Intellectual property guidelines updated

[Captain Idaho]

It's a bit of a standard, what we expect affair. GW is delving deeper into into realms of monetisation of their own IP with animations, video games and with it expanded novels etc. The need to be protected so have to make these distinctions as to their position.

 

Fair use still comes in play here regardless of their wishes. Even YouTube reviews and battle reports are wholly out of their control, since it is fair use. In practice this hurts directly folk who might attend official GW events but little else really. I suppose those of us who attend stores, but generally younger audiences attend stores or newbies, who rarely get stuff outside of GW sources anyway. (Comparatively speaking)

 

The real question, now GW has brought out this update in their intent, is whether they start silly court actions over minor players or not?

Edited July 21, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[caladancid]

I am very interested to see if GW goes after Shapeways and Etsy sellers harder now.

 

edit-

 

There was this brief shining moment like what 3-5 years ago when I really, really thought that old bad GW was gone.  The community page was up, models that people had asked to be made for years were appearing, the company seemed HAPPY.

 

It has been a decline ever since then, which is remarkable considering their rampant market success.  I would say this update really shows we are back to the old GW that appeared to dislike their own customers.  

Edited July 21, 2021 by caladancid

[Black Knight]

Quite a bit of that would be thrown right out in court from past precedence, especially the "not be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation or integrity of Games Workshop or its intellectual property", sorry GW that's a fundamental free speech issue right there. We all have a right(Most countries do) to discuss/express our likes and dislikes of your company, IP and products.

 

Also some of that listed, is stuff that a lot of companies are not willing to even take to court because its getting to a point where precedence has to be set for "fair use", you only have to look to You Tube and the standoff that's happening with creators and companies there. No one wants to go to court and its just big companies bullying those who can't afford lawyers.

 

Under those new guidelines there can be no more Lore channels that use lore from the rule books(also good luck finding art that is not based on an original GW piece), no more bat reps that state or describe the rules they are using in the books. Even this forum is infringing as most of us use GW inspired artwork for our avatars and titles that are based on their IP. I am also prejudicial of GW, with regards to their stupid pricing model, I have also infringed there, sorry fellow forum users.

 

You cannot police the internet GW, I will politely tell you to go melta that piece of paper, its got as much weight in law as I do when I say you can't be mean to me on the internet.

[Skywrath]

 

I'd like to see the typical GW shills defending this move. Honestly, they are so short-sighted. By making this hobby "exclusive", can't they see by this action they are signing their own death warrant in terms of product longevity?

 

I can understand it from a legal point of view, a company protecting what is theirs...

 

However, considering that there must be at least one person at HQ who has been on and read the forums/youtube/the community recently and with what has been going on, that surely somebody somewhere would have seen just how poorly this would be received by the just about everybody. Even Tzeentch himself thought this was going a bit far!

 

Legal speak never comes across as friendly. They should have made a video or something just to explain in normal words what this means exactly. 

 

 

I doubt the second sentence very much (on the basis of my last paragraph) and I can understand the company is protecting what is theirs. As a scientist myself (or in training, depending on perspective), plagiarism (or intellectual property in this case) is something we are actively told to not partake in. This is no different.

 

However, my issue with GW and these types of business, is that in my mind, a business should be friendly to others, from a purely ideological perspective. Especially if they are squeezing every single penny out of them. Do you think from a business perspective you would get more repeat or faithful customers if you attract them with honey, or with a stick? Time and time again, GW shows everyone their stick - lawsuits, expensive prices (with practically no sales/discounts), complete disregard and their non-chalatant behaviour for people's opinion (see the warhammer+ fiasco), and all in name of monetisation. In normal words, the exclusivity of this hobby is definitely not something that will work in their favour, nor does it give me the impression the business is charitable, understanding or approachable. Meaning less profit for them, as I am hardly the one that feels the same way about this.

 

That's all I'll say on this matter, as this is derailing the original intent of this post.

[Ruskinses]

I dont get it, its their IP, they own it, they can do what they want with it. If people are making things that use that IP then they are well within their rights to ask you to stop. Same as for Star Wars or Marvel or Lord of the rings or harry potter - how many Fan animations exist for those? Not many. 

