and break into mainstream media they would be foolish to have anything other than absolute control over their brand and media productions that are out there.

 

Also, allowing people to do what they want if it’s not monetised is not effective IP protection.

 

The reality is in your example of making something and sharing it with friends is that no enforcement action is ever going to be taken, so crack on. It hasn’t quashed that and it’s not reasonable to suggest it has. It’s a policy which is clearly designed to protect the IP in the public domain. Your example is like driving 51mph in a 50 zone - strictly it’s illegal - but nothing is ever going to come of it, and everyone knows that.

I don’t think we will see eye to eye on this. When you say it’s not unreasonable to ask people not to make things with your IP I think the total opposite. To me, a fan animation is no different than fan art. So long as someone isn’t making money from it and not making GW look bad then I think it’s fine. The success of their ventures into the mainstream is not going to hinge on some fan animation.

 

I think it’s frankly ridiculous to explicitly change your IP policy to try and prohibit anyone making an animation involving your IP. Whether enforcement action would ensue or not is not the point. Explicitly ruling it out in all situations is an unnecessarily overzealous application of IP protection and, as I said, hypocritical considering how they’ve promoted and taken things like Astartes in house.

 

EDIT - Just seen your other post. I’m not arguing for people like Astartes etc who were making thousands from their various patreons etc. As much as I love those animations, that was a clear cut case of someone making a fortune infringing someone else’s IP. I’m talking solely about the lack of distinction on GWs part between those people making money and a blanket ban.

I suspect not - but that’s all part of a healthy, respectful debate! :)

 

I do agree with you to a certain extent, but it’s so difficult to manage those people who are not monetising and are behaving and those who are not, so, unfortunately, blanket action is the easiest solution. Particularly, where they are obliged at law to take steps to protect their IP, or lose it, or reduce the efficacy of any steps they did later.

 

I’m not saying I agree with it all - I’m just saying more recognition needs to be given to just how hard this is to deal with for a company. GW have even tried to explain that in their policy.

 

I disagree that a fan animation could impact that them significantly - in today’s world, a poorly timed, particularly offensive viral video could be so costly. Even if the prospect of that is remote, even that prospect is probably too much to risk.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Inquisitor lorr

[BluegrassGamer]

People who think there was a "Good GW" and a "Bad GW" clearly lost sight of the fact that - as GW is multinational, multi-million pound corporation - there has only ever been GW.  And I said previously a multinational, multi-million pound corporation is going to multinational, multi-million pound corporation.  Which boils down to protecting the bottom line.  Letting fans think there's a "Good GW"? So long as protects the bottom dollar.  Shutting down established and popular fan creators who've infringed on their IP to make money? Gotta protect that bottom dollar and go after them for it.

And I honestly think the reason a lot of folk are defending fan content creators is based more on their emotional attachment to those fan content creators than anything else.  The sheer amount of folks who've said something along the lines "Yes, GW has a right to protect their IP! But they shoudn't!" kind of, to me, proves that.

Edited July 30, 2021 by BluegrassGamer

[Marshal Rohr]

Someone pointed out the TTS Patreon was taking in 180K a year. THAT is why GW is tightening the ropes. You can’t make that kinda money off someone else’s IP with fanfic. That’s a staggering amount of money even split between a team.

[Arkhanist]

Some of us also think that GW is trying to step significantly beyond the bounds of how much protection copyright law actually gives them. Fair use exists, and is a perfectly valid defence to all sorts of infringement - including making money from it  - and copyright doesn't cover things that aren't actually copies. You'll see not the slightest acknowledgement of that in their new policy - or indeed, some of the comments here carrying so much water for GW they might as well be on the payroll.

 

And sure, GW can get away with that because they can afford to make legal threats and indie creators don't make enough money to risk calling them on it. But it don't make it right, and people can legimitately be pissed at GW for using threats to push their restrictions on people who have no legal need to get a licence, or permission. It's bullying, plain and simple. And being seen as a bully puts people off wanting to buy your products. Sure, GW is riding the crest of renewed interest, and nothing is likely to dent their sales right now.

