Games Workshop Cease-and-Desist
Most legal controversies arise from video games; but there are many other enjoyable types of games. I’m one of those who find older games at least as entertaining (and challenging), and sometimes there is enough money (and pride) involved that board games, or their derivatives, make the news with legal issues.
You can read a gamer’s blog assailing Games Workshop and their protection of their rights in their boardgames.
Some of the sites GW complained about, and has had disputes with included Headless Hollow; also Vassal Game Engine.
Other targets are Darkhammer, and also Blood Bowl relaunch
And just a little more; GW shuts down Vassal40K, another in what GW says are derivative, infringing sites.
Many of these sites are non-profit; some of these are strictly fan-run; yet others are unapologetically attempting to make a profit using derivatives or veiled clones of Games Worskhop games. But you should read the sites above (at least those not shut down yet) to see their own personal stories.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OK, now to the other side. Here is the link to the The C&D letter from theChilling effects Web site (collection of Cease-and-Desist letters). Next, for fairness sake, here is the formal response from Games Workshop.
In a related matter, this is an older story about GW enforcing its rights.
There are many gamers who have played these particular games, or derivatives on the internet, for months and even years. But Games Workshop has several plausible legal reasons for choosing this course of action. One that should be noted is the Doctrine of Laches, explained below by an impartial attorney speaking generally.
According to noted entertainment lawyer Gordon Firemark, “The essence of the Doctrine of Laches is that rights holders must be vigilant in protecting their copyrights, trademarks, patents and other proprietary rights. Ignoring ’small’ or ’minor’ infringements is a risky proposition, because eventually, the infringers (and others) may come to rely on the rights-owner’s forbearance as equivalent to consent. Cases abound in which Courts have enforced the doctrine of laches , viewing such reliance as justified, and depriving the rights owners of meaningful remedies.”(Note: you can read his full interpretations of this issue at Why and How artists MUST take action when their work is infringed).
So make up your own mind about what the outcome of this legal conflict will be. And think about what you think the outcome SHOULD BE. Please comment below if you think the current course of action should continue; or whether GW could or should reach some type of understanding with these Website and individuals. And certainly I welcome any public comments from GW or any of the Website owners affected.
Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.
Tags: Blood Bowl, board games, Derivative works, Enforcement, Games Workshop, Vassal
Hey Jay, the Gone to Ground post title “Gone in 60ish Seconds” is actually in reference to the Nicholas Cage flick “Gone in 60 seconds”… since the post’s comic features the main characters stealing a truck.
It has nothing to do with the copyright issues, and although GW’s recent activity has given me a lot to think about regarding IP, I plan on keeping Gone to Ground going.
jaymoffitt Reply:
December 5th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
You’re exactly right. I re-read your blog and I did indeed mis-characterize your blog’s intent. That’s what I like about WordPress is you can see everyone that’s referencing your site and follow up if there’s someone who doesn’t understand your own posting. I re-read the posting and realized the GW discussion (which was very informed and thoughtful, by the way) wasn’t properly attributed.
As you can tell from the title of my own blog, I’m for the individual blogger or gamer having as much rights as they possibly can. I read and re-read the post, and I still cannot see how GW profits from all this dissension. If they can protect their legitimate rights while applauding and assisting those who admire their creations, that would probably be the best course. As you’ve no doubt guessed, though, being a lawyer I’m not going to take sides in an ongoing dispute (unless I’m being paid to take sides).
Finally, good luck on what you’re doing. Thanks for reading my blog, even if it’s just to correct a mis-characterization of your blog.
Thanks Jay,
I feel the same way regarding GW’s stance on fansites. Luckily Gone to Ground hasn’t been targeted with a C&D, so for the time being it’s business as usual.
Thanks for the follow-up comment, and for the original post – I try to do my research, but it’s nice to hear that someone with professional credentials shares my thoughts on the matter.