Aus dem Sphärentor:
Talkbloodbowl.com ändert URL:
http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/10/31288
und ist ab jetzt hier
http://talkfantasyfootball.org/
zu finden.
Wichtiger:
GW antwortet auf eine Email betreffend den Fall von Talkbloodbowl.com:
http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2009/11/09/31255
Ich schließe mich dem Kommentar hier an:
ZitatIt’s still asinine. I cannot believe that video game companies, who also have IP can create Fan Site Kits for their communities to use, but tabletop game companies, who have IP cannot do the same.
I got into a discussion with Privateer Press over this and was pretty much told that there is a difference between video games and tabletop games and how the IP is treated. I find that hard to swallow, but I’m no lawyer. The GC for the company I work for (Computer Industry) hired the GC from a large tabletop gaming company because of just that… protection of IP. (GC equals General Council) so I would think that there is no blurring on what IP is, no matter what industry you are in.
Table Top Gaming companies need to pull their heads out of the butts and create Fan Site kits with “legal” logo’s etc that do not threaten their IP.
Ich verstehe auch nicht, wie man darauf kommt, das irgendein Unterschied zwischen Tabletop und Computerspiel besteht, was Websites angeht.
Meinung eines Anwalts:
ZitatThis is absolute horse manure. And I know. I’m an intellectual property attorney. Really. I’ve handled dozens of trademark lawsuits, both in US and abroad. Here’s all the site had to do (and all GW Legal had to insist upon) . . . add a disclaimer that the site is not affiliated with, sponsored by or related to GW, the owner of the mark. While the GW legal group is facially correct that they have to take steps to stop infringing activity or risk losing the mark, their letter cleverly only tells half of the legal story (and deceptively omits the most telling portions).
The hallmark of trademark infringement is confusion (because there is no profit here in the site’s use, that line of inquiry is irrelevant). Without confusion, there is no infringement. Confusion means that people in the relevant market place (i.e., minis gamers) would mistakenly believe that the site was affiliated with GW (which no one did) or that GW sponsors the site (which no one thought). This is a prime example of lawyers running amok without any guidance from the brand manager on customer base effects.
And I know. I write the sorts of letters GW wrote for a living. And, unlike GW, I counsel my clients to handle the situations differently. This is a disaster created by GW and it’s their own doing. They didn’t “have” to handle it this way (and their lawyers’ explanation is patently misleading).
Mit anderen Worten: GW's Anwälte erzählen nur die halbe Geschichte. Da das ganze schon seit vielen Jahren geschieht, kann man davon ausgehen, daß sie auch die Erlaubnis dazu haben und GW den Zorn verdient, den es dadurch auf sich zieht.