# GW has a Trade mark on the word combo Space Marine



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I saw this on another forum and decided I'd get in first !

http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/06/the-popehat-signal-help-an-author-against-a-bogus-trademark-claim/

Seems an author has had their ebook pulled by Amazon because of a GW complaint on Trademark infringement.

With a bit of research you will find that they actually do own the word combination Space Marine.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4002:k6aavt.2.6

The only point at issue is if that ownership extends to eBooks. Given GW’s latest venture into electronic codices (in response to consumer requests I might add !!!! ) it is important that they make the case that they do.

The European Trademark of Space Marine DOES include it’s use in “printed matter” and the rights to many books extend to eBook as a derivative work.

No action has been brought on the author. GW raised a complaint with Amazon and Amazon withdrew the book.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

How the hell do you own the phrase space marine? That phrase has been used in so much sci-fi its obscene, from Alien, to Halo, to _fucking everything_. Its not even possible. It would be like owning the phrase "space ship". Come on.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Iron Angel said:


> How the hell do you own the phrase space marine? That phrase has been used in so much sci-fi its obscene, from Alien, to Halo, to _fucking everything_. Its not even possible. It would be like owning the phrase "space ship". Come on.


Follow the link they have a registered trade mark.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Not sure what the problem is, Given how important space marines are to GW they would be stupid to not trade mark it, how ever far fetched it seems.


----------



## Codex Todd (Mar 22, 2009)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spots-Space-Marine-Defense-Fiddler/dp/1470131056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360191741&sr=8-1 

And with a little more digging the book is still on sale via amazon, so not sure what to say about this if i'm honest

Edit: Ignore me  that's for the paperback not the ebook


----------



## projectda (May 12, 2008)

welcome to the modern world. you can copyright anything. everyday words, rectangles, a rock you find, even other peoples genes.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Yep, we eradicated polio only to replace it by a worst scourge: lawyers...

"Space Marines" is not copyrighted in Canada. I've been toying with the idea of buying the copyright and sueing GW...


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

boreas said:


> "Space Marines" is not copyrighted in Canada. I've been toying with the idea of buying the copyright and sueing GW...


Nearly choked due to laughing after taking a SIP of soda.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Copy writing "Space Marine" isn't that much of a stretch, when you consider how much of the GW IP is centered around Space Marines.

GW has a legit complaint that some consumers might purchase the book assuming it's connected to the 40K IP. I mean, there's a video game with that exact title based off their IP for crying out loud.

By the way, they don't own the phrase or the concept of a "space marine," they own Space Marine as a title. There is a big difference.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

the only way around that would be calling every sci fi marine Colonial, Interplanetary, galactic marines etc etc etc, seems a bit stupid to me as i would have thought Adeptus Astartes/Astartes was more thier copyright, still when it comes down to it, GW have used the word a while, and they feel it belongs to them, just strange they take action now is all.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

projectda said:


> welcome to the modern world. you can copyright anything. everyday words, rectangles, a rock you find, even other peoples genes.





boreas said:


> Yep, we eradicated polio only to replace it by a worst scourge: lawyers...
> 
> "Space Marines" is not copyrighted in Canada. I've been toying with the idea of buying the copyright and sueing GW...


Alright, there is some obvious confusion here so time to break out Wikipedia for some definitions:

Trademark:


> A *trademark*, *trade mark*, or *trade-mark*[1] is a recognizable sign, design or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others.[2][3][4][5] The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher or on the product itself.


Copyright:


> *Copyright* is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is a form of intellectual property (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.


So while we can see they are related, GW has a _Trademark_ on the term "Space Marine" not a "Copyright".

Now looking at GW's Trademark the term Space Marine has been around since _*1991*_. This is *NOT* new. And this trademark explicitly covers it's use pertaining to:



> *Goods and Services* IC 028. US 022. G & S: board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith. FIRST USE: 19870900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19871000


None of which pertains to books of any kind.

Infact here is what GW's own legal page says about their trademarks and copyrights:



> *COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS*
> Last updated: 01 January 2010
> *COPYRIGHTS*
> All artwork and logos on this site and all the images contained therein have been produced either in-house or as work for hire. The exclusive copyright in the logos and artwork, including the images it depicts, is the property of Games Workshop Limited. © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2013.
> ...


Whole BUNCH of things there, and I'm going to bet most of them are not new.

So what happened? Why was the book taken down? I'm only guessing, but I think someone contacted Amazon about it in response to seeing "Space Marine" and asked about it, and Amazon, in interest of covering their backsides, pulled it. But that's just my guess.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I can't find Space Marine in the Australian Trademark database so perhaps we've not allowed it.

Having gone through the trademark process I can tell you there are some hoops to jump through to get one. It's not so much about the actual words but more the context and manner in which they are used. You can't trademark the word "Coke" in the coal or drugs industries but you sure as hell can in softdrinks. 

If the author really desperately wants to use the term she's simply have to lodge an application for removal, based on what so many have said in that the term is hardly unique in literature.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

i followed that link u put up oz, there are a couple of comments that say Warhammer 40K/Space Marines was "Stolen" from Starship troopers and they are all going to write to GW and threaten to pull thier buying of products if the book in question is not allowed back up and all "Bullying tactics stopped" 
I have to wonder where this will get them, i think its all blown up out of proportion and should know by now that this will not work, GW is in essence a Corporation, although back in 1986 when i first got into it, it was a small company. 
I hardly think a few choice words will get them what that want, yes its a shame but as far as i am aware and someone correct me if i am wrong (COTE maybe) the whole 40K universe was originally based on Space Marines, so to trademark it seems the sensible way to go about things. 
Maybe there was something in the story that was felt to be directed to Space Marines 40K we don't know, there are two sides to every story, but because GW is more well known its the side thats getting publicity.
Unless this is some major publicity stunt, some writers are not adverse to it. I'd like to think that GW are a little more savvy then that


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The term Space Marine is not mentioned anywhere in Heinlen's Starship Troopers. I've just done a search of my Kobo copy.

Even it it did mention it the claim is not for inventing the term but merely reserving the right to use it exclusively in a particular context, like "Coke" or "McDonalds" 

GW didn't remove the book from the site, Amazon did in response to GW's complaint. Obviously Amazon thinks the complaint has some merit.

I don't see any bullying here, simplest thing is for the author to remove the term and call her book something else, then everybody is happy.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

projectda said:


> welcome to the modern world. you can copyright anything. everyday words, rectangles, a rock you find, even other peoples genes.


I have now filed an official trademark on Boc. Therefore, if anyone refers to me as anything other than BocTM I will press charges. Or simply send Serpion after you dressed like the bunny from Donny Darko, I haven't decided yet. :laugh:


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Boc said:


> I have now filed an official trademark on Boc. Therefore, if anyone refers to me as anything other than BocTM I will press charges. Or simply send Serpion after you dressed like the bunny from Donny Darko, I haven't decided yet. :laugh:


You are totally within your rights to do that. If you pay the fee you can get the Trademark Boc.

As it happens I have the Trademark "Magpie" but only in the realm of GPS navigation devices, or at least I used to I let it lapse a few years ago.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Boc said:


> I have now filed an official trademark on Boc. Therefore, if anyone refers to me as anything other than BocTM I will press charges. Or simply send Serpion after you dressed like the bunny from Donny Darko, I haven't decided yet. :laugh:


What if I refer to you as "Best Only Clothed"?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Zion said:


> What if I refer to you as "Best Only Clothed"?


I think we'd all agree with that sentiment !


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

thought Better Off Cautioned might be better


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

gothik said:


> thought Better Off Cautioned might be better


Or "Buggers Off Constantly?"

Or "Bonks Only Clowns"?

I can (and have) do this all day. It's a fun game.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Zion said:


> Or "Buggers Off Constantly?"
> 
> Or "Bonks Only Clowns"?
> 
> I can (and have) do this all day. It's a fun game.


LOL that last one alone is due some rep


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Boc said:


> I have now filed an official trademark on Boc. Therefore, if anyone refers to me as anything other than BocTM I will press charges. Or simply send Serpion after you dressed like the bunny from Donny Darko, I haven't decided yet.


Give me a heads up next time, last time I didn't have enough forewarning to clean the suit. And it was still stained with... stuff.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Serpion5 said:


> Give me a heads up next time, last time I didn't have enough forewarning to clean the suit. And it was still stained with... stuff.


Hmm this reminds me of a CSI episode and that was very very disturbing


----------



## Insanity (Oct 25, 2011)

I could understand them having issues with someone calling an entire faction "Space Marines" but It's pretty insane that they wouldn't let people use it as a descriptive term.

On the same note, I'm pretty sure Cadbury has trade marks on the colour purple when it comes to confectionery


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Insanity72 said:


> I could understand them having issues with someone calling an entire faction "Space Marines" but It's pretty insane that they wouldn't let people use it as a descriptive term.
> 
> On the same note, I'm pretty sure Cadbury has trade marks on the colour purple when it comes to confectionery


If you sell a bar of chocolate that is "Cadbury purple" in colour and has the Brand name Cadberry then you could be seen to be A)Trading on another's brand (i.e. they are paying for the advertising to sell your stuff) and B) Misleading the buyer.

Why should it not also apply to a book entitled "Spots the Space Marine" which has nothing to do with the 40k universe ?

I'm sure if you bought it expecting a tale of the Adeptus Astartes and instead got something totally different you'd be howlin' for your money back.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

the term space marine aside for a moment, have you seen what the story is about?

_Spots the Space Marine is a novel set on an embattled asteroid in a far-flung future, in which humans and a bug-like race called Fiddlers are allied against the Crabs, their terrifyingly adaptable common enemy.

Spots is a web serial that ran from February 2009 to June 2011. Individual episodes were funded by reaching a donation cap, and a portion of the proceeds was given alternately to the Wounded Warrior Project or the Soldiers' Angels charitable organizations.

The concept for Spots sprang from the author keeping herself occupied while using her gym's elliptical machine, imagining she was in a powersuit taking down alien bugs. _

now i know this idea isnt very unique, but when you think of that story line and throw in terms like space marine its hardly surprising GW have got there panties in a twist.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

I wonder how bad it's going to get when GW and Sega release a video game together and have both their laywer teams come after everyone.


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> With a bit of research you will find that they actually do own the word combination Space Marine.


This is probably a little too simplistic (I have no knowledge on Trade Marks lol) but I am assuming from the above you mean that the Trade Mark means that they can't use "Space Marine" when another name is in front of it?

As we see GW has used this for things like "Chaos Space Marine" etc.

Since this is called "Spots the Space Marine" an issue came up, but what if they just changed the title a little to something like "Space Marine Spot" or "The Adventures of Space Marine Spot"?

Since they change up the name to come after the term "Space Marine" would this resolve the issue? Or am I being a little too simplistic with my thinking on this?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

So it only affects the sale of the ebook and not the hardbook on amazon?


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

I can see how GW could copyright 'Adeptus Astartes' but not a far more generic term like Space marine. I'm 55 yo and I can say with 100% fact that I saw the term Space Marine far far earlier than GW even existed....arrogance on their part in my eyes. Their big scary lawyers have more money than this poor author does, so have won without lifting a finger.

There are quite a few authors starting to give their vocal support to this 'outrage', including the SciFi Fiction writer's assn., so maybe GW might cop some backlash...or maybe not.


----------



## Warlord_Winters (May 2, 2012)

Like Apple actually trying to copyright the Apple logo. like you can't have an apple for a logo now


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Warlord_Winters said:


> Like Apple actually trying to copyright the Apple logo. like you can't have an apple for a logo now


TRADEMARK ! Trademark and copyright are two very different things.

An Apple with a bit out of it and the stem with etc have been the Apple trademark for years. Produce a computer with that image on it and you'll be getting some mail !


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

HOBO said:


> I can see how GW could copyright 'Adeptus Astartes' but not a far more generic term like Space marine. I'm 55 yo and I can say with 100% fact that I saw the term Space Marine far far earlier than GW even existed....arrogance on their part in my eyes. Their big scary lawyers have more money than this poor author does, so have won without lifting a finger.





Warlord_Winters said:


> Like Apple actually trying to copyright the Apple logo. like you can't have an apple for a logo now


1. Copyright =/= Trademark. I posted this earlier but I guess people aren't paying attention. 

2. GW was given a Trademark for Space Marine in _1991_. Like I said before, this is *not* a new development. I even gave a list of what GW themselves publicly say their trademarks are.

Now I'm not taking sides on this as I don't know everything about this, but if we're going to talk about it, let's use the right terms and the actual facts. GW didn't just pop-up with this last week, they've had this trademark for 22 years now.

Now the registered trademark doesn't extend to books, or ebooks, but I'm not versed in trademark laws so I can't speak of how legal GW's actions really are so I can't say if they are or are not protecting their trademark legally.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Zion said:


> Now the registered trademark doesn't extend to books, or ebooks, but I'm not versed in trademark laws so I can't speak of how legal GW's actions really are so I can't say if they are or are not protecting their trademark legally.


