OldHammer Banners

fuljason

Member
Hi Folks,
Who do I have to speak to use the Oldhammer and Oldhammer 40K banners on my blog and help promote the community. If I do get permission to use them who owns the 'quality' versions.

thanks
J
 

Dreamfish

Administrator
You have to sent a signed letter requesting permission to "The Realm of Zhu". He will decide whether or not you're allowed to use the oldhammer banner. I cannot exactly tell what happens if you use it without permission...
 

Attachments

  • oldhammer_07.png
    oldhammer_07.png
    205.3 KB · Views: 2,524
Dreamfish":59et5pd9 said:
You have to sent a signed letter requesting permission to "The Realm of Zhu". He will decide whether or not you're allowed to use the oldhammer banner. I cannot exactly tell what happens if you use it without permission...
[/attachment]

Really? I didn't know that... :oops:
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
If you don't ask for proper permission, you have to automatically transfer ownership of all your miniatures to me! :twisted:

Only joking.

It's free to use for non-commercial purposes.
 

Erny

Member
He has very kindly released it under creative commons so I think it isn't necessary just polite now. In the enthusiasm of the moment when I set up the oldhammer blog I only retrospectively decided it would be polite to ask permission bu a number of people already had so Zhu was already more than happy.

Of course it may be nice to get permission from him to use the really snazzy one he recently made though I'd understand if he wanted to keep that one to himself. Zhu you reading this, let us use the snazzy new logo! Just fro blogs and this forum you understand.

Edit:
Ahh I see Zhu is already on it.
 

fuljason

Member
Whoops, Zhu I emailed you AND then read you reply ;)

trigger finger

Who is responsible for the OldHammer 40K banner I ahve seen on many blogs?

thanks
J
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Right, so, who didn't ask permission then? Erny, Citadel Collector, I sense a great growing of my lead-pile.

The "Realms of Khaos" style one. Didn't really think about that being a banner for people to use. On the one hand, my brand-hat says having a single logo creates a stronger group identity, but on the other-hand it looks cool :? The "Oldhammer" is more old-school as it's based on the 1E logo, wheras RoC is quite late in the development. What do other people think? do they want to use it?

Don't know about the oldhammer40k one? Don't know if I've seen that. I do like the graphics done by Tales from the Maelstrom:

Old%2BSkool%2BApproved.jpg


40K+OSR+Inside.jpg


Not sure about the trademark issues on the bottom one.

Jason - yes I got your email, you may keep your miniatures!
 

fuljason

Member
I have finally found the banner on by Orlygg's 40K site but I can definately say I have seen it other blogs but do you think I can find them now when I want them.
J
 

Orlygg

Member
The Oldhammer 40+ one on my Rogue Trader blog is free to use by anyone who wishes to use it. I agree with what has been said above. The Movement is probably better served by a single banner or image rather than many. As for stuff with the aquilla? GW nicked that off the Romans, who nicked it from elsewhere and has been used by many groups throughout history. I wouldn't worry too much about that kind of thing.

Just my two pence.
 

phreedh

Member
Orlygg":drlwgxhx said:
GW nicked that off the Romans, who nicked it from elsewhere and has been used by many groups throughout history. I wouldn't worry too much about that kind of thing.
While true, they still own the rights to their interpretation of a two headed eagle.
 

Orlygg

Member
phreedh":2u5ylll3 said:
Orlygg":2u5ylll3 said:
GW nicked that off the Romans, who nicked it from elsewhere and has been used by many groups throughout history. I wouldn't worry too much about that kind of thing.
While true, they still own the rights to their interpretation of a two headed eagle.

You are quite correct, my friend, but (location permitting, of course) those of us living in the English Speaking World have the concept of 'fair use' in copyright to consider. That is that ideas, images etc can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent in regards of research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice. Reserach and study and review and critique is what we are essentially doing on our blogs and here on our forum... but, as you say, its probably better not to tempt fate with blatant plagiarism and stick with subtle nods.
 

ardyer

Member
Orlygg":394m0gtv said:
phreedh":394m0gtv said:
Orlygg":394m0gtv said:
GW nicked that off the Romans, who nicked it from elsewhere and has been used by many groups throughout history. I wouldn't worry too much about that kind of thing.
While true, they still own the rights to their interpretation of a two headed eagle.

You are quite correct, my friend, but (location permitting, of course) those of us living in the English Speaking World have the concept of 'fair use' in copyright to consider. That is that ideas, images etc can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent in regards of research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice. Reserach and study and review and critique is what we are essentially doing on our blogs and here on our forum... but, as you say, its probably better not to tempt fate with blatant plagiarism and stick with subtle nods.

First, as a heads up to anyone who has questions, I am an IP attorney in the USA. Feel free to ask and I can give you a generalized answer. Although Copyright and Trademark laws differ from country to country, they've been roughly harmonized through international treaty.

Second, "Fair Use" only exists in the USA and Isreal. Other countries do have some similar concepts but none as codified as Fair Use in the USA. Further, for Fair Use (or similar) to apply, there is a test that must be met. Just stating that you're reviewing or critiquing doesn't make it legally fair use.

Third, Fair Use doesn't apply to Trademarks the same way it does to Copyrights (same name, different doctrine). And Trademarks don't have to be original. So if GW trademarks a particular double headed eagle, it doesn't matter that the Romans used their own double headed eagle, you can't really use GW's outside of a small window defined by statute/case law.

Finally, Fair Use is a judicial doctrine, which means that only a court can decide if something is or is not fair use. At this point, we pretty much know only two things are Fair Use: 1)parodying a Roy Orbison song as a rap song, and 2)time shifting television shows on VHS tapes. To say that anything else is or is not definitely fair use is a misstatement.

