Are fan-made army-books illegal?

[zhu bajie]

I've seen a few really cool fan made army-books around, one for Amazons, one for Halflings floating around the internet, both were really good.
Have there been any legal implications for the people doing this? I understand GW is right to protect it's IP, but was wondering if in the case of army and rules development they are turning a blind eye.

[BigbyWolf]

No, because I don't think they've ever tried to make a profit off GW's IP.

I made my own book for Estalia and didn't have the Nottingham Goon Squad chasing after me, so I doubt anyone else did.

Also- it's worth noting that some of the ideas from the Guilder-originated April Fool fake Dark Eldar Codex a few years ago are very similar to some things in the latest Dark Eldar book.

Perhaps WarSeer should be taking action against GW...

[Malorian]

A guy brought one to the club a few weeks ago and was arrested. I think he's getting the chair


No but seriously GW doesn't care about stuff like this. It isn't taking money out of their pocket is it's fairly obvious that it's fan based and not made by GW.

[Lord Zarkov]

Attempting to *Sell* such an army book would be illegal. Simply making and distributing one is not as long as you display the appropriate acknowledgements of GW's ownership and don't attempt to profit from it.

That said, making one that is essential a free distribution of an existing book would also be illegal.

[zhu bajie]

Hmm. I'm hearing you - but are you guys remembering when they told Boardgamegeek to pull all their files? These were mostly fan-made, not-for-profit, add-ons to out-of-print games. See here. Just because you're not making a profit doesn't mean it's not against the law.

Thanks BigbyWolf, good to know your Estalia army-book is flying under the radar of the Nottingham Black Ops!

[AlexHolker]

Attempting to *Sell* such an army book would be illegal.

You are incorrect. If you are doing something wrong, whether or not you're doing it for profit might be a consideration as to whether the judge finds in your favour or not, but there is no hard rule stating that selling derivative works is illegal or not selling derivative works isn't.

In this case, I think there'd be absolutely nothing GW could do to you except threaten to pit their lawyers against yours in a war of attrition.* After-market modifications are legal, even if you sell them.

Unless you're copying the content of GW's rules, you are not infringing upon their copyrights.

Unless you're passing your army book off as an official Games Workshop product, you are not infringing upon their trademarks.

Writing and selling fandexes is legal.

*The most likely result. GW doesn't send out C&Ds because they are morally or legally in the right, they do it because it scares people into doing what they say.

[shelfunit.]

Hmm. I'm hearing you - but are you guys remembering when they told Boardgamegeek to pull all their files? These were mostly fan-made, not-for-profit, add-ons to out-of-print games. See here. Just because you're not making a profit doesn't mean it's not against the law.

And just because GW told them to take them down doesn't mean it was against the law to have them up. BGG didn't want the expense, hassle and stress of going through a legal battle that could have taken years to sort out.

[TheDungen]

except you are copying gw's background to some extent. so its copyright infringement.

[Urgat]

Yeah, but its' a hobby. They encourage people to make up their own rules. So?

[AlexHolker]

except you are copying gw's background to some extent. so its copyright infringement.

That's not what copyright infringement means. Copyright only protects works, not ideas.

[eron12]

Not to mention that most of GW's "background" comes from other sources. Maybe Bigby Wolf should be more worried about the Spanish government coming after him than GW.

[NTJ2010]

Are you selling them?
If no, you can do whatever you want so long as the content is original (or at least not obviously taken, like an army book called the Black Elfs that is just a copy of the Dark Elf book is kind of illegal, I think)
If you are selling them it's a larger matter entirely (for example does it bear the logo?)

[Plexi]

Not to mention that most of GW's "background" comes from other sources. Maybe Bigby Wolf should be more worried about the Spanish government coming after him than GW.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Lord Dan]

Copyright only protects works, not ideas.

Which, incidentally, didn't stop GW from suing chapterhouse studios for making a model based on its description in an army book. I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just wanted to point out that "legality" doesn't seem to enter the discussion when GW makes the decision to litigate.

[TheDungen]

that would be fine as long as i wasn't using names and concepts that they have the right too. You can copy everything and change the names and you're in the green to sell it but if you keep the names you are using their material and must have their permission to sell it. However as long as its free you're in the green.

[Wishing]

Which, incidentally, didn't stop GW from suing chapterhouse studios for making a model based on its description in an army book. I agree with you wholeheartedly, I just wanted to point out that "legality" doesn't seem to enter the discussion when GW makes the decision to litigate.

I don't know law, but I think that's the case with most corporate lawsuits really. When GW sues you it is not because you have directly broken any laws, it is because they feel that they have rights that you have infringed upon. When it comes to cases like the Chapterhouse trial, it is not clear who is right and who is wrong, otherwise there wouldn't be a trial. There is a trial because GW feel that they are right, CH feel that they are right, and they need a court to decide which of them is most right. It can be argued either way.

[Haravikk]

If anything GW encourage you to make up your own rules, and for armies that aren't otherwise available they're necessary if you want to play.
The legality of ripping images to include is a bit more questionable, same with copying text, but I doubt GW would ever really bother to pursue anyone about it unless they were trying to sell copies of their book.

[Wishing]

That's the thing, in most cases, homebrewed army books have the effect of inspiring those who are interested enough to read them to start new armies and conversion projects that they would not have done otherwise, thus giving new sales to GW (assuming these armies use GW models). In cases like that, GW wins, the fans win, so why would they want to sue?

[BigbyWolf]

Not to mention that most of GW's "background" comes from other sources. Maybe Bigby Wolf should be more worried about the Spanish government coming after him than GW.

Nah, I made them super-coolz...they should make me an honorary Spaniard!

[Charistoph]

That's the thing, in most cases, homebrewed army books have the effect of inspiring those who are interested enough to read them to start new armies and conversion projects that they would not have done otherwise, thus giving new sales to GW (assuming these armies use GW models). In cases like that, GW wins, the fans win, so why would they want to sue?

There many variables involved with the decision to involve the courts, most have to do with regional case law and what the lawyers/big wigs/bored intern think they can get away with. What may work in Nottingham may not see the light of day in L.A. or Berlin and vice-versa.

But, if you are careful about distribution, careful about printing and production, give proper acknowledgement to GW IP, and don't try to publish it or sell it, you can usually avoid the problems.