 

The argument of if its not making money its not hurting anyone doesnt fly because they still dont have control of the content of those Films - 2 headed ultramarines? sure, Orks with Eldar heads? Why not, Tyranids that look exactly like Xenomorphs? lets do it. This then means that anything can be done and dilutes their franchises and they get people coming into their shops asking for things that they dont make. 

 

Lastly the argument that they will never get any more fan animators also doesnt really stand, nothing is stopping people making films, sending them to GW and asking to work for them. Also there are more places producing animators than just Youtube.

[USNCenturion]

Well they just said on WarCom that orruks will be known as orcs in the Old World game, so maybe there’s chance of Imperial Guard coming back lol

[Joe]

... I mean, Space Marines are Space Marines on their codex cover as opposed to Adeptus Astartes. We'd extrapolated that possibility nearly a year ago.

[Zeratil]

  I'm certain this change is in response to Warhammer +, and I'm equally certain that GW will continue to be as inconsistent as ever. Part of the problem (English law grad here) is that UK copyright and trademark law is very "wooly" when compared to, say, US law (where the 1st amendment sets a fairly solid bedrock for what is and is not allowed which other law builds on). In the UK most of what is being discussed here (say Emperor's Text-To-Speech*) would end up in a court, there isn't a cut-and-dried protection for all parody in UK copyright law although it does have some fair-dealing protection. Someone cited some case law up above and that it is what such a case would come down to, both sides citing E&W case law to support their position.

  Honestly even if GW policy has actively changed (as in they are planning or preparing to "go after" more targets theoretically covered by the new written policy) it's far more likely they'll pressure the hosts of such content in the case of animation. It's much easier to get Youtube to take stuff down citing their policy and UK law than it would be to go after an individual creator - especially if that creator was outside the UK in which case going after Youtube or similar is their only real course.

  GW have always (IMO) made too much of a deal over their copyrights. Unlike trademarks, copyright doesn't have to be actively defended in order to stay in full effect - GW could let an infringing piece of material circulate for years and they would still have the legal right to sue any individual who used it (although I'm certain a court wouldn't award much compensation in such a case).


*My best-guess would be ETTS would be fine under UK law because it uses (IIRC) a lot of 3rd party artwork, and transforms what artwork it does use in an undoubtedly comedic fashion. 

[Redcomet]

That GW managed to convince so many people that they suddenly became “good gw” is one of the best marketing and spin campaigns ever.

[Joe]

To be perfectly honest no business is "good" - they are all out to make money at the end of the day, and they'll use every trick in the book to do speak. The people that pushed the "good GW" nonsense weren't paying attention to the reality of the world. Like, I work in marketing - a whole chunk of my job involves me pouring over analytical data regarding what you and your wife look at on my clients websites, social media pages and so forth, then extrapolating that into something legible and planning targeted advertising content for use across several different platforms, all with an eye to get you to spend more money.

 

Even smaller companies take advantage of the simple analytical tools Facebook provides to get an idea of what you're interested in, which is purely for their benefit. Polls / surveys? Same thing. Like, come on, chaps - none of you are stupid. This isn't one company acting out; it's the norm. Show a little more curiosity - why is your friend, Dan the LGS owner with a direct line to Warlord and a conscious knowledge that you're the only customer buying GW in his store constantly pestering you to buy Bolt Action?

[lhg033]

So how much to B&C fall fowl on this?

 

Fan-sites

Individuals may create their own fan sites based on our characters and settings, but these must:
 

*not include text, artwork, imagery or animation copied from any official Games Workshop material

--- so the image of the this IP guidlines included here could be a problem or posting any images from WarCom etc?

 

*note post or display rules or stats copied from any official Games Workshop material

--- again WarCom posts that are included here but also any news and rumours threads with links to other sources or even just written out.

 

Others have already covered 'prejudicial' views 

 

[Joe]

You know what...

