GW response to "copyrighting the term Space marine"

[archimbald]

a statement has appeared on their FB page regarding the incident, it goes as follows.


Games Workshop owns and protects many valuable trademarks in a number of territories and classes across the world. For example, 'Warhammer' and 'Space Marine' are registered trademarks in a number of classes and territories. In some other territories and classes they are unregistered trademarks protected by commercial use. Whenever we are informed of, or otherwise discover, a commercially available product whose title is or uses a Games Workshop trademark without our consent, we have no choice but to take reasonable action. We would be failing in our duty to our shareholders if we did not protect our property.

To be clear, Games Workshop has never claimed to own words or phrases such as 'warhammer' or 'space marine' as regards their general use in everyday life, for example within a body of prose. By illustration, although Games Workshop clearly owns many registered trademarks for the Warhammer brand, we do not claim to own the word 'warhammer' in common use as a hand weapon.

Trademarks as opposed to use of a word in prose or everyday language are two very different things. Games Workshop is always vigilant in protecting the former, but never makes any claim to owning the latter.




https://www.facebook.com/notes/games-workshop/games-workshop-and-the-protection-of-our-trademarks/595792240435610


seems to me that it basically seems to say that if there is a whiff of a term they "own" in a product that's in the same type of market, they'll go for it. if the term is used out side of that market, then they have to let it go

[Caitsidhe]

a statement has appeared on their FB page regarding the incident, it goes as follows.

It was a typical, dodgy kind of response, i.e. utterly inadequate and a complete failure to take responsibility for the idiotic overstep of boundaries. In short, they got their nose rapped smartly with a rolled up newspaper and are now doing their best to mitigate PR damage without doing the grown up thing and saying, "we made a mistake."

[ElectricPaladin]

seems to me that it basically seems to say that if there is a whiff of a term they "own" in a product that's in the same type of market, they'll go for it. if the term is used out side of that market, then they have to let it go

That's fair. However, if they consider their market to be "the entire genre of science fiction and fantasy" then they are effectively laying claim to the term "space marine." A more reasonable approach might be for them to examine all examples of the space marine trope and try to see if it really impinges on their intellectual property. If it's just "marines" in "space," well... that's just too broad.

Consider the recent Underworld/Dead Roses for a Blue Lady debacle. White Wolf (or, rather, CCP) was able to show a huge number of similarities between Underworld and the World of Darkness line. It was more than "werewolves" and "vampires" in a modern setting - huge swaths of the background, the tone, the storyline, and many setting details were lifted from the World of Darkness - and Dead Roses for a Blue Lady in particular - to make Underworld. White Wolf got... was it New Line? Can't recall... anyway, got them to settle out of court, and it was just.

If CCP tried to sue Stephanie Meyer, they'd have no ethical (and hopefully no legal) legs to stand on. Twilight has a radically different tone and very few setting bits in common with the World of Darkness, just "vampires" and "werewolves," "they don't like each other," and "modern context."

This case is mostly the latter and none of the former, as far as I can tell.

That said, I don't know as much about the book that's being sued over as I'd like to - and no one ever will, because GW got it pulled from Amazon. I think it's interesting, though, that even in their defense, GW is talking about "words" and "copyright" and "market." If they really had a justification, I think they'd be talking about how similar the author's work is to theirs. It's telling that they aren't saying that.

[lattd]

Has anyone actually read the blurb on the back of the book though? Crab like aliens are making their way to earth attacking a severely depleted Terran army, an injured marine returns to the front line to help fend off the attack. Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

[ElectricPaladin]

Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

Yes.

Now all crab-like aliens are 'Nids? And all grim futures are the Horus Heresy? Give me a break.

[isotope99]

I think what they're saying is they're not trying to exert control over the concept of marines in space just the specific trademark "Space Marine". If the title was "Interstellar marine", "Galactic marine" etc. then the mark wouldn't apply. In effect a quick title swap would get round this.

I'm not making any moral judgements on whether it's justified, indeed it smells like trhose stories where McDonalds are trying to make some 100 year old Scottish knitting store change their name. ;)

[Caitsidhe]

I think what they're saying is they're not trying to exert control over the concept of marines in space just the specific trademark "Space Marine". If the title was "Interstellar marine", "Galactic marine" etc. then the mark wouldn't apply. In effect a quick title swap would get round this.

I'm not making any moral judgements on whether it's justified, indeed it smells like trhose stories where McDonalds are trying to make some 100 year old Scottish knitting store change their name. ;)

They can try to assert that in court (since the book is now back on Amazon) but they will lose. You don't get to trademark titles in creative works either. As long as the work itself is different, the title can be exactly the same.

