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.
lenihan":25jwo3r8 said:Gamer-friendly or not (and from an oldhammer perspective, I'm inclined to say 'not', as it's about keeping control with the company rather than the players, which is obviously good business for them, so I'm not blaming them, just don't agree that it's gamer friendly) I think GWs IP policy is necessary and good business sense, although somewhat brazen when you think about how derivative their entire IP estate is.
But that's another set of issues!
I think as it's unlikely that they will re-release much of the old stuff, and it's either impossible or prohibitively expensive to get hold of OOP material, people are always going to adopt a "share this with my friends" mentality. But it's certainly best if we keep the boards free of pdfs or anything else that would entail copyright violation.
The Inner Geek":3duznrew said: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.
Orlygg":1rvdy5fh said:The Inner Geek":1rvdy5fh said: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.
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.
Orlygg":1qbw7xek 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.
illuminatus":2ci0waaw said:Orlygg":2ci0waaw 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.
Tell that to boardgamesgeek - they were legally obliged to remove everything related to several OOP GW games a few years ago. It was brutal and, IMHO quite unnecessary as it was stuff by the players for the players - no harm to any ones IP, living or dead.
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/48933 ... urge-of-09
S
illuminatus":2lzw68uy said:No, it was a general blanket "cease and desist" letter bombing sent to each and every site the lawyers could find at the time - fan sites, archive sites, forums, with or with out advertising.
It was more strongly felt at BBG as they were a central repository for a lot of useful reference material for many OOP and otherwise forgotten games. Some sites changed their names or subject matter but many fan sites simply closed at the time, never to be seen again.
Don't fool yourself, GW's famous IP policing policy applies to all of their games, past or present, in or out of print. If you'd called this "Old Warhammer Forum" instead of Oldhammer you'd probably have already heard from them.
illuminatus":282z3o8c said:Skarsnik & Old Lead":282z3o8c said:Some or all of this post may not be true.
Care to be more specific? Which part is not true?
1. 2009 there was a spate of cease and desist letters sent to GW fansites. True
2. Some recipients changed their site's names and subject matter (bloodbowl anyone? WQ?) and many others closed to avoid legal action. True. (kind of)
3. BBG deleted all GW related content to be sure to comply I'm not sure who BBG are, but seems like a wise move
4. GW continue to police their IP whether a game is currently available or not. True
5. A website dealing with GW copyrighted material cannot assume that they are safe from the threat of legal action just because they concentrate on out of print games. True
illuminatus":3hxt1s78 said:Skarsnik & Old Lead":3hxt1s78 said:I'm not sure who BBG are, but seems like a wise move
My bad, I meant BGG (leet speek for boardgamegeek.com - probably the largest site on the internet dealing with board games)
GW IP policy":2jza87m7 said:Photos of Painted Models
We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"
lenihan":1q9kddyb said:GW IP policy":1q9kddyb said:Photos of Painted Models
We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"
It seems we tend to forget this.
illuminatus":31gryibq said:No, it was a general blanket "cease and desist" letter bombing sent to each and every site the lawyers could find at the time - fan sites, archive sites, forums, with or with out advertising.
It was more strongly felt at BBG as they were a central repository for a lot of useful reference material for many OOP and otherwise forgotten games. Some sites changed their names or subject matter but many fan sites simply closed at the time, never to be seen again.
Don't fool yourself, GW's famous IP policing policy applies to all of their games, past or present, in or out of print. If you'd called this "Old Warhammer Forum" instead of Oldhammer you'd probably have already heard from them.
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.
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 ? 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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.