There are calls and comments that things are being very cryptic, and for that I apologise. The fact is that as things happen I didn't want to post or say anything that may land other in trouble as I have no idea what their situation is. But, it is fair enough to say that the 'speaking in tongues' is tiresome, so I will quickly make three points.

1. The situation, as it is right now is:
- One of our members got a C&D letter from GW. It should be clear who that member was.
- He informed me of this event.
- On this, I decided to take a closer look at the 'casting' board. I found a number of threads that may cause problems, and any and all threads that might be an issue were quarantined, so that they could be reviewed and to protect both the site and the its members.
- The recepient of the C&D then asked me to delete his account, to show compliance with GWs correspondance.

That is it. Neither this site, nor myself have received any message from GW at this time, and as far as I am aware this was the only case. That said, I am treating this seriously in terms of respecting GWs IP entirely and being aware that - while GW may be entirely unaware of this place and have got their information from elsewhere - they may be watching us closely. Either way, it isn't the point. We have a responsibility and I need to balance out my obligations as site owner to encourage creativity and the games that we love, and ensuring that we remain inside not just the law but also what is fair.

2. While I entirely understand a certain amount of vitriol at these events, the facts remain that GW are entirely within their legal rights, and this is their property, and that we are not going to overturn established operating procedures. We can entirely agree with GW or absolutely hate them for it, but the either way the law is on their side. This is the situation that we are in.

3. There is no knee jerk reaction happening here. I felt that it was prudent to sweep away any thread that may be a problem for review. That is all. Some threads will most likely be returned, some will be edited and others may need to be removed. In addition, I have opened up discussion, because this is a community issue and if further regulations or restrictions have to come into play, I would like everyone to have the opportunity to comment so that at least we can understand the context of our response to this.

The fact is that I am no expert on this, and yet I need to attempt to navigate the site through it. And, given the variety of reactions and stances, whatever the result is, there will be some people unhappy with the outcome. I am deliberately attempting to keep my own opinions fairly close at this point. It may be that the actual change to regulations is minimal - I simply monitor threads and remove any threads soliciting sale and distribution of IP infringing miniatures, which is already against regulations here.

I welcome feedback and comments and opinions on this. I am still trying to gather as much information and feedback as I can.

Thanks.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Thanks For being transparent
I was guessing and I guessed wrong (whoops)
Personally, I would like to be able to still see any painting blogs that include the minis that cause the tizzy..If all people are doing is showing off there work, and not attempting to sell or generate any interest in the miniatures I can't see anyone getting upset.
As for casting and such..as you have said, as long as it doesn't infringe on a IP then no harm no foul IMHO, my only worry is someone could make something that looks a lot like, say a WW1 Mark IV tank, but with Demon heads on it, to make it look EVIL, and because a certain companies current model looks a lot like that already they might cry foul.
Early in this thread there was the comment about the M113, there again, looks a lot like a current model from the same company that caused all the hubba ballou

that's where it gets intresting bmans5 - a chaos rhino is clearly GW IP - but a Weird Cold War M113 with an Infernal Combustion engine?
the devil's in the details - rhinos have side hatches, chimneys and a different arrangement of top hatches. The M113 has much larger tracks.

_________________
My shifting projects

Thanks CS. IMO it usually pays to be transparent as without facts people will fill in the blanks and not always in a good way. That's the root of all FUD. I am certain that any ire expressed in this thread by anyone is not directed at you but instead about having seen just how great 6mm can be and having to go back to models that, as someone on the board described, "look like 20 year old pieces of poo".




Very true. When it comes to 6mm models that people may want to use as proxies the feel of the thing is often far more important than the exact representation itself. For instance, for an Imperial Super Heavy Tank there's a particular look that has become associated with it, what I'll call the "mashed up WW1/2 inspired over gunned big rivets style", or MUOGBV from now on . Hate it or love it, it's what it is. Games Workshop doesn't the concept of thick slab sided riveted over gunned tanks no matter how much they feel they're entitled to it (what else would you expect from a company that with a straight face claimed that an upside down triangle was their IP). The indi designer over at Heavy Support for instance makes a 28mm tank kit that in no way is IP infringing with a feel that if one was so inclined to include it in a 40k force, would not look out of place.
Example->


Nothing at all stops the very talented designers on this board from stepping up and doing the same if so inclined.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

FWIW, I have zero interest in casting/selling(i'm more of a hoarder), I just wanted somewhere to share my painting and modelling, maybe get some feedback. I'll happily make that crystal clear in any future postings.

Well, the uncertainty of what is covered by IP might stop someone from doing what you describe, especially when taking a 28mm design to 6mm scale. With the necessary loss of detail at 6mm, that tank you show would be pretty darn close to a macharius heavy tank that FW makes. Sure, it has a different turret, but is that enough of a difference? If it is, couldn't the person then just create a second tank with a original hull but with a suspiciously familiar turret? If he sold both and the turrets were interchangeable, that is effectively the same as selling one direct copy of the IP tank, isn't it?

