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

[yukishiro1]

2 hours ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

Looks like it’s originated from a channel called miscast or something but even he himself is saying it’s been being sent to other YouTube channels, not even himself. So far no ones claimed to have received this particular one and the narrative is it’s a new type being sent to small channels in the hope of keeping them on a leash if they get bigger?

Some have obviously felt strongly enough to send the NDA to miscast but not strongly enough to identify themselves, which would suggest to me they’ve signed it despite having issues with it? Are you not allowed to say you’ve received an NDA even if you’ve not signed it?

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. 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Heijoshin]

4 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)

Sure, but the point isn't necessarily that you can't criticise GW at all, and if you do GW will throw the lawyers at you. That is never the point of these sorts of things. The point of these sorts of clauses is about the cases that are in-between these two extremes (saying "im not a fan of this model" vs "GW is literally worse than *insert your own hyperbole*). 

This isn't a reason to bring up the whole Cursed City debacle, but where would this incident fall under? Under fair criticism? or would GW try and shut you down? I think many YTbers and personalities were commentating on how uncool it was that GW were being so silent on the matter, some went further. Some that really loved GW were saying how bad this whole situation was. Is this not "reputation damaging"? 

My point isn't necessarily any specific incident or possibility, but that in between the extremes are very real possibilities and if you have signed this NDA, the only judge of what is acceptable is GW. If an incident like Cursed City happens again and you've signed this NDA, you can bet there will be people who at the very least would question how much sass or criticism they're gonna put in their video. That in and of itself is bad enough. In the end it's not the whether GW will stifle all fair criticism, or criticism that is at the benefit of the consumer, it's that they can (attempt to at least). 

Or, people can just not sign it and make 100% honest reviews. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Heijoshin

[yukishiro1]

4.1.1 is ridiculous, anyone who signs it is pretty much signing away their right to (1) try to sell stuff to any GW customer without GW's advance permission, and (2) say or do anything that would result in any person anywhere in the world spending less money on GW products. I don't think any court would actually enforce those bans, they're far too oppressive and contrary to public policy, but I would never, ever sign something like that if I was a youtuber, whether or not I thought it was enforceable. It doesn't even restrict the bans on these things to things related to the confidential information!

That said, I would be hesitant to say this must be real until someone comes forward and says they were actually asked to sign it and explains the circumstances around it. It paints GW in a very poor light if it is true, though. 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Gaz Taylor]

Just now, yukishiro1 said:

4.1.1 is ridiculous, anyone who signs it is pretty much signing away their right to (1) market stuff to any GW customer, and (2) honestly review GW's products in a negative light. I don't think any court would actually enforce those bans, they're far too oppressive and contrary to public policy, but I would never, ever sign something like that if I was a youtuber, whether or not I thought it was enforceable. 

 

 

Can I ask what you mean by “honestly”? Like I have previously mentioned, it’s one thing to say something like “GW haven’t done a good job here as this product I’m reviewing isn’t very good because it’s missing some components and it’s not as good value against the product I reviewed from them last time” vs “GW are the worst people in the world and if you buy this product your hair will fall out and it will make you a bad person because they are and they smell and they push small children over”.
 

 

[yukishiro1]

I'm just reading what 4.1.1 literally says: you can't (1) try to sell anything to GW customers, or (2) do anything to cause any GW customer anywhere in the world to buy less GW product. That's what it purports to say. Nothing in there says anything about only bad faith acts. Even if you're spot on (and 100% sincere) that a GW product is truly terrible, if you tell people not to buy it or do anything else to cause people not to buy it, you're in violation. Just like you'd also be in violation for selling anything of your own to anybody who buys GW products. If you sell T-shirts with your youtube channel's name on them to people who are GW customers, you're in violation.

Now obviously that is ridiculous...but that's kind-of the point. What's written there is absurd. It would be one thing if the non-compete was limited to stuff directly related to the confidential info. I.e. if they give you confidential info that they're about to come out with some new line of X, and you then rush to create a copycat product and get it onto the market before them. But it isn't limited to that, the non-compete seems to apply to anything and everything, whether or not it's got anything to do with the confidential info. 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Heijoshin]

11 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I'm just reading what 4.1.1 literally says: you can't (1) try to sell anything to GW customers, or (2) do anything to cause any GW customer anywhere in the world to buy less GW product. That's what it purports to say. Nothing in there says anything about only bad faith acts. Even if you're spot on (and 100% sincere) that a GW product is truly terrible, if you tell people not to buy it or do anything else to cause people not to buy it, you're in violation. Just like you'd also be in violation for selling anything of your own to anybody who buys GW products. If you sell T-shirts with your youtube channel's name on them to people who are GW customers, you're in violation.

