Or tell them to piss off. After all, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Or tell them to piss off. After all, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.[/quote]
Um. On what grounds would they not have a leg to stand on if someone is using their trademarked information? You’ve mentioned stuff like ‘legitimate fan usage’ in the past, but are you talking from an actual legal standpoint, or just on what’s becoming common practice? Because while a lot of writers don’t mind fanfiction of their stuff and some do mind but choose not to chase it, there are others who really do call their lawyers and cases that have really gone to court.
Look, I didn’t say “Don’t do it”, I said be careful. Be aware that there could be blowback and be able to cope with it.
I don’t think they’d have a leg to stand on ethically or legally, or in terms of public relations, and they’d know it and not pursue it. It would be like suing people for dressing up as Space Marines at a costume party.
Has there ever been a court case where a role-playing group was sued by a game company over copyright infringement for running a home-brewed version of a published game? I doubt it. Not only would it be terrible for the reputation of the company, I believe they’d also lose. What could possibly be more “fair use” of a copyrighted property than using it privately with a personal variation? We’re not talking about publishing a modified version for profit here, and we’re not talking about passing off the material as your own creation.
As for the 40K trademark (i.e. the logo) if I run a game of D&D, and put up a website for my campaign with the D&D logo on it with house rules and other material for my players, are WotC really going to come after me for infringement? It’s precisely the same. How many Star Wars fan sites are there out there using the logo? How much do they get harassed? In any case, there’s no specific need to use the 40K logo to run a 40k larp.
It’s not especially what you said, I’m just sick of people tiptoeing around copyright in general in relation to larp and making it a bigger deal than it is, it seems to come up almost every time a larp relating to a property is discussed. If we’re not for profit, and we give credit where its due, I don’t think we have anything to worry about or feel bad about. This kind of fan usage happens constantly in relation to all popular properties, and having such enthusiastic fans is actually a massive boon to the property owners. Why should we worry about it for larp in particular?
You know what? If someone announced that they were going to run “Happy Birthday: The Larp”, I’d be telling them not to do it. The company that owns that particular song is known for being litigious, and I very much doubt that they’d hold back because a particular production is run by amateurs.
If someone announced that they were going to run “Discworld: The Larp”, I’d have no comment to make other than that it’d be worth inviting Terry Pratchett because he might like to come, and if we’re lucky he might be in the country for a book signing. Because Pratchett is known for being relaxed about fan productions based on his writing as long as they’re nonprofit.
It depends on the property and the attitudes of the property owner. GW is known for being litigious. And incidentally - there’s no concept in New Zealand law of “fair use” or “parody” rights. There is in America, but not here.
[quote=“Stephanie”]You know what? If someone announced that they were going to run “Happy Birthday: The Larp”, I’d be telling them not to do it. The company that owns that particular song is known for being litigious, and I very much doubt that they’d hold back because a particular production is run by amateurs.
If someone announced that they were going to run “Discworld: The Larp”, I’d have no comment to make other than that it’d be worth inviting Terry Pratchett because he might like to come, and if we’re lucky he might be in the country for a book signing. Because Pratchett is known for being relaxed about fan productions based on his writing as long as they’re nonprofit.
It depends on the property and the attitudes of the property owner. GW is known for being litigious. And incidentally - there’s no concept in New Zealand law of “fair use” or “parody” rights. There is in America, but not here.[/quote]
No - but we do have common law - which states that rights of companies are only recognised under contract. Simply state no contract and you win. Case dismissed.
Back to the game - I would love (and I mean love) to play some npc’s for this - Nurgle enforcer type - or even a plague marine (woot) - I dunno but I think with my size I would make a fairly close plague marine.
Also - I would not mind playing an inquisitor or member of said inquisitors retinue 
all I can really say is DO IEEEEEEET!
This “common law” you keep speaking of is for countries with inadequate statute. Here, we have a Trade Marks Act, which grants exclusive rights to use and authorise use to trademark holders, and establishes a system of civil claims for infringements.
So, such a game is legally risky. OTOH, others right in GW’s legal backyard have got away with it. If you think you can too, then go ahead and run it.
This “common law” you keep speaking of is for countries with inadequate statute. Here, we have a Trade Marks Act, which grants exclusive rights to use and authorise use to trademark holders, and establishes a system of civil claims for infringements.
So, such a game is legally risky. OTOH, others right in GW’s legal backyard have got away with it. If you think you can too, then go ahead and run it.[/quote]
That would be why legal cases in this country can be thrown out in the privy council right… you know how we are not in the UK but they can still be thrown out … in ENGLANDS highest law authority… and how you know nothing about how common law works?
Yea … I get that. Keep living in your commonwealth dreamworld where legislation actually takes precident. Whats that? You can’t seem to find any local money that doesn’t have the british monarchs head on it… funny that.
A note for everyone: illegal is not unlawful. Corporate legislation is what makes you think you have to show a cop your ID. Unless they are actually arresting you OR you are being paid to drive a vehicle - you do not. - note: PAID TO DRIVE - not just driving.
< Would also make a good adeptus arbite?
New Zealand hasn’t used the Privy Council as a final court of appeal since 2004. We eliminated it. By statute.
Not here. See s5(4) Land Transport Act 1998 (also see s114 which allows a power to stop).
