The Heavy Hand of Games Workshop - IP Rights

[Sarouan]

5 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That, doesn't mean that GW will sue everyone, that just means that if you are crossing that line, they will contact you to see how it can be solved without going to the court. 

90% of this cases don't even end on to court, and negotation and/or investigation (if it's needed) can close the case before it's even started. 

Like here :

 

Yet some people with a particular opinion on GW saw this as being "forced to work with GW".

The guy still stays independant and still keep producing his animations. Just not GW IP for money.

[Overread]

I've seen one or two of the emails that GW has sent to 3D designers doing 3D prints when GW is claiming copyright/IP/Trademark/etc.... In general are being firm but fair, they are requiring specific ones be pulled and outlining the reasons for it. They even offer that they'll review the designs if the designer wants to keep them up but make changes so that they are no longer infringing. Basically I think GW today is more keen to work with the community, but at the same time still has to defend their legal position. 

I think GW is honestly taking a very good approach and is being much more lenient than many firms (or indeed GW in the past) would behave in similar situations. 

[stratigo]

20 hours ago, Sleboda said:

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.

Mate, your way of approaching this is "It is equally ethical to support the IP rights of small creators and multi million dollar IP holders and if you don't do both, you are a hypocrite"

 

And, no. Not at all. See on a basic level, a small creator creates the thing and then owns it. A corporation pays someone else for a created thing and then owns it. It's quite different on a basic level. GW, as a corporation, creates nothing, they just pay people to create things. The technical "owners" of a company like GW are largely divorced from its day to day operations, (Kirby still shows up to do things though, but not that much). 

 

You can support the rights of one (say, through IP rights til their death plus x years) and not another (IP rights for an ever extending period that will realistically never end) without hypocrisy. 

 

But this is just another "S;eboda things you have to do things exactly the way GW says or you aren't a real fan/playing the real game" style thing. Except here it's not just bullying people out of the hobby, it's bullying people out of jobs and creative pursuits.

 

Do you think, say, TTS is infringing on GW's IP?

 

19 hours ago, GrimDork said:

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.

I mean I'm not sure I'll  ever buy another GW rulebook again until they get their heads out of their rearends and start offering them digitally again and stop trying to double dip the costs for two products I find strictly inferior to a simple pdf.

 

19 hours ago, GrimDork said:

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.

Again, chapterhouse did indeed lose most of the cases (there were a lot), but GW really can't trademark models that don't exist. Which is why they don't try any more, and that's fine (though it has had a knockon hobby effect)

 

20 hours ago, Sleboda said:

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.

Yes you can trademark things in a narrow industry even if they mean things in a broader context.

 

But GW failed to prove several things were narrow enough. Imperial guard, for example, exists in several historicals because.... imperial guards are in fact historic military formations. But in the context of wargaming, imperial guard is just too general an idea to trademark. 

 

Same with space marines I believe, I don't think they won this particular trademark, but I can be wrong.

 

They definitely did not win trademarking an octogon cause it shows up in tau iconography.

 

19 hours ago, Laststand said:

There's nothing particularly bad here. Try making an animation with Mickey Mouse and see what Disney do.  Also the guidelines are guidelines because its difficult or not possible for them to be infringements. Noone has to worry about review videos whatever they show. If i want to buy a codex and make a youtube video about it im covered by specific legal protections. UK law below, there are fair use provisions in US law too.

https://www.bl.uk/business-and-ip-centre/articles/fair-use-copyright-explained

As an exception to British copyright law, fair dealing is governed by Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which outlines three instance where fair dealing is a legitimate defence:

• If the use is for the purposes of research or private study;
• If it is used for the purposes of criticism, review or quotation;
• Where it is utilised for the purposes of reporting current events (this does not apply to photographs)

 

 

I mean, Disney is literally the big elephant in the room of IP law cause they keep successfully pushing IP laws further and further in their favor using their wealth to bribe (I mean lobby) politicians.

18 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Let's say I'm an indie animator who has created my own setting and characters. I've got a very popular YouTube channel which is my source of income. But I'm still just some dude and his mates putting original animations together.

Suddenly, Disney starts creating animations using my setting and characters. And they start making a considerable amount of money thanks to building off the popularity and appeal I generated.

Everyone who says GW is in the wrong would logically support Disney in the above scenario. They are saying that I would be out of line in protecting my IP and asking Disney to stop making content based off it.

But obviously that is not the side they would support because for so many it isn't about what is legal or even morally right, it's just about opposing a corporation because it's a corporation. Here's the thing; we live in democracies. We elect the people who write corporate law. If those laws say that corporations exist to make money without concern for morality then no ****** they are going to act the way they do, that is how we told them to behave.

 

Logically nothing follows at all. You can logically support small creators over large corporations because you think small creators are more deserving of protection by law or freedom from law then large corporations are. Instead of the reverse which is literally true in the modern world. 

Cause Disney actually does do this and get away with it. 