Of course, at the risk of torpedoing the thread, it gets even murkier with alien forces:

and something unrelated for comparison:


Is the bronze piece (left side of first picture) IP clear? I think so, but I may be biased. I know that making exact scaled copies is basically impossible given the limits of casting, so obviously there is some gray area between "copied" and "inspired by." In this specific case, the surface details on the bronze platform are similar to the 6mm smaller platform, with the overall shape inspired by the 28mm large platform. It isn't a direct copy, so that's okay, right?

Well, I'm not exactly reassured.

And then there is the idea of making "upgrade" parts for official models to create variants that aren't officially available at the 6mm scale, or "accurizing" parts to make an official model look more like a current 28mm model. Is that okay? Is it allowed for someone sell turrets or sponsons that fit on official models? Is the IP the sum of the parts, or are each of the parts protected? Surely a person couldn't be allowed to just sell separate hulls, treads, turrets, sponsons, etc. Otherwise, if enough component parts were available, a person could then just assemble a model from the separately available parts that would have been obviously infringing if it had been available as a combined kit.

Finally, there is even a question of whether a completely original model can be advertised as being "compatible with" a game from a company with trigger happy IP lawyers. If someone made cool little domed bunkers, could they say, "Hey, buy these domed bunkers and use them in game X,"? Isn't that kind of thing covered by basic rights of free speech in some countries? But hasn't that very thing resulted in a Cease and Desist letter concerning models intended for use in a fantasy football type game?

In the end, I don't know what to do.

Unfortunately there is great pressure to avoid anything that might get litigated (because hobbyists are generally not in a position to defend themselves legally), not just that which is clearly infringing. This is the so called 'chilling effect' of contemporary IP law enforcement.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Sad to hear this. Well it is as it is...

So I go on vacation and the world implodes. Ugh.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

well i will have to go fix some gw windows to night . OM I will miss you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least you could have grabbed some until it imploded...

Damm

OK, things are starting to calm dow a little now, and whilie I still don't have all the legal stances squared away, I am working on it and I thought that I would respond to a couple of points. I am happy to answer questions directed at myself or these boards, but I cannot answer questions regarding other members or ex-members here.

Firstly, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. Any of the points below are my opinions only. They seem logical and consistant to me, but I am happy to be corrected on anything and none of my views should be taken as 'official' or 'correct'.



The issue of pictures is a difficult one. I agree that attempting to remove every picture containing a miniatures of this type is not only pretty much impossible, but would also tear a chunk out of the excellent content here, and would be imposing on what people do in their own games and their own homes. I really don't want to do this at all. My own personal line is that between a hobby shot, and what could be perceived as 'promotion'. Therefore, some restrictions will need to come into play in terms of pictures - mostly for any future additions/pictures rather than ones already existing - but I am simply not in any position to be able to judge whether 'that tank third from the left in the company on that picture is a bought cast and not a scratch built effort by a talented hobbyist'.

Promotion, sale and distribution of miniatures outsude the terms of their copyright will not be permitted or tolerated on this site. I can only ask that members here respect IP held by companies - and while we are primarily talking about GW, this is a general appeal for all manufacturers miniatures - and ensure that they abide by board guidelines.

For example, the excellent Dark Eldar miniatures in Raiders consisting of scracth built miniatures and conversions should 100% be encouraged and shown off, and I am concerned about 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' on this. We do need to be aware of what is being displayed and crossing lines, but the main distinction in my mind (at least until GW 'corrects' my opinions) is that the prime concern is the sale and distribution of these miniatures.



Broadly, yes. However, I need to be aware that I am not (and this site) a willing participant in IP infringement. If a web site is used for promotion and sale of IP infringing miniatures, then it is complicit in the act. If a seller puts up pirate DVDs through Amazon, Amazon are participating in the sale and trade of IP infringing material. It is slightly different, as I have never received any payment or funding from this site beyond the eBay click-through scheme, and so have never benefitted from any sales here.

This is where my previous statement of the difference between showing off hobby pictures and promoting sales is important. It is my belief (again, until I am corrected) that not permitting the promotion or sales of miniatures of this type makes it clear that this is a hobby focussed site only.



Where GW are concerned there are three main areas of issues that any fan site needs to contend with:
- terms and names
- images and art and rules
- miniatures

A while ago, GW went through a series of C&D letters to web sites which held GW copyright terms in their URLs and which had an income revenue stream attached. Effectively, if you used a GW game term in the address and took donations or subscriptions, GW stated that you were making cash of their reputation and game IP.

Prior to that, GW approached a number of sites with copyright artwork from army books, or the GW web site
and demanded it was removed as they owned the rights to this art. This was about the same time that BoardGameGeek was told to remove reference documents for GW games and when online stores were told that they couldn't use GW photographs to advertise miniatures for sale.

This is the third type of 'hot topic' for GW. I mention this because it's important to note that while one site may be approached by GW for one reason, another may be approached for an entirely different reason, which may be more or less serious.

As an aside, it's not all roses now the site is TFF. As far as I am aware, GW actually threatened to official remove Star Players from the official BB rules because several companies were producing miniatures which were designed to represent them in the game.



