Intellectual property guidelines updated

[AenarIT]

 

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

I think that the most popular patreons of sculptors of alternative models have the money to call that bluff and go to court if necessary.

One of the most popular ones rakes in at least $30k per month from patreon subscribers plus who knows how much more from sales of older file sets on various websites.

When faced with a C&D, that's a lot of money at stake so I can only imagine they would have the willingness to fight that in court (and the resources to do so). 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

I think that the most popular patreons of sculptors of alternative models have the money to call that bluff and go to court if necessary.

One of the most popular ones rakes in at least $30k per month from patreon subscribers plus who knows how much more from sales of older file sets on various websites.

When faced with a C&D, that's a lot of money at stake so I can only imagine they would have the willingness to fight that in court (and the resources to do so).

Then if the guy who did those nighthaunt models he the resources he should. I’m not saying every case would be a bluff, I think GW would win those Deathguard ones for example, I just think GW themselves can’t be confident in winning one on something like the nighthaunt where the archetypes and imagery are so generic. I’m pretty sure even one of the ghosts that visits Scrooge has been portrayed in a robe and chains.

[Halandaar]

Ghosts, spirits and demons are fairly generic by themselves so there will be crossover. The dark gods one, skates way too close to the DG source models IMO. However, the wraith ones if I was that kick-starter organizer and had the resources I would be sitting down with lawyers to get advice at a minimum and proceed to take GW to court if I was advised I had a viable case. I think those kick-starter wraiths look better than GW's nighthaunt too. 

 

Whether they look better (which is obviously subjective) is completely besides the point. They are clearly designed as 1:1 proxies of GW Nighthaunt models, right down to the number of models offered in each pack and the base sizes they are designed for. The only one of the four that seems even slightly removed from the original here is the Black Squires which do feel stylistically a bit different from Chainrasps, but even then they are very clearly derived from GW product to the point that they are essentially miniature Mournghuls.

 

I mean sure, at it's most reductive level "ghost" is a generic descriptor but it's not like it's a Kickstarter full of Caspers is it? Or Scooby-Doo ghosts? These designs cleave very closely to the Nighthaunt's particular version of what a ghost or spirit looks like. The sculpts themselves might be technically original, but the specific concept they follow is GWs, the design cues are GWs. It seems disingenuous to me to assert that these designs are just ghosts.

 

FWIW I'm not at all saying GW is right in every instance, I've seen plenty of Kickstarter and Patreon sculpts that, while obviously aimed at GW's audience, are far enough removed from GWs own designs (or genuinely generic enough) to be fair and GW wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of litigating against them. I'm saying in this specific case, I agree with them. 

[Inquisitor lorr]

 

 

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

I think that the most popular patreons of sculptors of alternative models have the money to call that bluff and go to court if necessary.

One of the most popular ones rakes in at least $30k per month from patreon subscribers plus who knows how much more from sales of older file sets on various websites.

When faced with a C&D, that's a lot of money at stake so I can only imagine they would have the willingness to fight that in court (and the resources to do so).

It’s a tricky balance - he might be deriving a lot of income from the ‘definitely not exact copies’ he offers, but I think you underestimate slightly the potential legal costs. Even running at income of £20k a month ($30k give or take), once you take into account tax, deductibles etc, even if has been taking that home for years it’s unlikely he will want to risk a minimum of c.£150k of his own fees and likely £250k plus of GW’s fees if he loses. There are various insurances he can take out - but it’s a huge(!) call to take on that stress and risk in your life. 99.9% of claims don’t get through to a hearing. The threat of litigation cannot be underestimated and is a very effective tool.

[Dark Shepherd]

Nighthaunt are a blatant rip off of the lepers from The Fog

[Azekai]

Nighthaunt are a blatant rip off of the lepers from The Fog

Uh... Nighthaunt are just ghosts; those are pretty archetypal. The Fog wasn't the first movie to come up with the concept of marauding, avenging spirits. Those ideas likely predate human civilization.

 

I am not a big fan of GW but I am not going to criticize them for making little plastic ghosts and I don't think they are ripping off anyone's intellectual assets- and I think GW has taken significant pains to try to come up with their own stuff in recent years. That is why when ranges get refreshed they are taken in (sometimes startlingly) new directions. That's also why everything has been renamed to 'snipsaw ripgutters' and 'poxmangle bloodfiends' (somehow GW's naming conventions manage to be hilariously convoluted and also incredibly same-y). 

 

I don't particularly enjoy this new corporate attitude, but I understand why they are doing it.

[caladancid]

I can’t wait to hear from the people who claimed the IP update didn’t mean GW was going to go after people more aggressively.

[Joe]

I mean.

 

They blapped similar Kickstarters last year, and even a few months ago (i.e. the blatant Eldar rip-off) - which were prior to the IP update. This has been standard practice for a while now.

