Games Workshop: "No fanfilms."

M · Post by M » 2007-07-18 11:36am

General Zod wrote: They'd be very hard pressed to enforce their laws outside of Germany anyways. Especially if the servers the films are hosted on are not within German borders.

"Their laws" are the UK Copyright/Trademark Laws. And the way they'll enforce them is by suing the filmmakers for Copyright and/or Trademark infringement if their fanfilm leaks into the web, knowing that future fans will avoid the hassle by simply not making a film in the first place.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-18 01:36pm

M wrote:
General Zod wrote: They'd be very hard pressed to enforce their laws outside of Germany anyways. Especially if the servers the films are hosted on are not within German borders.
"Their laws" are the UK Copyright/Trademark Laws. And the way they'll enforce them is by suing the filmmakers for Copyright and/or Trademark infringement if their fanfilm leaks into the web, knowing that future fans will avoid the hassle by simply not making a film in the first place.

What does the UK's copyright laws have to do with German copyright laws

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-07-18 02:30pm

M wrote:
General Zod wrote: They'd be very hard pressed to enforce their laws outside of Germany anyways. Especially if the servers the films are hosted on are not within German borders.
"Their laws" are the UK Copyright/Trademark Laws. And the way they'll enforce them is by suing the filmmakers for Copyright and/or Trademark infringement if their fanfilm leaks into the web, knowing that future fans will avoid the hassle by simply not making a film in the first place.

Don't British copyright laws allow for Fair Use?

M · Post by M » 2007-07-19 06:32am

Molyneux wrote: Don't British copyright laws allow for Fair Use?

I am not a lawyer, much less an expert in the intricacies of another country's Copyright Laws, but as far as I can tell the idea that Fair Use includes the right to publish fanfiction is a minority view. Some lawyers argue that fanfiction should fall under Fair Use, but there has never been a court ruling to that effect.

More importantly, since this is a fanfilm it would presumably contain designs etc. protected by Trademark Law, and using those designs would be a clear-cut violation of Trademark Law (although, again: I am not a lawyer).

But even if a hypothetical court would uphold the right to publish non-profit fanfilms against the will of the Copyright/Trademark holder (which I doubt), that would require the creators to first risk a lengthy and expensive trial with uncertain outcome.

General Zod wrote: What does the UK's copyright laws have to do with German copyright laws

See above. GW argue that the filmmakers use material protected under UK Copyright/Trademark Laws in their film (which is most likely true), and they're withholding permission to use that material. Why they do so is ultimately irrelevant; they are most likely within their rights to do so, and the legal tools to enforce that right are those given by UK Copyright/Trademark Laws.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-07-19 08:11am

M wrote:
Molyneux wrote: Don't British copyright laws allow for Fair Use?
I am not a lawyer, much less an expert in the intricacies of another country's Copyright Laws, but as far as I can tell the idea that Fair Use includes the right to publish fanfiction is a minority view. Some lawyers argue that fanfiction should fall under Fair Use, but there has never been a court ruling to that effect.

More importantly, since this is a fanfilm it would presumably contain designs etc. protected by Trademark Law, and using those designs would be a clear-cut violation of Trademark Law (although, again: I am not a lawyer).

But even if a hypothetical court would uphold the right to publish non-profit fanfilms against the will of the Copyright/Trademark holder (which I doubt), that would require the creators to first risk a lengthy and expensive trial with uncertain outcome.

General Zod wrote: What does the UK's copyright laws have to do with German copyright laws
See above. GW argue that the filmmakers use material protected under UK Copyright/Trademark Laws in their film (which is most likely true), and they're withholding permission to use that material. Why they do so is ultimately irrelevant; they are most likely within their rights to do so, and the legal tools to enforce that right are those given by UK Copyright/Trademark Laws.

Aren't you allowed to use properties protected under trademark in a parody of the original material?

M · Post by M » 2007-07-19 08:30am

Molyneux wrote: Aren't you allowed to use properties protected under trademark in a parody of the original material?

Yes, parody falls under Fair Use. But since Damnatus isn't a parody, that doesn't apply here.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-07-19 08:49am

M wrote:
Molyneux wrote: Aren't you allowed to use properties protected under trademark in a parody of the original material?
Yes, parody falls under Fair Use. But since Damnatus isn't a parody, that doesn't apply here.

I was under the impression that fanfilms were, in general, considered to be parody, and thus protected.

M · Post by M » 2007-07-19 09:14am

Molyneux wrote: I was under the impression that fanfilms were, in general, considered to be parody, and thus protected.

You are mistaken. A fanfilm is considered a parody if, well, it actually is a parody, that is a "humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation" of its source (see Dictionary.com). This one certainly isn't, and I have no idea how anyone could think it is.

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2007-07-19 11:38am

A fanfilm is considered a parody if, well, it actually is a parody, that is a "humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation" of its source (see Dictionary.com).

That's the dictionary definition of it, which may or may not have any relationship to the legal one. Also, am I the only one who thinks it makes no sense that someone can make a movie about a product that makes fun of it, but can't make a movie that is serious or expresses favor toward that product? What sort of insane company cracks down on people making movies that are in favor of their products?

M · Post by M » 2007-07-20 11:54am

M wrote: Yes, parody falls under Fair Use. But since Damnatus isn't a parody, that doesn't apply here.

I have to at least partially retract that statement. Fair Dealing under UK Copyright Law doesn't explicitly include parodies, see for instance here or Gower's report (pdf). Apparently, Courts can still find that a parody falls under Fair Dealing due to being critical of the original work, but the line appears to be much murkier than in US law.

