Intellectual property guidelines updated

[Arkhanist]

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.

 

 

Counterfeit works are illegal under copyright, which includes recasting and close copies - the same stuff they can get taken down off Shapeways without much effort. 'Imitation' is GW trying to stretch that as far as they can get away with to models that basically bear some resemblance to GW models; many D&D models would probably fall afoul of AoS 'imitation', for example, which is clearly ludicrous, and is a shot across the bows of compatible parts makers like Anvil Industries and Pop Goes The Monkey. It's just a land grab beyond what legal protection they do legitimately have.

 

Note, as usual, such IP policies also ignore fair use/fair dealing. Youtubers using excerpts of copyrighted materials for news, criticism and/or review is a long standing fair use defense that GW would never win in court. Exploiting Youtube's copyright claim process, which is notoriously bad at protecting clearcut fair use, is another matter. So there is a chilling effect there, and were I a youtube maker I would just avoid all GW materials in future simply because it wouldn't be worth the effort. Hope you're not showing GW paint labels or naming them in your painting videos, as those are copyrighted too don't forget! (obvs fair use again, but you know, don't want to take any chances)

 

If GW ends up scaring off most coverage of their new releases in an attempt to control the messaging, that may well prove more detrimental than they've counted on. GW is no stranger to bad press about copyright maximalism attempts, and it hurt their reputation and ultimately their bottom line in the past.

 

AFAIK, there's no specific fair use defence for people's avatar images here, though obviously the commercial impact and small subsections of larger artwork would weigh on it being a non-infringing use. B&C should probably all change them to something not based on GW IP, including any 3rd party art (which mine is), just to be safe!

Edited July 21, 2021 by Arkhanist

[Redcomet]

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

This is why I think some people are overreacting as to the results of this.

 

Of course GW isn’t going to sue left and right to take down people with forum banners.

 

They are going to go after Bill who sells stuff on Etsy with gw ip on it and who makes 3d printed copies of minis.

[Waking Dreamer]

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.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if fan-made series creators such as Astartes / SODAZ, put WH40K on the radar for so many more people compared to all their brick-and-mortar stores combined.

[BluegrassGamer]

“While fan-films and animations *do* infringe on GW’s IP and GW has the right-slash-legal obligation to protect their IP, they shouldn’t! GW should let people dilute their IP!” - The fan community. Edited July 21, 2021 by BluegrassGamer

[DukeLeto69]

Not read every post but it seems the overall gist for most (though not all) is that GW are bad guys for wanting to protect their IP.

 

I find that a totally weird set of thought processes.

 

If any one of us on this site developed an idea into a set of products, I am sure we would all be pretty protective of those ideas (IP) some 30-40 yrs later and would want to set the lawyers on anyone making money off the back of our stuff!

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

I wonder how this affects things like the 40k wiki which uses tons and tons of official artwork and lore.  I agree with the folks who say this will be selectively enforced, but that'll be enough to make a chilling effect which is what they are after. 

[caladancid]

In my understanding selective enforcement is as good as no enforcement when it comes to protecting an IP. I think that’s why many companies do the license thing like SW.

 

Also to everyone saying that GW doesn’t want other companies profiting off their idea- the document posted goes very far past that goal and I have to think you are just reflexively trying to defend GW in the absence of understanding.

[Kastor Krieg]

Good luck enforcing most of that crock in the EU, lmao. 

 

[Evil Eye]

 

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.

 

 

Given that Disney have literally used their vast amount of money to lobby for the laws regarding public domain rights to be changed in the US every time their characters are about to go into the public domain (as the creators are long dead) solely so they can keep a stranglehold on """their""" IP then no, Disney does not have a right to Mickey Mouse, or indeed to much. They're scumbags that quite frankly make GW look like Santa Claus and his elves in comparison.

