| TalkBloodBowl.com going offline; or... GW really effin' up here | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 4th November 2009 - 06:33 PM (1,650 Views) | |
| Rhellion | 12th November 2009 - 07:05 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Warlord
|
Ah. Then that is more of a stretch, though they can't "publish" them without GW consent. |
| Rhellion's Tabletop blog | |
![]() |
|
| Skaven Lord Vinshqueek | 12th November 2009 - 07:26 PM Post #32 |
|
Bunny ear says flop
![]()
|
Heard the news as well, others are: http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/11/31321 http://darkreign40k.com/forum/index.php?topic=3071.0 talkbloodbowl.com bloodbowl.net blood-bowl.net bloodbowlfigs.com enefel.org bloodbowlonline.com bloodbowl.org bloodbowlcentral.com All of these have received C&D letters. Greetz |
In the Horned One we trust, all others we monitor. ![]() Skaven track record [W/D/L] @ 17th of August, 2014: BB 34/19/55; MH 9/2/6; WHF 17/8/30 | |
![]() |
|
| blader4411 | 12th November 2009 - 07:28 PM Post #33 |
|
The New Lunar Republic!
|
Don't forget FUMBBL has also recieved a Cease and Desist letter as well... *Sighs* What a mistake... Does anyone know what caused this sudden outbreak of C&D letters? I mean, GW has been quiet for the best part of 10 years, now suddenly this happens... -Danielle |
![]() |
|
| Skaven Lord Vinshqueek | 12th November 2009 - 07:32 PM Post #34 |
|
Bunny ear says flop
![]()
|
*points upwards*... READ before posting. :rolleyes: The sudden buzz of activity from Games Workshop's Legal Department seems to come from the fact that they need to renew their trademark, at least on Blood Bowl, or so the story goes. This means that they need to ensure they alone are the ones that (legally) make use of the trademark. As such, any site that refers to Blood Bowl or has it in their URL is a problem for Games Workshop, hence the C&D letters. Greetz |
In the Horned One we trust, all others we monitor. ![]() Skaven track record [W/D/L] @ 17th of August, 2014: BB 34/19/55; MH 9/2/6; WHF 17/8/30 | |
![]() |
|
| Ravin' Skaven | 12th November 2009 - 08:01 PM Post #35 |
![]()
|
The timing of this swathe of legal demands follows closely on the heels of a licensing agreement between GW and a third party regarding the Blood Bowl IP for use in a videogame. The following segment of GW's IP policy would seem pertinent here: But wait . . . I'm not allowed to quote *anything* from their website according to their Terms of Use page, and have to tread carefully even when paraphrasing, so . . . here's a link instead: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/...3900002&start=3 The relevant segment would seem to be lines 14-15 under the heading "1. Introduction", stressing the protection of licensing agreements with third parties. The lawyers are no doubt doing their best to justify an end of year bonus; I guess we all have to earn a living somehow. Merry Christmas. |
![]() |
|
| slips | 12th November 2009 - 09:57 PM Post #36 |
|
Clanrat
|
If all the bloodbowl websites are getting C&D it means GW is planning on doing something with the line, either licensing it out to a third party or something along those lines, when it was just one I figured the issue was going to be the donation button, but with all these websites being hit, expect some sort of bloodbowl announcement coming up. Either that or GW needs to slap their legal department. In reality, its entirely possible for me to figure out the exact stats and point cost and options list for every single model in an army book by just aggregating the threads(via linear algebra and rules discussions), so I doubt they're getting their panties in a knot over rules which are published for free online. |
![]() |
|
| Bobtailmaneater | 16th November 2009 - 05:53 PM Post #37 |
|
Grey Seer
|
I am a trademark and Copyright attorney with 21 years of experience. Take that for what you will... A couple of points to make: 1) GW wrote a cease and desist letter, based on what appears to me to be the flimsiest of legal grounds. The real tragedy here is that they were not challenged, as they would have very likely had their case dismissed, which would have been a nice precedent for the GW online community of ISP owners. 2) The fact that there is a donation button is not dispositive of any issue in a potential case. The issue is simply whether or not there is a likelihood of confusion. The site is not competing with any product or service that GW provides. Moreover, assuming appropriate disclaimers were present, no one could really argue that the web site's users were likely to assume that this was an official GW site. 3) The use of the name "Bloodbowl" is only a violation of trademark law if it is placed on the same or similar product or service. GW was really reaching here. See above. 4) It is wrong to say that the legal dept and the marketing dept have different aims. Both are part of the same company and beholden to the same board of directors who set all of the company's policies. I would not be too quick to forgive GW for this exercise in paranoid bullying. |