 

Opposing corporations is, indeed, a moral good since the legal system is set up so heavily to favor them over the average individual. You have to already be quite rich by the standards of America, or have the ability to collectivize your legal action to challenge a corporation in law. And that last one is increasingly harder to do from decisions handed down at the SCOTUS level and legislation on the nature of contracts, at least here in America. I won't speak for Europe in these cases because I simply don't know.

 

When the law where I live actually treats corporations fairly, I'll be more willing to consider this idea that one has to be 'fair' to corporations rhetorically. But I can tell ya, this day ain't ever gonna come.

 

I support the rights of small creators because they struggle to defend their own. I don't need to support the rights of corporations, the entire legal system bends over backwards to make sure they have more then their fair share of rights.

 

I do, in fact, spend quite a bit of time thinking about the ethics of my positions, thank you very much (hint, I'm a utilitarian)

 

 

EDIT: Actually, I think you're smart enough to get this concept, so i'll do you one better. We, as a society, from America to Europe to Asia (and even increasingly in nominally communist China) live under a philosophic concept called Capitalist Realism. I push back against corporations because the default assumption in modern society is that the concept of corporations (Which can be divorced from individual corporations that do things too obviously bad to ignore) and the system they are a part of (capitalism to be clear) are an inherent good and there can be no alternatives to the economic and political systems we have right now. We have reached the end of history, and it was a capitalistic one the whole time. I do not think this (obviously). I think the errors of the current system can be examined and fixed, and so push back against the idea that you have to be fair to corporations. We live under a philosophic framework that corporations are an inherently good institution. So, this is why I don't bother defending them, because society is set up to do that from the ground up. I don't need to point out the good things the concept of corporations and capitalism provides, you learn that from when you can understand language to when you die. But any pushback to the idea that perhaps the current system has very VERY serious flaws has to be shouted loudly because it is yelling to the entire theoretic framework we live under.

17 hours ago, Overread said:

And just where will you draw the line? GW are nothing compared to the likes of Disney in power. Is GW big enough? What about Game of Thrones? That's 1 author's work is he big enough or small enough (or just well known enough) for protection? What about Witcher? 

 

Bringing scale into it just complicates matters, but also shows that its not a simple thing. In the end GW are tiny compared to other mega-firms. All GW is doing is protecting their IP, they aren't stopping fans creating videos, just videos of the GW IP and Trademarks. If those people want to make a video about big men in hulking space suits shooting aliens they can do just that. They just can't do it using all the material GW has put into the market and such. Same as they can't make a Witcher film or a Game of Thrones. 

Copyright isn't evil. It's a system that protects and allows creators to release products and creations to the market and be able to earn off them without the risk of others stealing their work. Heck disable copyright and Disney would grow in power because they could bring superior resources, market reach and everything to fan works. They'd honestly love nothing more than to poach anything they want. 

 

Plus lets not forget GW isn't just shutting these people down; GW is offering many of them JOBS. These dedicated fans are getting the opportunity to work officially for the brand and firm and world that they utterly love. That's a freaking dream-on-a-plate right there for many of them to work with the firm; to release official products; to be part of the thing they love. 

It's not actually hard to find a place to draw the line. That line is just made super scary, least here in America, cause it was made clear by communists (Although a lot of it was talked about by Adam Smith, of Wealth of Nations fame. But, like, even an originator for many modern capitalist ideas is too socialist for modern corporations), and anything remotely connected to it terrifies a lot of Americans

But here's the line. The content creator verse the content owner. A person or team small enough that they are actively involved in the creation of the content verse an entity that owns the content by virtue of paying someone else who has actually made it. There's your line. It's usually pretty easy to find (there's some fuzziness when you get to true small business, but GW is Weeeeeell over the line)

 

Companies are not, actually collections of people working together. They are collections of people working FOR someone. Usually most of those someones are not even involved with the company. The vast majority of people working for a company largely have little say in how the company is run, and the people who do are often partially owners (and also often ****** the company itself for personal profit. Just look how often Bobby Kotick elects to raise his salary over shareholder protest)

 

 

5 hours ago, Sarouan said:

All of this because GW updated their IP Guidelines section. Guidelines.

Most of the debate isn't about this anymore. It's about political beliefs and the distorted way some perceive GW because it fits their political narrative.

The problem lies with people here, not GW. When you see the world in Black and White, it can only goes that way.

A good example is here :

So because there is a set found somewhere about the speculative "value" of a company is enough to categorize it as a "billion dollar company". Even though none of GW profits is close enough to a billion - meaning the actual money they have in surplus and could invest back in the company or its employees for the better.

In comparison to Activision, a video game company that makes predatory video games on children with lootboxes and true microtransactions, that makes indeed billions dollars in profit every year, that could be used to upgrade their lowest employees salary but instead is given massively to their top management like Bobby Kotick, infamously known as being one of the billionaires. Like, true billionaires - meaning he doesn't need any more, he already has way more than enough to live at least a thousand lives in luxury.

But no, both are billion dollar companies, you see. Both are "Black". They're the same, you see.