 

This whole thing has me worried. I've said before that Arch getting smacked was a worrying precedent of GW having too much power over people not actually affiliated with them, and this seems to confirm my fears. What worries me further is the people actively defending the idea of GW being able to decide who can and can't talk about Warhammer using the flimsy excuse of "W-Well if they only get rid of people we don't like then it's fine!" as if that isn't the start of a slippery slope towards corporate tyranny over free speech and free expression. One minute it's the guy who says extreme things on the internet, and nobody wants to be known as the guy who stood up for an extremist and so it happens. Next it's the guy or girl who draws lewd pictures of Daemonettes making love (not war) and nobody wants to have "I defended the right of someone to draw crab-woman porn" on their resume, so it happens. And so it continues, until eventually it's our turn on the chopping block, and there is nobody left to defend us. And in an era where the slightest step out of line with the ever-changing socio-political zeitgeist is enough to get you hounded by a disproportionately loud and influential minority, that day could come sooner than you think.

 

"Selective enforcement" is doublespeak for "We won't come for you yet". Never forget that.

[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.

 

 

Given that Disney have literally used their vast amount of money to lobby for the laws regarding public domain rights to be changed in the US every time their characters are about to go into the public domain (as the creators are long dead) solely so they can keep a stranglehold on """their""" IP then no, Disney does not have a right to Mickey Mouse, or indeed to much. They're scumbags that quite frankly make GW look like Santa Claus and his elves in comparison.

 

This whole thing has me worried. I've said before that Arch getting smacked was a worrying precedent of GW having too much power over people not actually affiliated with them, and this seems to confirm my fears. What worries me further is the people actively defending the idea of GW being able to decide who can and can't talk about Warhammer using the flimsy excuse of "W-Well if they only get rid of people we don't like then it's fine!" as if that isn't the start of a slippery slope towards corporate tyranny over free speech and free expression. One minute it's the guy who says extreme things on the internet, and nobody wants to be known as the guy who stood up for an extremist and so it happens. Next it's the guy or girl who draws lewd pictures of Daemonettes making love (not war) and nobody wants to have "I defended the right of someone to draw crab-woman porn" on their resume, so it happens. And so it continues, until eventually it's our turn on the chopping block, and there is nobody left to defend us. And in an era where the slightest step out of line with the ever-changing socio-political zeitgeist is enough to get you hounded by a disproportionately loud and influential minority, that day could come sooner than you think.

 

"Selective enforcement" is doublespeak for "We won't come for you yet". Never forget that.

 

 

That doesn't really answer my question. How does GW not have the right to Marenus Calgar or Abbadon the Destroyer? These are things they created. Are they scumbags? 

[Azekai]

 

...Are they scumbags?

Yes.

 

A corporation doesn't create anything, individuals do. The fact that a private money-driven collective can perform legal slight of hand to act as an individual responsible for the creative process allows them to weaponize what was once individual ownership. It's braincancer.

[Subtleknife]

I think the spirit of that they are trying to achieve is perfectly reasonable. They are obviously trying to make a move into the animation/TV and perhaps film later. They want to make sure they have the rights to their property. If GW are willing to take up the slack and put out quality content then I am looking forward to it.

[gaurdian31]

 

 

...Are they scumbags?

Yes.

 

A corporation doesn't create anything, individuals do. The fact that a private money-driven collective can perform legal slight of hand to act as an individual responsible for the creative process allows them to weaponize what was once individual ownership. It's braincancer.

 

 

So why do you support them then? Why purchase their product? Why help these scumbags make more money?

[Marshal Rohr]

I think the spirit of that they are trying to achieve is perfectly reasonable. They are obviously trying to make a move into the animation/TV and perhaps film later. They want to make sure they have the rights to their property. If GW are willing to take up the slack and put out quality content then I am looking forward to it.

That’s a good point. The might have trouble with Eisenhorn without this.

[excelite]

 

I think the spirit of that they are trying to achieve is perfectly reasonable. They are obviously trying to make a move into the animation/TV and perhaps film later. They want to make sure they have the rights to their property. If GW are willing to take up the slack and put out quality content then I am looking forward to it.

That’s a good point. The might have trouble with Eisenhorn without this.

They most definitely will have with all their content if they don’t come up with a legal text like this.. iirc the anime industry had a massive problem with those „watch along“ and „reaction“ videos… those content creators basically had the full episodes running on full screen with their face in a minor unobstrusive place and basically did nothing but a stupid face every now and then.

