New Games Workshop NDA for influencers UPDATE 2: The document appears to be real.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

7 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Even if it's real...it's basically a contract. You can also point the terms you don't agree with and negociate with the contractor about them. If they agree to change them, good. If not, well it's still up to you to decide to sign or not anyway.

You are ignoring that there is a significant power imbalance between GW and the average youtuber reviewing their stuff. It's definitely not good if GW puts a bunch of extra harsh (to the point of being non-enforceable) requirements into their contracts for people who receive advance promotional material. Small youtubers generall don't have the legal knowledge to judge whether such a contract is fair or the legal ressources to fight it if need be. Putting clauses into a contract that you know you can't get away with in the hopes of bullying people without legal knowledge or ressources into compliance is definitely the kind of scummy corporate strategizing we should all object to.

 

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

We also need to know in which context this contract is sent. Is it to receive free GW products in advance ?

It is supposedly this.

 

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

If GW was to work with a reviewer and giving free products for the sake of reviews well in advance...I wouldn't be surprised if they get very restrictive about leaks, since that's a high priority for them for quite a lot of years now. And well...for a youtuber, having information before everyone else ? It's basically a goldmine.

One of the reasons why the NDA is newsworthy is that it represents a step toward more restrictive terms than GW previously required. They previously had NDAs, but they were apparently nowhere near as harsh (according to Midwinter Minis, who has previously been public about ending an unproductive partnership with GW). This would be another piece of evidence that GW is gearing up to be come more aggressive about their IP enforcement and more customer unfriendly. It is in line with the recent behavour we have seen from GW that many of us find worrying.

[Sarouan]

8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

You are ignoring that there is a significant power imbalance between GW and the average youtuber reviewing their stuff.

No, I'm also pretty much aware of the even more huge power imbalance between my current employer (the state ) and me.

And even so ! In this case, the youtuber already has a job. The contract is about something more "intimate" with GW that may be indeed more profitable for the youtuber in the future in terms of view - doesn't mean his channel is worthless without that tie. He can still have his youtuber job without it. Me, on the other hand, I am 100% certain I lose my job without it.

Which is why...

8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

One of the reasons why the NDA is newsworthy is that it represents a step toward more restrictive terms than GW previously required. They previously had NDAs, but they were apparently nowhere near as harsh (according to Midwinter Minis, who has previously been public about ending an unproductive partnership with GW). This would be another piece of evidence that GW is gearing up to be come more aggressive about their IP enforcement and more customer unfriendly. It is in line with the recent behavour we have seen from GW that many of us find worrying.

...the context in which this contract is made (if real) is actually key for its importance, before trying to say "it's bad for everyone !!".

If it's actually specific like a long term contract with an outsider for, say, working on future battletomes and receiving crucial information way before its release, having very restrictive terms about leaks is not that surprising...and thus may be not the "generic NDA contract" other people working with GW for less "sensible projects" have.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Sarouan

[RuneBrush]

I'm seeing more people debunking this as a fake and pointing out the inconsistencies.  Personally until it's been 100% confirmed as real (i.e. somebody going, "yes, this is word for word what I've been sent by GW") and clarified what the NDA is for I think we need to be a bit careful when stating absolutes and decrying GW as monsters 😉

I reckon there's only one way to prove this - I need to become a YouTube influencer!  Best dust off the web cam...

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

If it's actually specific like a long term contract with an outsider for, say, working on future battletomes and receiving crucial information way before its release, having very restrictive terms about leaks is not that surprising...and thus may be not the "generic NDA contract" other people working with GW for less "sensible projects" have.

I don't know why you are throwing out this hypothetical. According to Miscast, the new NDA was supposedly sent to small youtubers in the context of receiving review copies of new minis. Other youtubers who have previously received review material from GW (Goobertown, Midwinter Minis...) confirmed that this contract is harsher than the ones they signed. That's what the supposed context is. Whether or not this contract could be justified in the context of a long term collaboration on more sensitive stuff seems irrelevant to me.

[Sarouan]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I reckon there's only one way to prove this - I need to become a YouTube influencer!  Best dust off the web cam...