 

Facts don't matter when you have a political agenda. What only matters is how you spin them your way so that it becomes a consolidation of your beliefs. Guidelines aren't guidelines anymore - they're an imminent threat forewarning a plague of legal actions against the poor fans who make animation videos on GW IP. No question, no Grey...the world is simple in Black and White.

A company worth over a billion dollars is... a billion dollar company, yes. You don't value a house if it costs 100 thousand dollars to buy and go "Well actually this house is a ten thousand dollar house because that's how much the price changed from when it was last bought" 

And, I hate to break it to you, but IP laws are super political. It's actually telegraphed in the word "law"

There is a difference between GW and Activision (for one GW actually pays most of its taxes ). But it is largely a difference in scale, not kind (except, again, GW pays most of its taxes. Good on em for that). And this is a thread about GW practices, so fitting GW into the modern economic system that, you know, it actually is a part of, is just gonna, like, happen?

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2021 by stratigo

[HollowHills]

I honestly don't understand what kind of madness drives people into thinking that they should play white knight to corporations run for the benefit of shareholders who couldn't care less about them.

I love warhammer, but imagine how much better the hobby would be if it was run by enthusiastic creators only for the benefit of fans rather than to extract the biggest profit from them.

[Greybeard86]

22 hours 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 don't have a firm position on this, but this was one of the worst cases of bad faith argumentation I have seen in a long time.

It is quite obvious that GW has a position of dominance (market power) in the miniatures / wargames market and that's what the poster meant.

[yukishiro1]

7 hours ago, Sarouan said:

All of this because GW updated their IP Guidelines section. Guidelines.

Most of the debate isn't about this anymore. It's about political beliefs and the distorted way some perceive GW because it fits their political narrative.

The problem lies with people here, not GW. When you see the world in Black and White, it can only goes that way.

A good example is here :

So because there is a set found somewhere about the speculative "value" of a company is enough to categorize it as a "billion dollar company". Even though none of GW profits is close enough to a billion - meaning the actual money they have in surplus and could invest back in the company or its employees for the better.

In comparison to Activision, a video game company that makes predatory video games on children with lootboxes and true microtransactions, that makes indeed billions dollars in profit every year, that could be used to upgrade their lowest employees salary but instead is given massively to their top management like Bobby Kotick, infamously known as being one of the billionaires. Like, true billionaires - meaning he doesn't need any more, he already has way more than enough to live at least a thousand lives in luxury.

But no, both are billion dollar companies, you see. Both are "Black". They're the same, you see.

 

Facts don't matter when you have a political agenda. What only matters is how you spin them your way so that it becomes a consolidation of your beliefs. Guidelines aren't guidelines anymore - they're an imminent threat forewarning a plague of legal actions against the poor fans who make animation videos on GW IP. No question, no Grey...the world is simple in Black and White.

The measure of a corporation's value is, well, its value. Not the amount of profits it makes per year. Market cap is the most easily available measure of a corporation's value. This isn't complicated stuff, and it's downright weird to complain about how "the problem" is people who look at a company worth well over a billion dollars and call it a billion-dollar company. That's literally what words mean. What you make of GW being a billion dollar company is up to you, but it is inarguable that they are a billion-dollar company. 

To then rant about "political agendas" and "spin" and how "facts don't matter" is highly ironic. This whole post is bizarrely confrontational for no real reason that I can see. I didn't think it was controversial to say that a company with a market cap of 5 billion dollars is a billion dollar company, and I don't see why it warranted such an aggressive response. 

If "the problem" is people like me, I don't think I want to know what "the solution" is.

Edited July 23, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I love warhammer, but imagine how much better the hobby would be if it was run by enthusiastic creators only for the benefit of fans rather than to extract the biggest profit from them.

If you can still have a great revenue from your own work, probably you will not care when some people starts making their new and original fanmade series with your own creation (even if it's not legal, they still need your permision).

But when you can't defend your own creation in front of the court because (ex.) you creation is being used in a lot other medias, I assure you that you are going to trademark/copyright/etc...  your work (some governments have this type of services) and protect it as your own child.  And yes, more than one friend had some problems with that, like losing their typography because it was used without any legimit consensus in  who was it's creator. Or worst, like losing your works rights because you can't defend you made it in front of the court.

I know that corpos are using all their legal weapons to take whatever they can (and I'm completely against that), but that's not what GW is doing with this guidelines.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Beliman

[Sleboda]

50 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

I don't have a firm position on this, but this was one of the worst cases of bad faith argumentation I have seen in a long time.

It is quite obvious that GW has a position of dominance (market power) in the miniatures / wargames market and that's what the poster meant.

Of course they have a strong position. It was not obvious to me that he meant that. I've seen the word monopoly used incorrectly so many times over the years that it felt worth pointing out. I acknowledge that may not have been his intent. I'm just saying it was not clear to me.

Sort like when people here in the US get on TV or other outlets and claim "censorship" or "freedom of speech" but don't actually know what those terms mean in our system of government. (For example, the forum mods here are not "censoring" or limiting your "freedom of speech" when they edit or delete our posts.)

[yukishiro1]

If you misread what he wrote in a way nobody else did and jumped on him because of it, that doesn't seem like his problem. 

