Bartertown.com

Gw's e-mail is:
Custserv@games-workshop.com

The results of the FAQ effect us all so PLEASE take a minute to e-mail them

here is the e-mail I sent them:

GW staff,
Please route this to the proper FAQ resolvers

Please add a FAQ to clarify the following possible editing error with massive game effects.
This regards the Ogre Kingdom Army Battle Standard Bearer.
here is a lengthy thread
http://www.ogrestronghold.com/forum/ind ... pic=6652.0



***EDITED. ***



The only way to resolve this is for you to PLEASE post a FAQ update in the OGRE KINGDOMS section of your errata web page, so that what ever was intended by Mr. Kelly is clearly expressed when he wrote the book.

Thank You
Dennis Bolin

When did it become ok to reprint rules from the book "word for word?"

daloonieshaman wrote: EDITED.

You do realize that both A and B are saying you can do one or the other but not both right?

insidius wrote:When did it become ok to reprint rules from the book "word for word?"

If you mean the bible, it's too old for copyright infringment to be applied at least in the United States.

If you mean someone's intellectual property, you just have to give proper citations.

Neither happened to be the case here, but you get the idea.

BCI wrote:

insidius wrote:When did it become ok to reprint rules from the book "word for word?"

<snip>
If you mean someone's intellectual property, you just have to give proper citations.
<snip>

From a legal standpoint this is not correct. Copying their IP can still be considered a copyright infringement whether you give credit or not.
You may avoid an acusation of plagerism by identifying and citing the source of material that's not yours, but it's not a way to avoid a copyright claim.

Ah, but the Fair Use doctrine contained in US Copyright law makes exceptions for the reprinting or duplication in PART of copyrighted works for review, debate, satire, educational purposes, etc. Since Loonie did not reprint the entire book, which is a copyrighted work, the copyright claim cannot (in my non-lawyer opinion) be used against him.

You can't claim a rule as a copyrighted work of intellectual property. It's not in context of anything - it's just a sentence. Once it's put in context with the rest of the completed work, though, the Fair Use doctrine still applies.

This is why corporations like GW DESPISE the Fair Use doctrine and make silly rules against people exercising it, like the infamous "No resin copies of our models may be used in our tournaments." It's not illegal to make copies of miniatures PROVIDED it is for PERSONAL USE ONLY.

Same thing for rules. I didn't see the post in its entirety but it sounded to me like Dennis was quoting the rules for review purposes. That's legit.

I didn't see the unedited original post either, so my response was in general to the statement i quoted.

However, my (also non-lawyer) understanding is that while the rules themselves can't be copyrighted, the way they are written can be. If i'm correct in that, then reposting a 'word for word' quote of the rules is a copyright violation (but see below). Though if i post a summary of, for example, how to resolve melee attacks, that isn't a violation. So basically, the mechanics of the game isn't copyrightable, but the specific description of those mechanics as given in the rulebook is.

I do agree with you that reprinting a short segment of the rulebook for the purpose of discussing its interpretation would be a strong candidate for fair use. It's being used to clarify a point of general interest, not for any commerical gain; the passage is an expression of a rule; it's only a small part of the book; and quoting it doesn't significantly reduce the value of purchaing the book.

Slightly more on topic: i checked out the linked thread to see what the original poster was talking about. Since i long ago gave up any expectations that the rules be consistant or make sense, the difference doesn't really bother me. And unless i'm missing something, i wouldn't consider it to have "massive game effects" either. But then i don't play OK, so perhaps i'm biased. Still, i can easily see this as being an oversight on GW's part. I'd imagine that keeping a bunch of rulebooks completely consistant with each other is quite difficult, especially when you have people analyzing every word you write for some sort of advantage. So if it affects you, writing in to ask for a clarification is probably not a bad idea. Whether GW likes it or not, they've got a subset of players who care a great deal about the minutia of the rules. If you're one of them, expressing your opinion can help them cater towards your interests.

Alright, reprint the rules again if you'd like; if the admin thinks it's legit, then obviously I can't contest that.

I was just trying to save Bartertown some GW harassment.