Now obviously that is ridiculous...but that's kind-of the point. What's written there is absurd. It would be one thing if the non-compete was limited to stuff directly related to the confidential info. I.e. if they give you confidential info that they're about to come out with some new line of X, and you then rush to create a copycat product and get it onto the market before them. But it isn't limited to that, the non-compete seems to apply to anything and everything, whether or not it's got anything to do with the confidential info. 

 

 

Just to add: It is purposefully made to be interpreted as ridiculously as possible, so GW are the ones to decide what is in violation and what is not. Cast the net as wide as possible, you you can decide what you want to enforce and what not. 

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Heijoshin

[Enoby]

I think it may just be that I assume close to everything on social media is fake unless it comes from a respectable source (e.g. BBC news) or it comes from the primary source (e.g. if Goobertown Hobbies said that they had received the NDA from GW directly, or if posted by GW for some reason). That's not to say that this can't be real or Goobertown is intentionally lying (I don't think they are), but it does seem like perfectly timed rage-bait without anyone willing to claim to be the recipient of the NDA, and the other influencers are saying it's not what they signed. 

I'm just very cautious about falling for reactionary rage-bait without proper evidence to back it up, especially as it seems some sections of the Warhammer community (more on the 40k side) are angry at GW at the moment and so would have the motive to make stuff up to stir the pot (again, not to say Goobertown is making stuff up, but rather he found a lie). 

Of course, I'll eat my words should this prove to be real, but I think it's very important not to get jumped up at internet rumours designed to anger. 

Edit:

I think this is where my issues start: 

Someone brings up reasons it may be fake, and the OP doesn't respond to any of them and just states they're convinced. 

It seems almost faith-like, with many people adamantly accepting this as the truth, but being unable or unwilling to substantiate. 

It really reminds me of those fake articles your older relatives share on Facebook, and when questioning them they just say "well it sounds real". This isn't to say that this is 100% fake, but every time someone has asked for proof or pointed out flaws, it's come back as "bro trust me".

Edited September 24, 2021 by Enoby

[Sarouan]

It's coming from here, obviously : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/801058.page

Honestly, if you don't like GW, you should really find a better base than a NDA contract.

Besides, exactly like the other "outrage threads about GW being evil", the file is taken out of context from a known click-bait website.

It's basically a GW hater troll thread. Really, keep your arguments about demonstrating how "GW is a really bad company and you shouldn't buy their products" for a much better topic.

You're really wasting your time here. Or just plainly decrebilising yourself by trying to argue it's something big. Yukishiro, seriously, be better than this. You're doing more harm to yourself than good, here.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Sarouan

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

It's coming from here, obviously : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/801058.page

Honestly, if you don't like GW, you should really find a better base than a NDA contract.

Besides, exactly like the other "outrage threads about GW being evil", the file is taken out of context from a known click-bait website.

It's basically a GW hater troll thread. Really, keep your arguments about demonstrating how "GW is a really bad company and you shouldn't buy their products" for a much better topic.

You're really wasting your time here. Or just plainly decrebilising yourself by trying to argue it's something big. Yukishiro, seriously, be better than this. You're doing more harm to yourself than good, here.

You are wrong about the timeline, the NDA did not originate on dakkadakka.

The first I saw of it was a post by the youtuber miscast on reddit 22 hours ago, the dakkadakka post appears to be newer.

It's difficult right now to track down the source of the supposed NDA, but I found it interesting that in the thread where I first saw it shared several other youtubers (Midwinter Minis, Kirioth, Goobertown) chimed in to say that they had not received it. Miscast also supposedly only got it second hand. Here's what miscast had to say:

Quote

This has been sent to several smaller/medium sized YouTube channels recently, its different to previous NDAs/agreements from GW. The 3 year long non-competition clause seems intentionally vague, I'd interpret criticism, using competitors products/minis/paints, other games, ad spots, as things that could take away from sales from GW and with Warhammer+ even the reviewers channel itself or the patreon funding it. With the timing of Warhammer+ tin foil hat me says this might be a way to strong arm excited new channels that might sign this in the event they get big over the course of 3 years. Unlike what we saw with GW's response to fan films like Astartes, I think most hobby channels would be safe and fall under fair use (education, criticism) UNLESS they sign this.

So that's apparently the back story. It's plausible enough that I would say we need to wait for more confirmation, but should entertain the idea that the NDA might be genuine. I don't detect a huge anti-GW agenda with miscast himself through his videos, so I am not inclined to believe that he personally faked this document. I guess the leaves open the possibility that someone else faked this document to deliberately hoax miscast into spreading it, though.