[Gederas]

Okay so....
 

 

And The Wraith King's army:

 

"Description of copyrighted material: The Nighthaunt are a range of fictional characters created by Games Workshop as part of its Warhammer Age of Sigmar intellectual property. Having designed and developed the Nighthaunt, Games Workshop owns the copyright in them. It is therefore an infringement for a third party to offer for sale, possess in the course of business, manufacture or import any product based on the Nighthaunt without Games Workshop's permission.

 

Description of infringing material: The miniatures have copied a significant part of Games Workshop's expression of the Nighthaunt. As these miniatures have not been created by Games Workshop or a licensed third party, it is in breach of copyright and an infringement of Games Workshop's intellectual property rights."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I can see their argument for the Dark Gods one, they are skating pretty close, but 'ghosts with weapons' is not a concept that GW alone can make models for. For reference, I'm not a backer of either, but I am concerned this presages a more aggressive DMCA approach for STLs more generally.

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

I don't know; "ghost with a scythe" might sound generic enough but viewing the renders, it's immediately obvious which specific GW kit each one is supposed to be aping.

Halandaar is right. Apologies to the Moderati in advance but let me post the exact models, in the order that "Wraith King's army" images are in, that Kickstarter is aping and tell me you can't see that those ones are pretty blatant rip-offs:

 

There's also the fact that the last ones are also basically mini Mournghul:

Just because "GW bad" is the standard mindset these days doesn't mean that the people committing IP infringement

 

[Dark Shepherd]

 

 

Nighthaunt are a blatant rip off of the lepers from The Fog

Uh... Nighthaunt are just ghosts; those are pretty archetypal. The Fog wasn't the first movie to come up with the concept of marauding, avenging spirits. Those ideas likely predate human civilization.

 

I am not a big fan of GW but I am not going to criticize them for making little plastic ghosts and I don't think they are ripping off anyone's intellectual assets- and I think GW has taken significant pains to try to come up with their own stuff in recent years. That is why when ranges get refreshed they are taken in (sometimes startlingly) new directions. That's also why everything has been renamed to 'snipsaw ripgutters' and 'poxmangle bloodfiends' (somehow GW's naming conventions manage to be hilariously convoluted and also incredibly same-y).

 

I don't particularly enjoy this new corporate attitude, but I understand why they are doing it.

You might have interpreted that more seriously than it was intended :)

[MARK0SIAN]

Okay so....

 

 

And The Wraith King's army:

 

"Description of copyrighted material: The Nighthaunt are a range of fictional characters created by Games Workshop as part of its Warhammer Age of Sigmar intellectual property. Having designed and developed the Nighthaunt, Games Workshop owns the copyright in them. It is therefore an infringement for a third party to offer for sale, possess in the course of business, manufacture or import any product based on the Nighthaunt without Games Workshop's permission.

 

Description of infringing material: The miniatures have copied a significant part of Games Workshop's expression of the Nighthaunt. As these miniatures have not been created by Games Workshop or a licensed third party, it is in breach of copyright and an infringement of Games Workshop's intellectual property rights."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I can see their argument for the Dark Gods one, they are skating pretty close, but 'ghosts with weapons' is not a concept that GW alone can make models for. For reference, I'm not a backer of either, but I am concerned this presages a more aggressive DMCA approach for STLs more generally.

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

 

 

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

I don't know; "ghost with a scythe" might sound generic enough but viewing the renders, it's immediately obvious which specific GW kit each one is supposed to be aping.

Halandaar is right. Apologies to the Moderati in advance but let me post the exact models, in the order that "Wraith King's army" images are in, that Kickstarter is aping and tell me you can't see that those ones are pretty blatant rip-offs:

 

There's also the fact that the last ones are also basically mini Mournghul:

 

Just because "GW bad" is the standard mindset these days doesn't mean that the people committing IP infringement

They are definitely rip offs, I’m not denying that. My argument more is that what they’re ripping off cannot possibly belong to GW other than in that exact pose. It would not take much to make the models slightly different then all GW can really say is “they ripped us off because they made a model that’s a bony ghost in rags with an axe.” And no judge is going to accept the argument that GW should be the only company allowed to make a model in a vein that is so common it’s an almost cliched representation of ghosts.

 

Essentially the nighthaunt range doesn’t seem a suitably original image for them to be able to stop people making very similar models. The Deathguard on the other hand definitely are or if someone made made close to copies of some of their more unique ranges it would be different.

 

I think, of all their IP challenges this would be the one where they’d least want to test it in court. I also don’t think they’re bad for trying to protect their IP. However, I do think they’re doing it overzealously and hypocritically given that they have benefited from fan animations in time for Warhammer + and lots of their own ranges have “borrowed” ideas from elsewhere.