The UK trademark does include "printed material", this can be argued by extension to include eBooks.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...6.jpg/419px-Amazing_Stories_December_1936.jpg


Ummm....GW were beat to the phrase long ago!


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

it would appear that this has spiraled out of control. With the author in question telling people that GW demanded her story Spots the Space Marine be pulled, there are people on a news feed i have been on, that have decided to run a witch hunt against Games Workshop.

I was not allowed to place a arguement any arguement i made was well if you do not agree with what we say you are wasting your time. I know that GW has not made it easy for themselves by remaining silent on the matter, however there are two sides to every story, and so far the author in question is being held up as a minnow being bullied by the big fish.

I have no problem with people expresing their opinions, i do have a problem when anyone elses opinion that does not agree with the majority, stirred up by only one set of facts into a bunch of witchunts, means that arguements against their arguements no matter how thought out or put down are more or less told, we dont care, we will boycott GW until they change their rulings and their actions.

It is entirly possible that the author wrote something that GW found perhapes too close to thier Trademark? Until they speak up we wont know, way that lot are going on, they have already been tried and convicted. I know they are no angels, and thier prices are hiked beyound belief and they are not perfect, but their history speaks for itself, and i for one will hold my judgement on the matter until the full facts, whatever they are, are known


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

slaaneshy said:


> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...6.jpg/419px-Amazing_Stories_December_1936.jpg
> 
> 
> Ummm....GW were beat to the phrase long ago!


Use of the words and trademarks are two different things. Please stop stirring the pot and do some reading before posting again: 

Games Workshop has a trademark for the term "Space Marine" that is recognized by the UK, America and likely a few other countries. This trademark isn't something they got because the book came out, but have had for over TWO DECADES.

Games Workshop is entitled, by law, to file against anything they feel is impeding on their trademark and would be confused with one of their products. This is a legal thing to do. In the UK their trademark covers printed materials and under common law it MIGHT even cover e-books (I don't know, I'm not a British Trademark lawyer).

Now GW has a good legal team. I'm sure the legal department knows EXACTLY what they're talking about when they filed this and is well within the bounds of British law. So sitting here and trying to claim that GW doesn't have rights to a trademark they successfully received in 1991, and have renewed as recently as 2005 is frankly ignorant and pointless. Do some research on what's going on before you go white knighting next time.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Ummm...stirring the pot...hows this for some spice....its ok for gw to pinch from existing published material as long as they copy righted it first hey?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

slaaneshy said:


> Ummm...stirring the pot...hows this for some spice....its ok for gw to pinch from existing published material as long as they copy righted it first hey?


I've posted twice that trademarks and copyrights are not the same thing, so to clarify let me give you an example:

Let's say I invent a pepper mill. It's different than the others out there and it's a new design. I can *copyright* this to protect my design as it's an actual physical thing that can be reproduced and sold if I don't.

Now let's say I use a pepper mill silhouette and the word "Omega" together to make my logo for this pepper mill. This can be *trademark*ed as it is a reproducible thing that could be copied and imitated that would make people think they were buying from my company when instead they were buying from someone else.

GW has done the latter with Space Marine. It's such an integral part of what they sell that they have cause for concern if someone else uses it to try and sell something like their products. And reading the description of the books protagonist and seeing "Space Marine" mentioned, I thought I was reading something that sounded like something out of 40k if it was made by Asylum Pictures. 

And that's the reason I feel GW has the right to do this, despite what shit stirring you're trying to do. You feel compelled to charge in and protect something you know nothing about just so you can be one of the cool kids and stand up to "The Man".

Having worked in a job where I can be referred to as "part of The System" and "The Man" I can safely say that "The Man" isn't always the real bad guy, and they aren't as wrong as your knee-jerk reaction on the internet says they are.

TL;DR: Quit being lazy, do some research next time, and quit posting like you're on your damned phone.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

slaaneshy said:


> Ummm...stirring the pot...hows this for some spice....its ok for gw to pinch from existing published material as long as they copy righted it first hey?


Worked for Thomas Edison.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Bell of Lost Souls has this topic going as well and I just spotted this in the comments:



> Ahriman This is old news - if you look in the credits at the end of Aliens there is a line that reads Space Marine is copyright of Games Workshop : and this is back in the late eightees/early ninetees


EDIT: Some more



> FatherMapple • 5 minutes ago
> 
> Law student here - not a lawyer. So this is just me regurgitating what people have said, not actual advice.
> 
> ...


So yeah, looks like GW has precedence on protecting this Trademark, and it sounds like they're well within their rights regardless of how morally right or wrong some people online think it is.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

i got told i was talking shit so just left it, to be honest i quoted a lot of what you put Zion, seeing as you are better informed then i...but it seems the big support is in the writers camp and they cannot seem to get their heads round the fact that GW TRADEMARKED Space Marines in that context and it ended up being a lets bash GW and stand up for the little guy. 

Didnt matter how many times i said in UK law it extends the written word and could cover e-books it was all GW this GW that, and GW treading on the little guy, they forgotten thier roots so i got fed up and just left it. 

At 42 years of age i think i am a grown enough woman to know that in these peoples eyes, it not the facts they want but more the fact there were lawyers on there all quotng the unfairness of the action they too were not prepared to listen to anything that said TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY, or rightly or wrongly GW have the legal rights here and propably sensed money oppertunities. All it turned into was stick up for the author and sod the facts so i gave up.

Off topic for a moment Graham McNeil wrote the Ultramarines novels, so out of my own curiosity, does he own the creation rights for Uriel Ventris and 4th company or, does that belong to GW or both? Just curious about it.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Zion, please, if after 2 well thought out explanations of Copyright and Trademark doesn't get through to them then it's not going to help continuing. I will say that I don't see showing previously published materials is white knighting, more of showing examples as there has been numerous mentions in much older works dating back to 1938.

That being said, after following this all day, after initially being upset with Games Workshop and having spoke and have a planned interview with the author of Spot on Space Marine I do side with Games Workshop

BUT

Games Workshop has not done any credit to themselves. No press release that would have stopped much if the outrage. They have blocked, to my knowledge, dozens of people from their @VoxCaster twitter, some people who were taking up for Games Workshop. When I called GW for a statement they had zero comment other then email the legal department who has been saying no comment to everything. 

They have earned the scorn to several well known Scifi authors, people are 'quitting' in droves. Protecting your IP is one thing, alienating your fan base is PR suicide. 

For those interested the author of Spot of Space Marine will be on ep 41, maybe 42 of The Screaming Heretic (www.screamingheretic.com), i will do my best to get Games Workshop to give a statement as to their side of this but it is unlikely. 

Oh, the reason I sided with GW is if I just read the title, i would in fact think it is a 40k novel. I think it's the title, not reference to space marines internally that got the book yanked.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

djinn24 said:


> Oh, the reason I sided with GW is if I just read the title, i would in fact think it is a 40k novel. I think it's the title, not reference to space marines internally that got the book yanked.



That is the nub of it. 

Who used/invented/ "owns" the term is totally irrelevant what is important is who's brand is most closely associated with the term.

In fairness to GW tho' they really can't issue any press statement beyond "no comment" as the matter could still potentially go to litigation.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

They could have issued one I have grounds of why they filed the same complaint. All we have is the authors side of things. Also GW handling of this with their fans have been horrid. I was blocked simply for trying to get information for an article and interview. I am a GW fanboy, but that act alone really tainted my view.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I think in a lot of cases just simply shutting things down is a better method of dealing with things tho'

I mean how many more people have heard about this book now that Amazon have pulled it?

I think you'd agree that GW, or anyone for that matter, trying to offer a reasoned explanation just isn't going to work. Remember that "Maelstrom Games" thing a while back? The guy at the centre of it was trying to present a case and the haters just turned it into a circus.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

gothik said:


> Off topic for a moment Graham McNeil wrote the Ultramarines novels, so out of my own curiosity, does he own the creation rights for Uriel Ventris and 4th company or, does that belong to GW or both? Just curious about it.


That depends. In all likelihood any rights to the creation of characters within the 40k Universe would have to have been signed over to GW as part of the publishing contract.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Is the book actually still 'been pulled' as you put it....I just logged on to Amazon and it's there for sale.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

HOBO said:


> Is the book actually still 'been pulled' as you put it....I just logged on to Amazon and it's there for sale.


I have no idea why but it is only the eBook version that GW complained about.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Oh ok..strange!

This is of more interest/concern to me anyway....the legal side is what it is.



djinn24 said:


> Games Workshop has not done any credit to themselves. No press release that would have stopped much if the outrage. They have blocked, to my knowledge, dozens of people from their @VoxCaster twitter, some people who were taking up for Games Workshop. When I called GW for a statement they had zero comment other then email the legal department who has been saying no comment to everything.
> 
> They have earned the scorn to several well known Scifi authors, people are 'quitting' in droves. Protecting your IP is one thing, alienating your fan base is PR suicide.


GW have this down pat.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

HOBO said:


> GW have this down pat.


Maybe, but I think you'll find that the "noisies" on the Internet are a tiny sector of the fanbase.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> They could have issued one I have grounds of why they filed the same complaint. All we have is the authors side of things. Also GW handling of this with their fans have been horrid. I was blocked simply for trying to get information for an article and interview. I am a GW fanboy, but that act alone really tainted my view.


I dont see why GW fans are getting bent out of shape over some insignificant author getting slapped down by GW, GW are famous for jumping on anything even remotely linked to its IP, I dont actually see why any one would expect GW to do anything other than protect its trade mark.

Plus im not convinced that the author hasnt tried to cash in on GWs trade mark, 20 years ago i would have given her the benefit of the doubt, but any numpty writing a book can google "space marine" and see that there is a huge mother humping amounts of GW related stuff as far as the internet can see, for me that would have set alarm bells ringing that i might be stepping on someones toes who might often wear huge hobnail lawyer boots. Also considering the nature
of the story ,that being power armoured space marines fighting bug aliens you can see why using GWs trade mark would be a very worth while risk. but she got called on it.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I can't help but agree, Bit's

I also see it as a problem for us as customers as well. If we can't rely on being able to clearly identify GW products how are we to know what is genuine and what isn't


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> That depends. In all likelihood any rights to the creation of characters within the 40k Universe would have to have been signed over to GW as part of the publishing contract.


thanks Oz, was jut wondering about that


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Maybe, but I think you'll find that the "noisies" on the Internet are a tiny sector of the fanbase.


I have known this for years mate. I'd go so far as to say relatively insignificant rather than 'tiny', in my neighbourhood anyway. I'd guess that for every Internet Forum user I know personally, I know 6/7 other people. That includes gamers as well, so I get far more 'noise' from the latter, and their opinions hold far more weight to me than the former.

I've always thought this was quite a well known fact (or whatever), and common amongst the majority of us gamers, etc.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I can't help but agree, Bit's
> 
> I also see it as a problem for us as customers as well. If we can't rely on being able to clearly identify GW products how are we to know what is genuine and what isn't


to be fair this is probley the best thing to happen for her book anyway,yesterday nobody knew it existed, now thousands of nerds are burning effigies of Matt ward and demanding GW return the term "space marine" to the unkempt geek masses because of it,some of those nerds must have picked up a copy to brandish menacingly in FLGS across the world.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> to be fair this is probley the best thing to happen for her book anyway,yesterday nobody knew it existed, now thousands of nerds are burning effigies of Matt ward and demanding GW return the term "space marine" to the unkempt geek masses because of it,some of those nerds must have picked up a copy to brandish menacingly in FLGS across the world.


i suppose its one way of getting your book, covered or E book sold...publicity not a bad thing, especially if you happen to be the poor author put upon by the big bad corp.....PR Coo i would say IMHO


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

gothik said:


> i suppose its one way of getting your book, covered or E book sold...publicity not a bad thing, especially if you happen to be the poor author put upon by the big bad corp.....PR Coo i would say IMHO


No not PR coup but actually theft of GW's advertising budget.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

well when it is all resolved, i am sure there will be those who have been leading the GW collective heads on a stick will find something else to moan about, and no doubt the author in question will still have a fan base who believe they did no wrong and that companies like GW prey on the small fry


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Yes it's pretty much a win - even bigger win for her.

That is why the best solution for GW is to simply let it go quiet and die.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

djinn24 said:


> Zion, please, if after 2 well thought out explanations of Copyright and Trademark doesn't get through to them then it's not going to help continuing.


You might be right, but I'm _am_ a massive grouch about anti-GW bandwagoning, so yeah, no promises.



djinn24 said:


> I will say that I don't see showing previously published materials is white knighting, more of showing examples as there has been numerous mentions in much older works dating back to 1938.