Make a live stream of the Tale of Two Moderators ! With a chat on twitch and people throwing money at you while you build miniatures and paint them

[Kaleb Daark]

8 hours ago, novakai said:

[4.1.7 The recipient undertakes to GW that it shall not at any time during the Term, do or say anything which may be harmful to the reputation of GW.]

hmm, doesn't sound like they are demanding positive coverage, you can probably still critised something you don't like about a product in a constructive manner.

just don't say they are selling and marketing their expensive products to children is exploiting them (cough Outer circle cough)

or they are Capitalistic pigs that are incompetent with technology and rules writing (cough The Honest Wargamer)

Exactly this.

In the past I've seen many similar things, and you're quite right.

An honest opinion, for example "The rules / models / content let this otherwise what should be a great product down, and for a company with so much resource I struggle to see why this has been allowed to go into production, I for one won't be rushing to buy a copy" is a very different thing to using GW's brand and reputation to push some other agenda.

For example, in the most extreme case, you have a pepe the frog example with an extremist faction takes on say the Astartes as it's poster child as an example of it's ideology on a particular racial or religious purity viewpoint. Were this to happen, for GW to undo that taint will be nigh on impossible to repair without massive investment and time once it gains momentum - all of which will murder profit in the mean time.

It's extreme as an example I know, but I've read it as "say what you want in the review but don't drag our name into or by association with anything sordid, defamatory, contentious or otherwise to do with anything outside of giving your thoughts on the product itself".

Even our old work contracts had similar clause in them - you kick off say in a bar or public place or on a public platform whilst in your uniform and you're fired, as by association the business, not the individual are tarred with the viewpoint or action.

We also had staff in the past spouting hate talk on their social media, only to find that they were out of a job the following week, as someone had retweeted their thoughts and mentioned who they worked for.  Easiest thing was to issue a statement saying that sort of opinion or action wasn't tolerated and the said perpetrator was no longer an employee as a result.

They're protecting their name, and it's all legal jargon, that always sounds scary.  bottom line on stuff like this is that if you're doing everything above board, then there's nothing to fear and it doesn't change anything.

Keep calm, roll dice and carry on.

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

Make a live stream of the Tale of Two Moderators ! With a chat on twitch and people throwing money at you while you build miniatures and paint them

That'd be living the dream!  Though I do consider I have a face for radio which may restrict things 🤣

[AdamR]

5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

That'd be living the dream!  Though I do consider I have a face for radio which may restrict things 🤣

To be clear, I was liking the living the dream, not the radio face😜

[HollowHills]

I don't see why it would be fake. Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.

Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.

[Sarouan]

49 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.

Some people used to take a lot of time to make a convincing page from a new codex just to be able to post it on the internet and enjoy the rumors getting wild / click-bait / just for lolz in the past. Why not a false NDA contract.

And since people who really, REALLY hate GW are more than happy to jump on anything, it's also easy to use that as clickbait on website / youtube channels for the public out there that's thirsty for that kind of dirt on GW, no matter what it is. Like you were using unverified claims that turned out to be false in previous threads here.

 

49 minutes ago, HollowHills said:

Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.

See, as long as it matches your narrative, you're more than eager to believe it. That's why it's dangerous to have extreme views, no matter how right you think you are. Better to check facts and sources first.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Sarouan

[zilberfrid]

I generally do trust Goobertown more than GW, but in this case it has been gone through too many layers to verify the true source of the document. I'm about 50/50 on this

As for people saying this is in a normal NDA/non competing clause for an employer or contractor, GW is not paying these people, they just send them some stuff. Three years after the NDA ends is also quite a long time for the broadness of the terminology of "restricted customer".

One place where this could originate is contracted work for Warhammer + content, but it would still not be a contract I'd sign because of the wording of Restricted customer.

As for how much time it would take to whip up a document like this, I guess about half an hour for someone who has any English language NDA; just get a logo and their legal adress, exaggerate some wordings and you're done.

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, HollowHills said:

I don't see why it would be fake. Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.

Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.

I have made contracts, charters and law documents more involved than this just for a roleplaying session. It's not that hard. I rag on GW as much or more than anyone else, but there are many trolls in the world.

[Orbei]

2 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said:

Exactly this.

In the past I've seen many similar things, and you're quite right.