Ues and no. Not making a profit from something is a partial defence. As I see it, most cases are a lot simpler if one party can claim loss of earnings in some way, as it gives people a dollar figure to reference. But, there is more to it than that. You can damage a brand without earning a penny, for example.

Also, certain types of art is classified as 'derivative work', but even then if it is deemed to be too similar to art help by the copyright holder, they can effectively claim it as their own, and demand all profits and rights to it.

At the end of the day, IP law is a complex and evolving issue, and a lot of cases are resolved simply by presenting them to a judge to see what he says.... Of course, to do that, you have to pay for the priviledge.



As an aside, there are two ways that I can see that this can happen - with rules and with miniatures. If people create an online version of 40K for example, there is no guarantee that it is the full game. It is quite possible that someone creates a simplified version of 40K to play online. Someone new to the hobby of wargaming then decides this would be good to take a look at, and their opinion of 40K is coloured by an unofficial version of the rules which are not under GWs control. GW could potentially have lost a lifetime player at that point.

A similar thing can happen with miniatures, where poor quality minaitures outside of GWs control can affect the reputation of the company.



This is broadly where I am right now. The entire thing is an utter headache, but it wont go away if I bury my head in the sand, and I am honestly going to lose members and visits because of it. But, at the same time, it needs to be addressed seriously and the best thing that I can do is set out a policy for the future to stop the situation coming back and biting us later on.

Things will settle down, and in a month it will be a bad memory.



a. Technically, yes. But its a real hassle to do so and an infringement of its own that I dont intend to perform.

b. Its not trading openly that causes bidding wars, this could just as easily be done through PMs. In fact, if you get a PM from a seller saying 'xxx has offered more, can you increase your offer?' you have no way of knowing if this has actually happened. If this is done in an open thread, you do.

The potential changes to trades and sales is because,
1. If you are conducting an honest sale or trade, what are the advantages of keeping it hidden?
2. Allowing anyone to see the current state protects all parties better.

Now, as I have said, I cannot enforce all trades to happen in a thread and areas of trades such as exchanging personal details for shipping shouldn't happen in an open thread, but I would like more openess in trades than a picture of a job lot of minis and then a note two weeks later to say it was all sold. How this is actually brought about fairly is something that I am still thinking about.



That's it. You are not allowed any more holidays!

I hope that this clears up a few things, and I hope that the situation is calming down a little now. I will think on the changes to this board and tightening up the regulations to make them clearer for everyone, and update them shortly.

Thanks for your patience, guys. I appreciate it a lot.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

What a dark scenario, i mean just piles onto everything else going on right now.
I guess we are nearing the end of that magical time period when the internet still belonged to us and not big business and lawyers.


Now that the board will be a shell of it former self it only makes more more sad knowing all that content that has been lost over the years though the various crashes.

So much gold lost forever and only in memory, that prior gold from years past would help get me through this dark time.

I guess i need to start learning more French and German.

Just a few thoughts here from somebody who is at once deeply saddened by the lost to the hobby community but at the same time deeply (professionally) understands intellectual property.

As unfortunate as I find the outcome, I don't think CS has a choice but to do exactly what he is doing - even to the point that I myself won't be able to post more ToEG reports (I already painted thousands of GW EPIC miniatures for all official armies so only the custom armies are left ).

The key to understanding this situation is to understand that GW is *not* a miniature company anymore. They are an IP licensing company. Consider their latest half-year financial statement:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-c ... tement.pdf

While they make L60M in revenue on the miniature and physical goods side, that only yields L6.5M in operating revenue before royalties. And that number is flat year over year (more or less, it fluctuates a bit but it isn't going to get much better and could drop to zero in a single bad year).

On the other hand, they are pulling in L3M in royalties from direct licensing (video games, movies, etc.). That's 100% profit for lack of any cost of sales or associated operating cost. And that number *TRIPLED* year over year. In a year or two from now, GW will derive the bulk of its net revenue from licensing. Product sales will be the ugly duckling that is only maintained as a sort of strategic support for the licensing business.

IP businesses of this type are very lucrative and hard to internally compete with (e.g. Special Games product line competing and losing internally).

The only problem is that they need to be fiercely protected. Not from somebody selling knock-off Space Marines because GW probably couldn't care less. Any amount of hobbyist production is bound to be a rounding error on their financial statement. No, the problem is that unless you protect your IP, your own licensees will claim that it is becoming generic in common usage. And then your are screwed...

I am pretty sure that this is *exactly* what keeps GW IP lawyers up at night. Not Otterman, but THQ putting "Warhammer" or "Space Marine" into the same bucket as other famous marks that have been declared generic (e.g. Aspirin, Zipper, Linoleum, etc.). Trust me, the push L3M to GW per year so they have all the incentive in the world to do this. One beachhead, and GW's future is flushed down the toilet.

Hence, the paranoia and hence, unfortunately, CS's response being appropriate.

_________________
My blog and armies: http://wargamingworkshop.wordpress.com

And therein lies the tragedy, that anyone who enjoys wargaming in the compelling 40k universe (which is arguably as much a product of the hobbyists as it is of GW) is going to have to pay up, one way or another.

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge