because its etsy and a scammy site? because, as Joosterguy pointed out, plausible deniability. Its a bit harder to stop something on some crappy site like etsy, than it is, ON YOUTUBE!
There is no special stance, there’s just the usual IP law. Making money off their IP (such as running ads on OC) is prohibited. Making content itself is not, so long as it’s unmonetised.
Unfortunately a lot of people misunderstood what was happening when a bunch of content creators went dark for different reasons. The flames of salt were fanned by a lot of dodgy YouTubers for views and the misinformation spiraled out of control.
Honestly I look at some of what people were doing and ask how they ever thought it was going to be OK, seemingly based entirely on them being fans of the IP so it being OK.
It's because for a very long time IP owners, corporations, and YouTube (and other media publishing platforms) have been very loose with internet IP law. We (internet users in general) have gained a feeling of entitlement because that was the norm for so long, there was no policing this content. It wasn't worth the effort to enforce IP law on YouTube. Other than a few companies like Nintendo and Disney who took it seriously, most said "eh who cares if this fan video was made, pretend we didn't see it, it's not like it's worth money."
But with the streaming boom, better video moderation tools, increased youtube monetization, and patreon being a thing, there's now **real** money in publishing this content. It's no longer someone publishing a YouTube poop with assets taken from a video game and getting a few thousand views, it's creators with adsense and a patreon earning thousands of dollars unlawfully making animations and miniatures. Companies are now seeing that less as "fun fan content" and more as "IP theft and money made illegally through IP theft."
Fair use is a defence you can use in court, not a carved out well defined thing in law that prevents cases against you unless its already very well tested usage - which is why the lines for it are not firm and needs to be presented as a defence in a court case.
Technically true, but no lawsuit would ever proceed from mediation to court on such a spurious basis, and SLAAP style laws exist in most countries to punish companies for trying that sort of thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._RDR_Books
https://www.sgrvlaw.com/fair-use-defense-rejected-barrons-magazine-copyright-dispute/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Productions_v._Air_Pirates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_%26_Row_v._Nation_Enterprises
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss_Enters.,_L.P._v._Penguin_Books_USA,_Inc.
Im done here. Fair use being a defence rather than a protection is well established in both statute and case law in most Berne Convention countries.
Have at it, Im ignoring responses to this comment and my other comments.
Yeah, people don't understand what fair use is at all. So often you see someone on YouTube quote fair use in the description, even when what they've done is clearly not covered, and that's not how you use it.
>GW can’t just send their goons around to anyone they like lol.
WotC sent the literal Pinkertons to a guys house. Saying that they can't is hilariously naive.
>It’s literally the law.
Yeah and we know the law is *never* bent or outright ignored in the favour of the rich or the multibillion companies.
The problem was that a lot of creators sold Warhammer Merchandise with no right, just straight up printing Space Marine Codex art.
That was a case where "fair use" stopped applying but the main issue with video content was as follows:
Say you were animating a Warhammer Fan Film.
However, to fund the operation, you set up a Patreon and state that the money you are generating will go, or is in part from, the Warhammer IP.
Legally speaking, one could claim fair use if the content us meant to comment or make fun of Warhammer.
But that was not the case for a lot of them. It was just straight up Warhammer Mini Movies.
Salt was sadly so dense and on fire that the lines were not clearly set out.
Content creators like Alfabusa, who made the Emperor Text to Speech series, clearly falls into such fair use and would be clear, but the panic around content creators being bought out by GW was simply too big of a topic.
It all started with Astartes, with the creator being officially recruited by GW alongside other Animators, it should have been a good, positive thing, but following copyright strikes and panic basically turned the situation into: "If you are not going to GW to animate, they will kill your channel/content"
It could have been handled better and of course, GWs lack/refusal to talk to its own community directly basically got a massive portion of the independant animation scene around Warhammer killed instantly.
Saying that TTS falls clearly into fair use isn’t even true, there many arguments that can be made for it not to be fair use under copyright law. There’s nothing that explicitly protects the kind of work TTS is (no that’s not what parody is, Space King by Flash Gitz probably falls under parody though). Many people misunderstand what is fair use.