 

But some of us also remember the mid 2000s and on under Kirby, when GW was sending C&Ds out like confetti, and treated their customers with contempt, including continuous price rises over and above inflation. And it did cost them very badly in sales, for a long time - so much so, people were actively talking about whether they could ever overcome falling sales year-on-year and ever smaller profits, and if they were going to go under. Customer goodwill is so easy to lose, and hard to win back, and it took GW several years under Rountree to undo that damage.

 

And despite my dislike of their current tactics, that doesn't mean I want to see GW end up back where it was, a barely profitable company in danger of complete collapse - but they are starting to make the exact same mistakes that cost them so dearly last time.

[excelite]

Fair use exists, and is a perfectly valid defence to all sorts of infringement

So you know it’s infringement, but don’t like the owner to come after it…

[chapter master 454]

TTS was a parody, many comedies have made millions off of other IP purely by taking the michael out of them. In fact, isn't that what a large portion of comedy is?

 

Yes, GW want their share of the pie here and that is fine but their method of on-boarding is what is off-putting. It isn't the service, its what surrounds it. GW have put up their own little outlet for animations which will never be as free or wide as they used to be purely because "it must be within our image" issue. It is the "here's warhammer plus. OH and btw we are coming for you if you make animations of our stuff full stop".

 

This is as close as you can get to what Nintendo did some years ago...god it has been a while now though, where they literally said "you make ANY videos on our stuff you get struck down unless you give us the lions share of the income from that". It basically just killed off all the nintendo based channels for a bit and no-one won.

If you want a piece of the pie that is fine but GW are wanting to whole pie to themselves and that just means that there will be no pie for anyone in the end, including GW.

 

A better approach would of been to have the content creators be advertising boards. Still get the talent but instead of putting up these new IP guidelines to try and FORCE people into warhammer plus, have people like AlfaBusa put in adverts for warhammer plus by just asking. "Hey, see you got a nice fan video there, gets a lot of views...mind giving our new service a shout out in some videos?"

I am not saying GW are doing something evil and abhorrent, got to protect your IP. However their methods are harmful to the long term health of the game.

 

"A society becomes great when men plant trees whose shade they shall never enjoy"

[Marshal Rohr]

TTS is not a parody. Austin Powers is a parody. Weird Al is a parody. TTS was an original comedy using images and models that belong to GW. Austin powers didn’t use cut outs of James Bond.

[Arkhanist]

 

Fair use exists, and is a perfectly valid defence to all sorts of infringement

So you know it’s infringement, but don’t like the owner to come after it…

 

Fair use is an explicit defence to infringement. If it is fair use, then *despite using parts of a copyrighted work*, it is legally not infringement.

 

It is legal to do so, does not require permission, and the concept has been around for about as long as copyright has. Copyright is granted in the first place because it is in the public interest to allow creators to hold a time limited exclusive right to make copies of their work - that right means more creators will make more work, i.e. for the public good. There is ALSO a recognition in law, that it is also in the public good for there to be exceptions to copyright, so that even though someone is using part of someone else's work, if it is judged to fair use, it is not, in fact, copyright infringement *at all*. The owner has no valid copyright claim. There is nothing to 'come after' for, because fair use means it's *not copyright infringement*. Copyright is not property, and is not treated as property under the law, despite references to 'IP'.

 

That is what fair use means, it is a well established part of copyright as a constraint on the power of a copyright holder, and allows a whole ton of things, including commentary, news, education and yes, parody - but not only that. Whether someone makes money from copying a part of someone else's work is a factor, but it is not the only one, and it is entirely possible to use parts of other people's work and make a living from it, entirely legally.

 

This board would *not exist* without fair use. Youtube would *not exist* without fair use. News! would not exist without fair use.

 

And yes, I would like GW to recognise that fact when they're making legal threats - that they only win by default because the cost of defending a fair use case in court is far higher than any benefit could be, so despite them doing *nothing wrong under copyright law* creators are shutting down rather than risk fighting a battle they lose just by having to fight it at all.