Perhaps the lesson is not to jump on people in the first place, it's not pleasant even when you're correct, and it leaves one looking very foolish when one isn't. 

It'd be nice if people could just, well, be a bit nicer to one another. 

[Sleboda]

19 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

It'd be nice if people could just, well, be a bit nicer to one another. 

Indeed, Mr. Kettle, it would be.

I wasn't jumping on him. I was pointing out a common point that people often do stumble over. You know, helping to clarify w discussion point ... on a discussion forum. So, in other words, your assumption about my intent was also incorrect. 

As a wise person here recently said -

Perhaps the lesson is not to jump on people in the first place, it's not pleasant even when you're correct, and it leaves one looking very foolish when one isn't. 

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

I honestly don't understand what kind of madness drives people into thinking that they should play white knight to corporations run for the benefit of shareholders who couldn't care less about them.

I love warhammer, but imagine how much better the hobby would be if it was run by enthusiastic creators only for the benefit of fans rather than to extract the biggest profit from them.

I don't know that it's being a white knight specifically for corporations. At least not in my case. As I've mentioned here and there, I believe in fairness. Simply being large and successful should not remove protections from things you create. If I were to make a Cool Thing, I would have the right to control it's use and distribution. I'm just saying apply the rules fairly.

As you may have seen, I go full harshness in GW when I feel like they deserve it (you should have seen me in Twitter over Cursed City and, just last weekend, Beast Snaggaz!).

It's not white knight. It's defending fairness.

[yukishiro1]

7 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Indeed, Mr. Kettle, it would be.

I wasn't jumping on him. I was pointing out a common point that people often do stumble over. You know, helping to clarify w discussion point ... on a discussion forum. So, in other words, your assumption about my intent was also incorrect. 

As a wise person here recently said -

Perhaps the lesson is not to jump on people in the first place, it's not pleasant even when you're correct, and it leaves one looking very foolish when one isn't. 

I didn't say anything about your intent, just what you did. Nobody was "stumbling" here (except you I suppose in thinking someone else was), nor did they need your "help" to "clarify" a "common point."  I think you are kind-of making my point for me re: being unpleasant, but I don't want to perpetuate the unpleasantness, so I'll leave it here.

[NinthMusketeer]

3 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I honestly don't understand what kind of madness drives people into thinking that they should play white knight to corporations run for the benefit of shareholders who couldn't care less about them.

I love warhammer, but imagine how much better the hobby would be if it was run by enthusiastic creators only for the benefit of fans rather than to extract the biggest profit from them.

Some people understand that under the current system we have allowing indie creators to use a corporation's IP also means allowing corporations to use indie creator's IP. That's reality. It's not about defending poor victimized GW, it never was. It's about defending people equally regardless of who they are.

There are a lot of people here saying 'IP laws shouldn't apply as strictly to indie developers drawing from large corporations' which is certainly something that can be discussed and debated but is also entirely non-sequitur. Because that isn't the system we have. Maybe the system should be changed, another great topic of discussion. But it still doesn't apply to what GW is doing in the real world right now.

This is not directed at anyone specifically, but I think there is a notable degree of naivety towards how the world works at hand in this discussion. There is a lot of boiling down to 'corporations are evil oppressors, individuals are virtuous victims' which I think is a comforting belief to adopt for many people compared to a reality where blame cannot be so readily assigned.

At the end of the day we all want Robin Hood. But we aren't going to get Robin Hood.

Edited July 23, 2021 by NinthMusketeer

[Sarouan]

4 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I love warhammer, but imagine how much better the hobby would be if it was run by enthusiastic creators only for the benefit of fans rather than to extract the biggest profit from them.

See, that's exactly the kind of bias you end up with when you have a "Black and White" vision.

A lot of people working at GW are enthusiastic and passionate, and care about fans. Yet there is also a side of their business that care about profit and making money. Just one of the two isn't enough to work in this world - you need a balance of the two.

Furthemore, corporations aren't mindless entities thinking on their own. They're made from a lot of people that make its existence possible - and they have also quite different views like all humans. So it's not just "one side" that characterize them : it's an addition of all these views at multiple levels. You may believe just the view of the leader is enough, but reality isn't that always simple. There are a lot of different dynamics behind a corporation...the same than in any community, in fact.

You can live in a ideal world where you can work with only one side, like a "blank page" where everything can start anew without the existing problems and our own history. But that will never work in reality.

See Mantic Games. They have also to take into account the business side and the part about making money, yet they're often seen as player-friendly with their games. And they also know that if people begin to make copies of their miniatures for cheaper, it will also hurt them on the long term.

Here, when I read some posts, I can't help but feeling their authors seem to believe that people behind the success GW can't be both passionate and caring about money. That the two are incompatible...so, if they're making money, they can't care for fans and be passionate / enthusiastic. And everything that should show you they do must be a lie / deception to make you believe they are.