This information and opinion is based on my understanding of [this great video](https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=UvCPom4_Yopd5eQX) made by Tom Scott on the subject.
TTS was fair use, it falls under creative use clauses.
Sure GW could've asked them to stop using the cutouts of art but they couldn't have stopped them from making the story. It's the same reason abridged series are able to stand up on their own and why you can straight up sell parodies of existing IP.
>They don't really have a solid legal footing to force it, but one can always ask.
When your entire show is riddled with official GW artwork I'd argue they have very solid legal footing, BuT i GuEsS tHeY cAn JuSt AsK.
Idk why they're down voting you, you are correct- TTS did not fall under fair use due to the GW official art being used- IP law is pretty simple.
I don't think GW would have killed TTS and it's a shame that the salt at the time made TTS stop.
One thing our community is REALLY bad at is reeling in misinformation and salt/anger at GW, at this point GW could say "We're going to come out with NEW plastic kits!" And in about 10 minutes there will be 3 videos saying
"GW KILLS (xxxx) model line! Your army is going to DIE!!"
It makes it really difficult to discern what's happening in the hobby at large and that especially goes for content creators.
The unfortunate truth is that TTS fans just don't want to look at the overall picture when it comes to what Alfabusa was actually doing and typically want to focus on narrative, video editing, and voice acting to demonstrate fair use. If we watch just the first episode of TTS the overwhelming majority of that episode (like a solid 90%) is made up of official GW artwork. It's not parody or satire to just flat out take the thing and drop it into your work to the point where it's the overwhelming majority of what's on screen.
As the series progressed I'd say the case for it being fair use definitely got stronger, but that doesn't mean older episodes are meeting that standard.
>TTS did not fall under fair use due to the GW official art being used- IP law is pretty simple.
What? Fair use directly covers that. Copyrighted material may be used as long as it's used transformatively. That's what fair use *is*.
Under your definition, a channel couldn't even run an ultramarine painting tutorial.
The majority of TTS content was directly ripped Warhammer art with a voice over using established 40k identities and characters.
TTS was making money off of it.
That's different than a painting channel where they simply paint gw models- I'm not saying that IP law is GOOD just that GW could have easily taken TTS and asked them to stop at any point and they did not.
Alfubasa decided to stop for a variety of dressing and the salt was a convenient excuse.
https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/legal#IntellectualPropertyGuidlines this is what is stated on the warhammer website under the IP guidelines. So theoretically anything that is makes it past this list is good.
There was a lot of misinformation going on. Some folks were claiming GW was shutting down mods for Total War Warhammer. Some fans naturally got mad about this but conveniently ignored how some of those mods ask for donations and I have heard that they tied their updates to those donations. I cannot confirm if true or not about the paid updates for mods because I really don't care enough to check.
If you look back at what actually happened to all of the projects that were "shut down", you'll find that most weren't taken down for using GW's IP as they claimed.
The only project truly affected was Last Church, which was straight up using the audiobook as the backing track, with no permission to do so, while making money off of it.
Alfabusa, at least I believe, was looking for a reason to leave behind TTS and found a way to use people's GW outrage to get new attention on a project that was already in the works.
In retrospect, the only thing that changed was that GW let the public know they were aware of works that were monetized and shouldn't have been. Everything else was content creators taking advantage of fearmongering.
If you're planning to make monetised content based on GW ip, ask GW for their policy related to it. If you have an answer from them black-on-white that what you're planning doesn't run foul with their policy, you may have a case if they want you to stop later. If you're planning to make 'transformative' content you should be fine. This is stuff like painting tutorials, reviews, satirical content, etc. This might use GW's ip, but the way you use it means that it has become new and distinct content.
Just don't infringe on others' IP.
Non-monetised content (fan animations) has always been allowed. Make sure that it is not monetised (ad-free, no patreon, etc) or that you promote real-life extremist politics. I advise contacting GW and ask them for their policies regarding fan content.