CDiehl wrote:
A fanfilm is considered a parody if, well, it actually is a parody, that is a "humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation" of its source (see Dictionary.com).
That's the dictionary definition of it, which may or may not have any relationship to the legal one.

If you think that Intellectual Property Laws redefine the word 'parody', I suggest you provide evidence to that effect.

CDiehl wrote: Also, am I the only one who thinks it makes no sense that someone can make a movie about a product that makes fun of it, but can't make a movie that is serious or expresses favor toward that product?

As I understand it, one of the purposes of Fair Use is to make sure that creators can't simply suppress criticism of their work by denying critics the right to quote the work; quoting a work for the purpose of review or criticism definitely fall under Fair Use. The Fair Use defense for parody seems to work along the same lines -- parody is seen as a form of criticism. The lawmakers were probably thinking more of politically charged parodies than the latest Leslie Nielsen movie.

But since we're now talking about US Copyright Law, Stravo would be far more qualified to comment than me.

CDiehl wrote: What sort of insane company cracks down on people making movies that are in favor of their products?

Economically it's a stupid move, true. It alienates the fanbase and supresses free advertising.

I suspect the reason is a myth regarding IP-laws which says that if a company doesn't draconically annex or ban fanmade material, it will also lose legal standing to stop actually harming IP-infringements (such as commercial competition copying their products). From time to time some incompetent manager will fall prey to this myth and call for a crackdown on fanfiction.

CDiehl · Post by **CDiehl** » 2007-07-22 12:18am

If you think that Intellectual Property Laws redefine the word 'parody', I suggest you provide evidence to that effect.

Well, base a legal case on the Dictionary.com definition of parody. See how well that works. Most people don't even use Dictionary.com's definition; they use it to mean a synonym of "spoof" or "send-up."

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-22 12:56am

CDiehl wrote:
If you think that Intellectual Property Laws redefine the word 'parody', I suggest you provide evidence to that effect.
Well, base a legal case on the Dictionary.com definition of parody. See how well that works. Most people don't even use Dictionary.com's definition; they use it to mean a synonym of "spoof" or "send-up."

Dictionary.com is a horrible source anyway. If you're going to use a dictionary at least use a real one, like Merriam-Webster.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-07-24 03:10am

Azazal wrote:GW, fucking over its fance base like no one else since 1995

bastards

Azazal's wisdom has been immortalized.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-07-24 04:48am

Games Workshop can go fuck itself. Nearly ten years ago they actually deliberately drove a friend of mine who ran a game shop out of business by outright reneging on a contract after some staff change just so they could open up a store of their own in Finland with less competition. Anything that hurts them can only be a good thing, the worse the damage, the better it is.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2007-07-24 01:44pm

GW has been having a nasty fight with game stores around here. Ive got a friend who owns a shop, and he set up a partnership with GW for a couple years to sell their gear. They started treating him like a franchise holder, and he told them to fuck off. He reduced his GW gear by 50% and called up a dozen stores in the New England area to do similar.

GW is *hurting*.

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2007-07-24 01:48pm

I didn't mention it in my prior post, but I fully intend to watch Damnatus in subtitled German now.

Whereas before I was completely unimpressed (it's impressive for a fanfilm, but I dislike fanfilms) now i am filled with righteous internet-rage! ^_^

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2007-07-24 02:34pm

General Schatten wrote:
Azazal wrote:GW, fucking over its fance base like no one else since 1995

bastards
Azazal's wisdom has been immortalized.

*snip*

sniff, I would like to thank the acadamy and all of it's members for this award, sniff

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2007-07-25 06:45pm

Are GW's actions on this matter rational, if we ignore ethics and fanbase-fucking?

From the completely profit-oriented view of their upper management, does this move improve their long-term gains?

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-07-25 07:07pm

Cykeisme wrote:From the completely profit-oriented view of their upper management, does this move improve their long-term gains?

No. They're so paralyzed by fear that they might lose their iron grip on their IP that they refuse to act in their own best interest. Free advertising is good. They know that, of course. They're just too paranoid to act on that knowledge.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2007-07-25 09:53pm

While I'm disappointed that I won't be able to watch Damnatus, I'm really not surprised. This is the same company that says that if you use a WH40k avatar on a forum, you must put a disclaimer in your sig.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2007-07-25 10:08pm

Feil wrote:No. They're so paralyzed by fear that they might lose their iron grip on their IP that they refuse to act in their own best interest. Free advertising is good. They know that, of course. They're just too paranoid to act on that knowledge.

!!!
Poor bastards.

And a shame, 40k has a really great universe.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-07-26 01:08am

The Black Library seems to be rather free of that nonsense, since 40K fanfiction still seems fairly prolific.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-08-07 08:50am

5000 signatures on the petition

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2007-08-07 02:27pm

Temjin wrote:While I'm disappointed that I won't be able to watch Damnatus, I'm really not surprised. This is the same company that says that if you use a WH40k avatar on a forum, you must put a disclaimer in your sig.

Well fuck me with a fence post, I'm just going to scurry right over to SB and legalize my Death Company Chaplain this instant.

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2007-08-08 04:00pm

This doesn't sound much different to the situation with other large scifi franchises. Other related examples I can think of include the shutting down of stargate fan mods, the use of SW fan designs for warships by LucasArts and contractors, the occasional action taken by Paramount against some startrek fan websites (although I think that was some time ago, and I never knew the details).

As I understand it, if you make a creative work containing other peoples' copyrighted creative works then yours is a derivative of theirs. How much of a derivative it is (i.e. how much of the work is yours) and what use you make of it (commercial, educational, parody etc) determines how likely you'd be to get away with it under fair use (US) or fair dealing (UK) if the copyright holder objected and took you to court.