![]() Bobtail's links: *My Sculpting and Converting Blog on UE *My Article on the Skaven Runic Alphabet | |
![]() |
|
| wardancer | 16th November 2009 - 07:39 PM Post #38 |
|
Chieftain
|
Excellent post Bobtail! |
| www.mightyminiatures.wordpress.com | |
![]() |
|
| SneakyRodent | 17th November 2009 - 09:31 AM Post #39 |
![]()
Claws of the Horned One founder member
![]()
|
Indeed, a nice post there. scrivener's observations and those of Bobtailmaneater neatly show the two opposing standpoints of GWs approach in this matter. Nothing changes my own opinion that this was a totally over the top attack on a fan-based site that could not concieveably pose a risk to GW or its 'intellectual property'. Way to alienate your core customer base GW, all the subtlety and tact of an Orc in a china shop. |
|
Grey Seer Skritchit Lord of the Ulricsberg Clan Virulus Holder of 'Best Post' Award 2007 here Took part in the glorious Lords of Decay Revolution of April 1st 2012 The complete works of SneakyRodent can be found here [/size]
(Scrivener on the Scum And Villainy2 characters of me, DamnedPrince and himself) | |
![]() |
|
| Bobtailmaneater | 17th November 2009 - 04:34 PM Post #40 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Just a follow-up, I should add that under Copyright law GW has even less of a case. The website would be protected under the fair use laws, assuming it did not copy extensively from GW's intellectual properties, used the GW copyrights for critical review, did not make a profit from them, contained necessary disclaimers, etc. The four factors judges consider are: 1- the purpose and character of the use (best case - they added value by giving their own interpretations, expressions, added new insights and understandings) 2 - the nature of the copyrighted work - assuming the copyrights are published works (and the BloodBowl rules certainly are) GW is given less control over it. Different standard would apply if someone, for example, copies a part of the new Skaven book before it hits the stores; Still, as a copyright holder of a commercial work, GW gets a good deal of protection, which means that to qualify for fair use, the use must be very minimal, which brings us to the third factor: 3 - the amount and substantiality of the portion taken - here, I assume that BloodBowl websites are careful not to copy large portions of GW art or text without permission; Finally, 4 - the effect of the use upon the potential market - which in this case is nil, or net positive, as these web sites do not compete with GW, but in fact are fan sites that promote the "GW hobby"! Honestly, given how many websites were attacked, you would think all these ISP owners could pool their resources and mount SOME kind of legal defense. Even web sites that haven't been attacked have an interest here (Looking at you UnderEmpire, warhammer.org.uk, etc.) |
![]() Bobtail's links: *My Sculpting and Converting Blog on UE *My Article on the Skaven Runic Alphabet | |
![]() |
|
| Surbrus | 17th November 2009 - 05:18 PM Post #41 |
|
Clanrat
|
I guess this question is mainly for Bobtail (or any others in the know). I was thinking along the same lines as you are Bobtail, that this was not a valid complaint made by GW (mini-rant on p1 of this thread). My concern was that even if this case will be thrown out of court, could GW stall the court somehow attempting to drain the defense of money. It wouldn't really matter how they do it, but just the fact that they have much more money than any defendants might give them an advantage. Travel fees, missed work (or leisure) days, and legal fees just by themselves might be too much for a forum administrator to handle. Other companies have done similar things in the past. Is this a potential scenario, or is this particular case so poor that this is a non-issue? Just curious. Thanks. |
![]() |
|
| Bobtailmaneater | 17th November 2009 - 06:11 PM Post #42 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Well, speaking as a plaintiff's lawyer I can tell you that the burden of proof is on GW. They are the ones who will be spending the majority of the money in the beginning of the case. Let's not forget that the defendants would have a chance to do discovery on GW, which would cost GW an arm and a leg. Assuming the GW lawyers are dumb enough to actually sue and not just compromise a settlement (which BTW, is probably what they were after, since they don't want a bad precedent haunting them...more on this point below*), the defendants would have to file an answer and would have to comply with paper discovery and a deposition. A motion to dismiss the case would be made on papers, with oral argument at the court's discretion. None of this should be particularly back breaking if the defendant's pooled resources. I would estimate legal fees of about $10K, less with pro bono assistance. Regarding "paper discovery", I