No, it means there are no issues with transformative content. Giving it away for free, if it still harms their business/IP, would not automatically exempt you from being a violation, and would not automatically give you free pass to disregard GW's published guideline.
Ya, that would be at GW's discretion whether to issue a claim or suit against.
For example, Disney does not look kindly on fan-made hentai using their IP being free or paid. It hurts their princesses' image. And if you use actual clips from their films or actual merchandise to make the fan-made content, they can and will send a cease-and-desist.
The problem isn't whether or not it is monetized, it's whether or not their property is used.
* ***Fan-films and animations – individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.***
Their decision really. Creating free content using an IP on which you don't have the rights isn't allowed. Fair use isn't a right, it's a tolerance, and it has a lot of conditions. Educational, parody, etc. But if it's full dead on serious content, it doesn't fall under fair use.
There's a lot coming into consideration when letting people do their fan stuff. You can understand that if people create and distribute GW minis for free, it threatens their business. Being free doesn't magically makes it ok. So they have to consider the effect of what you're doing on their business. Simple as that.
You have to stop thinking about "piracy" or "theft" as they are terms that don't help.
If there's a licence on a character design and you use it in your work without having the rights, it's not allowed. Original, free, for charity, to save the world, whatever.
If it saves the world, the owner willl probably not enforce their rights. If it makes a mess in the global IP, confuse customers enough for them to think it's official, make them lose views on their own production (used as marketing tools), etc, they won't like it.
There's a difference between a meme fan-fiction drawing of Roboto Gulpyman and Yvraine kissing on Reddit that will not affect the business, and a channel with animations that could make people choose to unsubscribe from GW services for example.
So in the end they choose if they let you do because it advertises their products or they stop you because it's detrimental to them, or you owe them royalties (in case of monetization).
and well you said:
> make them lose views on their own production (used as marketing tools)
and i think that if its a good fan production that gets attention, it will help to promote the 40k setting nonetheless
While they theoretically can ignore their own published IP policy, if they do so in nearly all jurisdictions they would be liable for paying the legal fees incurred by the defendant, as "I'm suing you for doing stuff I explicitly say I won't sue you for" would be thrown out by any judge.
While legal fees can be expensive, there is no way a person who even tries a little bit wouldn't find a lawyer who would take the case on contingency.
Nothings changed, don't monetize it and they'll more or less ignore you but they reserve all right to send you a nice email (not sarcasm) and set up a meeting or send a letter saying hey we appreciate it but kindly desist.
The only issue as far as I know, is dont make money off their IP, which is pretty basic for most companies.
So then how do fan made things on etsy exist
Plausible deniability. These aren't tyranids, they're arachneris. Those aren't necrons, they're crypto-zombies.
because its etsy and a scammy site? because, as Joosterguy pointed out, plausible deniability. Its a bit harder to stop something on some crappy site like etsy, than it is, ON YOUTUBE!
There is no special stance, there’s just the usual IP law. Making money off their IP (such as running ads on OC) is prohibited. Making content itself is not, so long as it’s unmonetised. Unfortunately a lot of people misunderstood what was happening when a bunch of content creators went dark for different reasons. The flames of salt were fanned by a lot of dodgy YouTubers for views and the misinformation spiraled out of control.
Honestly I look at some of what people were doing and ask how they ever thought it was going to be OK, seemingly based entirely on them being fans of the IP so it being OK.
It's because for a very long time IP owners, corporations, and YouTube (and other media publishing platforms) have been very loose with internet IP law. We (internet users in general) have gained a feeling of entitlement because that was the norm for so long, there was no policing this content. It wasn't worth the effort to enforce IP law on YouTube. Other than a few companies like Nintendo and Disney who took it seriously, most said "eh who cares if this fan video was made, pretend we didn't see it, it's not like it's worth money." But with the streaming boom, better video moderation tools, increased youtube monetization, and patreon being a thing, there's now **real** money in publishing this content. It's no longer someone publishing a YouTube poop with assets taken from a video game and getting a few thousand views, it's creators with adsense and a patreon earning thousands of dollars unlawfully making animations and miniatures. Companies are now seeing that less as "fun fan content" and more as "IP theft and money made illegally through IP theft."
Do the monetized lore, painting and table top videos fall into making money off their IP?
no that falls into fair use
Oh okay. Thanks so much! I don’t know where the line is and wouldn’t want to infringe
Good luck having that tried against a billion dollar company.
It’s literally the law. GW can’t just send their goons around to anyone they like lol.
are they friends with the pinkertons though?
Fair use is a defence you can use in court, not a carved out well defined thing in law that prevents cases against you unless its already very well tested usage - which is why the lines for it are not firm and needs to be presented as a defence in a court case.
Technically true, but no lawsuit would ever proceed from mediation to court on such a spurious basis, and SLAAP style laws exist in most countries to punish companies for trying that sort of thing
Plenty of them do and have, and SLAAP laws do not automatically override copyright lawsuits.
share one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc._v._RDR_Books https://www.sgrvlaw.com/fair-use-defense-rejected-barrons-magazine-copyright-dispute/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachette_v._Internet_Archive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Productions_v._Air_Pirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_%26_Row_v._Nation_Enterprises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Seuss_Enters.,_L.P._v._Penguin_Books_USA,_Inc. Im done here. Fair use being a defence rather than a protection is well established in both statute and case law in most Berne Convention countries. Have at it, Im ignoring responses to this comment and my other comments.
Yeah, people don't understand what fair use is at all. So often you see someone on YouTube quote fair use in the description, even when what they've done is clearly not covered, and that's not how you use it.
>GW can’t just send their goons around to anyone they like lol. WotC sent the literal Pinkertons to a guys house. Saying that they can't is hilariously naive. >It’s literally the law. Yeah and we know the law is *never* bent or outright ignored in the favour of the rich or the multibillion companies.
Wotc sent the pinkertons because they accidentally sent out new cards to a guy, not over fair use
Oh! the good old laegue of internet lawyers ... I tip my hat to you sir XD
The problem was that a lot of creators sold Warhammer Merchandise with no right, just straight up printing Space Marine Codex art. That was a case where "fair use" stopped applying but the main issue with video content was as follows: Say you were animating a Warhammer Fan Film. However, to fund the operation, you set up a Patreon and state that the money you are generating will go, or is in part from, the Warhammer IP. Legally speaking, one could claim fair use if the content us meant to comment or make fun of Warhammer. But that was not the case for a lot of them. It was just straight up Warhammer Mini Movies. Salt was sadly so dense and on fire that the lines were not clearly set out. Content creators like Alfabusa, who made the Emperor Text to Speech series, clearly falls into such fair use and would be clear, but the panic around content creators being bought out by GW was simply too big of a topic. It all started with Astartes, with the creator being officially recruited by GW alongside other Animators, it should have been a good, positive thing, but following copyright strikes and panic basically turned the situation into: "If you are not going to GW to animate, they will kill your channel/content" It could have been handled better and of course, GWs lack/refusal to talk to its own community directly basically got a massive portion of the independant animation scene around Warhammer killed instantly.
Saying that TTS falls clearly into fair use isn’t even true, there many arguments that can be made for it not to be fair use under copyright law. There’s nothing that explicitly protects the kind of work TTS is (no that’s not what parody is, Space King by Flash Gitz probably falls under parody though). Many people misunderstand what is fair use. This information and opinion is based on my understanding of [this great video](https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU?si=UvCPom4_Yopd5eQX) made by Tom Scott on the subject.
TTS was fair use, it falls under creative use clauses. Sure GW could've asked them to stop using the cutouts of art but they couldn't have stopped them from making the story. It's the same reason abridged series are able to stand up on their own and why you can straight up sell parodies of existing IP.
>TTS was fair use, it falls under creative use clauses. >Sure GW could've asked them to stop using the cutouts of art Not really fair use then is it?
Hence why I said ask. They don't really have a solid legal footing to force it, but one can always ask.
>They don't really have a solid legal footing to force it, but one can always ask. When your entire show is riddled with official GW artwork I'd argue they have very solid legal footing, BuT i GuEsS tHeY cAn JuSt AsK.
Idk why they're down voting you, you are correct- TTS did not fall under fair use due to the GW official art being used- IP law is pretty simple. I don't think GW would have killed TTS and it's a shame that the salt at the time made TTS stop. One thing our community is REALLY bad at is reeling in misinformation and salt/anger at GW, at this point GW could say "We're going to come out with NEW plastic kits!" And in about 10 minutes there will be 3 videos saying "GW KILLS (xxxx) model line! Your army is going to DIE!!" It makes it really difficult to discern what's happening in the hobby at large and that especially goes for content creators.
The unfortunate truth is that TTS fans just don't want to look at the overall picture when it comes to what Alfabusa was actually doing and typically want to focus on narrative, video editing, and voice acting to demonstrate fair use. If we watch just the first episode of TTS the overwhelming majority of that episode (like a solid 90%) is made up of official GW artwork. It's not parody or satire to just flat out take the thing and drop it into your work to the point where it's the overwhelming majority of what's on screen. As the series progressed I'd say the case for it being fair use definitely got stronger, but that doesn't mean older episodes are meeting that standard.
>TTS did not fall under fair use due to the GW official art being used- IP law is pretty simple. What? Fair use directly covers that. Copyrighted material may be used as long as it's used transformatively. That's what fair use *is*. Under your definition, a channel couldn't even run an ultramarine painting tutorial.
The majority of TTS content was directly ripped Warhammer art with a voice over using established 40k identities and characters. TTS was making money off of it. That's different than a painting channel where they simply paint gw models- I'm not saying that IP law is GOOD just that GW could have easily taken TTS and asked them to stop at any point and they did not. Alfubasa decided to stop for a variety of dressing and the salt was a convenient excuse.
It was blatant parody, which is covered under both EU and US fair use law.
theres no law saying that using artwork no longer makes something fair use
also no
so currently what are people allowed to do or prohibited from doing
https://www.warhammer.com/en-GB/legal#IntellectualPropertyGuidlines this is what is stated on the warhammer website under the IP guidelines. So theoretically anything that is makes it past this list is good.
no
You can make whatever fan-made content you want, as long as it's for free. Once you start making money off it, GW is going to protect it's IP.
no look at the gw website
Yo, I just looked at the gw website, those new kroots are looking 🔥🔥
There was a lot of misinformation going on. Some folks were claiming GW was shutting down mods for Total War Warhammer. Some fans naturally got mad about this but conveniently ignored how some of those mods ask for donations and I have heard that they tied their updates to those donations. I cannot confirm if true or not about the paid updates for mods because I really don't care enough to check.
small part, fan animations were the pandoras box
If you look back at what actually happened to all of the projects that were "shut down", you'll find that most weren't taken down for using GW's IP as they claimed. The only project truly affected was Last Church, which was straight up using the audiobook as the backing track, with no permission to do so, while making money off of it. Alfabusa, at least I believe, was looking for a reason to leave behind TTS and found a way to use people's GW outrage to get new attention on a project that was already in the works. In retrospect, the only thing that changed was that GW let the public know they were aware of works that were monetized and shouldn't have been. Everything else was content creators taking advantage of fearmongering.
If you're planning to make monetised content based on GW ip, ask GW for their policy related to it. If you have an answer from them black-on-white that what you're planning doesn't run foul with their policy, you may have a case if they want you to stop later. If you're planning to make 'transformative' content you should be fine. This is stuff like painting tutorials, reviews, satirical content, etc. This might use GW's ip, but the way you use it means that it has become new and distinct content. Just don't infringe on others' IP.
and is it that there are no issues with non-monetized content?
Non-monetised content (fan animations) has always been allowed. Make sure that it is not monetised (ad-free, no patreon, etc) or that you promote real-life extremist politics. I advise contacting GW and ask them for their policies regarding fan content.
should i send them my manifesto to double check my politics before I upload my three hour long gay genestealer porno?