[DarkLink]

Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

Get out from under your rock. There's a whole lot of stuff out there that isn't GW. In fact, it sounds much more like the Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_(novel)) to me.

[Mr Mystery]

They can try to assert that in court (since the book is now back on Amazon) but they will lose. You don't get to trademark titles in creative works either. As long as the work itself is different, the title can be exactly the same.

And again, GW have a legal obligation to aggressively defend their IP and trademarks. Think what you may of their methods, but the motivation remains the same. Defend it or lose it.

Really have no idea why people are getting so utterly bent out of shape over this. You can claim they will lose, and might they will. Still doesn't alter that they have to take action. Win or lose their obligation to their share holders is met and discharged.

[ElectricPaladin]

And again, GW have a legal obligation to aggressively defend their IP and trademarks. Think what you may of their methods, but the motivation remains the same. Defend it or lose it.

You have a legal obligation to defend your IP. You don't have a legal obligation to use bully tactics in an attempt to expand your IP.

Agree or disagree, the Chapterhouse case was justified. Chapterhouse was making money off something GW invented, and arguably, denying GW that money. However you feel about it, it was the sort of thing that there should be a court case about, to decide on what should be legal.

This? Doesn't seem like it to me. It looks like an IP grab by a company that doesn't really need the territory.

[ElectricPaladin]

This article (http://www.robotviking.com/2013/02/08/games-workshop-defends-questionable-trademark-incites-internet-holy-war/) explains everything very clearly.

[Mr Mystery]

You have a legal obligation to defend your IP. You don't have a legal obligation to use bully tactics in an attempt to expand your IP.

Agree or disagree, the Chapterhouse case was justified. Chapterhouse was making money off something GW invented, and arguably, denying GW that money. However you feel about it, it was the sort of thing that there should be a court case about, to decide on what should be legal.

This? Doesn't seem like it to me. It looks like an IP grab by a company that doesn't really need the territory.

Is it bully tactics though? Or a company using the existing legal framework to protect it's IO/Tradmarks?

As I said, question their method by all means, as that's a subjective area. But the motivation is entirely objective.

[Caitsidhe]

This article (http://www.robotviking.com/2013/02/08/games-workshop-defends-questionable-trademark-incites-internet-holy-war/) explains everything very clearly.

Thank you for the link. Yes, it explains it very clearly and is 100% on the mark.

[ElectricPaladin]

Is it bully tactics though? Or a company using the existing legal framework to protect it's IO/Tradmarks?

They didn't take on Universal Pictures when they released Starship Troopers. They didn't take on the people who made Battleground LA or Battleship. They didn't take on the company that made Alien or Aliens. They're taking on an independent author peddling her tiny, independent book on Amazon. That's cowardly. If they really wanted to claim ownership of the idea of space marines, there'd be a lot of people to have taken on before now. This is a new development.

[Caitsidhe]

Really have no idea why people are getting so utterly bent out of shape over this. You can claim they will lose, and might they will. Still doesn't alter that they have to take action. Win or lose their obligation to their share holders is met and discharged.

Because it is bad business and doesn't serve their stockholders at all. Wasting money on legal cases you cannot win (or will not recoup even your legal fees), bad publicity, and a refusal to admit mistakes (and thus assure that you will repeat them) doesn't do the stock any favors. The police probably have a policy to use stun guns on anyone who gets too uppity too, but the ninety year old man they zap only demonstrates they are idiots and not worthy law enforcement officers.

You and I disagree on this because I don't think this was ever about "protecting their IP." I think you were correct when you stated earlier that they went after some poor soul in hopes of trying to setup some precedents to EXPAND their territory and redefine the scope of their IP. That isn't defensive. That is offensive. I think their intent was quite clear.

[Mr Mystery]

And which of those examples has Space Marine in the title? That I think is the issue.

Consider bands (I know, apples and oranges, but bear with!). 80's electronic group Yazoo were known as Yaz in the US, because a barely known band were using Yazoo already. Even though that Yazoo were (possibly are I guess) a rock band, they sued, and the change was made. Another example? Suede, known in the US as The London Suede for much the same reason, minus the litigation

Part of GW's obligation is to challenge these things. If they didn't, someone else with perhaps far less coincidence can start peddling stories using Space Marine, infringing furher.