An honest opinion, for example "The rules / models / content let this otherwise what should be a great product down, and for a company with so much resource I struggle to see why this has been allowed to go into production, I for one won't be rushing to buy a copy" is a very different thing to using GW's brand and reputation to push some other agenda.

For example, in the most extreme case, you have a pepe the frog example with an extremist faction takes on say the Astartes as it's poster child as an example of it's ideology on a particular racial or religious purity viewpoint. Were this to happen, for GW to undo that taint will be nigh on impossible to repair without massive investment and time once it gains momentum - all of which will murder profit in the mean time.

It's extreme as an example I know, but I've read it as "say what you want in the review but don't drag our name into or by association with anything sordid, defamatory, contentious or otherwise to do with anything outside of giving your thoughts on the product itself".

Even our old work contracts had similar clause in them - you kick off say in a bar or public place or on a public platform whilst in your uniform and you're fired, as by association the business, not the individual are tarred with the viewpoint or action.

We also had staff in the past spouting hate talk on their social media, only to find that they were out of a job the following week, as someone had retweeted their thoughts and mentioned who they worked for.  Easiest thing was to issue a statement saying that sort of opinion or action wasn't tolerated and the said perpetrator was no longer an employee as a result.

They're protecting their name, and it's all legal jargon, that always sounds scary.  bottom line on stuff like this is that if you're doing everything above board, then there's nothing to fear and it doesn't change anything.

I don't agree with this interpretation. I find the wording regarding restricted customers to be very troubling. The document defines restricted customers as any client or customer who has dealt with GW in the past 12 months. This prohibits the signee from influencing those customers in a way that reduces the business they do with GW. This is absurd. I would completely understand if the language broadly prohibited disparaging GW, and would agree that is typical. This goes a step beyond and a step too far as I read it.

I don't know if this is real, but I am curious to see if it is proven one way or the other. If it is real GW should be called out on it. The whole point of a review inherently involves influencing a customers likelihood to buy a product, which goes directly against this ridiculous NDA This would make me less interested in content produced by anyone who receives advance copies of their products, since their opinion could no longer be seen as objective. It would also, ironically, influence me towards purchasing less from GW.

[The Red King]

If its real then it's bad and predatory.  If its fake then we still learned that GW has recently acted at least bad enough that it's plausible AND that many customers would defend their actions.

[GrogTheGrognard]

7 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

No, you would be allowed to say you didn't sign it, and unless I missed it, I don't see anything in the agreement purporting to stop someone who did sign from saying they signed (and if it does say that somewhere, that's pretty dubious legally too). Though I can see how someone would still rather not come out and say they were given it, for fear of jeopardizing their future relationship with GW. 

 

 

Just a quick note I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread before posting this so if someone else answered just ignore this part. Part 1.1 (ii) notes that the existence and terms of the agreement is confidential information. Which would make them unable to disclose the agreement terms and existence unless they were to have GW prior written consent I believe.

 

As for whether or not I believe this is real.... I honestly don't think GW has been making a lot of good moves lately but this feels like a step too far that not even GW would be foolish/malicious enough to make. The legality of this document seems suspect to the point I couldn't believe competent lawyers made it. That being said if someone else believes this is true I honestly couldn't fault them for holding that opinion. My inability to believe any lawyers wrote this is not evidence to it's authenticity or lack thereof. 

[Sarouan]

Hmmm...looks like the source is actually contested...

Coming from NornQueenAlexis :

Also...why GW would refer themselves as litterally just the initial "GW" in a legal document, while they never say what the "GW" letters mean anywhere in it ?

Only the community talk about GW as "GW". In a legal document ? Unlikely.

Moreover...the logo on the left top of the document is actually the old GW logo. If it's a new version...why using it ?

 

And apparently, Nornqueenalexis had the DNA itself, and was argueing with Goobertown on Twitter as well.

Given that Goobertown has apparently no issue with spreading potential false information...and that's he has a clear interest into 3D prints as well...not sure if I would take this guy's words as being that trustworthy on that matter.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Sarouan

[yukishiro1]

Nobody's said it was the same NDA past people have got. The claim's always been that it was a new version that was being sent around to people who hadn't yet signed up. I think it is quite obvious it's not the old NDA, as it would prohibit a lot of what many of the youtubers we know get advance copies actually do, like selling swag (unless we think they're going to get GW to get permission every time they make a new mug or T-shirt). No major youtuber would ever sign that if they have any sense. 