 

Those then tried to claim „fair use“ on what was basically airing normally paid stuff for free (while making money on YouTube subscriptions or patreon). Long story short: it didn’t end well for them and GW has to put up safeguards against such people. That this leaves proper content creators in a limbo is just a bad side effect

[mel_danes]

My only concern is choking off the very outlet that they themselves have mined for content.

Warhammer+ animation content is largely coming from fan projects from YouTube. These talented creators uploaded 40k videos, to celebrate their love of the lore and game.

GW recognized the quality of some of these productions and made offers to those creators. Some like the Astartes project went for it, others have bowed out.

 

Creating a complete ban negates the exploration of these artists, the very same people GW might want to contract later if their work is good. The community pool of creators is diverse, and some of it very talented.

 

Does this also apply to game mods?

Back in the day the modding community added immense value to game longevity by expanding content for games. I recall my time on the Daemonhunters and Steel Legion mod teams for DoW1. Hell we even played our mod with the Relic guys, it was boss! Adding new content to Spacemarine years later, another great time. If I'm reading this right all of that is now Verboten.

 

For myself I've mulled over doing some more 40k animation, it's been 10 years since my last bits went up. Now I'm worried it would just earn me a C&D.

[battle captain corpus]

I’m utterly fine with a company defending their IP. And if other people ride off their coat tails….well the saying “Don’t sail close to the rocks” comes to mind.

 

BCC

[Lexington]

I'll be a little more concerned when any of this comes to real-world action, rather than just words on a website. Might well happen, but I've been around for a couple of these GW IP guideline changes, and they've rarely signaled an actual change in behavior.

[caladancid]

I’m utterly fine with a company defending their IP. And if other people ride off their coat tails….well the saying “Don’t sail close to the rocks” comes to mind.

 

BCC

 

 

The point here is though- they are not just defending their IP (which, lets be serious, is a conglomeration of many other IPs).  Some of that stuff is absolutely not enforceable, and they must know it.

 

"Our products must not be imitated" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen a business make in a serious manner.  If you make a successful product guess what- others will imitate it and its LEGAL.  Unless of coure the law changed and next time I go to the cereal aisle all my Fruity-Os will have disappeared and the main brand Froot Loops has taken back over!

[Ruskinses]

That's not legal that's a product that is legally distinct and a fair amount of lawyers made it so

[Dark Shepherd]

Given theyre currently advertising for an influencer liason (and other duties) that person might have to remind people not on the preview copy list its ok to do reviews and previews

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I'm not surprised by it. I think most companies with IPs are going to go at least this far. Pateron created a climate where people could create something in an IP they didn't own and profit from it indirectly. This really creates a grey area for these companies where they have to compete with unlicensed competition on top of other IPs. To expect them to not to have a policy like this is kinda crazy in the current climate.

 

That said I think most of this topic really flows in personal politics. I like that this forum is an area where politics isn't shoved in my face besides an occasional "making ____ great again" post which I view as a joke rather than an endorsement so I'm not going to elaborate my views. 

 

@Mel_danes - I don't think that there is any way that could go after you for something that had been created 10 years ago. It'd be a real stretch. New mods for current games though, would be risky IMO.

[SirJyo]

After years of fostering community creation, back to the dark ages.

3-D printer goes Brrrrr

Edited July 21, 2021 by SirJyo

[Bryan Blaire]

If folks are scared off creating content (or posting painted images of their own models) because of a change in the company’s policies, without any change in the law, then this posting of the policy change is having exactly the effect that GW likely wanted it to.  Again, if you are doing something that you are worried GW might come after you over, then it would be best to consult an actual attorney.  GW certainly doesn’t own your models once you purchase them from the corporation.

 

The laws did not change, regardless of what GW may now claim they can stop.

 

As with any other IP, it’s their requirement to put forward the legal justification for what they are they are telling you to stop in court.  If you’ve already had an attorney look at your situation and you are within your rights under the law, then it’s on them to file suit against you.  Public opinion is not court, and no amount of us arm-chair lawyering or judging is going to build case law.  GW has had limits defined in case law based on judgments due to legal action before - they didn’t win everything they claimed.