 

And here is my problem : people saying that it's not fine because it's GW but it is if it's small independants. Like big GW is always Black but small independants are always White. Reality is there are small independants who are actually here to make money without caring first for the fans - just at a smaller scale. Like true recasters located in some eastern countries and taking advantage of low cost material / not having to pay a horde of employees to have prices you can never beat.

But no, since they are small independants and they do this to GW, it's fine and ok to support them. That's how some guys justify it.

Basis of Justice is to treat everyone equally under the law. If you take a law and use it to treat differently two sides, just because of their "size" or simply the side you're taking, then it's not justice. It's just taking a side. So yes, if copyright laws exist, GW has as many rights to use them to defend their IP as much as small independants to protect their own. If you don't believe in that...you will never be fair.

That's why I'm suspicious of people calling the moral ground and saying those who "defend GW" are the hypocrites / don't understand why they do. To me, they're just trying to look better but don't see their ways aren't especially making them better in the end.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Sarouan

[Overread]

I've seen a few firms where the creator cared 100% for the product and the customer and nothing else. Most of them fold. You have to care about the numbers and finances and legalities of a business AS WELL AS the customer and product. It's not enough to focus on one not the others.

The difference for GW is they have enough money that they can hire someone who's whole job is just the numbers and business side of things. That's their job, their passion, their skill. That's what they are there for - to balance the numbers, to do the forms, to make the business work. By making it work there's the money for creative teams to work on projects; there's the money for staff to earn a living wage and make it a career not just a stop gap after uni/college/school. Heck look at Warhammer+ in a less than a month we get to see GW releasing videos that they've commissioned. Actual animations and adventures in the Warhammer setting. They can only do that because they have passionate creators and staff who worked hard on models, art, stories, rules, photography, painting. sculpting, casting, taxes, forms, legal, finances, shops, retail etc.... All those parts came together. 

[stratigo]

6 hours ago, Beliman said:

If you can still have a great revenue from your own work, probably you will not care when some people starts making their new and original fanmade series with your own creation (even if it's not legal, they still need your permision).

But when you can't defend your own creation in front of the court because (ex.) you creation is being used in a lot other medias, I assure you that you are going to trademark/copyright/etc...  your work (some governments have this type of services) and protect it as your own child.  And yes, more than one friend had some problems with that, like losing their typography because it was used without any legimit consensus in  who was it's creator. Or worst, like losing your works rights because you can't defend you made it in front of the court.

I know that corpos are using all their legal weapons to take whatever they can (and I'm completely against that), but that's not what GW is doing with this guidelines.

I mean, large corporations steal the IP of individual creators all the time :D.

 

I do think Europe (and by extension, the UK) does a better job than America are protecting smaller creators from predatory companies. GW's run afoul of this in the pat actually.

 

13 minutes ago, Overread said:

I've seen a few firms where the creator cared 100% for the product and the customer and nothing else. Most of them fold. You have to care about the numbers and finances and legalities of a business AS WELL AS the customer and product. It's not enough to focus on one not the others.

The difference for GW is they have enough money that they can hire someone who's whole job is just the numbers and business side of things. That's their job, their passion, their skill. That's what they are there for - to balance the numbers, to do the forms, to make the business work. By making it work there's the money for creative teams to work on projects; there's the money for staff to earn a living wage and make it a career not just a stop gap after uni/college/school. Heck look at Warhammer+ in a less than a month we get to see GW releasing videos that they've commissioned. Actual animations and adventures in the Warhammer setting. They can only do that because they have passionate creators and staff who worked hard on models, art, stories, rules, photography, painting. sculpting, casting, taxes, forms, legal, finances, shops, retail etc.... All those parts came together. 

I mean the story is actually usually "The person that actually makes things of creative value has that thing they made bought out by the boring money guy, often for far less then it is actually worth, because the boring money guy knows how to manipulate money and has few morals, and the creative simply doesn't"

 

 

But, you know, I wish GW would use all that hiring power they got to hire people who actually know how to make an app. Cause like, it's a comedy of errors in there from what I hear from people who know someone working on it.

 

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I don't know that it's being a white knight specifically for corporations. At least not in my case. As I've mentioned here and there, I believe in fairness. Simply being large and successful should not remove protections from things you create. If I were to make a Cool Thing, I would have the right to control it's use and distribution. I'm just saying apply the rules fairly.

As you may have seen, I go full harshness in GW when I feel like they deserve it (you should have seen me in Twitter over Cursed City and, just last weekend, Beast Snaggaz!).

It's not white knight. It's defending fairness.

 

GW the business doesn't make anything. It hires people that makes things for it, who do NOT see a equal return for the things that they make proportional to what the people who own, but have no involvement in, GW make.

 

Thus it is not actual fairness to equate GW, the corporation that holds IP, to a creator who creates an IP themselves and thus owns it.

 

4 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Some people understand that under the current system we have allowing indie creators to use a corporation's IP also means allowing corporations to use indie creator's IP. That's reality. It's not about defending poor victimized GW, it never was. It's about defending people equally regardless of who they are.