No, but jumping to the defense of someone with no real understanding what is _actually_ going on fits the bill in my book. The other stuff is just stirring shit up to try and look cool about how they can "prove" GW is wrong. Hate to break it to people, GW has lawyers. *Good* lawyers. I think they're doing what they're supposed to be doing without breaking any laws.



djinn24 said:


> That being said, after following this all day, after initially being upset with Games Workshop and having spoke and have a planned interview with the author of Spot on Space Marine I do side with Games Workshop


That's pretty much the reaction I expect of people who actually spend some time looking into what's really going on instead of jumping on the bandwagon to lynch GW.



djinn24 said:


> BUT
> 
> Games Workshop has not done any credit to themselves. No press release that would have stopped much if the outrage. They have blocked, to my knowledge, dozens of people from their @VoxCaster twitter, some people who were taking up for Games Workshop. When I called GW for a statement they had zero comment other then email the legal department who has been saying no comment to everything.


Here's a misconception I think needs to be addressed. GW isn't required to justify anything to us. Period. No, there is no argument here, GW doesn't have to explain every little thing they do to us. I have a feeling GW was trying to make this quick and painless (seriously, just change the book's title to "Spots" or "The Adventues of Spots" or name it after the antagonist race) and the author decided to try and pitch a fit. She got called on using it without clearing it with GW's legal department and wants us to stir shit up for her. Hell now we have people BUYING HER A LAWYER. Bunch of muppets.



djinn24 said:


> They have earned the scorn to several well known Scifi authors, people are 'quitting' in droves. Protecting your IP is one thing, alienating your fan base is PR suicide. [/quit]
> 
> And Orson Scott Card is anti-homosexuality and gay marriage. Just because you're well known doesn't mean your opinions are suddenly validated because you have them.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wiccus (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm glad we have some reasonable people on this forum. I would probably consider myself a GW fanboy. I've loved their games and universe since I was 13. I have also been upset at them about many things since I've been in this hobby. This however is not one of them.

I agree that GW is totally in the right with this whole situation. People really feel the need to tear down the big nasty evil corporations. Which all corporations are that in their eyes. It never ceases to amaze me that people will intentionally remain ignorant to make their point valid.

I can guarantee that atleast 90% of the people yelling at GW and demanding that they be beheaded in town square for their crimes against humanity know absolutely nothing about the law. They are also too lazy/stubborn to open a new tab in whatever browser they are ranting in and do a little bit of research. People love being ignorant even with a mindblowingly vast database of information at their fingertips.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I think this has been blown way out of proportion, mainly by the author bitching about it. But the internet is a bandwaggon fest these days, so not totally unexpected. Just look at the Chapter House saga.


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

> And the only fans who seem to be alienated are the ones who can't seem to understand that the world doesn't owe them shit and that they need to stop seeing themselves as so damned important as they think they are. But that's just my incredibly grumpy point of view.


Fantastically well put. :victory:


----------



## the_barwn (Jul 23, 2011)

This has now made the BBC website today 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

the_barwn said:


> This has now made the BBC website today
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Actually I fully understand the legal issues of copyright, my posts are not disputing that they can't sue over it, merely pointing out that GW has taken plenty of 'creative licence' from other sources and slapped a copyright on it. Sure they can do it, but really, where does this lead? How long before this site gets slapped by the lawyers for using the Eye of Horus (or something very much like it) in its logo? There have been plenty of examples of this over time. 
I am curious as to what threat this poor book poses to the mighty Black Library and GW that is needs such a sledgehammer to crack it?
Anyway, this White Knight shall trot along and keep his opinions to himself in future....maybe!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

the_barwn said:


> This has now made the BBC website today
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003


thats some lazy arsed jounalism, must be a quiet day for news if the Beeb is reporting this shite, Maybe they could interview me about my recent dump and my plans to have further dumps in the future.


----------



## Iron Angel (Aug 2, 2009)

I just think its ridiculous. You can't own the phrase "space marine". Thats like owning "laser gun" or "space ship" or something. Its just so common that everyone uses it. What if I trademarked the word "the" and started suing anybody who used the word "the" in a book? Pretty ridiculous right? Same concept, trademarking a word or phrase that is so common in its usage that claiming it for yourself is just absurd.

You can explain copyright law until you're blue in the face. Yes they have it copyrighted or whatever, yes its within law, etc, etc, idgaf. Keep reciting that mantra for as long as you like. You can trademark the words "space marine" by law but that doesn't mean you have any right to it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Iron Angel said:


> I just think its ridiculous. You can't own the phrase "space marine". Thats like owning "laser gun" or "space ship" or something. Its just so common that everyone uses it. What if I trademarked the word "the" and started suing anybody who used the word "the" in a book? Pretty ridiculous right? Same concept, trademarking a word or phrase that is so common in its usage that claiming it for yourself is just absurd.
> 
> You can explain copyright law until you're blue in the face. Yes they have it copyrighted or whatever, yes its within law, etc, etc, idgaf. Keep reciting that mantra for as long as you like. You can trademark the words "space marine" by law but that doesn't mean you have any right to it.


pretty sure trade marking something really does mean you have a right to it, thats kinda the point of trade marks.

Hmm lets see, so apple shouldnt be a trade mark? or McDonalds or Star Wars


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

As I suspect BK knows, Apple is a very contentious series of trademarks owed by various people: I quite enjoyed the recording studio vs computer company dispute over which of them owned Apple for the purposes of selling music.

Trademarks are (1) relatively complex to register if you want them to cover a sensible set of permutations and (2) relatively expensive, so an effective nuisance registration (such as "the") would be unlikely.

Even if you do get the trademark it be unenforceable if the subject word or phrase is deemed generic. For example Hoover(TM) were unable to enforce against another vacuum cleaner manufacturer who referred to hoovering: despite it being clear the other manufacturer was gaining the appearance of quality, the verb "hoover" (ironically due to the success of Hoover(TM) in being the vacuum people thought of) was generic.

The phrase "space marine" (without capitals) meaning a marine who works in space could well be generic. GW seem to have a series of trademarks for "Space Marine" (capitalised); whether it is generic in the fiction industry as a proper noun generic is a trickier question as many of the examples cited are book titles which would have capitalisation anyway.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Direct Comment via Facebook found here https://www.facebook.com/notes/game...-protection-of-our-trademarks/595792240435610

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.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Direct Comment via Facebook found here https://www.facebook.com/notes/game...-protection-of-our-trademarks/595792240435610
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


Nice find! It's nice to see a comment from GW that is pretty straightforward and clean. I give it an hour before the entire internet is flipping shit over this too.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Zion said:


> Nice find! It's nice to see a comment from GW that is pretty straightforward and clean. I give it an hour before the entire internet is flipping shit over this too.


It took around 11 seconds for Team: Hater (Inc.) to get around to it after they posted that... This shit is going full retarded now.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Doelago said:


> It took around 11 seconds for Team: Hater (Inc.) to get around to it after they posted that... This shit is going full retarded now.


"Going"? I think it already "went" there.


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

I am reading some of the comments on the FB post and they are just over the top 

To be honest, I would not be surprised if some of the people just liked the FB Page so they could comment and rant without knowing anything about GW at all, it is just pointless complaints from people who do not know what they are talking about and just want to hate for the sake of it.

the worse thing is people are making things up now within the comments like GW are sueing this author which as far as I know is incorrect, so the next person picks up on it and it is spreading like wild fire making the matter worse

I truly hope this does not cause damage in the short/ long term for GW as they have not done anything wrong, and it would be a shame to see a company that we all enjoy suffer for the stupidity of a few people

Ok Rant over


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

According to the BBC article this actually kicked off in November 2011, but that could just be poor journalism by the beeb.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

what i wan to know really is, this all happened in November last year and its only now that the authors supporters kick up a stink and turn a practice of buisnss into a bloody witch hunt, when did she have her say? Sorry guys and gals, seems to a bit odd to me but then i am a bit synical at things like this


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

gothik said:


> what i wan to know really is, this all happened in November last year and its only now that the authors supporters kick up a stink and turn a practice of buisnss into a bloody witch hunt, when did she have her say? Sorry guys and gals, seems to a bit odd to me but then i am a bit synical at things like this


I'm smelling a publicity stunt by a jaded author.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Zion said:


> I'm smelling a publicity stunt by a jaded author.


That is 1 facet of the whole issue...but only 1 of many, which looking at it from all angles will tell you (both the legal and moral viewpoints).

Apparantly the Kindle version of the book in question is back on the Amazon site, so the whole issue may well be a non-issue now.


----------



## Wiccus (Jun 2, 2008)

My God.... Reading that thing on GWs facebook was one of the most frustrating things ever. So many self righteous people beating a dead horse. I can't believe this is as big a deal as it is.

Bored people displaying their internet courage. Its a shame because this will do damage to GW which will do damage to the minis gaming community.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I am so tempted to lodge a complaint with Amazon asking for a refund because I bought the book thinking it was about 40k.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

HOBO said:


> That is 1 facet of the whole issue...but only 1 of many, which looking at it from all angles will tell you (both the legal and moral viewpoints).
> 
> Apparantly the Kindle version of the book in question is back on the Amazon site, so the whole issue may well be a non-issue now.


Which means GW might have filed an inquiry into it to see if it was imposing on their trademark, decided it didn't and then let it go.

But with all the angry mobs it's kind of hard to hear the facts any more over all the muppets.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Zion said:


> Which means GW might have filed an inquiry into it to see if it was imposing on their trademark, decided it didn't and then let it go.
> 
> But with all the angry mobs it's kind of hard to hear the facts any more over all the muppets.


I have never being on Facebook or Twitter, hell I haven't owned a Mobile Phone since my accident in '01.

The only piece I've read was from the President on the Sci-Fi author's assn, and I think he summed it up pretty well...you'll have to google for it if you want to see what he said.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

just read the post...."Sigh"......you know what, i dont think honestly it matters what GW do or say, i personally believe that the author and those who back her, sensed a publicity stunt as you say Zion and brought it into the public domaine. She gets sympathy as the author who sends her kid to school on what she earns so, lets all bash the big games company for being harsh.

i do not actually believe any of them have read and understood what GW are saying. They have not trademarked space marines as in fiction work etc etc as it is generic, they have trademarked Space Marine in relation to their products....have i got that right? 

however some of those post are still having a shit storm at the poor author being harshly treated by GW...and other stuff like taking the 40K idea from Starship Troopers...not read the book, cant comment, and that says to me that people who want to get on the mud slinging band wagon are in a round about way accusing them of Plaguerising other peoples work to create thier own. 

I have no idea where they get this stuff from, i was more or less a kid when GW started up, all i can see is a lot of people bashing the company to get on the bandwagon. I dont think the author is going to have any trouble selling her books now, and thats the sad part about it, i am sure she has talent, but letting the world know three months down the line that her e-book was pulled because of Games Workshop, you can't pay for that kind of sales pitch.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I am so tempted to lodge a complaint with Amazon asking for a refund because I bought the book thinking it was about 40k.


Yea I agree that could happen. That said, I know others who have told me that they thought it had more to do with starship troopers than 40K.....go figure!


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

HOBO said:


> I have never being on Facebook or Twitter, hell I haven't owned a Mobile Phone since my accident in '01.
> 
> The only piece I've read was from the President on the Sci-Fi author's assn, and I think he summed it up pretty well...you'll have to google for it if you want to see what he said.


Go back a couple of pages and read GW's release via their Facebook page. This was never about the use of Space Marine in prose, this was a straight "checking to see if our IP is being infringed" thing.

Not to mention that the president of the Sci-Fi Author's Association is _*twenty-two years late.*_ Sorry, but if they had such a big deal about this though could have done so at any time since this trademark was file in _*1991.*_ 

The only reason they said anything now is because they bought into the unfounded statements that GW was trying to control every use of the phrase "Space Marine" ever. And even then they were wrong about that.

So yeah, too many people being tossers for me to side with the on this at this point. The actually undermined the legitimacy of their claims by acting like twats.

But I'm just a grouch so that's just me.

EDIT: @gothik Starship Troopers never refers to anyone as Space Marines in the book. They're all referred to as Mobile Infantry. Their suits are described as making them look like apes with giant heads and they had weapons like mini-nukes and all of them had built in jump jets.

So yeah, I don't think 40k ripped off Starship Troopers. But people who read the book would know that, instead people see the cover and assume "Space Marines are a rip off of this book because of the cover art!" which was made in *1987*. 40k came out the same year, and I'm willing to bet that book cover and the Space Marines had nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

gothik said:


> i do not actually believe any of them have read and understood what GW are saying. They have not trademarked space marines as in fiction work etc etc as it is generic, they have trademarked Space Marine in relation to their products....have i got that right?


Yep that's right.

What the collected retarded masses don't get is that GW are NOT claiming exclusive rights to use the term Space Marine. 

Even the most feeble of minds can surly under stand that using the term Space Marine in a story and Using the term Space Marine as a brand are two very different things.

Sales are all about association and familiarity. You buy stuff from a shop based largely on how familiar that brand is.

If I produced a type of Peanut Paste (peanut butter to the yanks) and I labelled the the bottle to look like a Coke can I'd sell a heap of them purely on the basis that the pattern is familiar.

I'd also get a MASSIVE rodgering off Coke.

I'd don't see this author as doing anything other than trying to cash in on the familiarity of the term Space Marine.

Edit: I am currently penning an email of support to GW legal just for shits and giggles.