 

We can argue whether a given work is or should be a fair use or not, but this continued refusal to accept fair use even exists *at all* is, well, kinda frustrating.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Arkhanist

[Roomsky]

 

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

 

 

Hey, someone said the quiet part out loud.

 

I mean, the more the issue gets discussed the more macro the issue is going to get. Corporations gonna corporation, which includes things like lobbying to perpetuate IP law that explicitly favours corporations. GW has other ways to deal with all this, am I surprised they're trying to maximize profit at the expense of public opinion? No, corporations gonna corporation. Doesn't make it fair, just, etc.

 

And neither side of the argument really changes the fact that corporations have an unfair advantage in the court of law. Alfabusa should have the right, at least, to keep on and contest, in court, if he is or is not infringing upon the IP. He won't, because an individual risks financial ruination by entering a court battle with a corporation, while a corpo the size of GW risks almost nothing at all. And then of course there's the possibility of appealing until the defendant runs out of money if they happen to lose.

 

Which I think is a fairly good summary of why something being legal doesn't make it... any positive adjective you want, really.

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Roomsky

[NovemberIX]

TTS is not a parody. Austin Powers is a parody. Weird Al is a parody. TTS was an original comedy using images and models that belong to GW. Austin powers didn’t use cut outs of James Bond.

Hard disgree, TTS managed not to just parody 40K, but GW and it's meta-history as a whole, that it ended up telling a divergent story that was just as compelling as a framework for the parody doesn't make it any less of one.  The Malal joke, the WHFantasy battle, the custodes list build, I'd hazard to say lovingly done parody. I'd be willing to make the argument that TTS' use of GW art was transformative as well, it's not like any of those original static pictures moved around, had a voice, or a personality attached.

 

The funny thing is, fanworks are what brought me into 40K, and TTS literally made me buy Scions ("Oooo Tanky buggers too they are"-tts ep26). If not for Shinji  and Warhammer 40K I (and those around me) wouldn't have engaged with GW products. I used TTS as a way to bring less than interested friends into the hobby, and it worked well. At this point all GW is doing is giving their fans more and more reason to disengage, or alternatively, "go Freebooter".

 

It's sorta like if a corporation has no loyalty to me as it's client, only the pursuit of profit, then shouldn't I return no loyalty and pursue enjoyment even to the detriment of the corporation?

[Balerion84]

TTS is not a parody. Austin Powers is a parody. Weird Al is a parody. TTS was an original comedy using images and models that belong to GW. Austin powers didn’t use cut outs of James Bond.

I'm sorry, what? TTS is not a parody?

 

Can you explain your definition of parody please? I'd be very interested to hear that. Like an actual explanation and what constitutes a parody and what is the difference between a comedy and parody for you?

[tychobi]

Freebooter! As romantic and aporopriate as that idea is sustainability is needed for art to thrive. GW needs production not engagement at the moment. Sad for fans and creators alike but reality does not favor the little guy.

 

Imagine if GW had the forethought to foster their most ardent supporters and focus on great models and balanced rules? A boy can dream right?

[Azekai]

It's sorta like if a corporation has no loyalty to me as it's client, only the pursuit of profit, then shouldn't I return no loyalty and pursue enjoyment even to the detriment of the corporation?

 

See, that's your problem right there- you haven't incorporated Games Workshop products into your core identity as a person. When sense of self is conflated with a brand, loyalty and uncritical consumption becomes second nature. GW is our friend, they make the cool toys. Don't worry about how fans are being told to shut down their lovingly crafted projects so we can tune into a very limited subscription based streaming service. Actually, this is an unmitigated good! It's GW's moral imperative to hunt these vicious IP abusers down, they were tainting the brand with their existence.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a shortsighted and oafish corporate shakedown, nothing more.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Azekai

[Marshal Rohr]

 

TTS is not a parody. Austin Powers is a parody. Weird Al is a parody. TTS was an original comedy using images and models that belong to GW. Austin powers didn’t use cut outs of James Bond.