I think people need to stop seeing GW as an evil corporation. They aren't. They are doing what the law requires. Also interesting to note they aren't even suing the author.....

[Caitsidhe]

I think people need to stop seeing GW as an evil corporation. They aren't. They are doing what the law requires. Also interesting to note they aren't even suing the author.....

I think Games Workshop needs to stop acting like one, or at least hire public relations consultants. It isn't interesting that they aren't suing the author. They know they would lose. They attempted to bully Amazon and the author. I would have more respect for them if they were trying to sue because then it would demonstrate that they aren't trying to game the system and really are just trying to "protect their IP." If anyone at Games Workshop had even halfway looked into that book they would have instantly known no action was necessary. That leaves us with only two possibilities:

1. They are complete morons and didn't bother to check before they acted.
2. They were attempting to redefine and expand their IP (which is not defense).

Number one is the act of an idiot. Number two is the act of the evil corporation. Which would you rather be known as, unscrupulous or an idiot?

[ElectricPaladin]

I think Games Workshop needs to stop acting like one, or at least hire public relations consultants. It isn't interesting that they aren't suing the author. They know they would lose. They attempted to bully Amazon and the author. I would have more respect for them if they were trying to sue because then it would demonstrate that they aren't trying to game the system and really are just trying to "protect their IP." If anyone at Games Workshop had even halfway looked into that book they would have instantly known no action was necessary. That leaves us with only two possibilities:

1. They are complete morons and didn't bother to check before they acted.
2. They were attempting to redefine and expand their IP (which is not defense).

Number one is the act of an idiot. Number two is the act of the evil corporation. Which would you rather be known as, unscrupulous or an idiot?

Thanks Caitsidhe. That pretty much sums it up.

[DarkLink]

Is it bully tactics though? Or a company using the existing legal framework to protect it's IO/Tradmarks?


Yes, and here it is from an actual lawyer who specializes in free speech stuff: http://www.popehat.com/2012/12/14/some-people-call-me-the-space-marine-and-get-threatened-by-games-workshop.

[Mr Mystery]

An alleged lawyer who from his prose is not exactly unbiased?

Forgive me if I pay none but the most cursory attention to him.

And do try to remember, I have said nothing about the method, but pointed out their obligations.

[lattd]

Get out from under your rock. There's a whole lot of stuff out there that isn't GW. In fact, it sounds much more like the Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_(novel)) to me.

An alleged lawyer who from his prose is not exactly unbiased?


I was saying the blurb sounds like horus heresy meets tyranids, Im not living under a rock I was trying to provide context for why they may take this action, I haven't said its the right action.

On the lawyer front its pretty shocking, hes living under a rock by claiming GW don't have a trademark on space marine, in books because actually they do in England which means they do in Europe and America because of trade agreements, thus they can file a complaint with Amazon in the UK which is what they have done.

For those that do not believe GW has the trademark http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E392886 There you go class 16 covers books.

[Caitsidhe]

And do try to remember, I have said nothing about the method, but pointed out their obligations.

This is a fair point Mr. Mystery. You are always fair and well-spoken. You have not endorsed the methods to your credit. We will have to agree to disagree about the obligation, however, as I see a company's obligation being the best interests of its stockholders. As I said before, bad public relations and possible court fees don't serve any purpose. Their obligation is to defend their IP from real infringement. We agree on that notion on hundred percent. There was never any doubt about whether or not this book was an actual infringement. Since I give Games Workshop credit for NOT being idiots, I have to assume that they saw the title, looked at the book, and concluded that while the book wasn't actually an infringement... they could attempt to use it to expand their IP. Expanding their IP at the expense of other artists is not ethical, legal, nor profitable in the long run.

I reacted in an extreme way to this situation because I am also a writer. The ramifications of such a thing goes well beyond what anyone has considered here. Where would our future stories come from? If one could just stick a flag in an idea and deny anyone else access to it, charging for the right to use the "hooker with a heart of gold" in their stories it would in fact end up being economic censorship. And for the record I find "space marine" just as generic as "hooker with a heart of gold." Trademark and copyright are two very DIFFERENT things and their ham-handed attempt to apply Trademark in literature is frightening on many levels.

Now, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion of Games Workshop if they came out and apologized to the author. Mistakes can happen to anyone. If they had said, "It is our obligation to defend our IP, but in this case we did not do enough research. Had we looked into the matter closer we would have seen that this book has nothing to do with us." They didn't do that. Their statement was pathetic and clearly indicated that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they would just spout a glittering generality and then clam up.