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Zion said:


> But I'm just a grouch so that's just me.


I used to be a grouch about some things to, but things vastly more important than GW related stuff....not worth it the the end, life's too short.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

try explaining this to the folks at Popehat, they are so into the GW bashing i think they have forgotten what the original arguement was about. Loads of so called TM Lawyers on there too offering their services to the author....someone chummed the waters and the sharks are out...yeah i got fed to the sharks yesterday on there, not even going to waste my breath, can't get people to see the other side when a friend of the author starts the ball rolling


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I think what you're really seeing is the modern form of the Torches and Pitchforks lynch mob. 

One or two ppl have genuine motivations but the rest are just along for the ride.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

HOBO said:


> I used to be a grouch about some things to, but things vastly more important than GW related stuff....not worth it the the end, life's too short.


I'm a grouch about a LOT of things. But this board is mostly about GW stuff so that's most of my grumpiness on here.



gothik said:


> try explaining this to the folks at Popehat, they are so into the GW bashing i think they have forgotten what the original arguement was about. Loads of so called TM Lawyers on there too offering their services to the author....someone chummed the waters and the sharks are out...yeah i got fed to the sharks yesterday on there, not even going to waste my breath, can't get people to see the other side when a friend of the author starts the ball rolling


In the Army we refer to such so-called-legal experts "Barracks Lawyers" and they're just as useless.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Zion said:


> EDIT: @gothik Starship Troopers never refers to anyone as Space Marines in the book. They're all referred to as Mobile Infantry. Their suits are described as making them look like apes with giant heads and they had weapons like mini-nukes and all of them had built in jump jets.
> 
> So yeah, I don't think 40k ripped off Starship Troopers. But people who read the book would know that, instead people see the cover and assume "Space Marines are a rip off of this book because of the cover art!" which was made in *1987*. 40k came out the same year, and I'm willing to bet that book cover and the Space Marines had nothing to do with each other.


Many thanks for that Zion, i didn't get into 40K till i was in my late 20s, originally it was the fantasty side for me...and i still have the original WHFRPB somewhere, but i knew i was right when i told the person in question he needs to think carefully before slandering GW over that. So thanks, makes me feel a little better


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

yeah my dad was in the army and said pretty much the same about their ones.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

gothik said:


> Many thanks for that Zion, i didn't get into 40K till i was in my late 20s, originally it was the fantasty side for me...and i still have the original WHFRPB somewhere, but i knew i was right when i told the person in question he needs to think carefully before slandering GW over that. So thanks, makes me feel a little better


Glad it helped. 



gothik said:


> yeah my dad was in the army and said pretty much the same about their ones.


Not a surprise. There are always idiots who insist they know more than they actually do. A lot of my job is unfucking the problems their advice creates.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Just as an aside I note the Warrior against Corporate Greed is overjoyed at how well her book is now selling.

I also note that she edits out any tweets that don't fit with her views.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Just as an aside I note the Warrior against Corporate Greed is overjoyed at how well her book is now selling.
> 
> I also note that she edits out any tweets that don't fit with her views.


Yeah, I'm sticking with publicity stunt angle. GW filed about this back in November and we didn't hear about this until the end of January? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Zion said:


> Yeah, I'm sticking with publicity stunt angle. GW filed about this back in November and we didn't hear about this until the end of January? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.


Perhaps we should send Denmark some air fresheners.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I reckon it's time to publish my book : Hogarth Fights the Corporations.
It's got nothing to do with any of this but I reckon there's a heap of 'net whiners who'll buy it because they recognise the name.

I'm also planning on cracking the DRM on her eBooks if any one would like a copy


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Perhaps we should send Denmark some air fresheners.


You just made my brain sad. :cray:


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Zion said:


> You just made my brain sad. :cray:


Cheer up Zion. Come by my restaurant Space Marine Tacos! for your free taco!








Bring on the GW lawyers!


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

I don't even know what to say anymore, I have given up trying to stick up for GW on the FB post as it has turned into a three ringed circus, I would not be surprised if half the people who are complaining do not even play the game, but have seen a bandwagon they can jump on like a bunch of Orks to a fight

With all the commotion going on the truth is getting silenced.

I would like to ask all these nay sayers 1 question if they would stop long enough to listen, if GW owning the trademark space marine is so damaging to science fiction like a lot of them are saying why has it done no harm in the 20+ years of them owning it?

Only one book in all that time has complained out of the entire science fiction community? What was wrong, was her paperback not selling as well as she would have liked and she needed a way to make her money back?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

goes to show, three months after the event and she gets it out on the inter webway..and now she can put herself as the minnow that got bullied by a shark....shame the truth is forgotten in the ball of shite this has turned into, its corporate bashing at its best.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Send an email to GW guys, make your positive voices be heard in amongst all the bleating of the sheep.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I reckon it's time to publish my book : Hogarth Fights the Corporations.
> It's got nothing to do with any of this but I reckon there's a heap of 'net whiners who'll buy it because they recognise the name.
> 
> I'm also planning on cracking the DRM on her eBooks if any one would like a copy


would say yeah but no matter what she has written i don't think i wanna give any of her stuff the time of day...except for toilet paper maybe


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I have voiced my support on faceboot


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

just put my two penneth on there, doubt it will do any good and i will get bashed by her supporters but i really do not care, the majority of them are suckers to fall for it all


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

If it hasn't been posted yet it seems GW lost in this case...

Click Me


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

They didn't lose anything, they get warned if something pops up using a trademark, they then HAVE to check to see whether it infringes on their rights, i.e if someone was claiming spot the space marine was a real space marine from 40k then they would be infringing, however in this case it wasn't and so it was allowed to continue.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

MadCowCrazy said:


> If it hasn't been posted yet it seems GW lost in this case...
> 
> Click Me


GW didn't lose anything. There was never any court case, it was just them making sure that, while similar sounding in some of it's ideas, the book didn't lift anything wholesale from GW's IP.

Additionally the internet is reminding me how utterly _ignorant_ it is lately as it has shown that it can't do basic research on the differences between Copyright and Trademark, can't look into existing Trademarks to find out basic information (less than 5 minutes on Google!), and jumped on a bandwagon to declare GW a bully for doing what it's supposed to do to protect it's IP.

Oh, and I _still_ think this was a stunt by the author to get some quick money with a shitty book as I doubt the internet could sit on this for THREE MONTHS before noticing that some author was being "bullied" by a company.

Seriously internet, I am disappoint.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Zion said:


> GW didn't lose anything. There was never any court case, it was just them making sure that, while similar sounding in some of it's ideas, the book didn't lift anything wholesale from GW's IP.
> 
> Additionally the internet is reminding me how utterly _ignorant_ it is lately as it has shown that it can't do basic research on the differences between Copyright and Trademark, can't look into existing Trademarks to find out basic information (less than 5 minutes on Google!), and jumped on a bandwagon to declare GW a bully for doing what it's supposed to do to protect it's IP.
> 
> ...


All people are doing is reacting to the well known FACT that GW eat babies and kittens, sometimes together in a stew. They are evil incarnate because the last Codex didn't have that thing that someone said it would have on teh interwebz and they made me spend all my money because I had to have the bestest army and when they released a new book my army wasn't the bestest any more and Matt Ward!!!111One1!!


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

normtheunsavoury said:


> All people are doing is reacting to the well known FACT that GW eat babies and kittens, sometimes together in a stew. They are evil incarnate because the last Codex didn't have that thing that someone said it would have on teh interwebz and they made me spend all my money because I had to have the bestest army and when they released a new book my army wasn't the bestest any more and Matt Ward!!!111One1!!


I tried to find a flaw here, but no, you sound exactly like the crackpots of the internet. Congrats.

Also kitten and baby stew is _delicious_.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

hahahahahaha awwwww norm did de evil matt ward steal you desire to be de baddest army on de table..don worry we gid him.....

seriously Zion It doesnt matter what anyone trying to explain the difference says, they are slinging mud and calling for heads,, i honestly do not think it will make any difference, and oz, had a look on the amazon site, youre right, any comment defending GW is hidden, gee dont want anything as despariging as the truth to ruin her e sales do we.


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

I noticed something interesting earlier as well, the book has almost doubled in cost since yesterday, a 100% price rise, looks like the author is doing very well out of this.

Worse than any price rise GW have done


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

stephen.w.langdon said:


> I noticed something interesting earlier as well, the book has almost doubled in cost since yesterday, a 100% price rise, looks like the author is doing very well out of this.
> 
> Worse than any price rise GW have done


yup and her defenders are convienltly ignoring this, oh well such is life...anything to raise hell, get the lynch mobs and internet madness swinging. One guy said that Heresy Online was a bunch of yesmen to GW, told him i was on HO and not heard back yet.
To be honest if she had done all this back in November i might just have a little sympathy for her, but not now, i still would have taken the stance i took but not been as harsh, but now, well i just see her as a very manipulative individual who might have had a case once, but not now, shame that these people cannot see that, in all good essence their support has been used and abused.
whilst a lot of it is bandwagon stuff, i see that they are just doing what they believe in, and that is admirable if the woman in question had not suddenly hicked her prices up or not allowed any other comments other than those supporting her to go up. 
I suppose it will run dry, a lot of this happened in november and there are those saying she can't afford this, she can't afford that....she bloody can now.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Go read the statement on www.eff.org about this, you will cry.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

djinn24 said:


> Go read the statement on www.eff.org about this, you will cry.


oh dear gods in their heavens.....this is so....wrong! Yes indie authors should be protected, i do not have a query with that, but she has not even put why they asked for it to be pulled, just made out she was being bullied by big wheeler dealers....and she is on a crusade for the genre.....oh this just gets better and better


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I wonder how you'd get on if you put the EFF logo on the cover of a book to boost its sales?


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

New book, Eff the Idiot


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

as well as she seems to have done...the mighty crusader


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I so want to publish "Hogarth Fights the Corporation" any old shitty story would do, imagine how much you'd cash in!


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

just read her blog post dear me.....


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Actually it would be really good if you guys posted at Beasts of War, I'm very much on my own over there.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

signed up and posted, but it seems to be pretty much the same there as it is everywhere else, they did not want to listen to what you had to say, they preferr thier explinations and the crusade of the spots the space marine author, none of them are willing to accept that she knows what she is doing, and u cant change their minds.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Great post goth, 

For me it's not about trying to change anyone's mind, people can think what they wish. For me it's about showing the alternate view point so that others who read the thread can make up their own mind.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Great post goth,
> 
> For me it's not about trying to change anyone's mind, people can think what they wish. For me it's about showing the alternate view point so that others who read the thread can make up their own mind.


yeah same here, but unfortuantly the charity angle she used is what i would call the winner for her, add that into a mix and it usually gets big success no matter what


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

gothik said:


> yeah same here, but unfortuantly the charity angle she used is what i would call the winner for her, add that into a mix and it usually gets big success no matter what


Which is why it is so bare faced offensive, using wounded soldiers to sell a book?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Which is why it is so bare faced offensive, using wounded soldiers to sell a book?


Less cynical people never notice it when people do stuff like this.

Also fuck her, it's not like this was her _only_ book. She's not a brand new author, so she should know how this stuff works, and it was only her ebook, not her printed book that was being scrutinized.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I don't think it is necessarily cynical but certainly when anyone posts something I always think to myself "what is the motivation for posting that I wonder"


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I don't think it is necessarily cynical but certainly when anyone posts something I always think to myself "what is the motivation for posting that I wonder"


Most people call me cynical when I do that.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Good grief, I can't believe the people and organizations jumping on her bandwagon "for the cause of no bullying by The Man" is how it comes across. GW may have a case that reminds me of this;


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

yeah...i tried that angle on popehat Jace, all i got back was i am sure gw are big enough to stick up for themselves, and its not slander when its fact....er it is when they are saying its a direct rip off from what three franchises.....they might want to remember that the next time Hollywood site Artistic creativity when they screw around with british history..braveheart and U-571 spring to mind. Action movies yes...close to the truth ummmm no


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm sure GW are big enough to stick up for themselves, but, should this author _*print*_ anything on a site that in turn causes defamation of GW, then, that would be _Libel_ and something worth pursuing. 
That's all that was springing to mind for me.

As for Hollywierd, I get where your coming from whenever I see a movie to represent the history of my State. "The Alamo" was a big slap in the face.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

So a thought crossed my mind while getting a friend of mine up to speed:

This author sends her kid to a school she PAYS for and had money at some point for a treadmill. This is NOT a "poor suffering author" but someone with some money. If she could afford the luxuries of private schooling and a treadmill (and who knows what else) she is not some small time starving artist.

Hell, she's got enough free time to write a blog too! 

When I was growing up my mother worked three jobs and I went to public schooling. THAT is what "starving" looks like.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

personally yes, i think they could but i am sure it would add to the mud slinging and the poor author there they go again, damned if they do....damned if they dont


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

oh maybe i should post pics of my cat spot and come up with some cock and bull story that means it gets pulled and i get loads of support and boost in sales cause she might decide my book was too close to hers by the name....and thats just a cat......