There are a lot of people here saying 'IP laws shouldn't apply as strictly to indie developers drawing from large corporations' which is certainly something that can be discussed and debated but is also entirely non-sequitur. Because that isn't the system we have. Maybe the system should be changed, another great topic of discussion. But it still doesn't apply to what GW is doing in the real world right now.

This is not directed at anyone specifically, but I think there is a notable degree of naivety towards how the world works at hand in this discussion. There is a lot of boiling down to 'corporations are evil oppressors, individuals are virtuous victims' which I think is a comforting belief to adopt for many people compared to a reality where blame cannot be so readily assigned.

At the end of the day we all want Robin Hood. But we aren't going to get Robin Hood.

The actual reality is that GW has more protections afforded to it de facto, and even de jure, then an individual creator. The law does not protect them equally, it protects GW more then any individual.

 

I would not be nearly as critical if we had equal IP protection in fact as well as in law, but that's not the world we live in. The world we live in is that a corporation, by dint of its resource advantage and ability to pressure politicians, has more rights then any individual creator. This is just the facts, and like, yes we can accept this is true, but it kind of stands to be commented upon quite harshly because, pardon my french, it's ******.

 

3 hours ago, Sarouan said:

See, that's exactly the kind of bias you end up with when you have a "Black and White" vision.

A lot of people working at GW are enthusiastic and passionate, and care about fans. Yet there is also a side of their business that care about profit and making money. Just one of the two isn't enough to work in this world - you need a balance of the two.

Furthemore, corporations aren't mindless entities thinking on their own. They're made from a lot of people that make its existence possible - and they have also quite different views like all humans. So it's not just "one side" that characterize them : it's an addition of all these views at multiple levels. You may believe just the view of the leader is enough, but reality isn't that always simple. There are a lot of different dynamics behind a corporation...the same than in any community, in fact.

You can live in a ideal world where you can work with only one side, like a "blank page" where everything can start anew without the existing problems and our own history. But that will never work in reality.

See Mantic Games. They have also to take into account the business side and the part about making money, yet they're often seen as player-friendly with their games. And they also know that if people begin to make copies of their miniatures for cheaper, it will also hurt them on the long term.

Here, when I read some posts, I can't help but feeling their authors seem to believe that people behind the success GW can't be both passionate and caring about money. That the two are incompatible...so, if they're making money, they can't care for fans and be passionate / enthusiastic. And everything that should show you they do must be a lie / deception to make you believe they are.

 

And here is my problem : people saying that it's not fine because it's GW but it is if it's small independants. Like big GW is always Black but small independants are always White. Reality is there are small independants who are actually here to make money without caring first for the fans - just at a smaller scale. Like true recasters located in some eastern countries and taking advantage of low cost material / not having to pay a horde of employees to have prices you can never beat.

But no, since they are small independants and they do this to GW, it's fine and ok to support them. That's how some guys justify it.

Basis of Justice is to treat everyone equally under the law. If you take a law and use it to treat differently two sides, just because of their "size" or simply the side you're taking, then it's not justice. It's just taking a side. So yes, if copyright laws exist, GW has as many rights to use them to defend their IP as much as small independants to protect their own. If you don't believe in that...you will never be fair.

That's why I'm suspicious of people calling the moral ground and saying those who "defend GW" are the hypocrites / don't understand why they do. To me, they're just trying to look better but don't see their ways aren't especially making them better in the end.

GW commits to a lot of hilariously anti consumer things mate. Like, a lot a lot. 

 

And again, the law treat an entity like GW with far more even handedness in actual reality then you indie animator. 

 

Honestly I am waited on baited breathe to see if they try to shut down alfabusa, because he has the clearest source of non review based fair use I have ever seen via parody. But I can guarantee to you if GW goes at him, he's done, no matter what the law protects. 

 

I mean maybe I am vastly overestimating the amount of knowledge people have, but I feel like y'all know that larger, wealthier entities are better protected under the law then smaller, poorer entities. You don't seriously think the law is actually equal right? In practice or in writing. I mean, I did post the link to capitalist realism, but I didn't think people fell this hard into it to think that the system is truly strictly fair to literally everyone because this is so blatantly not the case.

 

[Sleboda]

I just have to say, @Overread, I'm really appreciating your comments on this thread. Not only the the content, but also the tone. 

 

You are setting a fantastic example. Thanks for your contributions.

[dirkdragonslayer]

I am going to reserve judgment for a few weeks/months and see what they do with this change. Are they going to crack down hard like Disney/Nintendo, or is this toothless legal posturing like most companies do with their fan content? It's not a good look to someone like me who is ignorant to legal documentation, but it also doesn't look much different than similar IP guidelines.

This has the potential to be really bad, or a complete non-factor, depending on actual enforcement.

[ArkanautDadmiral]

7 hours ago, stratigo said:

 

I mean maybe I am vastly overestimating the amount of knowledge people have, but I feel like y'all know that larger, wealthier entities are better protected under the law then smaller, poorer entities. You don't seriously think the law is actually equal right? In practice or in writing. I mean, I did post the link to capitalist realism, but I didn't think people fell this hard into it to think that the system is truly strictly fair to literally everyone because this is so blatantly not the case.