 

 

 

*not include text, artwork, imagery or animation copied from any official Games Workshop material

 

This just cracked me up - because for the longest time The Miniatures Page were claiming outright ownership of all material posted to the website. Which would have included any product / marketing pictures from Lenton Road. Regardless...

 

 

 

--- so the image of the this IP guidlines included here could be a problem or posting any images from WarCom etc?

 

There was a soft-ban on posting entire article contents a while back - it's pinned in this section. General recommendation is to link to the article and provide a picture or two, so it might just be that we go over to purely linking to the articles instead?

 

 

 

*note post or display rules or stats copied from any official Games Workshop material

Believe this is to counter-act the massive rise in piracy - particularly given they now have applications with the rules on. I expect they'll be going after games-workshop and the BattleScribe 40k repository now, both of which have been infringing for some time.

 

 

 

Others have already covered 'prejudicial' views

 

Reading back over that, I... think this is in relation to libel specifically?

[StraightSilver]

It occurred to me on the way home that GW could ask all YouTube content creators to provide a link to Warhammer+ at no charge to GW.

 

YouTube seems to attract way more viewers, many of whom have never set foot in a GW store.

 

It would be a way of promoting Warhammer+ to a wider audience, and allow fan content to continue.

 

I'm not a lawyer though so there's probably more reasons why they want them taken down.

[Marshal Rohr]

I’ll wait to see how aggressively it’s enforced before damning GW. If this is just a tool in the tool shed so they can take down Arch and lewd content creators and not channels like 2+ Tough or Occulus, it’s no big deal. If it’s going to be used to effectively rid the internet of forums, hobbytwitch, and loretube that’s just asinine on their part.

[Joe]

Rohr raises a fair point - it may be that this does just wind up as a tool for removing the more problem elements of the community. Another take for the prejudicial comment, at least.

[Halandaar]

Also, not causing damage to the reputation of Games Workshop effectively means that they don't want negative reviews of products.

Err, no. It means they don't want unofficial content masquerading as GW which supports specific political views or controversial topics. It's not saying "don't give a negative review of Dominion" - it's saying "don't produce an animation of Space Marines purging a pride parade".

Edited July 21, 2021 by Halandaar

[Redcomet]

I’ll wait to see how aggressively it’s enforced before damning GW. If this is just a tool in the tool shed so they can take down Arch and lewd content creators and not channels like 2+ Tough or Occulus, it’s no big deal. If it’s going to be used to effectively rid the internet of forums, hobbytwitch, and loretube that’s just asinine on their part.

Someone on twitter talked to an Ip lawyer. And the gist of his comments where as follows:

 

Not uncommon for companies to make these things, but Gw’s seem to go above the UK law in places. He is not sure how they are gonna go about enforcing said rules.

 

He also said that they probably wouldn’t go after everyone and everything.

 

Lastly he said he wouldn’t have a patreon, Kickstarter, store etc containing GW ip stuff now

[Dark Shepherd]

Seems like sabre rattling more than anything else to me

 

Maybe more copyright strikes where that can be done as its free, but legal action costs money so unless something aggregious is going on they wouldnt want to progress beyond a cease and desist letter

 

Also kinda funny given how much they ripped off Dune for foundation lore

[Redcomet]

Seems like sabre rattling more than anything else to me

 

Maybe more copyright strikes where that can be done as its free, but legal action costs money so unless something aggregious is going on they wouldnt want to progress beyond a cease and desist letter

 

Also kinda funny given how much they ripped off Dune for foundation lore

Almost everything is inspired by/rips off something else

[Waking Dreamer]

 

Also, not causing damage to the reputation of Games Workshop effectively means that they don't want negative reviews of products.

Err, no. It means they don't want unofficial content masquerading as GW which supports specific political views or controversial topics. It's not saying "don't give a negative review of Dominion" - it's saying "don't produce an animation of Space Marines purging a pride parade".

For that example that is true. But based on their other Infringement points...it's also stating, don't make an animation of Space Marines....period.

[SvenIronhand]

GW has no more right to their ideas than a feudal lord does to serfs. The current paradigm is downright poisonous to free expression. 

The sooner we recognize this, the better. 