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

gothik said:


> oh maybe i should post pics of my cat spot and come up with some cock and bull story that means it gets pulled and i get loads of support and boost in sales cause she might decide my book was too close to hers by the name....and thats just a cat......


Careful, you'll pull Paramount into this with Star Trek since Data's cat was also Spot.:shok:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

So I was on Faeit212 and posted up a reply to yet another claim that GW is basically wrong. I'm reposted it here for those of you who want to use the information for yourself:



> That's not how Trademarks work. You don't have to be the creator of an idea to trademark it.
> 
> Usage of Trademarks (from Wikipedia):
> "The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services, so a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a badge of origin. In other words, trademarks serve to identify a particular business as the source of goods or services."
> ...


----------



## ThatOtherGuy (Apr 13, 2010)

Oh the irony.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

ThatOtherGuy said:


> *snip*
> 
> Oh the irony.


When was this written? Was this when GW was still emerging as a gaming company, wide-eyed and hopeful?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Oh the irrelevance. If your going to post at least read up and find out the difference between Copyright and Trademark.

Also if you read the article it is suggesting that holders of copyright should allow more people WHO ASK TO BE ABLE TO USE LICENCES should be granted permission to do so more readily.

It supports policing those who just simply take it without asking, like those who post a scan of a magazine article.


----------



## ThatOtherGuy (Apr 13, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Oh the irrelevance. If your going to post at least read up and find out the difference between Copyright and Trademark.
> 
> Also if you read the article it is suggesting that holders of copyright should allow more people WHO ASK TO BE ABLE TO USE LICENCES should be granted permission to do so more readily.
> 
> It supports policing those who just simply take it without asking, like those who post a scan of a magazine article.


Irrelevance? I'm just pointing out the attitude that has changed about them from the yester years and today. Of course I know it's two different things, you just seem to skip the attitude of the letter and the comparison of their leniency towards people then and now.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

ThatOtherGuy said:


> Irrelevance? I'm just pointing out the attitude that has changed about them from the yester years and today. Of course I know it's two different things, you just seem to skip the attitude of the letter and the comparison of their leniency towards people then and now.


Leniency with a copyright won't cost you it, they expire after a set time period, but with a trademark that creates the appearance of "non-use" and could cost you your rights to retain your trademark.

_Completely_ different animals there.

I made it easy you know. Posted up the stuff I posted over on Faeit which included why GW would have to do something regarding this book, even if they didn't want to. But you skipped that didn't you? Too wordy? Not enough sock puppets? Please let me know so I can better cliff-note this for the ADHD children of the future.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

ThatOtherGuy said:


> Irrelevance? I'm just pointing out the attitude that has changed about them from the yester years and today. Of course I know it's two different things, you just seem to skip the attitude of the letter and the comparison of their leniency towards people then and now.


The attitude hasn't changed at all. Go and read the section of the Gw website that covers all of the allowances they make to permit people, carte blanche to use their IP. 

The only people they have pursued are the ones who have used it without permission.

GW's attitude today is the same as then, you try asking them, they are always open to anyone who bothers to ask.


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

Zion said:


> When was this written? Was this when GW was still emerging as a gaming company, wide-eyed and hopeful?


I rememer those days....back when they had soul.....


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Careful, you'll pull Paramount into this with Star Trek since Data's cat was also Spot.:shok:


even better then i can be the poor author getting bullied by paramount whhooo:laugh:


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum. :laugh:

So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Worthy said:


> I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum. :laugh:
> 
> So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


Welcome aboard my friend. We may not all agree but I think you'll find most folk around here pretty "normal" in their approach to things.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Worthy said:


> I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum. :laugh:
> 
> So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


Welcome aboard! :drinks:


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Welcome aboard my friend. We may not all agree but I think you'll find most folk around here pretty "normal" in their approach to things.


Thanks for the welcome folks and I gathered that Magpie by reading posts on this thread as you can see the difference between how it's discussed on here and how it's discussed in other sites because everyone on here is discussing it rationally... even those on here that disagree with GW seem more level headed and mature about it.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Worthy said:


> Thanks for the welcome folks and I gathered that Magpie by reading posts on this thread as you can see the difference between how it's discussed on here and how it's discussed in other sites because everyone on here is discussing it rationally... even those on here that disagree with GW seem more level headed and mature about it.


We certainly have our moments here mate, but I like you found and have stayed with these forums for their level headedness.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Worthy said:


> I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum.
> 
> So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


Lol not bad, we're getting recruits from GW facebook, success. Welcome


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Worthy said:


> I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum.
> 
> So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


Lol not bad, we're getting recruits from GW facebook, success. Welcome


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

Welcome to the madness am sure you will enjoy your stay here 

I came across this place by accident and never left


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Worthy said:


> I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum. :laugh:
> 
> So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


Ah yes, heresy online - the GW forum that's unique in that not everyone hates GW.... 

Our hobby is a strange place to be sometimes.

Welcome aboard


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Welcome new person! Apparently our reputation of not wearing our asses as hats is growing.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Worthy said:


> I got into an argument about this on GW's Facebook page and because I countered most of the anti-GW arguments... I got accused of being a member of this forum. :laugh:
> 
> So I googled Heresy online and checked it out to see why i'm getting accused of being a member... long story short, I liked your forum so much that I joined.


Hell yeah! Dude, that's awesome. Welcome!:drinks:


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Yeah you do get a few passive aggressive posters here but for the most part it's quite amicable.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Zion said:


> Apparently our reputation of not wearing our asses as hats is growing.


Although it is an excellent look, quite a draw for the ladies


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Zion said:


> Apparently our reputation of not wearing our asses as hats is growing.


Although it is an excellent look, quite a draw for the ladies


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I think some of the anti gw croud on the trade mark post. On face book are about to start giving each other blow jobs


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Damn, I knew I'd miss out on something, why did they have to ban me!?!?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

welcome worthy, i got that yesterday...he didnt answer when i said i was already on HO lol ah well, hope your stay is a long happy one....and i guess bocs posts were that good he had to say it twice :grin:


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

gothik said:


> and i guess bocs posts were that good he had to say it twice :grin:


That'll happen doin the repeater.


----------



## Biellann (Sep 6, 2010)

djinn24 said:


> Go read the statement on www.eff.org about this, you will cry.


I have had success before in contacting eff and getting them to update an article when it contained inaccurate information. I am trying to do that again, and any help/sources would be great.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

"No one should have the hubris to think that they can own a fundamental genre trope and deny it to everyone else."

This passage shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what she was being asked to do. GW are not locking away the term Space Marine but simply pointing out that its use as a brand has been legally reserved by GW. 

Anyone can use the term Space Marine just the same as anyone can use the term Ford but only certain bodes are allowed to brand a product with those terms

The solution to this storm in a teacup is to simply call the book: Spots of the Space Marine Corps or anyone of 1000 other alternatives.

Granted they'd not draw the amount of attention this one has, nor indeed the number of sales but then again THAT is exactly what this is all about. 2 commercial entities bickering over a very saleable brand.

It's just that one of them uses the icons of damsel in distress, single mothers and wounded war veterans as a sympathy leverage.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

I think oz the phrase you can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink springs to mind here. It does not matter what facts you put up, they will not listen if they do not want to. The posts on BOW have turned into childish playground politics and if you don't agree with them then your opinion is not worth two pennys.

We have all said that something stinks about this and yet no one is prepared on other sites to see the other side.

Popehat is full of lawyers who sniff another law suit where inaccuracy be damned just get the money. Facebook has got a load of brainless amebas threatening to never buy another GW product and again out come the accusastions that GW has ripped off other franchises and claimed them for their own without one shred of documented proof to back up their claims.

The Author on her site said that she has been told to say no more on this, shame she didn't do that before, instead of bleating about this and then sitting back and watch the shit roll. They say shit rolls downhill eventually it will stop but at the moment it wont touch her because she is still the poor put upon author who has now put her prices up and her sales have gone up, as myself, zion and others have said, stage managed. 

I think GW will recover, it will be rocky for them but whilst Hogarth is the centre of attention at the moment, she will fade from the limelight, and people will still buy GW products when she is long gone. Of course for a while i suppose anything she does now and markets will be under the headline "The author who crusaded against GW and won"

she is not that great a writer, in all honesty my dog and cats can write better than that, i am not all that brilliant a writer, but i know how to present things as do the majority of writers on here. i read a snippet of what she wrote and i might write to Andrex and suggest a new brand of toilet paper for them and point them in her direction.

Success won through sheer hard bloody work and researched facts is true success and one that you could sit back and say i earnt that. Success earnt like this is not success rather a well clever stage managed and orchastrated publicity stunt. 

She needs the money for her childs schooling? I did not see much of my father except for weekends and when his shift patterns allowed when i was a child, my father did ridiculous shifts until he went on perm nights, all done to put food on the table and clothes on back and my mother had a part- time job going full time when my brother and i were able to fend for ourselves. 

JK Rowling she is not and never will be. Somehow i suspect she may be back again when the money is not coming in and it might be another traademark she has trod on.


----------



## Brother Dextus (Jan 30, 2013)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> That'll happen doin the repeater.



Lol, I'm gonna have to watch that this evening...

Shenannigans.


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

I like the way the anti-GW folk are trying to shoehorn a reference to this story in other GW posts... and are failing badly.

Also I reckon GW should speak to the press... but only using the same BS fluff explainations that they use when their site is down, (ie; It was the Serviators fault) lol!!


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Worthy said:


> I like the way the anti-GW folk are trying to shoehorn a reference to this story in other GW posts... and are failing badly.
> 
> Also I reckon GW should speak to the press... but only using the same BS fluff explainations that they use when their site is down, (ie; It was the Serviators fault) lol!!


that would be so funny, they should do an interview at GW lenton and the spokesman from GW be one of the guys dressed as a space Marine, they could do it infront of the Rhino and get him to recite the GW statement in high Gothic.


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

bitsandkits said:


> that would be so funny, they should do an interview at GW lenton and the spokesman from GW be one of the guys dressed as a space Marine, they could do it infront of the Rhino and get him to recite the GW statement in high Gothic.


Now that is what I want to see on BBC News :goodpost:


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> that would be so funny, they should do an interview at GW lenton and the spokesman from GW be one of the guys dressed as a space Marine, they could do it infront of the Rhino and get him to recite the GW statement in high Gothic.


*YES.* That has to be done.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> that would be so funny, they should do an interview at GW lenton and the spokesman from GW be one of the guys dressed as a space Marine, they could do it infront of the Rhino and get him to recite the GW statement in high Gothic.


all the news channels and my gods can you seriously imagine the BBC world service running that one worldwide??? :laugh:


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I had an interview with the author of Spot lined up, but have decided that I do not want to speak with her at all after watching her Google plus video interview. I will be doing a special on this though. She may not be happy.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

lemme know when u put it up Dijinn, be intersting to read, and it made the bbc news again


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

djinn24 said:


> I had an interview with the author of Spot lined up, but have decided that I do not want to speak with her at all after watching her Google plus video interview. I will be doing a special on this though. She may not be happy.


I would be very interested to hear her responses to any questions you might put to her mate.

I think that given your work is likely to be one of the very few "rational/sensible" articles out there it is important you show it to offer every opportunity to the author and GW themselves.

Even just asking both and having them refuse would add a lot more weight to your story, there are 100's of one way comment blogs but very few that actually delve into both sides.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

I agree with Mags, you'd retain far more credibility by allowing her to comment IMO, or at least giving her the chance to. Get her to answer some difficult questions rather than sucking up to her stand against GW.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The thing that leads me to say this is that I have had spat at me on other sites that I have attacked the author without letting her defend herself.

I have rebutted this by telling them that I tweeted the author and my comment never appeared on the tweet log.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The thing that leads me to say this is that I have had spat at me on other sites that I have attacked the author without letting her defend herself.
> 
> I have rebutted this by telling them that I tweeted the author and my comment never appeared on the tweet log.


From what I've seen is that NO ONE who challenges her is getting a response.

Yet everyone is willing to attack GW without letting them actually defend themselves?

Hypocrisy much?

Seriously, if what GW has posted on their Facebook is considered a "defence" then 4 or so posts she's made between her blog and the EFF count too.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

djinn24 said:


> I had an interview with the author of Spot lined up, but have decided that I do not want to speak with her at all after watching her Google plus video interview. I will be doing a special on this though. She may not be happy.


Is this going up on your YouTube channel?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Is this going up on your YouTube channel?


djinn has a you tube channel ?

Why did I not know this? Who is in charge of the memo's around here ?


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> djinn has a you tube channel ?
> 
> Why did I not know this? Who is in charge of the memo's around here ?


Dood, I know all kinds of stuff... this in addition to having a hot chick cosplay my avatar!


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> djinn has a you tube channel ?
> 
> Why did I not know this? Who is in charge of the memo's around here ?


Yeah, sorry about that. Won't happen again, I swear.