 

You don’t have to answer this, but I’m interested to know how old you are and what industry you work in?

Only because you’re questioning other people’s knowledge and trying to assert your own authority on the subject matter.

Of course you don’t have to answer that.

 

8 hours ago, stratigo said:

GW the business doesn't make anything. It hires people that makes things for it, who do NOT see a equal return for the things that they make proportional to what the people who own, but have no involvement in, GW make.

This is the second time you’ve claimed GW don’t create because they pay other people to do it for them, and then pay them less than they deserve. Is this strictly relating to small creators making GW ip products without a license, or for example hiring a production studio, I.e. Sun & Moon who are making Hammer & Bolter? Do you just mean in house employees?

I just want some context as to who you’re positioning the small creator as here and what their relationship with GW is, examples would be helpful. So I can fully understand who you’re referring to.

[RuneBrush]

8 hours ago, stratigo said:

GW the business doesn't make anything. It hires people that makes things for it, who do NOT see a equal return for the things that they make proportional to what the people who own, but have no involvement in, GW make.

Thus it is not actual fairness to equate GW, the corporation that holds IP, to a creator who creates an IP themselves and thus owns it.

I'm really struggling to get my head round the point you're trying to get over.

What do you mean by make?  My interpretation of make is producing a product that is sold.  However by that definition there are loads of small studio businesses that will draw the design for a model, have it sculpted by a third party and then manufactured by a casting company.  The sculptor will normally receive a one off commission fee, so will never see equal return if that model is really popular.  In fact there are plenty of businesses out there that commission both the design and sculpt.

In truth, GW is as much a manufacturer as it is a design studio - they have factories and production facilities that make physical products - it's not outsourced and we as consumers don't buy designs or ideas, we buy products.  GW also doesn't hire people - it employs them.  It's a small but huge difference.

[NinthMusketeer]

Well you see sir when a team of people put a lot of passion and effort into a project to create a work of art that is something which deserves to be protected.

When a team of people put a lot of passion and effort into a project to create a work of art and they are GW employees that does not deserve protection.

Simple!

[stratigo]

9 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I'm really struggling to get my head round the point you're trying to get over.

What do you mean by make?  My interpretation of make is producing a product that is sold.  However by that definition there are loads of small studio businesses that will draw the design for a model, have it sculpted by a third party and then manufactured by a casting company.  The sculptor will normally receive a one off commission fee, so will never see equal return if that model is really popular.  In fact there are plenty of businesses out there that commission both the design and sculpt.

In truth, GW is as much a manufacturer as it is a design studio - they have factories and production facilities that make physical products - it's not outsourced and we as consumers don't buy designs or ideas, we buy products.  GW also doesn't hire people - it employs them.  It's a small but huge difference.

Three posts are pretty much asking the same thing, so I'll just answer them with this one.

 

GW is not a person. It's not a collection of individuals. It's not even the shareholders really. It's a legal entity that exists to own things. It doesn't make things, it owns things other people make, on behalf of its investors, but most of the investors don't have a strong connection to even the day to day operations of the company, much less make things for it.

 

When someone says GW makes something, they are doing a shorthand of "A team of someone's in GW has made something and GW pays them some amount of compensation for owning their work". 

 

I feel like this is basic economics here. This component doesn't even have a moral judgement attached, it's a strict statement of fact. GW the company exists to hold the IP and tools of production for a labor force. The labor force produces things using the owned IP and tools. That's capitalism. That's just capitalism. I don't get how this is confusing people. Capitalist realism indeed, you struggle to see into even the basic workings of the system.

 

Now, I DO, obviously, have a moral judgement. And that judgement is that GW using its power of ownership extracts more wealth then I think is moral from the people working for it, and can (and has done so) use that concentration of wealth as a tool to stifle and manipulate small creators out of markets. Both strictly legally and not so strictly legally. And, this being a thread about GW IP rules, the imbalance between a corporation of the size of GW (who is obviously far from the biggest corporation in the world) and an individual or even small group is vast, and the law does NOT adequately bridge it, or even really try that hard to in terms of IP rights. GW has MORE protection under the law then any animator on youtube, and this sucks. This is bad. And they all have to hope that GW simply doesn't exercise its power to destroy them, which is can do at will, and can do so largely regardless of the law, a law that already exists to benefit wealthier entities in the first place. It is a bad world where one's livelihood, or even just hobbies, exist on the whim of a powerful impersonal entity right? 

 

If you want me to get into what I think GW should do in regards to labor, I can, but that wasn't the point of this thread.

 

GW manages a small measure of vertical integration in that they own the process from design to production. That's not super uncommon in wargaming, though GW of course has a dominating edge over most companies that produce both IP and models. And it's not really... material? A lot of companies vertically integrate to own the IP and means of production through various steps. But, again, IP thread, so focus of the IP part of it.

 

Also, you're right, GW does employ, though I was using the term mostly to mean both. They also still hire on this distinction (eg, hire for a long term position, verse hire for a set task for those not knowing what it is). GW does participate readily in the gig economy. 