I'm sorry, what? TTS is not a parody?

 

Can you explain your definition of parody please? I'd be very interested to hear that. Like an actual explanation and what constitutes a parody and what is the difference between a comedy and parody for you?

Parody is copying a genre or author or musician. It’s not taking some photoshop cutout and making Potter Puppet Pals but with Custodes. It’s animated fanfic. This is just another example of people not understanding what’s going on, like believing 40K is a satire. 40K *was* a satire. 40K is no longer a satire. It can be satirical, but it is not satire. TTS may have elements of parody, or even entire episodes and arcs of parody. TTS is not parody. It isn’t fair use to take a cut out of Karl Kopinskis art, make it move up and down over an Adrian Smith background with it interacts with a cut and pasted Spy Marbo. Every piece of that (which they are making money from, the real sin) is someone else’s work except the video editing and voice acting and no one would care if they weren’t making money from it. Edited July 31, 2021 by Marshal Rohr

[Balerion84]

 

 

TTS is not a parody. Austin Powers is a parody. Weird Al is a parody. TTS was an original comedy using images and models that belong to GW. Austin powers didn’t use cut outs of James Bond.

I'm sorry, what? TTS is not a parody?

 

Can you explain your definition of parody please? I'd be very interested to hear that. Like an actual explanation and what constitutes a parody and what is the difference between a comedy and parody for you?

Parody is copying a genre or author or musician. It’s not taking some photoshop cutout and making Potter Puppet Pals but with Custodes. It’s animated fanfic. This is just another example of people not understanding what’s going on, like believing 40K is a satire. 40K *was* a satire. 40K is no longer a satire. It can be satirical, but it is not satire. TTS may have elements of parody, or even entire episodes and arcs of parody. TTS is not parody. It isn’t fair use to take a cut out of Karl Kopinskis art, make it move up and down over an Adrian Smith background with it interacts with a cut and pasted Spy Marbo. Every piece of that (which they are making money from, the real sin) is someone else’s work except the video editing and voice acting and no one would care if they weren’t making money from it.

That's a very selective way to define parody, as if to make it fit into your criticism of TTS.

So, what should TTS do for you to consider it parody? Draw the characters themselves? Would that be enough? But that'd just be a copy of the original anyway, so same argument could still be used.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the pictures TTS was using were not animated. Animating them and adding voice acting should be transformative enough as mentioned above.

 

As for money making, parodies make money. So I'm not buying that argument when it comes. to parodies.

 

Astartes and Helsreach, I can agree with. TTS I don't agree.

[Doghouse]

I do not wish to sound impolite but I think anyone making GW fan animations with a patreon within the last ten years would have to be incredibly naive to think that GW would never do this.

 

While I am personally deeply against what is going on I can objectively see what GW are doing. Yes it is free advertising and lots of people get into the hobby because of these beloved works but GW have no control over that free marketing's content because up until recently they were not working with the creators. Then you have their perceived threat/competition to their new streaming service which I personally think is what they see as the future of the hobby as we see the rise in the likes of 3d printing. 

 

I think that was the reason why TTS has closed it's chapter on 40k, not because of legal threats but because of what GW might do and they rightly do not want to take that risk. I would be exactly the same if I were in their position. They could argue parody but in the face of huge legal fees and other inconveniences it's really not worth the risk to them. 

 

I'm just hoping they don't try the same with battle reports, lore channels and tutorials.

 

Bottom line for me personally is I don't think GW cares, they know very few will have the resources to combat them legally. People will be up in arms for a bit but they know it'll die down come the next big shiny fomo box release and not everyone in the hobby is heavily invested online to see what has been going on.

 

Hopefully in the future I won't get a cease and desist for that copy of a Wayne England white dwarf cover I made when I was a child.

 

 

"I love those moments, I like to wave at them as they pass by" - Captain Jack Sparrow.