The Heavy Hand of Games Workshop - IP Rights

[ian0delond]

Now that GW is making official paid video I get why they want to make clear they only support what they make. 

I still have to see GW actually enforcing that by removing contents. 

They were more than tolerant recently with fan animations, they even gave  some a  seal of approval to geature those on their  on subscription service. It is much more likely it will just be them  clearly not wanting legal accounability on fan films they don't approve. 

[Beliman]

41 minutes ago, stratigo said:

No com pany might want to deal with it, but no individual can actually afford to, and we should not ask people bankrupt themselves (and then still lose because they can't pay the legal bills) to try and fight a billion dollar corporation overstepping its legal authority.

Agree. But that's why this are just guidelines. You don't go to a court tomorrow of being sued (and it seems that GW don't sue at first sight if you have a Patreon; and as we can see from some artist in twitter, they send you a mail for a negotation before taking legal actions).

And if it's true that you are poor, but still you know that you're using GWs IPs to make some money... I mean... yes, I suppose you can still go to court and continue thinking that you will win the case...

[Starfyre]

Not that this is the heart of the argument, but I’m intrigued, since when we’re GW a billion dollar company and  not a £250-ish company? Something I’m missing? Just curious!

[NinthMusketeer]

On the one hand it sucks, on the other hand when people are making thousands a month off someone else's IP...

[Neverchosen]

I am honestly not really the best person to discuss this subject. I feel intellectual property laws and corporate business decisions are well beyond my ken. However, if Games Workshop continues to enforce strictest guidelines and procedures it could negatively impact fan relations to the company and hobby. Particularly if another company comes in and is more creator friendly... I could see people writing fan fiction and making animations for Kings of War and Frost Grave in lieu of GW's properties. Atomic Mass Gaming seems to be doing a fantastic job moving into this void and reaching out to content creators. I might even fall prey once they reveal their plans for Star Wars or give me more varied X-Men characters* or Fantastic Four for their Marvel game.

But we will see how strict this remains when they see that Warhammer+ has a hard time in the absurdly competitive market of online streaming services. I know that I would much rather spend my money on significantly better services with more varied content.

*No one wants boring ol' Logan or Scott Summers! Give us some New Mutants or X-Factor members! 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Neverchosen

[Sleboda]

23 hours ago, Grimrock said:

I'm assuming it means that any reviewer that shows the book and discusses it will no longer be receiving those free copies, so the 'Man reads book' videos that come out on pre-order day will no longer be happening

Thank god. I never understood how those were ok. It's nice to see the creators protecting their work. If you are a small one-man operation or the biggest guy on the block, you still have a right to protect what you have created. If I support the little guy (and I do), then ethically and for consistency, I need to support the big guy as well.

Besides, maybe this will encourage creative reviews. Reading the book to me is the bottom of the creativity and effort barrel.

 

As to fan films ... duh, right? Of course you can't use someone else's IP just however you want without permission. Fan effort or otherwise, it's still protected. For profit or not, it's still protected work. You don't get to make the decision about how to use something someone else owns. The owner does.

The thing is, in order to protect their IP rights against genuine predators, they *must* pursue protection in other cases they spot. If they allow some things to slip, they weaken their case to defend other cases. This is something they really have to do, and I'm surprised it's taken this long.

One more thing here is that by aggressively pursuing protection of their IP, GW increases its value in negotiating contact pricing for folks wanting to license it. If you can prove your product is controlled tightly, limited access rights become more valuable. They could easily be looking to prove to bigger players that it's worth buying what they are selling. 40K Hollywood movie, anyone? I don't want it, but this way of protecting IP makes that license worth a lot more.

Also, I don't buy the "this will only hurt them" argument. You don't see "fan films" of Mickey Mouse either, and last I checked, Disney is not exactly hurting.

 

 

[yukishiro1]

52 minutes ago, Starfyre said:

Not that this is the heart of the argument, but I’m intrigued, since when we’re GW a billion dollar company and  not a £250-ish company? Something I’m missing? Just curious!