 

 

1 hour ago, NinthMusketeer said:

Well you see sir when a team of people put a lot of passion and effort into a project to create a work of art that is something which deserves to be protected.

When a team of people put a lot of passion and effort into a project to create a work of art and they are GW employees that does not deserve protection.

Simple!

They should be paid more and have some controlling stake in what they create and what they use to create it actually. But, dude, this isn't the labor rights thread. It's the IP thread.

 

+++ MOD EDIT +++ Please don't insult other members

Edited July 24, 2021 by RuneBrush

[Overread]

You do realise that the one time GW actually went to court over copyright - they lost. In fact they lost really embarrassingly badly, in part because their legal advisor/team at the time wasn't actually as well qualified/experienced as they'd made out. Which had been fine for sending legal letters but not when it came to actually defending things in a court.

 

Which I think shows that legally speaking GW has no greater protections than any youtube creator. Furthermore if those youtube creators were making their own sci-fi settings with their own IP and content then GW couldn't touch them, nor would they even want to bother doing so. 

 

Edit

also most small miniature firms run a legal company entity as well. Oathsworn, Privateer Press, Reaper Miniatures. Even one man design brands run things like Mini Monster Mayhem and Lord of the Print and you don't get much smaller than 3D print design teams. 
They all use companies because it protects them as an independent person if the company falls and such. 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

Three posts are pretty much asking the same thing, so I'll just answer them with this one.

GW is not a person. It's not a collection of individuals. It's not even the shareholders really. It's a legal entity that exists to own things. It doesn't make things, it owns things other people make, on behalf of its investors, but most of the investors don't have a strong connection to even the day to day operations of the company, much less make things for it.

When someone says GW makes something, they are doing a shorthand of "A team of someone's in GW has made something and GW pays them some amount of compensation for owning their work". 

I feel like this is basic economics here. This component doesn't even have a moral judgement attached, it's a strict statement of fact. GW the company exists to hold the IP and tools of production for a labor force. The labor force produces things using the owned IP and tools. That's capitalism. That's just capitalism. I don't get how this is confusing people. Capitalist realism indeed, you struggle to see into even the basic workings of the system.

Now, I DO, obviously, have a moral judgement. And that judgement is that GW using its power of ownership extracts more wealth then I think is moral from the people working for it, and can (and has done so) use that concentration of wealth as a tool to stifle and manipulate small creators out of markets. Both strictly legally and not so strictly legally. And, this being a thread about GW IP rules, the imbalance between a corporation of the size of GW (who is obviously far from the biggest corporation in the world) and an individual or even small group is vast, and the law does NOT adequately bridge it, or even really try that hard to in terms of IP rights. GW has MORE protection under the law then any animator on youtube, and this sucks. This is bad. And they all have to hope that GW simply doesn't exercise its power to destroy them, which is can do at will, and can do so largely regardless of the law, a law that already exists to benefit wealthier entities in the first place. It is a bad world where one's livelihood, or even just hobbies, exist on the whim of a powerful impersonal entity right? 

If you want me to get into what I think GW should do in regards to labor, I can, but that wasn't the point of this thread.

GW manages a small measure of vertical integration in that they own the process from design to production. That's not super uncommon in wargaming, though GW of course has a dominating edge over most companies that produce both IP and models. And it's not really... material? A lot of companies vertically integrate to own the IP and means of production through various steps. But, again, IP thread, so focus of the IP part of it.

Also, you're right, GW does employ, though I was using the term mostly to mean both. They also still hire on this distinction (eg, hire for a long term position, verse hire for a set task for those not knowing what it is). GW does participate readily in the gig economy. 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. That you've had to explain your own opinion on economics to a number of us suggests that it's not an opinion that is that common.

Coming back to the new IP rules, pretty much it's GW's ball and they can tell us how they expect us to play with it.  They're perfectly entitled to do this as the owner of the IP even if we don't agree with all the items.  As I agreed with in an earlier post, I think we need to wait and see what happens going forward.  I certainly expect fan films to be clamped down on, but beyond this who knows.  Is this fair?  No less fair than trying to make a business from somebody else's work.

[ArkanautDadmiral]

10 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. That you've had to explain your own opinion on economics to a number of us suggests that it's not an opinion that is that common.

Coming back to the new IP rules, pretty much it's GW's ball and they can tell us how they expect us to play with it.  They're perfectly entitled to do this as the owner of the IP even if we don't agree with all the items.  As I agreed with in an earlier post, I think we need to wait and see what happens going forward.  I certainly expect fan films to be clamped down on, but beyond this who knows.  Is this fair?  No less fair than trying to make a business from somebody else's work.

I’ve never written and deleted so many responses before, thankfully when it popped up you’d written this I realised it’s probably wise not to bother engaging with that particular train of thought too.

I don’t think we’ll see an impact on any creators except those that make fictional animations based on the IP. And even then i think they’ll still be able to make them but just won’t be able to monetise them (fair enough in my opinion). Nothing will happen to battle reports, reviews or painting channels.