[Caitsidhe]

I was saying the blurb sounds like horus heresy meets tyranids, Im not living under a rock I was trying to provide context for why they may take this action, I haven't said its the right action.

On the lawyer front its pretty shocking, hes living under a rock by claiming GW don't have a trademark on space marine, in books because actually they do in England which means they do in Europe and America because of trade agreements, thus they can file a complaint with Amazon in the UK which is what they have done.

For those that do not believe GW has the trademark http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E392886 There you go class 16 covers books.

Nobody is claiming they don't have a Trademark. It is being pointed out that said Trademark does NOT APPLY the way they implied to Amazon. Clearly Amazon now realizes that too because the book is back up, front and center. :) If Games Workshop wants to go "all in" and file actual litigation (I'm betting no) then what you say will hold water, or at least it will indicate that Games Workshop really believes their argument holds water.

[lattd]

Actually if you read the article that was posted earlier by the lawyer it says they do not, which is true in America but in other countries they do have a trademark for exactly this, now up with a new name, sorted.

[wellweee]

So just so I'm clear on this.

- Games Workshop legal team found an infringement on their Interlectual Property (For Britian, as they do have one there)
- They contacted Amazon to shut down this infringement
- Amazon did, but instead of only shutting it down in Britian, did it on their american site as well (which was their mistake, not GWs)
- Amazon realised this and corrected it.

So whats everyone worried about? The mistake is not really GWs, as they did everything by the book. Amazon was the heavy handed one when they should of only shut down the book on the British site. Also those claiming GW should of let it go, when it comes to IP you can't. Let one go and you risk opening the flood works and soon the IP will be worthless. I mean it's the main reason GW has a legal team (which seems to be doing its job).

[ElectricPaladin]

So just so I'm clear on this.

- Games Workshop legal team found an infringement on their Interlectual Property (For Britian, as they do have one there)
- They contacted Amazon to shut down this infringement
- Amazon did, but instead of only shutting it down in Britian, did it on their american site as well (which was their mistake, not GWs)
- Amazon realised this and corrected it.

So whats everyone worried about? The mistake is not really GWs, as they did everything by the book. Amazon was the heavy handed one when they should of only shut down the book on the British site. Also those claiming GW should of let it go, when it comes to IP you can't. Let one go and you risk opening the flood works and soon the IP will be worthless. I mean it's the main reason GW has a legal team (which seems to be doing its job).

What I think you're missing is that the "infringement" is extremely dodgy. The term "space marine" has existed for a long time before Games Workshop started using it. This leads a lot of people wondering why GW is suddenly beating up on this little indie author. We're wondering if GW is evil (they're trying to expand the scope of their IP by establishing precedent on a dodgy case with someone who can't fight back) or stupid (they're trolling the webs for references to "space marine" and dropping the IP hammer on every one... which seems like a waste of time, because they're not going to win if it goes to trial and it hurts their public image).

So... evil or stupid. Which is it going to be?

[wellweee]

What I think you're missing is that the "infringement" is extremely dodgy. The term "space marine" has existed for a long time before Games Workshop started using it. This leads a lot of people wondering why GW is suddenly beating up on this little indie author. We're wondering if GW is evil (they're trying to expand the scope of their IP by establishing precedent on a dodgy case with someone who can't fight back) or stupid (they're trolling the webs for references to "space marine" and dropping the IP hammer on every one... which seems like a waste of time, because they're not going to win if it goes to trial and it hurts their public image).

So... evil or stupid. Which is it going to be?

Actually I think it neither. Sadly the website Lattd posted is down for an update, but when it's up I'll check his intel on the IP of Space Marine. If he is right (which I have no real doubt he is), then they are not "expanding" their IP through this case, as they already have. They own the IP to the phrase "Space Marine" in terms of Soft Book Cover Titles. The reason I think it hasn't really come up before is that not many books actually use the word in their title. You can still use it as much as you like in a novel, or in TV, flim etc, but not in Soft Book cover titles. Not evil, not stupid, just unfortunate that the author happened to not check if he could use the phrase "Space Marine" in a title.

But that is if Lattd information is correct, which we won't know until the site is back up.

[ElectricPaladin]

Actually I think it neither. Sadly the website Lattd posted is down for an update, but when it's up I'll check his intel on the IP of Space Marine. If he is right (which I have no real doubt he is), then they are not "expanding" their IP through this case, as they already have. They own the IP to the phrase "Space Marine" in terms of Soft Book Cover Titles. The reason I think it hasn't really come up before is that not many books actually use the word in their title. You can still use it as much as you like in a novel, or in TV, flim etc, but not in Soft Book cover titles. Not evil, not stupid, just unfortunate that the author happened to not check if he could use the phrase "Space Marine" in a title.