Anyway, i've kept up with this thread since it popped up. Read what was going on. I'm as surprised as anyone here that everyone else is acting retarded. Hell, reading that title screams to me, Kid friendly warhammer 40K book that features, obviously, Spot the heroic space marine. I can see why GW did what they did. Haven't read the posts on other sites, but i've seen some other articles, and I just can't believe how many people can be so stupid. 

Everyone here has spoken sense, which is not surprising to me in the least. From what I understand, everyone elsewhere is jumping on the GW demonizing bandwagon. Fuck em, I say. Leave them to their blind hate. Nothing we say can change it.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Dood, I know all kinds of stuff... this in addition to having a hot chick cosplay my avatar!


You're going to dine out on that for MONTHS aren't you ? k:



DeathJester921 said:


> Everyone here has spoken sense, which is not surprising to me in the least. From what I understand, everyone elsewhere is jumping on the GW demonizing bandwagon. Fuck em, I say. Leave them to their blind hate. Nothing we say can change it.


I am a bit of a crusader myself so I feel compelled to present the counter point of view when ever I see something I disagree on. I know I'll never change anyone's mind but that's not my goal.


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> You're going to dine out on that for MONTHS aren't you ? k:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a bit of a crusader myself so I feel compelled to present the counter point of view when ever I see something I disagree on. I know I'll never change anyone's mind but that's not my goal.


I know what you mean. I do that sometimes too. 

And yes, Jace is going to be dining out on that for months. Still gotta give him props though


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> You're going to dine out on that for MONTHS aren't you ? k:


 I shall never go hungry again.



DeathJester921 said:


> And yes, Jace is going to be dining out on that for months. Still gotta give him props though


Aww yea. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> I am a bit of a crusader myself so I feel compelled to present the counter point of view when ever I see something I disagree on. I know I'll never change anyone's mind but that's not my goal.


I'm all for a crusade against those refusing to accept a counter point.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

The interview would be on www.screamingheretic.com, the podcast that I have a painting segment on. 

Yes I have a YouTube channel for my painting videos, product reviews, etc.


----------



## Oldenangry (Oct 31, 2012)

DeathJester921 said:


> From what I understand, everyone elsewhere is jumping on the GW demonizing bandwagon. Fuck em, I say. Leave them to their blind hate. Nothing we say can change it.


On another forum I go to (no name will be given) there was one guy in the discussion that actually went and rage/quit GW over the whole thing!

So I had to comment on the hypersensitivity of it all.

The thing I just don't understand is how there are so many people who are neck deep into the hobby (and I'm not talking miniatures alone, I'm talking specifically 40K) who are always raging about how GW is evil and they hate them... while still playing their games.

Then again, I've been away for a while.

Can someone explain the reasoning behind all the vitriol and hate, please?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

One word

Attention

The same thing that motivates trolls and is the motivator to nearly all things posted on the Internet. If you criticise something you'll get the attention.

On another note I see that GW has shut down it's main Tardbook page.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> On another note I see that GW has shut down it's main Tardbook page.


Noticed that just now. Must be for a (good) reason :scratchhead:


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Tawa said:


> Noticed that just now. Must be for a (good) reason :scratchhead:


Probably what anyone would do if their account was flooded with hate i'd reckon.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Probably what anyone would do if their account was flooded with hate i'd reckon.


Hmm... I'm gonna send some positive reinforcement to GW!


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

Jace of Ultramar said:


> Hmm... I'm gonna send some positive reinforcement to GW!


Yeah. They need it from some level headed people.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

DeathJester921 said:


> Yeah. They need it from some level headed people.


Hopefully I accomplished exactly that.:grin:


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

No doubt the misinformed little publicity jumpers will all be claiming a pointless victory, comes to something when GW has to take its own FB page down, sorry but has the *cough cough* bullied crusader become a bully herself???????


----------



## stephen.w.langdon (Jan 1, 2012)

Thought I would have a laugh and see what is being said on her Facebook Page, and could not find it, although I did find the “Spots the Space Marine” book Page with all of 3 Yes 3 full likes, and showing as all of 2 people talking about it...

Shows after all this, she can’t even get people to like her book on a social site where most people just click anything for the sake of it, when they don’t even know much about the subject.

Here is hoping that this dies a quick death going forward and that we can all get back to enjoying the Hobby that we know and Love, and that GW are able to get there Page up and running again soon with little hassle from the haters who just seem to hang around with nothing better to do other than Troll the Net for what they see as a cause...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I don't think there is any worry about this fight for cash ..... errr freedom of speech will disappear fairly quickly. 

Anyone remember Gangnam style ? The social media pages are full of shooting stars.

I am just glad that there were sufficient "real" people to keep a sane head in amongst all the torches and pitchforks.

I'm even more stoked that there are many of them on Heresy.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

can't wait to see what Dijnn puts to her, i watched two mins of her You Tube thing for want of a better word..she didn't think it would go all over the internet?? i smell it and i see it, what the hell did she expect when she rants about it on her blog, its a major gaming company and its in almost every nation in the world.......think its time for the sheep to go back in their pens, cause for someone who is not allowed to talk about it anymore...she sure is talking about it, internet, twitter, and anywhere else that will listen.....oh well heres to the next lame publicity stunt


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I don't think there is any worry about this fight for cash ..... errr freedom of speech will disappear fairly quickly.
> 
> Anyone remember Gangnam style ? The social media pages are full of shooting stars.
> 
> ...


I'm even more stoked about the idea that we're so well known for being less insane about GW that people were being accused of being from here when they didn't side with "Spots".


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

gothik said:


> can't wait to see what Dijnn puts to her, i watched two mins of her You Tube thing for want of a better word..she didn't think it would go all over the internet?? i smell it and i see it, what the hell did she expect when she rants about it on her blog, its a major gaming company and its in almost every nation in the world.......think its time for the sheep to go back in their pens, cause for someone who is not allowed to talk about it anymore...she sure is talking about it, internet, twitter, and anywhere else that will listen.....oh well heres to the next lame publicity stunt


All I had to see was that one of her books was financed by a Kickstarter and that you can HIRE her to give you advice on how to run a kickstarter.

This girl knows how to play the game for sure.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> All I had to see was that one of her books was financed by a Kickstarter and that you can HIRE her to give you advice on how to run a kickstarter.
> 
> This girl knows how to play the game for sure.


This author is lame. Not the lamest, but, very lame.

How do you finance a book with a Kickstarter? Was it for publishing the piece of crap?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

whats a kickstarter? out of curiosity


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Kickstarter is crowd funding. Basically you post an idea and people sponsor you to carry out the project. It's a great idea but does rely fairly heavily on the "click" mentality so prevalent on social media.

From the Horgarth website:
"Her first crowdfunded fiction project kicked off in 2004 before the word was even coined."


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

ooooohhhh thanks Oz, more fool them for giving her the money then, i'm waiting for the next load of Shite that spews from that camp, might be around the time the curiosity over this hoohah cools down and her book stops selling i reckon


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

gothik said:


> ooooohhhh thanks Oz, more fool them for giving her the money then, i'm waiting for the next load of Shite that spews from that camp, might be around the time the curiosity over this hoohah cools down and her book stops selling i reckon


Her book is selling? Is it?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

last time i looked she had sold a few more and on her twitter feed she is promoting it, even calling her followers Space Marines.....if thats not taking the piss.....


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

you know its possible to leave a review/rating on Amazon even if you havent purchased the book....


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

gothik said:


> last time i looked she had sold a few more and on her twitter feed she is promoting it, even calling her followers Space Marines.....if thats not taking the piss.....


Someone should start dropping GW Space Marine terms like Chapter Master, Uriel, and so on to help influence her and make her look more like an idiot.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

1st. I am not sure to be thankful that you all want me to interview her, or that you think I am that bug of an asshole.... 

2nd last I heard she was ranked 101st in Scifi sales ranks. 

3rd. Don't knock Kickstarters. A lot of great things have come from there. Also my good friend Matt Forbeck has published 12 great books with Kickstarter, the difference between Matt and her though he had published dozens of books traditionally. 

Joe and I are discussing if we will do the interview. I don't know if I want to give her anymore publicity.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> you know its possible to leave a review/rating on Amazon even if you havent purchased the book....


Really? Fascinating.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

djinn24 said:


> 1st. I am not sure to be thankful that you all want me to interview her, or that you think I am that bug of an asshole....
> I'm interested in this to hear her verbal response since I'd prefer hear her take from her mouth and not a blog, tweet, or FB posting. I guess I'm curious as to her character.
> 2nd last I heard she was ranked 101st in Scifi sales ranks.
> 101? Not sure how the ranking works for this, but, ok.
> ...


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

I wouldn't say the interview was an issue of giving her any more publicity, with the shit storm she's already caused all over the GW FB page I think she's pretty much at saturation point. I'd really like to hear how she answers some questions posed by people who are not already sucking up to her, 90% of the internet seems to think the sun shines out of her arse, she's the David who faced down the Goliath of GW. Given the opportunity I would love to be in a position to ask her some real questions rather than "So, GW are assholes, how does it feel to have beaten the big bad corporate giant with your wonderful book, GW were so nasty to you, you poor, poor girl"


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

normtheunsavoury said:


> I wouldn't say the interview was an issue of giving her any more publicity, with the shit storm she's already caused all over the GW FB page I think she's pretty much at saturation point. I'd really like to hear how she answers some questions posed by people who are not already sucking up to her, 90% of the internet seems to think the sun shines out of her arse, she's the David who faced down the Goliath of GW. Given the opportunity I would love to be in a position to ask her some real questions rather than "So, GW are assholes, how does it feel to have beaten the big bad corporate giant with your wonderful book, GW were so nasty to you, you poor, poor girl"


Agreed. I'd like just 10-15 to ask some serious questions as to her take and really inquire if she _thinks_ she's such a victim or if it can turn to reveal some true colours of her character.


----------



## Madden (Jan 22, 2012)

Or why it took 3odd months to actually raise this issue in the first place? 
Or did she finally notice that her book wasn't selling.

This seams to be a storm in a tea cup and from what I've read on here she knew what she was doing all the way. Just a big PR job.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

I really like how her book got taken off. Then she rightly complains (hey, I'd complain if something a did was just taken off a store). Then the Internet sides with her against GW. Then you all start pissing on her. Some here even obliquely talk about giving negative reviews on Amazon without reading the book. You act like Djinn is going to humiliate her and that's such a good thing. Real petty...

I still think that:

-This was an asshole's move on the part of GW.
-This is not really GW's fault for doing an asshole move, most big companies do it (like Marvel and DC being assholes for bullying on people using the word "superhero").
-GW reacted as usual in regard to the web: instead of rolling with the free publicity and showing this suddenly big crowd how cool and nice they can be, they thought they could give this ridiculous lawyer's memo and that everything would be alright. 
-GW then reacted like some crying and hurt Bieber fan by taking down their FB page.

This whole circus wouldn't have happened if:

-GW had contacted the writer in the first place.
-GW and other big companies didn't act like the whole English (or other) language could be bought and own. I mean, trademark on Adeptus Astartes, chainsword and Tyranids, I can see, but space marines? Why not Space ships, warp or missile launchers then? They, and other companies like WotC or Marvel, might just shut down the whole future of Science-Fiction because they bought the words!?!?

The real problem here is not GW (although the clumsy way they handle the whole thing, as usual, didn't help). It's the whole trademark thing. And pissing on the writer is just an immature response to the whole situation, a bit like the nerdragers shouting that they will burn their space marines minies...


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

@Boreas - Interesting post and you make alot of good points.

That being said GW have posted a response on last Friday and had their Facebook page up since yesterday evening, so I doubt they took it down for this reason.

Also White Dwarf mentioned that the website is having maintenance this week and today both their Facebook page and Twitter page are down, so I wouldn't be suprised if this is another maintenance issue.

We'll soon see if the Twitter and Facebook pages return.

BTW I do find her constant mention of her daughter, the reminder that it's for charity, making it out that getting her book pulled would have left her with no money (even though it was only the ebook version and she'd still make money of the hard back) and leaving it 3 months later to write that blog complaint, a tad bit suspicious, so i'm not suprised that some people are thinking she's playing the sympathy vote card to sell more books.

Sorry, but in my own opinion, both her and GW has handled this situation badly.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Oh, she's milking the whole situation, that's for sure. And I won't go ahead and buy her book out of GW defiance or anything. Quite honestly, though, if I'd have stumbled upon this instant internet fame I would have done the same as her :biggrin: So while I don't overly sympathize with her, I don't think that pissing on her like some might want to do is OK. 

If this were a Shakespearean tragedy, you'd have the wicked Advisor (the lawyers) telling a Buffoon (GW) that another Buffoon (M.C.A. Hogarth) is wearing his hat. The first Buffoon goes and hit the other Buffoon on the back of the head in front of a crowd (the Chorus: the Internet). The second Buffoon start crying way too loud, and the Chorus turns on the first Buffoon. Unable to deal with the Chorus, the first Buffoon storms out of the stage, leaving the second Buffoon to warm up the Chorus to it's cause.