[Sarouan]

13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

You are wrong about the timeline, the NDA did not originate on dakkadakka.

No, but that's where the usual suspects for GW bashing come from.

 

13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I guess the leaves open the possibility that someone else faked this document to deliberately hoax miscast into spreading it, though.

Yes, indeed. And the usual suspects for GW bashing joyfully jump on the opportunity without trying to ask themselves that...which is really not helping their cause, IMHO.

That's why I'm saying it's better to keep your anti-GW arguments for a much stronger thread, honestly.

Hollowhills being "sad" to report this, just lol.

[yukishiro1]

29 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

It's basically a GW hater troll thread. Really, keep your arguments about demonstrating how "GW is a really bad company and you shouldn't buy their products" for a much better topic.

You're really wasting your time here. Or just plainly decrebilising yourself by trying to argue it's something big. Yukishiro, seriously, be better than this. You're doing more harm to yourself than good, here.

If you're not content to personally insult me on dakka but want to do it here too, I guess that's up to you. But it seems like a waste of everyone's time and effort, not to mention being contrary to both forums' rules. 

I am content to let my posts speak for themselves, both here and there, I think everyone can see who's respectfully engaging on the topic and who isn't. 

[Sarouan]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

If you're not content to personally insult me on dakka but want to do it here too, I guess that's up to you. But it seems like a waste of everyone's time and effort, not to mention being contrary to both forums' rules. 

I am content to let my posts speak for themselves, both here and there, I think everyone can see who's respectfully engaging on the topic and who isn't. 

Feel free to take that as "personnal insult" where it's really just me saying "you shouldn't decrebilize yourself for this, it's not worth it".

I actually agree with you on some threads you made about GW practices. But here ? Come on. What you're only doing is simply giving fuel for people to just ignore your arguments in the future - because you're talking about something you don't know about and try to make it look like it's big. Worse...from a file taken out of context and with suspecting other interests trying to attract attention to gain money (youtube video, spikeybit topic...that's a too obvious click bait topic for people wanting to spit on GW and hungry for more "clear cases GW is evil" being "out in the public view").

Such a great leak it is, isn't it ? Well, not really.

[RuneBrush]

Still not seen any actual confirmation that this is real and not a hoaxer trying to stir things up.  It's been stated by at least 5 people now that this isn't the NDA they've had to sign for receiving preview copies too - make of that what you will.

Regardless, it's down to the individual to review any document they need to sign and get expert advice as necessary.  If we're honest most of us are armchair lawyers and although we're good at reading rules, this isn't the same as reading a legal document.  Even in AoS, three people can interpret the same rule in three different ways, so the likelihood of misreading legal talk is going to be pretty high!

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

4.1.1 is ridiculous, anyone who signs it is pretty much signing away their right to (1) try to sell stuff to any GW customer without GW's advance permission, and (2) say or do anything that would result in any person anywhere in the world spending less money on GW products. I don't think any court would actually enforce those bans, they're far too oppressive and contrary to public policy, but I would never, ever sign something like that if I was a youtuber, whether or not I thought it was enforceable. It doesn't even restrict the bans on these things to things related to the confidential information!

For me this highlights how two people can read the same piece of text and interpret it differently.  Restricted Customer has a very specific terminology in legal terms and generally means somebody who has worked for the company in the past year.  You're reading 4.1.1 as referring to ANY GW customer, which isn't what is actually being said.  It's why I'd personally never sign something like this without having an expert cast an eye over it first.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Less fighting please.

[yukishiro1]

2 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Feel free to take that as "personnal insult" where it's really just me saying "you shouldn't decrebilize yourself for this, it's not worth it".

I actually agree with you on some threads you made about GW practices. But here ? Come on. What you're only doing is simply giving fuel for people to just ignore your arguments in the future - because you're talking about something you don't know about and try to make it look like it's big. 

As fascinating as I admittedly am, let's discuss the topic, not me. If you want to engage on the topic feel free, just telling me I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about isn't useful to anybody and is unpleasant as well. 

[yukishiro1]

8 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

For me this highlights how two people can read the same piece of text and interpret it differently.  Restricted Customer has a very specific terminology in legal terms and generally means somebody who has worked for the company in the past year.  You're reading 4.1.1 as referring to ANY GW customer, which isn't what is actually being said.  It's why I'd personally never sign something like this without having an expert cast an eye over it first.