Their market cap is currently sitting around £3.6 billion. Market cap is generally accepted as a shorthand for company value in the absence of any other data. The value of a company certainly isn't measured by its annual revenue, which is the number you seem to be quoting. 

GW might or might not "actually" be worth £3.6 billion, but it's certainly worth well over a billion pounds by any serious valuation. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Golub87 said:

but GW has a position of commanding near-monopoly on the market,

A company can not have monopoly on its own product. Nobody says McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. 

The "market" for GW is everything GW makes. They own it all. Something simply being huge is not grounds for it being a monopoly.

 

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, HollowHills said:

People might say it's not that big a deal, but the content creators who made fan films etc got a start at doing what they do because there was some freedom here. Now that's gone.

Not even close to true. In fact, it fails a very simple test, one that shows the inherent value of an IP, even if the fan film maker is not directly making money:

If this person who is "getting a start" gets more attention to their work because it made use of someone else's IP, then that IP has value. If the film had featured actual original content, content that didn't rely on freely using the work of others, without their permission, to boost its numbers, would as many people have noticed?

In other words, if you feel your skills are good enough to try to get noticed, to 'get a start', then use them to create your own stories, characters, etc. If you have to use someone else's stories to get attention, you are not as good as you think you are, or at the very least you need to recognize that you truly do see value in using what someone else owns, and you don't get to just take that and use it for free.

[stratigo]

Hmmm, sleboda here to tell us that if you don't support a big corporation's right to lobby the government to declare copyrights only expire in 1000000 years is truly ethical and if you think modern IP regimes are slanted in the favor of corporations you are a bad person.

 

I am shocked. 

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, stratigo said:

But it turned out you can't claim trademark on a model that doesn't exist or a military unit called imperial guard or a friggen shape. All things GW did try to do.

Interesting tidbit: Did you know that early action figures from the Aliens film had to have a notice on the packaging to the effect of "Space Marines owned by GW?

Yup. 

Context. While the term "space marine" might not be generally protected, in the context of a small model (action figure) of a space-going combat trooper fighting xenos ... totally protectable.

[Grimrock]

10 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Thank god. I never understood how those were ok. It's nice to see the creators protecting their work. If you are a small one-man operation or the biggest guy on the block, you still have a right to protect what you have created. If I support the little guy (and I do), then ethically and for consistency, I need to support the big guy as well.

Besides, maybe this will encourage creative reviews. Reading the book to me is the bottom of the creativity and effort barrel.

Totally agree GW has the right to protect their IP and copyrights, but as others have said it's possible the youtube channels may have had separate agreements with GW that allow them to put the books up. After all GW was the one sending them those books more than a week before they were released, so there must have been some sort of discussion. They may not be particularly creative but they are incredibly helpful for me when I'm deciding how to spend my limited hobby budget and I really hope they are allowed to continue. I did notice that the new Ork codex in 40k hasn't been shown off yet even though it went up for pre-order in the bundle last weekend, so that's making me a little nervous. 

[Golub87]

15 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

A company can not have monopoly on its own product. Nobody says McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. 

The "market" for GW is everything GW makes. They own it all. Something simply being huge is not grounds for it being a monopoly.

 

I am quite clearly talking about wargaming market as a whole. McDonald's is a player on the fast food market, not on the McDonald's market.

[Golub87]

3 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Hmmm, sleboda here to tell us that if you don't support a big corporation's right to lobby the government to declare copyrights only expire in 1000000 years is truly ethical and if you think modern IP regimes are slanted in the favor of corporations you are a bad person.

 

I am shocked. 

How can you tell if the corporation is the enemy? It exists

[Sleboda]

6 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Hmmm, sleboda here to tell us that if you don't support a big corporation's right to lobby the government to declare copyrights only expire in 1000000 years is truly ethical and if you think modern IP regimes are slanted in the favor of corporations you are a bad person.

 

I am shocked. 