Of course, in a real Shakespearean tragedy, the first Buffoon would then come back to kill the second Buffoon, only to realise that the Advisor was wrong and that the hat was different and everyone can wear a hat. It would then kill the Advisor. By then, the Chorus, which is the Buffoon's reason to live, has left the theater. The first Buffoon, having no reason to live, kills himself...

But real life is so much boring


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

sounds like shakespear alright


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

boreas said:


> Oh, she's milking the whole situation, that's for sure. And I won't go ahead and buy her book out of GW defiance or anything. Quite honestly, though, if I'd have stumbled upon this instant internet fame I would have done the same as her :biggrin: So while I don't overly sympathize with her, I don't think that pissing on her like some might want to do is OK.
> 
> If this were a Shakespearean tragedy, you'd have the wicked Advisor (the lawyers) telling a Buffoon (GW) that another Buffoon (M.C.A. Hogarth) is wearing his hat. The first Buffoon goes and hit the other Buffoon on the back of the head in front of a crowd (the Chorus: the Internet). The second Buffoon start crying way too loud, and the Chorus turns on the first Buffoon. Unable to deal with the Chorus, the first Buffoon storms out of the stage, leaving the second Buffoon to warm up the Chorus to it's cause.
> 
> ...


I couldn't have summed up the situation better.

Also i've been pointing out to those "I won't buy another GW product" and "I hope GW goes bust" types, that their issue is more with the lawyers and stockholders, most of whom have probably never played a game of Warhammer, rather than the creator of the models/rules and the people working on the tills in the stores. If GW did go bust then who would suffer? The Lawyers and Stockholders who'd move onto the next money maker or the makers of the models/rules and the people working in the store who take part in the hobby?

For me, this whole thing gotten stupid when Sci-Fi celebrities like Wil Weaton got involved... seriously isn't there bigger issues in the world that need their help, support and money more?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

don't get me started on Wil Weaton..i feel a sheldon moment coming.......wwwhhheeeeaaatttoooonnnnn


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

gothik said:


> don't get me started on Wil Weaton..i feel a sheldon moment coming.......wwwhhheeeeaaatttoooonnnnn


That was the first thing that came to my mind when I read about his involvement.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Worthy said:


> For me, this whole thing gotten stupid when Sci-Fi celebrities like Wil Weaton got involved... seriously isn't there bigger issues in the world that need their help, support and money more?


Well, I think that freedom from abusive trademarking is a pretty notable cause. Of course, Malaria and child abuse are more important, but every cause needs it's champions. The fact that this was sci-fi related was bound to attract "sci-fi stars" or plain "geekdom stars".


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

met the man at a convention once and well aside from obviously teenage girls fawning over him, i found him to be a little up himself, IMHO


----------



## HOBO (Dec 7, 2007)

Madden said:


> Or why it took 3odd months to actually raise this issue in the first place?
> Or did she finally notice that her book wasn't selling.


Just to give a more accurate timeframe to this from via discussion with some mates of mine...this issue was first raised on a Wargaming Forum around the 
17th December last year, and Hogarth had released a statement at that time. 
Also, Warseer started talking about this issue on the 19th Dec.

So this 3 month BS isn't entirely true at all...unless you're going by how long it took to hit Heresy Online.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

1. I am not planning on himiliating her, not on purpose, just pose real questions as a reviewer for TFF and a 40k fan that I have.

2. Do not lower yourself to leaving bad reviews on her book if you have not read it, that makes you a worse person then her. The book has sold a ton now, she will either be successful or back to being a wallflower in 2 to 3 weeks.

3. This is just as much Amazons fault as GW. Lovely how all the trolls fail to see that.

4. Of all GW players maybe 20% are online and in places like this, and I bet of that 20% only .5% would actually quit. A majority of the folks who aretrolling GW are people who don't play and like to troll alla Stella, or would bitch in one hand and buy a boxset with the other alla Whoreseer.

Next quartily report will probably look much like this last one did.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

gothik said:


> don't get me started on Wil Weaton..i feel a sheldon moment coming.......wwwhhheeeeaaatttoooonnnnn


So are you a Wesley Crusher, or a Wesley Crusher? :laugh:


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

djinn24 said:


> 1st. I am not sure to be thankful that you all want me to interview her, or that you think I am that bug of an asshole....
> 
> Mate we see you as a voice of reason and it would be nice to see an impartial interview to counter balance all of the ones out there at the moment that go along the lines of a preconceived outcome. I note there is a You Tube one where all of the comments on the vid are saying things like "ask her a question that gets an actual comment not one that is designed to get the response you want."
> 
> ...





boreas said:


> I really like how her book got taken off.
> 
> By Amazon, lets be very clear on this GW did not remove the book
> 
> ...





HOBO said:


> Just to give a more accurate timeframe to this from via discussion with some mates of mine...this issue was first raised on a Wargaming Forum around the 17th December last year, and Hogarth had released a statement at that time.
> Also, Warseer started talking about this issue on the 19th Dec.
> 
> So this 3 month BS isn't entirely true at all...unless you're going by how long it took to hit Heresy Online.


The Hogarth statement which, in her own words "set it all off", on her website is dated 5th of Feb.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

Tawa said:


> So are you a Wesley Crusher, or a Wesley Crusher? :laugh:


no not Wesley Crusher but Wesley Crushers :sarcastichand: think that deserves some rep there Tawa


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

djinn24 said:


> 1. I am not planning on himiliating her, not on purpose, just pose real questions as a reviewer for TFF and a 40k fan that I have.
> 
> 2. Do not lower yourself to leaving bad reviews on her book if you have not read it, that makes you a worse person then her. The book has sold a ton now, she will either be successful or back to being a wallflower in 2 to 3 weeks.
> 
> ...


:goodpost: this.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

So it looks like Faeit212 ran across some information regarding this take down of GW's Facebook and Twitter accounts:



> * GW Facebook Page No More: GW's Response *
> 
> 
> It seems that Games Workshop has now closed down its Facebook page and is opting to only keep up its individual retail store pages. This could very well be a response to all the negative posts on their facebook page recently, after all, I probably would of taken it down if it was mine.
> ...


I think we got two ways we can interpret this:

1. Communication with GW directly has been set back 10 years by this recent internet fiasco.
2. GW wants to encourage people to connect with their local stores more to improve the image of the local stores and the timing is a coincidence.

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but that's what I got off the top of my head.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

Magpie_Oz said:


> It is only fair that GW be allowed to rely on the use of the term Space Marine when it is used AS A BRAND to sell things in their market. GW is well established in the area of written fiction, the Black Library attests.


This is what I don't, and won't ever agree on. Space marines is a broad general term. Space is a place that is common and well known. A marine is a common and well known type of soldier. Space Marine as a term has been around for decade as a general use.

Trademarking "superhero" or "space marine" is like trademarking "lake water" or "sea salt". 



Magpie_Oz said:


> Exercising you legal responsibilities is not bullying.


Except when you don't have clear legal ground (as seem to have been the case here, otherwise the book wouldn't be back on). While no lawsuit was applied here, you can still read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_abuse



Magpie_Oz said:


> Some of us support the actions of GW and that is the point of this thread, to voice our support.


Erm, no. This thread is not meant to lick GW's balls. It's meant to discussion the situation as a whole.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

boreas said:


> Erm, no. This thread is not meant to lick GW's balls. It's meant to discussion the situation as a whole.


Odd for you to tell Mags what the thread should be about since he started it and would be the best judge of what he considers to be "on topic".


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Zion said:


> So it looks like Faeit212 ran across some information regarding this take down of GW's Facebook and Twitter accounts:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its probably been done for the same reasons as when they closed their Forums all those years ago (yes kids believe it or not GW used to have forums). If you can't stand the heat don't come into the kitchen.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Jacobite said:


> Its probably been done for the same reasons as when they closed their Forums all those years ago (yes kids believe it or not GW used to have forums). If you can't stand the heat don't come into the kitchen.


That's pretty much what thought number 1 was. GW was starting to become more open with us, but so far every time they start to break down that wall the haters come out in droves and then we're back to the silent treatment.

Of course half the problem is since people don't have to actually _see_ the people they're attacking (namely the employees of GW in person) when they throw these hissy-fits (and yes, that's what they are. They are not constructive or even valid criticism in 98% of the complaints I've seen) they just keep shovelling the shit on, and sooner of later GW gets fed up with it and shuts the doors again.

A few years ago I could have sympathized with people who criticised GW, but having dug deeper, looked closer and read between the lines more on everything I can't do it any more. Maybe someone will come along with a valid argument with some actual facts that will change my tune, but until this day I'm going to have to say that from what I've seen, GW has made less mistakes than people think. 

GW isn't the power hungry monster I keep seeing being painted with broad, vague brush strokes, but a company that's doing it's best to keep giving us a game we enjoy and trying to keep it around for decades more to come. It doesn't "go after the little" guy in some attempt to prevent us from getting new things, but to protect the very things the product line is built on.

And honestly at this point anyone who doesn't like GW needs to shut the hell up and find another game to play. GW isn't the only game in town, it's just the biggest dog on the porch. If you can't stomach what GW does, then honestly you need to stop paying attention to it and finding something else. 

Otherwise, quit pissin' in the soup. There are enough angry idiots out there who attack our hobbies as it is, do we really need to perpetuate those same things too?


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

boreas said:


> This is what I don't, and won't ever agree on. Space marines is a broad general term. Space is a place that is common and well known. A marine is a common and well known type of soldier. Space Marine as a term has been around for decade as a general use.
> 
> Trademarking "superhero" or "space marine" is like trademarking "lake water" or "sea salt".
> 
> ...


Lets put it this way. Just browsing through, checking the books, and you see the title "Spots the Space Marine", what do you think of? I think of, child friendly Warhammer 40K book featuring, obviously, Spots the Space Marine.

That is what this is about, really.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Fun fact: I was just looking at the Amazon page for "Spots", and out of 20 reviews it has: 
- 12x legitimately glowing reviews with 5 star ratings that talk about the book itself (only two mention the trademark thing, and mostly in passing)
- 1x 4 star rating, which again, was a glowing review but I guess they didn't feel it was perfect.
- 1x 3 star rating, strictly Trademark related
- 1x 2 star rating (they didn't like that the book is in script format)

And then 5x 5 Star Reviews strictly about the trademark.

So what I'm seeing (other than not a lot of actual traffic to her book's page before) was that the book was mostly popular with folks who followed her writing it on her blog, but it wasn't really taking off. The script format probably wasn't helping because that doesn't tend to lend as well to a novel.

And then GW caught wind of it, filed their legal paperwork, and suddenly nearly half of the reviews on the page (8/20 or 40%) are either mention the Trademark stuff, or are their strictly to give her a ratings boost because they felt bad for her.

Now I'm not pointing fingers at her on this, but I will say that she has gotten a quantifiable amount of publicity out of this case, and these are just the folks who felt like writing something.


----------



## boreas (Dec 4, 2007)

DeathJester921 said:


> Lets put it this way. Just browsing through, checking the books, and you see the title "Spots the Space Marine", what do you think of? I think of, child friendly Warhammer 40K book featuring, obviously, Spots the Space Marine.
> 
> That is what this is about, really.


Is this sarcasm? Because, really, GW would do a spinoff where, in the Fuzzy Fun of the Far Future there are only Milk Bones???



> Odd for you to tell Mags what the thread should be about since he started it and would be the best judge of what he considers to be "on topic".


Well, of course, if he wants this thread to be his, and his gang's private little party I can start another thread. But that would be a bit ridicule, no?



> Now I'm not pointing fingers at her on this, but I will say that she has gotten a quantifiable amount of publicity out of this case, and these are just the folks who felt like writing something.


People who write fake positive reviews just because they feel like it's a nice little revenge against GW are just as petty as people who would do the reverse...


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

boreas said:


> Well, of course, if he wants this thread to be his, and his gang's private little party I can start another thread. But that would be a bit ridicule, no?


You could, but that would be ridiculious. My point was that Mags has more of a right to say what the thread is about (having started it) than you were.



boreas said:


> People who write fake positive reviews just because they feel like it's a nice little revenge against GW are just as petty as people who would do the reverse...


Yes, I agree, but the point remains that we can actually see a sizeable amount of attention on that page came _after_ the trademark stuff started. It's safe to say that the number of copies sold after the fact probably went up as well. I'd really like to see some sales figures on this book...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

boreas said:


> This is what I don't, and won't ever agree on. Space marines is a broad general term. Space is a place that is common and well known. A marine is a common and well known type of soldier. Space Marine as a term has been around for decade as a general use.


It doesn't matter how common or not the term is, what matters is using the term as an identifier for a product. GW reserved the right to do that in 1995.
If there were and had been for sometime 1000's of products in the same genre that were branded "Space Marine" there would be a case but as there aren't there is no case for the author at all. 

You can't trademark "Lawn Mower" n the area of garden maintenance as there are lots of companies that make things that are called Lawn Mowers that are used for garden maintenance. There few to zero products sold by anyone other than GW that have the brand Space Marine. 
Can you find a single one other than this book?