Edited July 28, 2021 by MARK0SIAN

[AenarIT]

I have checked that KS with skeletons and ghosts (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zaxis/wraith-king). Earlier today it was listed as "temporarily suspended, pending review" and was taken off kickstarter, now it's live again. 
Two units (glaivewraith stalkers lookalike and another one I can't find) and a set of markers (endless spells lookalike) have been taken down due to copyright infringement, but the remaining stuff is apparently fine.

The interesting thing is that the remaining stuff is actually a lot of stuff and it bears some resemblance with GW models, imho. If those models passed a "screening", there's some hope that GW's reach won't be able to touch anything but the most blatant 1:1 copies. Alternative sculpts or slightly different sculpts may indeed be fine. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by AenarIT

[MegaVolt87]

 

 

I have to agree. I think if this one ever went to court they could defend the Deathguard stuff pretty well but I think the nighthaunt ones are too generic as a concept, there’s no way any court is giving GW sole rights to a ghost with a scythe.

 

But obviously GW are counting on no one having the resources to challenge them on the claim.

I don't know; "ghost with a scythe" might sound generic enough but viewing the renders, it's immediately obvious which specific GW kit each one is supposed to be aping.

They do resemble the range quite closely but I think at best a court case would end up being an own goal for GW in that they would force a legal ruling that said these specific miniatures might infringe but the concept was fair game. That then opens the door to lots of people making legitimate versions of nighthaunt. I really don’t think they’d want to risk that.

 

I’m no legal expert but it always seems to me like a lot of GWs legal/IP strategy is based on a bluff. The threat of legal action and knowing people don’t have the money/time/resources to fight back. I genuinely believe that the absolute last thing GW wants is for any of their claims to actually be tested in court.

 

 

That's a bold strategy of GW legal to put it mildly. What's that saying the Americans have?   around and find out? GW is going to have a Chapterhouse 2.0 sooner rather than later at this rate. 

[Rik Lightstar]

Saw a post on Facebook from the guy doing "not-Deathguard" in a painting and printing group.

 

He's been in discussions with GW and they've agreed that there are a couple of things that are being removed but the rest of the an stay.

 

By all accounts it was all very amicable and polite.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/669921886852093/permalink/1162939207550356/

 

Is the post I saw...

 

Rik

[Arkhanist]

Sorry for mangled quote, it won't let me fix.

 

Just because "GW bad" is the standard mindset these days doesn't mean that the people committing IP infringement

"Inspired by" is not enough to be copyright infringement. If you put the two side by side, and there are clear and distinct differences that you can easily spot - even if there are also similarities - it's not a copy. The chapterhouse studios case, and many others, have shown that.

 

GW would have been in trouble looooong ago, as much of their concepts did not originate with them, but came from, among other things, Henlein, Tolkien (story and artwork) and DnD. It's not a case of GW automatically bad, but they don't get to own common concepts, even if there are some commonalities.

 

e.g. the banshee.

 

 

the original legend.

 

adnd 2e:

 

3e:

 

5e art and model:

 

 

 

GW:

 

 

I'm actually really glad the designer has been able to work out a deal where a small number of models will be redesigned and the kickstarter is allowed to continue; and I'll be fair to GW, it's good that they've pulled back from the legal weight they could have thrown down.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Arkhanist

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I just used up all my likes here .

[Joe]

Text-to-Speech is going on indefinite hiatus; it's a lengthy video, and worth noting several things.

 

Indefinite hiatus - not an outright cancellation.

 

• Bruva Alfabusa doesn't want to risk anything when he's dealing with a child, a mortgage, etc.
• Bruva Alfabusa isn't willing to risk running up against copyright law, particularly with how trigger-happy Youtube and Games Workshop can be.
• Bruva Alfabusa's belief is that TtS doesn't fit with GWs image of what Warhammer should be - approaching them to host TtS would likely require a dramatic re-working due to content drawn from other IPs.
• Bruva Alfabusa believes the legal department will move without co-ordinating with the rest of the company due to being "silo'ed" off - despite what the rest of the company may think, and by and by the large they'll be forced to follow the policy lines.
• Bruva Alfabusa's hope is that the policy may change in the future, and become more amenable to fan policies - at which point, they'll return, but not necessarily immediately. Basis for this is other companies that've gone from one extreme to the other. They want to see legitimate change in practice, and time to confirm it.
• Desire to conclude the stories in TtS in an original setting with the various characters / personalities, with all foreign IPs scrubbed away as an alternative should they not return to 40k.
• Going forward they'll expand to other licenses they have a passion for - licenses that give specific consent for fan projects, monetised or not. Caution to be exercised, otherwise it'll kill the channel (as has often happened to other creators).
• Emphasis on "if you don't like where our content goes, please don't feel the need to stay subscribed to our Patreon" - an entirely reasonable comment.
• Some flagging of the bottleneck issues they've had over the years - they haven't really moved away from how they do things before for the sake of consistency, however they want to be more experimental moving forwards. Improve production pipeline, streamline process, etc.
• They'd like to do some more serious stuff that isn't just the meme'ing that was Text-to-Speech; motion comics were mentioned specifically.
• All content on the channel will remain up unless it's copyright striked. Bruva and co will not remove it themselves.
• Risk mitigation - asking that fans DO NOT harass Games Workshop employees over this. This was Bruva and co's decision - criticise the company and the brand, but don't attack the staff. Also, asking people don't go on weird LARP-stuff across comment sections. Weirdos, basically.