But that is if Lattd information is correct, which we won't know until the site is back up.

So, if you're correct, GW is not evil or stupid, just strictly adhering to one of the stupider parts of how the IP and copyright system works.

Well. In my mind, that just makes them only a little evil and only a little stupid. But only a little of each.

[Renegade]

What many seem to be forgetting is that GW have a TM on the term Space Marine not space marine and have said so quite clearly.

If GW did not go after something that looked like an infringement, they could be sued by their share holders who likely have much more money than some indie author, and licence holders.

Welcome to the real world, small fish get eaten by bigger ones is not news.

[Mr Mystery]

This is a fair point Mr. Mystery. You are always fair and well-spoken. You have not endorsed the methods to your credit. We will have to agree to disagree about the obligation, however, as I see a company's obligation being the best interests of its stockholders. As I said before, bad public relations and possible court fees don't serve any purpose. Their obligation is to defend their IP from real infringement. We agree on that notion on hundred percent. There was never any doubt about whether or not this book was an actual infringement. Since I give Games Workshop credit for NOT being idiots, I have to assume that they saw the title, looked at the book, and concluded that while the book wasn't actually an infringement... they could attempt to use it to expand their IP. Expanding their IP at the expense of other artists is not ethical, legal, nor profitable in the long run.

I reacted in an extreme way to this situation because I am also a writer. The ramifications of such a thing goes well beyond what anyone has considered here. Where would our future stories come from? If one could just stick a flag in an idea and deny anyone else access to it, charging for the right to use the "hooker with a heart of gold" in their stories it would in fact end up being economic censorship. And for the record I find "space marine" just as generic as "hooker with a heart of gold." Trademark and copyright are two very DIFFERENT things and their ham-handed attempt to apply Trademark in literature is frightening on many levels.

Now, I would be willing to reconsider my opinion of Games Workshop if they came out and apologized to the author. Mistakes can happen to anyone. If they had said, "It is our obligation to defend our IP, but in this case we did not do enough research. Had we looked into the matter closer we would have seen that this book has nothing to do with us." They didn't do that. Their statement was pathetic and clearly indicated that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they would just spout a glittering generality and then clam up.

It's not the term, but the title.

If anyone wrote a book entitled 'Hooker with a heart of gold' it would cause problems for others wanting to use said title. The rest would depend upon the context of use.

[gendoikari87]

Has anyone actually read the blurb on the back of the book though? Crab like aliens are making their way to earth attacking a severely depleted Terran army, an injured marine returns to the front line to help fend off the attack. Am I the only one that thinks tyranids meet horus heresy?

Starship troopers.

[ElectricPaladin]

Welcome to the real world, small fish get eaten by bigger ones is not news.

This bothers me.

I hope this doesn't get political, but "big fish eats small fish" is not what's happening here. If the woman who wrote this book couldn't sell any copies because of the fan base's enormous brand loyalty to GW and GW's superior production values, that would be "big fish eats small fish."

This is "big fish inexplicably hunts down and kills small fish that could never pose a threat to it... because of reasons." Moreover, it's "big fish does this, but not by relying on its own strengths - instead, big fish whines and complains to even bigger fish (copyright and trademark laws) to kill the little fish for it."

Your fantasy of mercantile nobility kind of breaks down when confronted with reality, bro ;).

[Mr Mystery]

Wrong.

This is little fish makes an honest mistake, and the structure of copyright law means the big fish has to come down on them with the same force used against any other sized fish, because if they didn't, any other fish could intentionally use the trademark/copyright/IP because the big fish hasn't previously defended it's territory.

Really don't understand why people aren't grasping that rather simple concept.

[gendoikari87]

Welcome to capitalism people, little is fair and most of what we call progress is really riding on the backs of slave or near slave labor. Get over it or attempt to change it.

[ElectricPaladin]

Really don't understand why people aren't grasping that rather simple concept.


This is why:



because if they didn't, any other fish could intentionally use the trademark/copyright/IP because the big fish hasn't previously defended it's territory.


Those of us who object to GW's actions (feel free to jump in, oh fellows, if I'm screwing this up) seem to believe the following:
1) Games Workshop has no valid claim to the term "space marine" because it is demonstrably true that they did not invent "marines in space."
2) Using the term "Space Marine" in the title of a novel does not harm GW's claim to the things they did invent any way.
3) If the system does work this way, then it ought not to.