If you say so. Because I sure didn't say any of that. At all. Please, disagree with me if you like (that's part of why we have these forums), but keep your attacking words - your utter mischaracterization of my view - out of my digital mouth.

I didn't say those things.

[Golub87]

At any rate, IP laws are very bad and are not working in our favor.

This is why historicals have the tendency to have much better rulesets - you can't lay claim to a historical period or vehicle or uniform, meaning that people writing these rules actually try to make the best rules possible, and the players have a plethora of choices which system will be used. They also tend to be flexible, taking into account various miniatures manufactures and scales. Most rules allow for play in 28mm, 15mm or 6mm.

[PrimeElectrid]

How dare a business who’s IP I enjoy and which they rely upon to make money protect that IP. 

[HollowHills]

IP rules like these don't serve anyone except corporations. Honestly, I'm not saying GW are disgusting or that I hate them. I love the products and as individuals there are great people working there. But I'm not cheering for massive companies or stanning for them online. 

It's like when GW do price increases, make an app paywall, deliberately limit products to drive up demand. There are always people defending them! Why!? No company is our friend.

I get IP isn't black and white and I'm not saying we should get rid of it entirely, but it doesn't add anything for us as hobbyists. 

Think about myths and legends. Imagine if the estate of Geoffrey of Monmouth had stopped Mallory writing about King Arthur. Some of the greatest periods of creativity in human history have come when different artists borrowed or stole each others ideas.

If some talented student wants to use the GW IP to show off their writing, drawing or digital skills and creates fun stories for other fans in the process how is this bad for us? 

[HollowHills]

Also how does this even help GW? Do you think someone who watched the Astartes fan films is more or less likely to buy a space marine?

[yukishiro1]

It's about them not being confident they can deliver better products for their pricey subscription service than randos on youtube. 

[GrimDork]

1 minute ago, HollowHills said:

Also how does this even help GW? Do you think someone who watched the Astartes fan films is more or less likely to buy a space marine?

Agree with this sentiment. Is the existence of a page by page book review on youtube going to affect someones decision to buy a book? I'm not sure that it will. People who don't want to buy will just find the rules they're interested in from other sources. I watched through one of GMG's broken realms videos to get the latest KO rules, but I was still fully intending to buy the book anyway (and did buy it).

I totally get the chapter house side of IP infringement, what they were doing was directly competing for money that should of been going to GW for their designs. Custom heads or shoulder pads is one thing, but complete models/armies blatantly copying GW doesn't sit right with me.

[Overread]

People lets not fall into in-fighting over this matter. It's perfectly fine do air our personal viewpoints on what we think about IP laws; however that doesn't change the nature or the laws as they are. So lets remember that and not fall to fighting each other over our different viewpoints!

[yukishiro1]

GW sends "guy reads book on youtube" free books to read on youtube. Unless they did a 180 in the last three weeks (they sent him GBH2021 three weeks ago), they are not only fine with it, they actively subsidize it by giving him the material to read. 

[Overread]

Personally I think GW is taking a very sensible move. It is 100% their IP That they've developed and invested into and as GW is now looking to do contracts with film firms they have to tighten up on the fan content. 

 

Furthermore don't forget things like Patreon mean that these fan films can generate very significant income. I believe the guy behind Astartes was earning something like £20K a month from Patreon fans. That's a LOT of money on the table for using an IP that isn't his own. It doesn't really matter if its an IP held by a big firm or by 1 guy in his shed making his own little stories, the law protects both groups. 

Furthermore GW has actually approached many of these fan creators and offered them legal jobs. A regular income, jobs and a chance to work officially on an IP they love. 

[Overread]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

GW sends "guy reads book on youtube" free books to read on youtube. Unless they did a 180 in the last three weeks (they sent him GBH2021 three weeks ago), they are not only fine with it, they actively subsidize it by giving him the material to read. 

Exactly and because of that GW wants to make sure others don't do the same. "Guy Reads Book" has a contract with GW to do just that; if GW doesn't take steps to protect that then that guy isn't getting his agreement with GW upheld in full. Because others are doing it without the prior agreement between them.