This post is literally full of fail.
If you want to talk to someone who actually knows what they're talking about Sean_OBrian on dakka actually has laid out exactly why GW's legal has gone outside the box and might be liable to be sued by the sites that were taken down.
[url]http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/524002.page#5560736[/url]
No, not an image - the entire work. The leaked images might be a violation of an internal employment contract between the employee who manages to get the pre-release image and the company who owns the image...but that is not a violation on its own. The issue with it being a specific crime under Section 506 only if it is 1) Software/AV Works or 2) A Movie - and then only if it is a complete release, not a limited excerpt for purposes of review, new or criticism. That particular section is very limited in scope and relates to the criminal activity of releasing bootlegged videos (from prescreenings) and late Beta test software or other AV work:
[url]http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506[/url]
(3) Definition. — In this subsection, the term “work being prepared for commercial distribution” means —
(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution —
(i) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and
(ii) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed; or
(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution, the motion picture —
(i) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and
(ii) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility.
There is no inclusion for literary works - which is what books and magazines fall under. Regarding the Eldar Scrolls issue...lots of huffery goes into DMCA requests, and lots of sites will roll over on them as they either don't know the law or don't want to fight the fight. Just because something is taken down and people broadly comply - it doesn't actually mean that there are any grounds to do so.See above, and further below...
In journalism, "journalists" receive broad protections under the law. If a journalist uses a leaked image they are not required to abide by laws and contracts which a company might implement in order to keep things confidential (See Johns-Byrne Co. v. TechnoBuffalo). It is quite common to have various prerelease leaks of all manner of products - from cars, to phones and even software and videos. These are all protected aspects of journalistic reporting. If they were posting a complete video or copy of software...or even somehow posting a 3D scan of a model - there might be some aspect with which GW could grasp at. However, the early posting of images from a magazine which is largely a product catalog does not amount to damaging to the product that GW is attempting to sell and is protected.
The illegal use by GW goes to this point here...quoted from their DMCA take-down request:
Sworn Statements
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. [checked]
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. [checked]
Because of the nature of the DMCA, attorneys and companies who use it are expected to make a sworn statement that what they are targeting is in fact illegal - they also must sign the document under penalty of perjury that they have done their due diligence in ensuring that the law is actually being broken. The above quoted statutes (both the FAIR Act and the refutement of the pre-release issue) should make it clear that Nafka is a news site performing a news function - which is legal. Because it is authorized by law explicitly and does not infringe on any exclusive rights of GW...it would in fact be an illegal use of the DMCA. Either GW's legal team is not doing their due diligence in research or they are but are perjuring themselves - both of which are illegal uses.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. --Voltaire
I just checked the thread on Dakka and the court just set a date for the start of the trial (June 3rd for jury selection). And May 7th is the deadline for the status report on the deadline of specifying infringing products.
So things are quickly coming to a head; it seems like we should either have a jury result or settlement by the end of June.
so table top fix ([url]http://ttfix.blogspot.com/[/url]) has dumped it's GW coverage.
I wonder if more mixed company blogs/forums will decide to dump GW coverage because of their actions?
[url]http://ttfix.blogspot.com/2013/04/public-service-announcement_30.html[/url]
Public Service Announcement
As a precaution I pulled all articles dealing with GW, Forgeworld, Warhammer Forge, WH40K and WHFB from the blog.
I will no longer feature any news directly related to GW or Forgeworld on TTFix for the forseeable future.
Posted by Tabletop Fix at 3:08 AM