[Mr Mystery]

As for bullying, GW are lucky to have this opportunity. Regardless of who used Space Marine in a book title, their 'No, that's mine' stick is a set size. Had a bigger company gone for it, they'd have been on a sticky, and extremely precarious wicket.

But it hasn't. Fortune has provided a small squishy target, and they've entirely correctly taken their swing, as they would be obliged to had a bigger company with a far larger 'prove it, squirt' stick tried it first.

Outcome of this? If (and it seems a pretty big if I'll grant you) GW are awarded the biggest possible 'no, that's ours' stick the law can provide them with, then even the biggest company will have to obey that.

Again, simple concepts people.

Sorry. Missed the above post...

GW whether likely to win or not are still obliged to defend their trademark, and in this case it is a trademark they very much own in the eurozone

Just because they aren't likely to successfully claim it in the US is utterly irrelevant. It is their duty to try. It's exactly the same as their case about Chapterhouse, except in the other parties intent.

It's like women. We men mostly know our place in the rankings. But it doesn't stop us trying, for the simple reason that it only takes a single success to bat way, way above our average.

If you don't try, you don't know. Now in my crude and largely flawed analogy above, you have nothing to lose. GW does. And it's a high stake for any company whose value is their IP/trademark/copyright.

And once more for the hard of understanding, it's the usage of the term rather than the term itself. Space Marine wasn't invented by GW, but they were the first to use it a descriptive label ( Space Marine the epic game came out I what, 1990ish? If not before?) and they have used it as part of a book title for a few years now. Heinlen may have coined the term, but his book didn't use it as a title....

[lattd]

GW do not have to prove they invented it for a trademark claim, which is the issue here. If they raised copyright claims then yes that would be an issue. This is what people are struggling with I think.

[ElectricPaladin]

As for bullying, GW are lucky to have this opportunity...

Mystery, here's the problem.

Yes, you are accurately describing the law.

Yes, GW is acting in accordance to the letter of the law.

What you are not doing is DEFENDING the law. We think that the law is stupid. We think that GW comes across as slightly evil and slightly stupid by acting as they are. It's a lousy situation.

And no, it's not as cut-and-dried as it seems. Disney didn't have to sue a stay-at-home-mom day care into oblivion because she had her art student kid draw Mickey the Mouse on the walls. The fact that they chose to made them look like evil jerks and hurt their public image. What you're missing is that maybe staking a claim to the term "Space Marine" as used in the title of a book is a bad PR call for GW because it makes them look like a bunch of donkey d*cks coming down hard on an independent author with an idea that doesn't actually, really step on theirs.

If you want to convince the unconvinced, Mr. Mystery, what you're going to need to do is either explain to us why it's a good thing that the law works this way, or you're going to have to explain how an indie author's little book is an actual threat to GW. The best you can do by defending GW's actions as "legal" and "required by the law" (that we all think is a stupid law) is make them look like a different kind of jerk.

[Mr Mystery]

Not trying to convince anyone.

Is the law just? I guess so. I honestly don't know enough to make a call either way.

But are GW exploiting the law? No, I don't think they are at all. The Disney thing is a totally different and emotive subject. There is I believe a limitation to IP linked to the existence of inviolable IP. Can't remember the exact limit, but I know Disney successfully changed this a few years back to maintain control if Mickey Mouse and that. Kind of dodgy, but the. When the law was written, entities like Disney simply didn't exist, they're far too modern. Whilst it may be questionable, I can't say they were wrong for doing so, as said change to statute benefits all creative types yes?

[Wolfshade]

GW are defending an unauthorised use of their trademark, which is the issue. If they did not, and indeed do not, firstly they are failing in there duty to the shareholders, and by virtue of not seeking to defend it they are granting a de-factor licence to the author to use their registered mark while for someone else's creation, this then leads to brand dilution, and makes it harder for GW to defend it in the future.

The "goodness" of the law is not really mine to defend, I have never written to my MP to ask him to change the law. The law is judged to fair and equitable. It goes through enough rigours to make it so. Now if you dislike an aspect you are certainly free to vote for a party or individual who opposes it.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

There is already a thread like this, continue over here (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?29635-In-the-Future-All-Space-Marines-Will-Be-Warhammer-40K-Space-Marines&p=283012#post283012) please.

Thread closed. PLEASE STOP DUPLICATING TOPICS.