It may well still be a fake, but you can't really just point to the fact that it's different from the old NDA and say that shows it's a fake, when the posts themselves say it's different from the old NDA. 

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Sarouan]

If it's a new version of the NDA, they wouldn't use the old GW logo in it.

Really sounds like a fake more and more we're digging into it.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Sarouan

[yukishiro1]

24 minutes ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

Just a quick note I didn't get a chance to read the whole thread before posting this so if someone else answered just ignore this part. Part 1.1 (ii) notes that the existence and terms of the agreement is confidential information. Which would make them unable to disclose the agreement terms and existence unless they were to have GW prior written consent I believe.

 

Yep, you're absolutely right, I missed that. It does say the agreement itself is confidential, and therefore that even admitting that the agreement exists would be violating the agreement. This is another sign of an oppressive agreement - there's only very limited circumstances where the agreement itself is appropriately made confidential, and it's nothing that would be appropriate for the circumstances it was alleged this is being used for. 

The fact that people who have signed NDAs have said this isn't the one they've signed at least shows that the prior agreements didn't have such any such clause. 

[yukishiro1]

10 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

If it's a new version of the NDA, they wouldn't use the old GW logo in it.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, my very first post in this thread said I am not convinced it's real, precisely because the contents are so draconian that I have difficultly believing GW would actually write a contract like this that no influencer in their right mind would sign. There's lots of details about the contract that are sloppy, too, which again both suggests it may not be real, and would be concerning if it was real. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Sarouan]

Well, I sent a mail to GW's customer service with the document itself joined to it and plain ask them if it's a real one or not, so I'm waiting to see their official answer on this.

[Enoby]

56 minutes ago, The Red King said:

If its fake then we still learned that GW has recently acted at least bad enough that it's plausible AND that many customers would defend their actions.

I think this is a rather questionable line of reasoning. Certainly GW has done shady things, and this could be one of them, but having your stance as "guilty until proven innocent, and if they're proven innocent then it's their fault for looking so guilty in the first place" seems to leave you open to manipulation. While GW have been more anti-consumer recently in some regards, letting yourself fall for reactionary lies because it supports how you feel is a dangerous path to tread. 

Personally I think it's fake, though I'm open to being proven wrong, but my biggest worry if it's fake is that this was created by a "GW hater" to stir the pot, and they've seen it's very successful - it shows that a community is open to being lied to. Reactionary hot takes without evidence based on supporting a feeling (especially anger) are a blight on deeper discussion.   

[ArkanautDadmiral]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I don't see why it would be fake. Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.

Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.

Trolls do things like this all the time, social media is crammed with misinformation. Considering the way opposing Warhammer subreddits are constantly fighting each other it wouldn’t surprise me in the least someone would make a fake document damning GW because it’s almost theatre at the moment.

You’ve a much higher opinion of people than I do to think some lowlife wouldn’t fake something like this though and I commend you for that. 

I’m still about 60/40 on it, I just find it surprising no one has come out and said they’ve received it yet.

It’s all yet more division in the community though which is disappointing.

There’s no positive outcome to this whether it’s real or fake.

[Orbei]

NornQueenAlexis saying it's fake without proof is equally as useful as Goobertown saying it's real. If you believe one of them at face value but not the other it's entirely due to your own preconceived bias regarding the issue. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Orbei
Grammar

[Lord Veshnakar]

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I don't see why it would be fake. Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.

Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.

Never underestimate how much someone can hate a company and what lengths they will go to in order to make said company look bad. ESPECIALLY after WHFB was phased out, which lets be honest, already had a fairly troubled fanbase.

People have faked being sent C&D a lot in a lot of other fandoms. Especially in situations like Disney+Star Wars, Nintendo, or just GWs fandom in general.  I wouldn't at all be surprised.

EDIT: That all being said, there was talk in our discord from a guy that was saying the person that edited this document is in his local gaming group and sent it as a joke to scare a local youtuber. I have no clue for sure though.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Lord Veshnakar