Just thought I'd weigh in to clarify a few things :)
 

Erny

Member
Excellent, great to have a IP attorney at least viewing our discussions and pointing us in the right direction thanks Ardyer.

For those wanting UK specific advice I find this site discussing fair dealing (I guess UK version of Fair use?) very informative:

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others

Give it a read,it makes it clear that it's rather easy to just post a whole article up to, "discuss", but it isn't fair dealing. Quotes to illustrate your views or points is fine. A sample of illustration again would be fine. Providing whole articles or publications for other people to download is not fair dealing even if part of a genuine review or scholarly activity.

GW makes specific provision to allow us to use picture of their minis painted up, not so their books and illustrations.
 

ardyer

Member
Erny":267q8dv0 said:
Excellent, great to have a IP attorney at least viewing our discussions and pointing us in the right direction thanks Ardyer.

Quite welcome. One of the things that causes lots of misconceptions, I think, is the pre-internet unenforceability of a lot of copyright laws. For example, back in the 80s, recording a song off the radio and onto a cassette was illegal but there was no way you would ever get caught. Same with photocopying some rules for a friend. Because people got away with it, they began to assume it was legal.

However, in our digital age, you can get caught because you're no longer handing the photocopy to your friend, but instead posting it online for him to download. Now it's more feasible that you do get caught.

Anyway, if anyone has any general questions, please feel free to ask! Any btw, I don't intend to narc on anyone here :) Only Blue in VT would be in any jurisdiction that mattered (e.g., under US laws)!
 

Just John

Moderator
So does that mean that you cant use a double headed eagle that GW have used in their work but that you could use another - say one from the Albanian national flag? Or one that was similar to the GW one but not the same?
 

ardyer

Member
Just John":2knys3hy said:
So does that mean that you cant use a double headed eagle that GW have used in their work but that you could use another - say one from the Albanian national flag? Or one that was similar to the GW one but not the same?

By an large, yes, the Albanian Double Eagle should be fair game...assuming Albania hasn't trademarked/copyrighted it! There is an enforcement issue to think about as well. I'm not condoning illegal activity, but if you have a gaming club that painted the double eagle on the wall inside your gaming area, you'd never get caught. On the internet, it's a different story.

The one other wrench to all this is the concept of implied licenses. These are also judicial creations, but, for example, you could most likely (but possibly not) paint GW's double headed eagle onto a Space Marine banner because GW has implied permission to use their imagery to paint their models. (Although I think you may actually have expressed permission for that, I'm just creating a hypothetical to illustrate a point). But again, implied licenses are decided by courts not us.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Hey, good to have an IP guy onboard.

I would like to point out that international treaties do mean that GW (a UK company) can sue Chapterhouse (a US company) for (perceived) trademark and copyright violation - being in one jurisdiction doesn't provide immunity (although countries that haven't signed up to the Berne Convention are probably fine).

In the UK "parody" does not fall under fair dealing, and whilst there are moves to get that written into law, it isn't so at the moment.

Also George Lucas (US) recently attempted to sue a British citizen for making Star Wars Stormtrooper helmets. He failed. The UK courts determined that film props are not "works of art" but just "items of industrial design" which means they have a copyright duration of 15 years. So if I understand that correctly, all the designs in Star Wars are now out of copyright in the UK on that precedent. Similarly it wouldn't take too much for a UK court to decide that a playing piece for a game was not a "work of art" but instead an "item of industrial design" (purely meant to signify the location and attributes of the troop in the game) and we'd find a large corpus of GW IP suddenly in the public domain. I do not have the money to test that theory.

Just John":1wdjgczo said:
Or one that was similar to the GW one but not the same?

That's a tricksy one, and directly releveant to my Oldhammer graphics so I'll throw in my answer. In copyright there is a thing called a "derivative work", which is when something that is based on another work. In the visual arts, "based on" means visually, not the idea. So the idea of say, "some words with demonic faces and spikes coming out of it" can't be copyrighted, only the specific expression of that idea. Beyond that, it's not a case of saying "does it look similar", its a question of "was it copied", so in that a jury would have to judge whether or not the actual lines and angles of the drawing were derived from the previous art. So are my Oldhammer banners derivative works? I'd say no, they aren't actually derived from the GW graphics, they just intentionally look similar, but are actually competely different. I do not have the money to test that theory, but I'm comfortable with what I've done.
 

ardyer

Member
Zhu Bajie":3bdb1big said:
Hey, good to have an IP guy onboard.

I would like to point out that international treaties do mean that GW (a UK company) can sue Chapterhouse (a US company) for (perceived) trademark and copyright violation - being in one jurisdiction doesn't provide immunity (although countries that haven't signed up to the Berne Convention are probably fine).

GW didn't need treaties to go after Chapterhouse. GW has US copyrights and US Trademarks, which is what they are seeking to enforce. There is no jurisdictional problem there.

My earlier comment on jurisdiction was more along the lines that I cannot say for certain is someone in the UK is violating UK laws since I'm not educated on the specifics of laws there. That is compounded by the fact that certain European countries tend to be very "lax" in their copyright enforcement, both judicially and legislatively. I'm just not qualified to make a definitive judgement outside of the US.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Thanks for clarifying. Even if they didn't do the silly US registration process, they'd still be able to sue as there are bilateral copyright agreements - hence the Lucas case. Nobody should be thinking jurisdiction provides protection.

Here's a different one:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebre ... =25&HIST=1

Hmm, link broken. Anway record: TX0001369136

GW appear to hold joint copyright to the AD&D Fiend Folio. Seeing as TSR has been bought out by WoTC, shouldn't the copyright record have been updated to show the current owner?
 
Back
Top