Why can Wayland post pictures but other internet retailers can't?

[Cxt]

I was just looking at Wayland Games the other night and saw they post box art, name, price, etc of all GW products (plus have a shopping cart for this), yet all the US sites ask you to call in as GW won't let them post pictures, lists, names of products, or have a shopping cart for GW items.

Is that a US only policy, or is there some way Wayland Games gets around this? I don't know the exact policy, but most US based sites (Selling GW stuff) post essentially the same statement about why they can't have any GW product on their website.

I'm just confused on this matter.

[IJW]

That policy is specific to the US, as far as I know it would be illegal within the EU.

[Cxt]

Ahh, then that makes complete and total sense. Thanks. [Doesn't seem at all fair or ethical, but I suppose legality doesn't consider that.]

[Sgt John Keel]

box art

Although you may notice that all the so called “box art” is actually photographs of the packaging, since GW for some inconceivable reason decided some years ago that it was not to their benefit to allow the indies to use GW's marketing materials online.

[Cxt]

You know, in my business we deal as a distributor for another company (unrelated to the gaming market), and when I contacted them to see if we could use their own websites pictures to sell their product on our site, they were more than happy to say "Yes, please do!". Honestly, this caught me off guard as I was used to GW's view that no one can GW images, not even to sell GWs product. (this was the first company we sold product for, so my only previous exposure was to GW's policy). I was expecting this company to give me a similar to GW answer, but no, they were business friendly and business smart.

[lbecks]

You know, in my business we deal as a distributor for another company (unrelated to the gaming market), and when I contacted them to see if we could use their own websites pictures to sell their product on our site, they were more than happy to say "Yes, please do!". Honestly, this caught me off guard as I was used to GW's view that no one can GW images, not even to sell GWs product. (this was the first company we sold product for, so my only previous exposure was to GW's policy). I was expecting this company to give me a similar to GW answer, but no, they were business friendly and business smart.

Yeah, GW does weird things. They really tried to Cripple US online retailers in 2003 and push business during the boom to their Retail Stores and Website, which failed.

[Cxt]

Did it fail? I don't see any US webstores, and now they've made it so the EU webstores can't sell to outside of the EU. Or just that it didn't push sales to them, but just to local game stores?

[KidDiscordia]

Did it fail? I don't see any US webstores, and now they've made it so the EU webstores can't sell to outside of the EU. Or just that it didn't push sales to them, but just to local game stores?

There are still on-line retailers who sell GW products. They can not set them up in their Automated Shopping Cart system. You can still call or email tehm to purchase product. The WarStore is a good example of this.

[Art Is Resistance]

Yeah, GW does weird things. They really tried to Cripple US online retailers in 2003 and push business during the boom to their Retail Stores and Website, which failed.

Substantiation please?

As I see it, You are correct that they want to push the sales through their own webstore, which is to be expected - but to say it failed?

Proof?

[Art Is Resistance]

Yeah, GW does weird things. They really tried to Cripple US online retailers in 2003 and push business during the boom to their Retail Stores and Website, which failed.

Substantiation please?

As I see it, You are correct that they want to push the sales through their own webstore, which is to be expected - but to say it failed?

Proof?

[lbecks]

Substantiation please?

As I see it, You are correct that they want to push the sales through their own webstore, which is to be expected - but to say it failed?

Proof?

During the early 2000's GW realized they were doing a crap ton of sales from US online stores which were selling at a discount. They responded in a couple of ways. In 2003 GW tried to make it as difficult as possible to order from these online stores when they instituted a no online shopping cart and no use of GW pictures on websites rule. They also tried to flood areas with GW stores. They ended up closing a lot of these stores in the mid 2000's. New York used to have 7 GW stores, 5 in the metro area, they now have 1. That was the area I was living in during the LOTR Boom. Massachusetts used to have 4 stores, they now have 0. Read the 2006-2008 Investment reports. They specifically mention trying to move a lot of stores to cheaper rent areas with 1 man staffing because they weren't pulling their weight. Since 2009 GW has been doing better and they're actually smarter in where they're opening stores focusing on known hotspots like Illinois and not just spots where they think a store should be for profile.

[Warboss Antoni]

Substantiation please?

As I see it, You are correct that they want to push the sales through their own webstore, which is to be expected - but to say it failed?

Proof?

Those stores are still going, and going well.

[Korraz]

Substantiation please?

As I see it, You are correct that they want to push the sales through their own webstore, which is to be expected - but to say it failed?

Proof?

The continuously bad numbers in the US.
Source: The reports of the last years.

[Trasvi]

I don't know much about how these contracts work, but this strikes me as being extremely against 'Fair Use' law? Can GW simply say 'take it or leave it' with no recourse to sellers?

[Spectrar Ghost]

Why wouldn't they be able to? The sellers have no fundamental right to by from GW - if they want to make money from selling GW product, they must abide by the terms GW sets on that sale. Now in certain cases the buyer might be able to set terms due to the volume they can move (Walmart is a classic example of this; many of their supplier can't afford not to agree to whatever Walmart offers), but again, all the supplier has to do is say no, and no product changes hands.

[blongbling]

GW has no obligation to provide you with or to allow you to take images from its website to put on your website to sell their products, they consider this free loading off their work. What you can do is to take your own picture shots and put them up on your webpage, a little bit more work for the store owner but not the end of the world. This was one of the things in their trading terms that I personally considered very childish when I was at GW

[eldargal]

Dicebucket sells GW products with an automated shopping cart system. Warstore does indeed claim GW won't let them do so.

There are still on-line retailers who sell GW products. They can not set them up in their Automated Shopping Cart system. You can still call or email tehm to purchase product. The WarStore is a good example of this.

[xxRavenxx]

The sellers have no fundamental right to by from GW.

Interesting little fact: In the EU you now do indeed have that fundamental right. GW are not allowed to refuse any sale without valid reason. (Poor credit, not a real shop, etc.)

If I turned round to GW and said "I'm opening a store in York tomorrow, give me stuff", they MUST say yes. No matter how damaging to their own, or any other local stores it may be.

I hate that law. Mostly because it makes me feel like a Euroskeptic, and I hate people who are that miserable :P

[Sgt John Keel]

GW has no obligation to provide you with or to allow you to take images from its website to put on your website to sell their products, they consider this free loading off their work. What you can do is to take your own picture shots and put them up on your webpage, a little bit more work for the store owner but not the end of the world.

It's just strikes me as absurd. If GW said "don't use our artwork and pictures, period" I would think they'd perhaps be making a counterproductive business decision, but it would at least have some kind of logic to it. But refusing retailers to use high quality copies of artwork and allowing them to use the same artwork presented in a degraded form, I just don't get it.

[blongbling]

Interesting little fact: In the EU you now do indeed have that fundamental right. GW are not allowed to refuse any sale without valid reason. (Poor credit, not a real shop, etc.)

If I turned round to GW and said "I'm opening a store in York tomorrow, give me stuff", they MUST say yes. No matter how damaging to their own, or any other local stores it may be.

Nope, GW could effectively say that you don't meet the minimum criteria for stocking the products if they wanted to, as long as everyone has the same criteria, for instance they could insist that all new accounts start with a £10k proforma order, if you can do it then you can stock the prodcut