Asslessman
Member
Well at least Grumdril'slink for their IP policy makes it clear (especially page 4) : no copies or distribution whatsoever of any OOP stuff from games, WD or any publication. Written black on white.
PDF's & OOP rules/articles
- Thread starter Just John
- Start date
Grumdril
Member
Wizards of the Coast seem to recognise that sales of 1st / 2nd edition material doesn't significantly cross over with sales of their modern stuff, and I imagine the same would be true for GW. The audience that want to be current are, the audience that care about 2nd / 3rd edition would probably seek alternatives so it's a "free" sale. I'm not sure that's 100% true, but close enough.
Jimbobodoll
Member
Well then, we've ended up with an answer to the issue the haven't we? Good discussion team - and thanks for the internet legwork Grumdril!
Just John
Moderator
So that leaves us with the policy as before - no asking for scans, no posting of scans or links to scans on the boards. No recommending certain distribution sites etc. That doesn't stop anyone asking off the boards, but then what you do off the boards is none of out business now is it?
Keep the discussion going if you have any more to add - its already gone further than before with more information than before.
Keep the discussion going if you have any more to add - its already gone further than before with more information than before.
Orlygg
Member
lenihan":25jwo3r8 said:
I think GW thinks very much of NOW rather than THEN. Old publications, white dwarfs etc are little (or indeed, no) threat to their core business plan of selling new toys to children/adults. The removal of the Specialist Game brand was based on the fact that NO-ONE bought them and it wasn't pratical to keep the service going.
The Inner Geek
Member
On the one hand, if 500 people would pay $20 each for a professionally done pdf of 3rd edition with hyperlinks and shortcuts embedded in it, that would be $10,000. I'm not sure what the cost to produce and digitally distribute the material would be? As I mentioned above, it would be great to have a 'legal' digital copy. For example I have the new Numenera RPG book as a physical book and a pdf. I find myself reading the pdf more because of the hyperlinks that let me jump instantly to a page/rule referenced.
I think part of the problem is GW is constantly ret-conning their IP and don't want people to know what used to be in the game because they might want it back or lose 'belief' in the current fluff.
I think part of the problem is GW is constantly ret-conning their IP and don't want people to know what used to be in the game because they might want it back or lose 'belief' in the current fluff.
Orlygg
Member
The Inner Geek":3duznrew said:
You may well be correct, but I wonder if copyright is also an issue for GW themselves. Many of the paintings and artworks that appeared in old publications have been returned to the artists who produced them. Commission may well have to be paid on these before a further commercial project can be started.
The Inner Geek
Member
Orlygg":1rvdy5fh said:
Two things...
You're right and I'd have never thought of that!
Also, how we get one of those spiffy 'donator' badges... besides donating obviously (which I did). I'm a sucker for a badge/widget/doo-dad.
lenihan
Moderator
Orlygg":1qbw7xek said:
That's a fair enough observation; although I would say that enouraging people to read old versions of rules could be seen as a threat to their sale of current rules; indeed, the very idea that you don't have to keep updating things is a threat to their business model. So supporting the idea that "3rd ed lives forever" through re-issuing publiciations, etc. does not make the same level of sense as simply offering up pdfs of discontinued specialist games. Especially when you think that this might mean people are more inclined to buy minis from ebay than from GW.
Anyway, all this is hypothetical. If GW DID release pdfs or print on demand versions of old material, I would buy them. As they have no clear plan to do that, people are going to want to get hold of that old material through other means. And given the litigous nature of some departments of GW, I wouldn't like to fly any red flags. I mean, the term "Oldhammer" itself could be construed a trademark violation given some of their recent chicanery. (Sorry, I realise that comes close to GW bashing, but it's simply an observation based on some of their recent behaviour)
for boardgamegeek.com - probably the largest site on the internet dealing with board games)
ardyer
Member
illuminatus":4407gggp said:Used without permission?
Why do I need permission to photograph my model that I bought with my money and painted with my paints and my awesome skills? If they are just licensing their miniatures for limited use then surely they should say so when they take my money. I was under the impression that I was buying them outright for any legal use I care to put them to.
I'm on vacation right now and sending this from my phone, but if there is still interest when I get back I shall detail a conversation I had with a well respected copyright attorney and law professor. On that very issue. You might be shocked at his conclusions.
Also, afaik, "The Warhammer Forum" never git such a cease and desist.
Grumdril
Member
ardyer":30fwl6ad said:illuminatus":30fwl6ad said:Used without permission?