[Zeratil]

I’ll wait to see how aggressively it’s enforced before damning GW. If this is just a tool in the tool shed so they can take down Arch and lewd content creators and not channels like 2+ Tough or Occulus, it’s no big deal. If it’s going to be used to effectively rid the internet of forums, hobbytwitch, and loretube that’s just asinine on their part.

 

 

Given how the England & Wales law works this is my bet. They want the legal tools in the shed so to speak - to be able to point at their IP Guidelines and say "we wrote these on this date, and x has violated them". It doesn't automatically follow that they'll go back to the heavy handed tactics they used to use. It may even be something as simple as a change in their legal dept and the new team wants to make their mark.

 

 

I’ll wait to see how aggressively it’s enforced before damning GW. If this is just a tool in the tool shed so they can take down Arch and lewd content creators and not channels like 2+ Tough or Occulus, it’s no big deal. If it’s going to be used to effectively rid the internet of forums, hobbytwitch, and loretube that’s just asinine on their part.

Someone on twitter talked to an Ip lawyer. And the gist of his comments where as follows:

 

Not uncommon for companies to make these things, but Gw’s seem to go above the UK law in places. He is not sure how they are gonna go about enforcing said rules.

 

He also said that they probably wouldn’t go after everyone and everything.

 

Lastly he said he wouldn’t have a patreon, Kickstarter, store etc containing GW ip stuff now

 

 

  Agreed - I would be wary of having a Warhammer-inspired patreon or other crowd-funded enterprise with any protected material on it after this until/unless GW clarifies what this means in practice. It's a risk and not worth the hassle of having GW come at you legally.

 

 

Also, not causing damage to the reputation of Games Workshop effectively means that they don't want negative reviews of products.

Err, no. It means they don't want unofficial content masquerading as GW which supports specific political views or controversial topics. It's not saying "don't give a negative review of Dominion" - it's saying "don't produce an animation of Space Marines purging a pride parade".

 

  Exactly, people are reading a little too much into that section - it's fairly boilerplate legalese to cover abuse of the IP. Actively connecting GW IP with the alt-right/Nazis through artwork or other media is the target of this I thought most likely. It's not a statement that they'll come after reviews, commentary or legitimate criticism (i.e. reasonable criticism over, say, the price of their products or similar debates you could have about any IP or product).

Edited July 21, 2021 by Zeratil

[twopounder]

I wonder what they define as the difference between counterfeit and imitation. Aren't those the same? They're going to need to draw a clear definition of what they consider imitation and expect to lose a lot of lawsuits if they continue to go after anything called a space marine or that has power armor. Recasting or 3d printing exact copies is obviously a breach of IP, but going after something that is "inspired by" (or just happens to be called a space marine but is unrelated to GW) is going to result in rich lawyers and poor GW.

 

Since they also say no official content can be used - this mean youtubers and podcasters are open to being sued into oblivion. Want to review a product? Nope, that's official material. What to discuss the new codex? NOPE. That's reading/showing content that is covered by this. Want to have an avatar on B&C? You're violating their IP. Want to show off your painted models? IP Violation.

 

Just scrolling through the responses here and the avatars/banners in member profiles - B&C is in HEAVY violation of these. :D

[excelite]

So has anybody actually had a look at what it takes to get a license to do animations and such, or is this all just rambling without knowing?

 

Edit: as a non lawyer and no background in this areas at all, if I would be creating content I would stop paywalling stuff of any kind behind a patreon or YouTube subscription… that way it will be at least harder to argue that those donations are for commercial purpose…

 

AFAIK astartes as well as sodaz had those perks and might unknowingly have opened a spot for GW to take action by effectively commercializing that content since it was only available after a payment…

Edited July 21, 2021 by excelite

[gaurdian31]

GW has no more right to their ideas than a feudal lord does to serfs. The current paradigm is downright poisonous to free expression. 

 

The sooner we recognize this, the better. 

 

Why don't they have a right to their own ideas? Does Disney not have a right to Mickey Mouse, or DC to Superman or Marvel to the X-Men? What about you? Do you have the right to your own ideas? I don't understand this.