would venture to guess that most ISP owners have their paperwork in order to show that they are not making money off their sites. I would also imagine that the content of the sites are available on back-up tapes, so that these could be turned over without excessive expense. To whatever extent GW is willing to pay its lawyers thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars to pour through the content of 100,000+++ messages looking for copyright violations, according to the Digital Millenium Act the ISP owner has a safe harbor from prosecution as long as he removes anything offensive within a reasonable time after GW sends him a notice concerning a specific violation. A deposition means taking a day off work to testify. Honestly, what are the GW lawyers going to discover that will help their case? I can't fathom it. If the ISP owner were not in the UK, I would argue first that a deposition is unnecessary and cost prohibitive and make a motion to the court to have it done by telephone or better still, webcam & video. Most court's these days would agree that this is reasonable. *Concerning the likelihood of settlement, bear in mind here that what GW is really after is to be able to show that they are actively policing their trademarks and copyrights and avoiding dilution. In fairness to them, they can't just let things be without at least having somewhere in their files evidence that they made a good faith effort to deal with potential infringers. Most likely, GW would settle for some token modification to satisfy their shareholders. I think what they would be most concerned about and have the best case against is the use of their original artwork, and the defendants should be prepared to give in on this point. If site owners wouldn't just throw in the towel, all parties could be brought to the negotiation table and a reasonable resolution reached, I'm quite sure. I am not a member of the Blood Bowl forum (I haven't played in years...pity, because my minis are really sweet), but if you would like to forward this to them please be my guest. |
![]() Bobtail's links: *My Sculpting and Converting Blog on UE *My Article on the Skaven Runic Alphabet | |
![]() |
|
| Surbrus | 17th November 2009 - 10:19 PM Post #43 |
|
Clanrat
|
Thank you Bobtail, that was informative. Always nice to here from someone with experience. As you mentioned, if ISP owners with an interest in this matter pooled resources to make at least some sort of joint defense effort, things like this may very well just blow over. |
![]() |
|
| Bobtailmaneater | 18th November 2009 - 04:40 PM Post #44 |
|
Grey Seer
|
You're welcome. I have very mixed emotions about this. As much as I love Warhammer and have devoted ungodly amounts of time to it, I have a sick feeling in my gut about the way GW sometimes treats its fans, and I took several years off from Warhammer as a result of this. I used to run a Warhammer web page myself - the "Horned Rat's Homepage" as par of my larger wargaming site called "Strategic Headquarters." Some here may remember me from Direwolf - I was the FAQ Keeper and the guy who created the FAQ council many years ago. I also wrote the "Guide to Skaven Runes" and a TrueType font that I think is still floating around on the internet today. Hello to anyone who may remember me |
![]() Bobtail's links: *My Sculpting and Converting Blog on UE *My Article on the Skaven Runic Alphabet | |
![]() |
|
| Clanlord Trask | 19th November 2009 - 12:29 AM Post #45 |
![]()
Quiet, I'm plotting.
![]()
|
I think we use that font in the Skavenblight Gazette. If it is your font, then thanks for doing all the hard work! As for the point at hand, I think the artwork copyright infringment is basically the only leg they have to stand on. They employ people to create this artwork for them, and so have control over how it is used. As a Graphic Designer and Illustrator I can totally understand the fervor with which they protect their artwork. A lot of money probably goes into each piece, and they want to make sure they are used appropriately and in line with the companies goals. The illustrations are not the products they are selling, but associated pieces, and so operate differently in the general public. Use of their trademark names less so. These are the things they actually use to sell their products. Things like the Games Workshop brand name, Warhammer and stuff like that. As long as these are used in a reference context, I can't see how they could claim copyright abuse. Pulling content straight from their site, especially when not referenced properly, I can see the problem with that. Again, you are not looking at a product identifier that is available to the public, but specific content created for use by GW. But this seems like a minor issue, as putting something in a website kind of implies general public consumption. |
![]() The Campaigner | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Wargaming Discussion · Next Topic » |


