 

Yes, the “imitation” thing is funny given the origins of a lot of GW’s IP, however, we have moved past that now as well.  However, as has already been said - innovation of ideas into new things is not illegal, and imitation may or may not have a strict legal definition, and prevention of imitation likely has little possibility of success under most IP law.

[UtariOnzo]

There seems to be a lot of negative reactions to this update, that are fully understandable, but along side that a lot of it seems to be fuelled by ignorance. As someone who has 1) studied law and 2) is a content creator outside of my 40k hobby and has to deal with IP/Copyright issues, it behoofs me to attempt to add to the voices of educated reason here. Companies can, and do, put wide ranging terminology into their End User Agreements, IP use guidelines, licencing contracts, explicit public licences et al all the time because it's a very basic method of covering your bases.

 

Courts exist because they deal with 'greys' in the law, sometimes these 'greys' are very very light, so as to be practically white, and those are the cases that are dismissed out of hand, or quickly given summary judgement. Usually these are cases dealing with Fair Use/Fair Dealing/insert country appropriate term here such as parody, criticism, review etc. Others are more properly 'grey' cases where it can be argued there is a case on either side, and why you can always find a lawyer happy to take these cases on as there's a shot at a judge ruling in your favour. These are the cases such as 'imitation' models that skirt a little too close to protected aspects of designs. They might well be considered a-ok under Generic Designs use, see Chapter House case, or they might well win over a judge, such as iPhone's victory regarding rectangular phones with curved corners. All of these cases rely heavily on legal arguments from previous cases, but can also sometimes hinge on if there was any implied licence by the Company with regards to the use of certain parts of the IP (video games and streaming should come to mind, or using certain protected designs in fan animations) and a wide ranging, generalised IP guideline expressly stating there is no implied licence cuts that potential argument dead before it can possibly hit a Judge's desk. This is why that little word 'imitation' is there. Finally there are the cases that are very 'dark' grey and it should be obvious these are cases where there's little to no defence, and generally are where folks have clearly flown too close to the sun and are selling (almost) the same product using protected designs/copy righted material. These are your recasters, people just reading out entire texts of books/codexes with no additional transformative work added, etc etc.

Next with regards to the issue surrounding 'harming the Company's reputation' this is a pretty standard element in any fictional creative work where you're trying to avoid certain scenarios. These scenarios being something akin to someone making 'fan art' of your IP engaging in 'questionable' acts and monetising it in a manner that a regular, non-warhammer playing person might reasonably assume was endorsed, being sold by, or licenced from the IP owner. One example of this would be the recent controversy surrounding third party modified Nike trainers in a 'satan' theme that Nike successfully argued could be interpreted by the general populace as being condoned, or supported by, them. Most fan creative works aren't going to fall foul of this, and I'm not even sure that this element even has folk like Arch in mind given in no way would GW seriously pay lawyers to enforce this in court over Arch's lore breakdowns and reviews since, like him or not, they absolutely contain plenty of criticism/review and would be protected speech. But, and I say this with ample personal experience, it can be leveraged for take-downs and copyright strikes on social media platforms such as Youtube, Twitch and yes even Facebook, but only when coupled with at least the face of a claim of IP infringement.

In short, nothing here is shocking, new, or outlandish for a company renewing its IP guidelines, especially as its moving to new methods of distributing that IP from 'in house' production. In and of itself, it will not kill off reviews, it will not kill off lore channels that are critiquing or otherwise transformative in their use of the lore, and it will not kill off fan animations any more or less than the previous guidelines did, because GW still ultimately relies on the same set of tools as before to enforce its IP protection.

 

It's too early to say though whether this might signal more use of those already existing tools, especially in light of Warhammer+ coming up, but the fundamental problem with Youtube takedowns and other similar actions is less the individual companies taking a shotgun approach to copyright strikes and DMCA takedowns (particularly rampant abuse by music and film rights holders even with an explicit requirement to consider Fair Use before issuing it in US cases) and more the broken systems social media companies have to try to follow an even more broken copyright system.

Edited July 21, 2021 by UtariOnzo