Lesson: if considering running a WH40K larp, do not take legal advice from someone who doesn’t even know what legal jurisdiction you are operating in.
How is it risky? Aside from the fact that I don’t think they’d sue fans for small-scale non-profit stuff (they sue massive companies like Blizzard, that’s where the money is and it doesn’t hurt their PR as much), isn’t what you’d be doing in running a 40K larp basically running their 40k tabletop RPG with some variations for live play? Especially if you buy a copy of that game? So what if you call it a 40k game - isn’t that what people playing the tabletop RPG call the games they run? Surely playing a published game can’t be infringement, given that it’s the purpose of the publication? Can you really see them winning this in a NZ court?
Our copyright law allows for fair dealing, which including some copying for “private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting,” which is not an infringement of copyright. Different name, very similar concept.
However, I don’t think fair use is the key concept with the specific topic of a 40k larp. What I think matters here is that you’re basically using their product for something incredibly close to its intended purpose.
Would anyone mind if I split the legal discussions to a separate thread? It’s kinda using up the oxygen for discussion of whether people are keen to play a game like this.
I think moving the thread is a good idea, but speaking just for myself, there isn’t anything I have to say that I haven’t already said. if people want to run such a game and everything’s fine, then good for them; if it turns out that they get problems from the copyright holder, then it’s officially not my concern.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do, Jon.
New Zealand hasn’t used the Privy Council as a final court of appeal since 2004. We eliminated it. By statute[/quote]
Really… thats interesting… shame it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about.
davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/420
December 13, 2003 - Court of Appeal decides a retrial was not needed on the grounds that the new evidence would not have changed the jury’s verdict.
June 7, 2006 - Bain’s legal team wins right to a full Privy Council hearing.
March 8, 2007 - Five-day Privy Council hearing in London begins.
May 10, 2007 - Privy Council delivers decision, ordering a retrial.
May 15, 2007 - Bain granted bail at hearing in Christchurch High Court
- yea… again - ACTS don’t mean ANYTHING - at all. They are just as bullshit as bylaws.
[quote=“Wikipedia”]Proposals to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in New Zealand date back to the early 1980s.[25] It was not until October 2003 that New Zealand law was changed to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in respect of all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand after the end of 2003, in favour of a Supreme Court of New Zealand.[/quote]OK, so Wikipedia isn’t exactly an authoratative source. Consider also Section 50(1)(a) of the Statute posted by IdiotSavant, which states:
[quote]50. Privy Council may still determine appeals in certain existing proceedings
(1) The Privy Council may hear and determine, or continue to hear and determine,—
(a) an appeal against a final judgment of the Court of Appeal made before 1 January 2004, or made after 31 December 2003 in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before 1 January 2004, where[/quote]which would make the David Bain case one of the last (if not the last) where the Privy Council could be involved.
None of which is particularly relevant to the IP/Games Workshop argument, I would have thought, except in the most theoretical of senses.
How is it risky? [/quote]
Its legally risky because GW are notorious arseholes, and because they can spend more money on lawyers than you can. The actual merits of a case are sadly only a consideration if you can afford to fight it (which no-one here can).
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it. If you’re considering GMing such a game, you should simply be aware of the risk, judge the probability of its occuring, and have some thoughts on how to respond if indeed the 40,000 ton gorilla decides to take a shit on you. “Better to ask forgiveness than permission” and “ceasing and desisting on request” are not terrible strategies. “Fight it in court” is not, unless you have a very large student loan debt you want to get out of, and no financial plans for the next seven years.
I think someone has already said this but basically I’d speak to the people doing it in the UK and see how/what they do.
It’s a matter of the individual company. Legally, it’s exactly the same whether you’re using 40k, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings… it’s just a matter of whether the people who own the rights A) find out about it and B) care to stop it.
Many companies, such as Lucasfilm, actively encourage such use of their property as long as there’s no profit - but if they decided that your particular use of their IP was unacceptable, they’d be within their rights to stop you (usually with a friendly cease and desist, rather than going straight to court).
It’s basically the same in the fan film community, which I’ve spent a fair amount of time around - some companies are perfectly fine with it as long as no money changes hands (even paying someone the cost of a blank CD for a CD with a fanfilm burned on it is often cause for a cease and desist), but others will slam down the iron fist the moment they hear about your project. If Games Workshop has a reputation of going after not-for-profit fan projects, then (should they find out) you’re likely to be told to stop.
I’m not sure they do. All the lawsuits I can see are about them suing companies.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they send cease-and-desists to fans using their logos. But there’s no need to use their logos, so it’s fairly simple to avoid infringing on the trademark. Things like settings cannot be trademarked - that’s a question of copyright, and that’s where I’m saying that a larp in the 40K setting would basically be using their RPG product for its intended purpose, so it’s hard to see that they’d have reasonable legal grounds to sue unless you were for-profit.
From dealing with them on this subject in the past I found them pretty easy going, as long as you do not make a profit or do anything that calls their products into disrepute they are generally reasonable and leave you alone.
You could always just post anything official using non copywrited material and anything unofficial can be whatever you want. Call him a “Space Knight” on the rules but allow the players to yell “Space Marine” in the game. GW wouldn’t sue you for yelling Blood for the Blood God before running into battle in teonn, but if you released the “blood for the blood god” special rule, then they could get a bit angry.