 

Ultimately, Bruva and co ask that the community understand why they've made the decision - that they are angry, frustrated, upset and anxious; but that they are also motivated to keep the channel moving forward, and that the community is willing to give any new content a chance.

 

Will edit more in as it comes. I'm not particularly fussed to see Text-to-Speech go, but it's still unfortunate.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Joe

[Marshal Loss]

Wasn't a fan of the content personally, but TTS had a huge audience that got a lot of folks interested in 40k and the memes it spawned regularly appear all over the community. A big loss (for GW as well, frankly, but that's what you get).

[Kastor Krieg]

I'm starting to get really pissed off by the return of the Heavy Handed Legal Ogres at GW. They were not missed.

[Stofficus]

TTS was one of the most amusing things I stumbled across during the pandemic, and brought me no small amount of joy through this :cussty last 18 months - I even went so far as to modify my captain general to resemble the true captain general of the Custodes. 

I understand his position 100% though - sword of damocles is the right analogy, and when it clearly takes a lot of work to make their current episodes, why live in that kind of risk? 

I don't expect GW to react in any way however, unless Warhammer + falls flat and they recant to try and rebuild some good will. 

[Joe]

To be perfectly honest, if the community want to garner a meaningful response from Games Workshop the best way to do so is to send constructive feedback to their Customer Service - ideally, with alternatives to the current arrangement (i.e. the Xbox solution). As it stands a significant chunk are simply being abusive to staff on social media, or making snide remarks in gated communities where they aren't ever going to be picked up on.

[Stofficus]

To be perfectly honest, if the community want to garner a meaningful response from Games Workshop the best way to do so is to send constructive feedback to their Customer Service - ideally, with alternatives to the current arrangement (i.e. the Xbox solution). As it stands a significant chunk are simply being abusive to staff on social media, or making snide remarks in gated communities where they aren't ever going to be picked up on.

 

For sure, the seemingly usual internet rage mob won't accomplish anything, as I think most people and businesses have learned to tune out the background screeching of the internet. 

 

That being said, most businesses of these scales just disregard most customer feedback, and instead rely on focused activities and polling/statistics gathering to assess customer base sentiment. Emails and messages through official platforms don't go anywhere, or at best are read and maybe acknowledged by some lowly paid employee, but they're not collated to used in any serious way. 

 

I feel measured, mature commentary on their social media pages when relevant is the most likely thing to get some kind of attention, as most businesses laser-focus on social media presence, as it's directly tied to marketing. 

[Marshal Loss]

Abuse is indefensible but it is not the community's responsibility to elicit "meaningful responses" from GW, and comments on FB/Instagram/YT (etc) are just as if not far more effective in making a point to GW than sending emails because they cultivate popular support and keep issues in the open. That TTS's creator wasn't contacted is a breathtaking oversight given that channel is one of (if not the) biggest producers of GW fan content on the internet.

[Joe]

@Stofficus; This is true in some regards - at least, from my personal experience in managing the communication channels our customers used we collated feedback across all of them. It's very much a volume-determined thing, however, and I know that some companies will employ a filter to weed out anything they don't want to see / hear. I do feel like the community have gotten better in offering feedback in general, however there's definitely still a segment that believes shouting the loudest, crassest way possible will get the result they want.

 

@Marshal Loss; It's an odd one. I don't believe we can rightfully call ourselves a community if we don't engage in a meaninful way. It is absolutely the responsibility of making certain that our feedback reaches the business in question, as that's ultimately how a business improves upon a given product - something that other wargaming communities don't seem to have any difficulty wrapping their heads around. You aren't wrong that social media can be an advantage or a hindrance, and having sat on both sides of the fence I can comfortably say it's incredibly easy to ignore certain commentary respondents are making.

 

To be honest, there's a lot of people that the company hasn't visibly reached out to, and we're unlikely to get direct confirmation have / haven't in many cases - the fact they haven't spoken to Text-to-Speech directly can be read as anything from tactical ignorance, to not having gotten around to it yet, to something far more sinister. We aren't really privy to how they've been handling this entire process beyond a scattering of commentary from a handful of people, and even then that's been pretty vague at best.

[Marshal Rohr]

Probably for the best. It’s odd the decided to make a big deal out of it instead of just taking the content down.