I'm going off GW's own definitions in the document. It is what is being said. Look at their definition of Restricted Customer at the top. It explicitly says it's any GW customer. I agree, their definition is very different from the normal definition - that's the whole point - though the definition you're quoting there re: working for the company is a typical definition of a Restricted Person, not a Restricted Customer. Restricted Customer normally means a customer of the company that you developed a relationship with due to your job duties - i.e. the head of sales at a game shop that you got to know because you working in GW sales, or something like that. As written, 4.1.1 absolutely does prohibit you from trying to sell anything to any GW customer without GW's advance permission. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Sarouan]

7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I'm going off GW's own definitions in the document. It is what is being said. Look at their definition of Restricted Customer at the top. It explicitly says it's any GW customer. I agree, their definition is very different from the normal definition - that's the whole point - though the definition you're quoting there re: working for the company is a typical definition of a Restricted Person, not a Restricted Customer. Restricted Customer normally means a customer of the company that you developed a relationship with due to your job duties - i.e. the head of sales at a game shop that you got to know because you working in GW sales, or something like that. As written, 4.1.1 absolutely does prohibit you from trying to sell anything to any GW customer without GW's advance permission. 

First, you have to be sure the file is actually the real one...and if that's the case, in which context it was made.

You can debate all on you want on the terms, if you don't take them in the right context or - worse - if it's not real because faked for whatever reason...well, it's pointless to debate on this, IMHO.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Still not seen any actual confirmation that this is real and not a hoaxer trying to stir things up.  It's been stated by at least 5 people now that this isn't the NDA they've had to sign for receiving preview copies too - make of that what you will.

This is true, but Goobertown Brent had this to say in the original reddit thread (which seems to be the origin of this whole thing):

Quote

Thanks for posting, This confirms rumors that I'd heard from multiple sources.

Of course, that does not tell us a lot. It could just mean that, if this is a hoax, whoever is spreading it did so by targeting several youtubers at once. That would not be surprising: If I wanted to spread fake info about GW's legal shennenigans, I would definitely not soley target Miscast, who (while he has a cool channel) is not the first name that comes to mind when I think "who are the biggest miniature youtubers?".

Still, I think Miscast's statement that this NDA has been sent to several small channels and Goobertown Brent's followup that he has heard this rumour from mutliple sources might lend the rumour some credibility. I'll see if I can get them to follow-up on whether they actually have multiple sources or whether they just heard someone claim that there are multiple sources to this rumour (which is the spot that we find ourselves in currently).

[yukishiro1]

2 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

well, it's pointless to debate on this, IMHO.

Then don't. The rest of us can talk about what this would mean if it is real while also recognizing it could not be. I don't think anyone in this thread - certainly not me - is saying it has to be real. I hope it isn't real.  

[Sarouan]

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

Then don't. The rest of us can talk about what this would mean if it is real while also recognizing it could not be. I don't think anyone in this thread - certainly not me - is saying it has to be real. I hope it isn't real.  

...but what is the point ? Showing you're right on a hypothetical case ?

Why not waiting for facts being confirmed from a serious source first ? At least, you'd be sure it's a big mountain or a molehill. I don't get the need to make a hypothetical big mountain of something that may not be real...

[yukishiro1]

The point is discussing what it would mean if it is true. Why does anyone discuss anything that isn't 100% verified? We have a whole rumor thread here that's thousands of pages long because people love to talk about rumors. Someone's asserted this is true, and people are going to talk about it in the meantime while we wait to see whether it really is true. That seems pretty natural to me. 

 

 

[Beliman]

Both points are already made, move on.

I don't think that repeating the same thing over and over again is healthy for the game, the community or this forum (unless someone asks explicity for it again).

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ MOD HAT ON +++

As @Beliman has quite rightly pointed out, points have been made. So let’s move on and enjoy Age of Sigmar. I’m not going to lock the topic but I think it’s clear we are going in circles now.
 

[yukishiro1]

And here I thought we were actually having a pretty interesting conversation. Shows what I know, I guess. 🤣

If nothing else, I hope you'll leave the thread open so we can get a follow-up when it becomes clear whether this is or isn't real. I'd like to know, and I assume others would as well. 

[Sarouan]

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.

We also need to know in which context this contract is sent. Is it to receive free GW products in advance ? Or working on rules ? Or something else ? Because all of that matters and put some terms that may look very restrictive in another light...NDA contracts are usually specific in adequation to what it is protecting.

For example, I work for a federal administration. What I have is even harsher than this one...not only can't I disclose personnal information outside of the needs of my work, I also have to justify them. With the protection of private data being more and more important, the need to show it's strictly used for very specific purposes is growing with the years. And if I was to use them inappropriately...not only am I risk with being fired, I'm also liable to be served a lawsuit. Should I be denouncing this situation I'm in ? Well...I'm not sure I would be taken seriously if I did. Besides, I believe it's actually very understandable I'm limited that way...

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.