Mainstream Entertainment Group Inc holds a trademark for "Superheros" and MAXX APPAREL GROUP, INC. CORPORATION FLORIDA holds a trademark for "Sea Salt" 
so that kinda stuffs that one for ya.



boreas said:


> Erm, no. This thread is not meant to lick GW's balls. It's meant to discussion the situation as a whole.


Don't presume to tell me why I started this thread.



boreas said:


> Is this sarcasm? Because, really, GW would do a spinoff where, in the Fuzzy Fun of the Far Future there are only Milk Bones???


Your now suggesting you are privy to the markets that GW would or would not enter. Love to know where you get this info from or is it just something you made up based on no actual evidence?



boreas said:


> Well, of course, if he wants this thread to be his, and his gang's private little party I can start another thread. But that would be a bit ridicule, no?


it's actually a thread where informed and rational comment can be made and I'd appreciate you starting to do so.


----------



## MadCowCrazy (Mar 19, 2009)

This thread is no longer news so off to General


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

boreas said:


> This is what I don't, and won't ever agree on. Space marines is a broad general term. Space is a place that is common and well known. A marine is a common and well known type of soldier. Space Marine as a term has been around for decade as a general use.
> 
> Trademarking "superhero" or "space marine" is like trademarking "lake water" or "sea salt".


Although space marine has been around for a long time, I think the assumption that it is in common use is not true. Showing a reference to some book from the 1930's that very few people had even heard of doesnt show common usage. Personally I think GW have probably taken a step too far trying to stop its use in published e-media, but I think its the title of the book that does it. It gives a false impression that this is a GW Space Marine book to people who would not other wise look at it.

Intentionally or not she appears to have copied GW ideas in having armour enhanced humans fighting aliens. Why choose space marines when a very quick search of amazon would show the commen use of that term for a GW product? As people have said using a slightly different term would have saved all the hassle. I think GW will probably not be able to enforce this TM in the US for e-books, but I am not so sure how it would run in EU courts. She is probably going to need a pro bono lawyer to take the case up for her.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

MadCowCrazy said:


> This thread is no longer news so off to General


Well technically its not about 40k so maybe its should be in off topic?


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

You have to take amazon reviews with a grain of salt, people can buy reviews or write their own. I have read hers and on the surface they seem legit. 

http://bit.ly/11I3hYk in regards to TM and brand usage, it's a CNN story. 

Remember we are knowledgeable of the universe and know Spots is a bit off in the naming scheme but new folks might not.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

djinn24 said:


> You have to take amazon reviews with a grain of salt, people can buy reviews or write their own. I have read hers and on the surface they seem legit.


Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out the marked increase of posted reviews on her book's page specifically because of this trademark mess.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Zion said:


> Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out the marked increase of posted reviews on her book's page specifically because of this trademark mess.


well to be honest thats why im not convinced that she didnt know what she was doing by using the term Space Marine in her title, Black Library have gone from a silly little publisher attached to a war game manufacture to quite a well respected powerhouse of scifi novels in terms of sales, people just getting into the hobby may not be familiar enough with the range to know its not about a GW space Marine, likewise unwitting family or friends looking for a gift for a GW gamer could easily pick this up as a gift.

for all we know it might have been her that contacted GW and said "nahnah im using your trade mark" in the hope the beast would stir, which it did.


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

> likewise unwitting family or friends looking for a gift for a GW gamer could easily pick this up as a gift.


LOL, kinda like getting Dunlop trainers when you were a kid and your parents not understanding the difference between them and Nike or Adidas (well apart from the price). :biggrin:


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

boreas said:


> This is what I don't, and won't ever agree on. Space marines is a broad general term. Space is a place that is common and well known. A marine is a common and well known type of soldier. Space Marine as a term has been around for decade as a general use.
> 
> Trademarking "superhero" or "space marine" is like trademarking "lake water" or "sea salt".


The interesting thing here is that most of the sources quoted as featuring 'space marines' before GW got to them (Aliens and Starship Troopers being the two most popularly used examples throughout all this), do feature troops that you could refer to as marines in space, but don't call them Space Marines. Just Marines? Maybe... but the actual phrase space marine isn't really used all that often. A common trope maybe, but not as common a label as some people are making it out to be.

Yes, I know there's a book out there from 1930-something with 'So and so the space marine' on the cover which has been dug out and screenshotted everywhere now... but how many people who've waded into this debate had heard of that before this all kicked off?

About the facebook thing (and the forum before it) - why would GW keep something like that open when it's serving no purpose to PROMOTE the company? Why employ someone who's going to be spending all day clearing the crap and hate off of it, when you can simply switch it off all together? I don't really see much use for the corporate facebook page anyway - 90% of what they posted there were links to that day's blog. The point of connecting with people and letting them know about events etc is much better done through the local GW shop, where the announcements, posts or questions will actually be relevant to the people following that store specifically.


----------



## Worthy (Feb 10, 2013)

To be honest the individual store pages (my local store is GW Manchester Central) are alot better and more relevent to the customer in my opinion.

Maybe they should use the Nottingham HQ page as the general one and post up the stuff that they used to do on the GW page there.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Im quite dissapointed with GWs facebook page, at no poi t have they told me what they had for lunch or asked me to play farmville with them! Some friend they are


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> Im quite dissapointed with GWs facebook page, at no poi t have they told me what they had for lunch or asked me to play farmville with them! Some friend they are


Well, they've invited me for tea on Sunday several times. The mint tea is nice but the biscuits are usually a little on the stale side.


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

> The interesting thing here is that most of the sources quoted as featuring 'space marines' before GW got to them (Aliens and Starship Troopers being the two most popularly used examples throughout all this), do feature troops that you could refer to as marines in space, but don't call them Space Marines. Just Marines? Maybe... but the actual phrase space marine isn't really used all that often. A common trope maybe, but not as common a label as some people are making it out to be.


QFT Something that has bugged me throughout this:

Starship Troopers = Mobile Infantry
Aliens = Colonial Marines

I do not see Space anywhere in the above two names yet uninformed loud people been using them as examples.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I am pretty sure Starship Troopers does have the term Space Marine in it. It was another Heinlein book. 

Started getting irritated at this woman. http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_vs_Games_Workshop


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Have just done a word search in my Kobo copy of Starship Troopers I can assure you the term Space Marine does not appear in the book anywhere. There is another bok that does tho'

Merchant Marine is the only time the word Marine is used, in Starship Troopers.

As EmbraCraig says there are other books that use the term but as I said earlier I issue the challenge to anyone who can find where Space Marine is used as a brand outside GW materiel and this book.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Have just done a word search in my Kobo copy of Starship Troopers I can assure you the term Space Marine does not appear in the book anywhere. There is another bok that does tho'
> 
> Merchant Marine is the only time the word Marine is used, in Starship Troopers.
> 
> As EmbraCraig says there are other books that use the term but as I said earlier I issue the challenge to anyone who can find where Space Marine is used as a brand outside GW materiel and this book.


In the UK they had none, and in the US only two.

First we have an abandoned Space Marine trademark that covers a wide range of stuff:



> ABANDONED) IC 006. US 002 012 013 014 023 025 050. G & S: metal key chains, metal key rings, metal name badges, metal money clips(ABANDONED) IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: posters, mounted photographs, pictorial prints, calendars, notebooks, memo pads, comic books, series of science fiction books, trading cards, stickers, decals, bumper stickers, magazines featuring movie entertainment, greeting cards, playing cards, wrapping paper and paper bags, pens, pencils, paper flags, telephone calling cards
> (ABANDONED) IC 020. US 002 013 022 025 032 050. G & S: non-metal key chains, non-metal key rings, plastic badges
> (ABANDONED) IC 024. US 042 050. G & S: cloth flags, cloth pennants, cloth banners
> (ABANDONED) IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: mens', womens' and children's clothing, namely shirts, jackets, T-shirts, socks, pajamas, robes, sweatshirts, shorts, sweaters, jeans, trousers, ties, coats, swimwear, hats, caps, boots, shoes, slippers, wristbands, headbands, underwear, boxer shorts, belts and Halloween costumes
> (ABANDONED) IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: computer game cartridges, computer game programs, computer game tapes, action-type target games, board games, pinball-type games, coin operated video games, video output game machines, video game cartridges, dolls, toy swords, kites, toy model hobby craft kits, skateboards, toy action figures and accessories therefor, Christmas tree decorations and Christmas tree ornaments


A lot of stuff right? well it was abandoned in 1997, and only came in to existence in 1995. More on it is here for those who want to read more.

The second one is a little less directly tied in as the trademark was for "PRINCESS RYAN'S *SPACE MARINES"*. It was as trademarked in 1991, and was abandoned in 1994. It covered:


> (ABANDONED) IC 016. US 038. G & S: rule book, charts and tables for playing war games and science fiction games; now available in a boxed set containing toy soldiers and models. FIRST USE: 19860301. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860401(ABANDONED) IC 028. US 022. G & S: equipment sold as a unit for playing simulation-type war games and science fiction games; namely, rule books, charts, tables, miniature toy soldiers and miniature toy tanks. FIRST USE: 19860301. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860401


More on it here.

Odd that no one claims these companies ever tried to own exclusive rights to "Space Marine" in books despite both having "Space Marine" as part of their trademarks which included actual books.

Anyhoo, that's all I could find.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

djinn24 said:


> I am pretty sure Starship Troopers does have the term Space Marine in it. It was another Heinlein book.
> 
> Started getting irritated at this woman. http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_vs_Games_Workshop


totally despair at it, talk about milking it, or thats what it seems to me anyway, think giving her anymore publicity will just swell her head, she's certainly getting more than her fair share


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

just posted on her FB page entitled the space marine liberation front.....personally i am sick of this, its gone beyound anything to do with a bloody e-book being taken down from Amazon, its turning into a all out hate campaign and i am totally sick to death that this woman is stoking the fires likes some modern day templar


----------



## DeathJester921 (Feb 15, 2009)

Its a good thing that we can take solace in the fact that we are more enlightened here


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

just got a reply, seems the space marine liberation front is nothing to do with the woman, even so...the hate on there...ughhhhh need sheldon to go sort them out i think


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Zion said:


> The second one is a little less directly tied in as the trademark was for "PRINCESS RYAN'S *SPACE MARINES"*. It was as trademarked in 1991, and was abandoned in 1994. It covered:


See that one wouldn't matter as it is the use of the whole term that is important. Spots of Princess Ryan's Space Marines would have been fine for the author.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> See that one wouldn't matter as it is the use of the whole term that is important. Spots of Princess Ryan's Space Marines would have been fine for the author.


I included it mostly for completeness honestly.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Hmm what's odd is some of the information matches GWs use of the term. 

Also to be clear GW does NOT own book copyright on Space Marine in the USA and as far as I know did not ask for the US version to be pulled, only the UK.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

djinn24 said:


> Hmm what's odd is some of the information matches GWs use of the term.
> 
> Also to be clear GW does NOT own book copyright on Space Marine in the USA and as far as I know did not ask for the US version to be pulled, only the UK.


I think it was actually the EU trademark that they were using.


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

DeathJester921 said:


> Its a good thing that we can take solace in the fact that we are more enlightened here


Amen to that.:victory:

It's the only forum I use, though I have accounts elsewhere... or did, they may have been binned from lack of use!


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Wow, this thread is still trucking along with no end in sight just yet. 

Fascinating.


----------



## Brother Dextus (Jan 30, 2013)

Durant said:


> LOL, kinda like getting Dunlop trainers when you were a kid and your parents not understanding the difference between them and Nike or Adidas (well apart from the price). :biggrin:


I got silver shadows


----------



## Brother Dextus (Jan 30, 2013)

does the term space marine also apply to aquatic life in space?


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Brother Dextus said:


> does the term space marine also apply to aquatic life in space?


It would be funny if it did.


----------



## Durant (Aug 24, 2011)

Damn there goes my plan to release a book titled Splash the Space Dolphin...


----------



## Brother Dextus (Jan 30, 2013)

Durant said:


> Damn there goes my plan to release a book titled Splash the Space Dolphin...



You could write a book set in the future about whalers on the moon - the Space Mariners


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Brother Dextus said:


> You could write a book set in the future about whalers on the moon - the Space Mariners


HA!


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Someone actually added this to the Wikipedia page as the only controversy listed. This was nothing but a blip.


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

oh well i think it may be stating to run out of steam now thank gods


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Yes a few days on and it has all pretty much gone away.

I'm thinking that is the main reason GW shut down their main Tardbook page, just to let it all go quiet.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

gothik said:


> oh well i think it may be stating to run out of steam now thank gods


Here's hoping at any rate.... 



Is that the club I think it is in your pic?


----------



## gothik (May 29, 2010)

yeah now gonna see what the latest news is on the Gers, and might even see about going to see em play when i all cleared for travel


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

gothik said:


> yeah now gonna see what the latest news is on the Gers, and might even see about going to see em play when i all cleared for travel


My new bestest forum buddy :drinks: :laugh:


----------

