They can do that?

I saw this odd notice at a miniatures online retailer's web site:

"Games Workshop does not allow re-sellers to show pictures or add GW items to an online shopping cart, but you can still place an order with us! "

The fact that GW prohibits resellers from posting pictures of their product is well-known (if legally questionable) but I've never seen the prohibition for adding their products to an online shopping cart before. How does that even work? I mean, they at least have an arguable case of a copyright interest in images of their products but what legal right do they have to stop a re-seller from including their products in an online shopping cart?

Does anybody know?

Games Workshop is at it again

The world's worst game company provides more evidence of its total stink-hole status with yet another lawsuit against a major fan site that has evidently operated for more than five years with their knowledge.

Unbelievable.

Boardgame News post that quotes Pawnderings

A link

Lessons Learned from the Games Workshop/BoardGame Geek controversy

I think there are three different, but related, aspects of this whole brouhaha on Boardgame Geek that everybody can take away as lessons learned if they choose -- although some may not.

The first is Games Workshop's aggressive defense of its intellectual property. I was unaware of the Warhammer/World of Warcraft connection and I can understand how GW may feel quite burned by that experience. I think they were within their legal rights on 90% of what they claim, although on some specific points their IP policies make claims unsupported by the actual state of the law. The reality is that those assertions will probably stand until they tangle with someone with the economic resource sand interests to contest it. On the other hand, there's serious grounds for doubting the wisdom of their approach. Making a significant portion of your most dedicated fans angry with you seems like a very bad business idea. While most of GW's customers are not on BGG or members of GW fan sites, those who are tend to be the opinion leaders in their groups and probably have an influence outside of mere numbers,

The second lesson is BGG's response to GW's demands. Here I think there are some legitimate ground for criticizing some details of how BGG responded, but BGG's overall response was a prudent one given the magnitude of the legal threat and the relative peripheral nature of the possible benefit. Games Workshop is just one company whose products are on the site and it doesn't make sense to risk all the other valuable content here related to more consumer-friendly companies for the sake of the products of a company that doesn't appreciate the free advertising. BGG is a growing site and becoming the premiere game-related site in the world devoted to all games. GW benefits more from BGG than BGG needs GW. It's unfortunate that the controversy broke out while Aldie was unavailable to address it quickly, but it appears to me that BGG is taking lessons learned from the experience and implementing policies and procedures that will reduce future problems.

The third lesson is for us, the users of BGG. One thing many of us could do a better job of is respecting the legitimate intellectual property rights of game publishers. I see an awful lot of stuff posted on BGG that really is egregious copyright and trademark infringement. We have open advocacy by some of making your own copies of games so you don't have to buy it We have users scanning high-resolution images of the complete components of some games. In many cases users are posting clearly derivative works without bothering to ask permission (which many companies would probably grant -- see the nice alternative map available as a download for Bonaparte at Marengo. For example, I often like to post examples of components when I am writing a game review. I am always careful never to scan in complete copies of the component in question -- a part of a map, a few examples of the counters, an extract of a play aid, one or two cards. This is fair use. Scanning in all 108 cards at full-size for a card game is not. Lastly, fans of a game should realize that the content they generate (let's say a really nice, upgraded player aid with snazzy logos and photos of miniatures) may not be theirs, even if they did a lot of work on it. Spend your effort on companies that appreciate and encourage that kind of work. Don't waste your time supporting a company that doesn't.

No Games Workshop IP material on this site!

I count myself fortunate that I've never been a fan of Games Workshop's products, because it appears to have saved me from a lot of grief.

GW has long had a reputation for being, let's say, ornery in its dealings with many folks, including online and brick retailers, but this latest offensive against everyone and anyone posting any material remotely related to their products seems very ill-advised.

I noticed some moths ago that GW was taking a hard line against eBay sellers who attempted to use images of GW products in their ads. Now they've acted against fan sites and Boardgame Geek file posters.

It makes no sense to me to be rude to your biggest fans -- they can always spend their time and dollars elsewhere.

The last time I remember a Big Boy in the hobby acting this badly was TSR and we can see where they are today ... .

The Games Workshop storm

I've been pointing out for months how ornery Games Workshop has been in their quest to zealously protect their Intellectual Property -- to the point where they prohibit eBay sellers from using images of Games Workshop products they are selling.

But they did themselves one better this week by sending a cease and desist letter to BoardgameGeek that has prompted BGG to remove vast swaths of user-generated fan content from BGG sites related to Games Workshop games and BGG plans to block any future file submissions for those games.

This has provoked an uproar rarely seen on BGG. Here's just one forum on the topic. Hey, everybody understands the need to protect IP, but there are smart ways and dumb ways to do it, and GW seems to be going on the dumb side. Most fan content helps build interest and enthusiasm for something and most game companies have seen the wisdom of encouraging it, stepping in only when someone really gets out of hand.

In this case the GW demand and BGG's response to it seem to have been more like a bomb than surgery, to the point where material that couldn't be considered to be infringement and material that GW doesn't even own the rights for have been trashed.

Now, I've never been a big fan of Games Workshop. Few of their themes grabbed me and I soon heard enough about their business practices to know that I didn't want to be associated with them. While I do primarily select my business on practical considerations such as cost. convenience and the like, there's usually enough choice available that I don't have to spend money with businesses whose practices I despise.

And when it comes to games, there's far more good stuff available than I'll ever have time or money for, so there's no reason to send any of it to ornery folks like Games Workshop.

More Games Workshop jerkiness

Evidently Games Workshop is insisting that any user-generated play aids on Boardgame Geek be removed. This Geeklist documents it.

They are such tools. I'm glad I never got into any of their games.

Game company assholery

Most game companies seem to understand the hobby's environment and strike a reasonable balance between protecting their intellectual property and presenting a friendly visage to fans and consumers. When they don't, they can acquire a reputation, in the pejorative sense that your parents use when warming against bad behavior.

The old TSR, for example, was widely resented and mocked for it excessive zeal in that regard. Every term was so loaded down with TMs and (c) that it became a hobby joke. And few have mourned its passing. Indeed, of the various hobby brands that Hasbro acquired over the years it seems to have found a lot more value in Wizards of the Coast and Avalon Hill than TSR.

So I have to admit I was puzzled when i came across a major Internet resellers website and saw all the images involving Games Workshop products replaced this:

So I contacted the reseller and they said yes, Games Workshop insists they remove all images of Games Workshop products. They admitted it probably wasn't legal, but it wasn't worth the legal fight.

I have to admit I find the whole thing bizarre. It would be like Ford, GM or Toyota saying used car dealers can't use pictures of their cars in their ads.

Games Workshop has a reputation among brick retailers as well, and frankly I don't think the hobby needs this sort of attitude. They're games, not life-saving medicines. There's plenty of fish in this sea and there's no profit in being the stinky ones.