Why do I need permission to photograph my model that I bought with my money and painted with my paints and my awesome skills
I'm on vacation right now and sending this from my phone, but if there is still interest when I get back I shall detail a conversation I had with a well respected copyright attorney and law professor. On that very issue. You might be shocked at his conclusions.
Also, afaik, "The Warhammer Forum" never git such a cease and desist.
I'm not remotely a lawyer, so I'm interested in what ardyer's associate had to say, but it is a subject that interests me so my understanding of the situation hopefully isn't a million miles off.
* GW own copyright in the creative work of the sculpture or any other work of their creatives (ignoring embarrassing episodes such as the one recently when it turned out that, due to badly written contracts, a lot of their artists actually owned the copyright in works produced years ago)
* You own the physical miniature that you bought
* You own the copyright in your painting of the miniature
* You also own the copyright in your photograph of the painted miniature (or even if you'd photographed it unpainted)
GW can either give everyone a blanket permission to use their works in this way, or not give permission, or treat every case on an individual basis. Not surprisingly the second is the route they've chosen, as there's not enough lawyers in the world for the last option, and the first option would be foolish, hence the words in their legal text. I'm sure you can work out why the blanket permission isn't an option - e.g. if there was blanket permission someone could create a deeply inappropriate diaorama from their minatures, publish it via whatever means, and then loudly say "GW said it was OK I did this".
Converting a miniature (which there's also words about in their legal text) is creating a derivative work of their copyrighted work, which is a whole subject in itself.
The thing is, this isn't all about us, and in fact as I said in my first post GW are as gamer friendly as they can be. They have to protect their copyright in their very valuable IP. If (as I'm sure a lot of us do) you browse the web for 28mm fantasy miniatures you'll have seen some very good original work, and also some very average work that's aping as close as the manufacturer dares to GW's IP.
I'm by no means a GW fanboy, and in fact their business model drove me away from the hobby 20ish years ago. However I have enormous respect for the quality of their miniatures even if their recent stuff isn't to my taste.
Mostly unrelated to the above (but also discussed in this thread), it's very easy to paint GW as the bad guy when sometimes it's the law's fault (if GW don't defend their IP, they will find themselves unable to do so when it matters) and sometimes the target of the law suit is in the wrong. The Board Games Geek example being a case in point - initially this came across (at least to my reading) as "GW had a IP binge and targetted BGG" when more recent comments paint a more balanced picture - BGG was misusing GW's IP (by hosting OOP copyrighted material) and deriving income from this (as they have adverts). Actually it's not GW who were in the wrong here. It sounds like BGG threw the baby out with the bathwater (presumably to be on the safe side) but the situation wasn't of GW's making.
lenihan
Moderator
I think we can all agree that from a business perspective GW's attempts to protect their IP are sound. If I'm playing devil's advocate, then I have to say I think it's a little brazen when you consider that really there's very little in GW's IP portifolio that is truly original; it's mostly derived from the rich pool of historical, fantasy, sci-fi, and pop culture resources, so if I was being particularly grumpy I'd suggest that what they're doing amounts to an enclosure of the commons, much like recording artists who try to claim copyright on traditional songs. Which would be a really interesting debate, I think, but probably likely to veer to close to the admittedly tedious vice of "GW bashing".
I also think that the idea that you're not allowed to contaminate their miniatures with parts from miniatures by other companies is hardly gamer-friendly in principle (so when I put a pitchfork from S&D models, a railway scenery manufacturer, in the hands of one of my minis, I was breaking their rules - something I didn't know until I read this yesterday) although as in practice I've never heard of anyone getting a cease and desist letter for playing with a converted mini, I think you could say that the policy is just a very sensible covering their back-side. So what I'm saying is that they're gamer-friendly in the sense that they turn a blind eye. But as the treatment of some internet fan materials shows, they will only take this so far.
I also think that the idea that you're not allowed to contaminate their miniatures with parts from miniatures by other companies is hardly gamer-friendly in principle (so when I put a pitchfork from S&D models, a railway scenery manufacturer, in the hands of one of my minis, I was breaking their rules - something I didn't know until I read this yesterday) although as in practice I've never heard of anyone getting a cease and desist letter for playing with a converted mini, I think you could say that the policy is just a very sensible covering their back-side. So what I'm saying is that they're gamer-friendly in the sense that they turn a blind eye. But as the treatment of some internet fan materials shows, they will only take this so far.