No, it means there are no issues with transformative content. Giving it away for free, if it still harms their business/IP, would not automatically exempt you from being a violation, and would not automatically give you free pass to disregard GW's published guideline.
hmm would this mean that original fan-animations which aren't monetized might harm their business/IP
Ya, that would be at GW's discretion whether to issue a claim or suit against. For example, Disney does not look kindly on fan-made hentai using their IP being free or paid. It hurts their princesses' image. And if you use actual clips from their films or actual merchandise to make the fan-made content, they can and will send a cease-and-desist. The problem isn't whether or not it is monetized, it's whether or not their property is used.
oh i see do you think GW would take issue with an original fan-animation which is made with an intent for serious quality
* ***Fan-films and animations – individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.***
does this hold even if the works are non-monetized
It says nothing about monetized or non-monetized, so to me it sounds like a blanket statement.
Their decision really. Creating free content using an IP on which you don't have the rights isn't allowed. Fair use isn't a right, it's a tolerance, and it has a lot of conditions. Educational, parody, etc. But if it's full dead on serious content, it doesn't fall under fair use. There's a lot coming into consideration when letting people do their fan stuff. You can understand that if people create and distribute GW minis for free, it threatens their business. Being free doesn't magically makes it ok. So they have to consider the effect of what you're doing on their business. Simple as that.
hmm though i think that original and non-monetized fan animations can hardly be compared to the piracy of official products
You have to stop thinking about "piracy" or "theft" as they are terms that don't help. If there's a licence on a character design and you use it in your work without having the rights, it's not allowed. Original, free, for charity, to save the world, whatever. If it saves the world, the owner willl probably not enforce their rights. If it makes a mess in the global IP, confuse customers enough for them to think it's official, make them lose views on their own production (used as marketing tools), etc, they won't like it. There's a difference between a meme fan-fiction drawing of Roboto Gulpyman and Yvraine kissing on Reddit that will not affect the business, and a channel with animations that could make people choose to unsubscribe from GW services for example. So in the end they choose if they let you do because it advertises their products or they stop you because it's detrimental to them, or you owe them royalties (in case of monetization).
wdym by used as marketing tools
GW animations are used to promote their games. They can use them to promote new products. How did you miss that?
and well you said: > make them lose views on their own production (used as marketing tools) and i think that if its a good fan production that gets attention, it will help to promote the 40k setting nonetheless
I wouldn't rely on Reddit concensus for something like this. Your best bet would be to contact GW's legal department: [email protected]
No special stance as far as I’m aware
their stance is 0 tolerance unless 100% free, you xant even have an unrelated patreon
define ‘unrelated patreon’ lol. i bet it was a patreon for GW content
AFAIK it hasn't changed since then- keep your head down if you're making fan content.
i see the type of content that they're concerned with are animations, and other types they're fine with right
Only if you’re profiting from them. If they’re free to access it have no ads then it’s fair game.
Animations and I believe fan-games are what they're concerned with.
Nobody knows until you get a cease and desist letter or get sued, just how they like it.
They literally have a posted policy on their website.
Which they will just expand or ignore if something doesn't fancy them. Games workshop has a shitty history of IP issues.
While they theoretically can ignore their own published IP policy, if they do so in nearly all jurisdictions they would be liable for paying the legal fees incurred by the defendant, as "I'm suing you for doing stuff I explicitly say I won't sue you for" would be thrown out by any judge. While legal fees can be expensive, there is no way a person who even tries a little bit wouldn't find a lawyer who would take the case on contingency.
Not good to put it simply
what does GW say about it
Nothings changed, don't monetize it and they'll more or less ignore you but they reserve all right to send you a nice email (not sarcasm) and set up a meeting or send a letter saying hey we appreciate it but kindly desist.
Which is how it was before the clarification anyway. Nothing changed, despite the kerfuffle.
Same as before nothing has changed