Granny Wendy finally did it

[Geggster]

So this news is one of three things:

1) An explicit decision to stop "supporting" SG
2) An implicit decision to stop supporting (i.e. - six months from now, "hey, did we forget to put SG stuff on the new site? Oh well, never mind. No-one probably noticed, I don't think anyone plays those games anymore anyway")
3) A soft launch of the new site and SG stuff will get picked up in the near future.

My money is probably on number 2.

I think the NAF could be forgiven for hosting the CRP - being the official rules when GW aren't making them available themselves (perhaps ever, perhaps just "yet"). The full Icepelt version? - that's a different kettle of fish for me. GW have got very lawyery before when that (or a version of that) was made public through recognised channels.

Of course, I'd like to see the rules, with all their fluff and glory attached to them, because the CRP version is a dry and humourless piece when put alongside the Icepelt version but I don't know how sensible that is.

[JT-Y]

When I had a copy of that PDF printed for me so I could have a travel copy ... I didn't have any troubles. I thought it was okay as a file for printing (at least the folks at Staples could work with it).

Tom

Just differing software is all. Ours requires fonts embedded.

So this news is one of three things:

1) An explicit decision to stop "supporting" SG
2) An implicit decision to stop supporting (i.e. - six months from now, "hey, did we forget to put SG stuff on the new site? Oh well, never mind. No-one probably noticed, I don't think anyone plays those games anymore anyway")
3) A soft launch of the new site and SG stuff will get picked up in the near future.

My money is probably on number 2.

Number 1 I believe. It was decided a while back to just let SG die off and concentrate on what makes money.
I remain surprised it lasted for so long.

[DixonCider]

So would I, may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

My only complaint about the Icepelt version is that the fonts aren't imbedded, so I can't get it printed nicely and perfect bound.

When I had a copy of that PDF printed for me so I could have a travel copy ... I didn't have any troubles. I thought it was okay as a file for printing (at least the folks at Staples could work with it).

Tom

printing a copy out tonight on the work printer... no one here works with me right?

[GalakStarscraper]

The full Icepelt version? - that's a different kettle of fish for me. GW have got very lawyery before when that (or a version of that) was made public through recognised channels.

Actually that is untrue. Feel free to PM me ... you are remembering history incorrectly.

[Gaixo]

Most other specialist games have a hub that hosts the full rulebook, including background materials. Witness Yakromunda/Yaktribe, which has pretty much every rules document ever produced for Necromunda available for download, and is in the process of adding GorkaMorka and Mordheim.

If they are more protective of the BB rules, I'd wonder why. I would think that skirmish games using modified versions of their core rule systems would be more valuable to them.

[GalakStarscraper]

Most other specialist games have a hub that hosts the full rulebook, including background materials. Witness Yakromunda/Yaktribe, which has pretty much every rules document ever produced for Necromunda available for download, and is in the process of adding GorkaMorka and Mordheim.

Fair point. That does give definite backing that the NAF should host the Icepelt rulebook.

Two other points in support of Icepelt.

That ENTIRE PDF was typed up by fans of the game. Not a single GW employee was involved in the creation of that document. GW lost the source files for Blood Bowl so the entire rulebook was recreated from nothing by Josh Blanchette, Dan Siger, Stephen Hutton and myself. So the Icepelt rulebook is entirely in essence a fan document. Icepelt Hammerblow took the last version of the Rulebook (LRB 5.0) and simply added in the changes for LRB 6.0 to create a CRP with the graphics and background. Again ... fan work not GW work.

The second point I'd like to offer. The 3 Extra Teams PDF that the NAF has hosted for years used GW's formatting and how one of those teams is in Cyandie's game with GW blessing. GW has not once legally complained about that document being there on the NAF site despite the fact that they have similar legal footing to do so as I created that document during the same time I worked on LRB 6.0 and both were submitted to GW as part of that work.

Tom

[Geggster]

My recollection is that what was thought to be called LRB6 (full rules, full fluff, just lacking slann, pact and underworld - and therefore not the Icepelt version per se) was made public and that caused some serious ructions.

Yes, perhaps best over pm.

[GalakStarscraper]

My recollection is that what was thought to be called LRB6 (full rules, full fluff, just lacking slann, pact and underworld - and therefore not the Icepelt version per se) was made public and that caused some serious ructions

Nope ... never happened. And I have the personal C&D letters to prove it for all the stuff they DID have serious ructions about.

[Indigo]

That ENTIRE PDF was typed up by fans of the game. Not a single GW employee was involved in the creation of that document. GW lost the source files for Blood Bowl so the entire rulebook was recreated from nothing by Josh Blanchette, Dan Siger, Stephen Hutton and myself. So the Icepelt rulebook is entirely in essence a fan document. Icepelt Hammerblow took the last version of the Rulebook (LRB 5.0) and simply added in the changes for LRB 6.0 to create a CRP with the graphics and background. Again ... fan work not GW work.

I don't mean to be inflammatory or split hairs here - obviously you're closer to what happened but isn't the icepelt edition written such that it uses the same layout, images, font, formatting and IP that GW owns, so even though fans "wrote" it, if it's basically a direct copy of the GW-owned source IP/materials, how can that be a fan document?

Otherwise what would stop someone taking a harry potter book, writing it all out themselves in word then publishing it saying "it's a fan document"? I'm unclear how just adding to existing GW material stops the copyright breach?

[Indigo]

To follow on, I always assumed icepelt was tolerated because it was either not on GWs radar or after their massive IP crusade they'd gone back into a state of quiessence.

Though I doubt we'll ever really know?

[garion]

My recollection is that what was thought to be called LRB6 (full rules, full fluff, just lacking slann, pact and underworld - and therefore not the Icepelt version per se) was made public and that caused some serious ructions

Nope ... never happened. And I have the personal C&D letters to prove it for all the stuff they DID have serious ructions about.

was that more to do with the selling of their individual miniatures so people could complete their full bloodbowl teams thing?

[Indigo]

Also, out of nothing more than curiosity, are you explicitly not allowed to publish any C&D letters etc you've received?

[GalakStarscraper]

I don't mean to be inflammatory or split hairs here - obviously you're closer to what happened but isn't the icepelt edition written such that it uses the same layout, images, font, formatting and IP that GW owns, so even though fans "wrote" it, if it's basically a direct copy of the GW-owned source IP/materials, how can that be a fan document?

Indigo ... not inflammatory at all to me. Yes I definitely agree with your point. However what I was definitely trying to point out was that not a single hour of GW's paid for time went into pulling that PDF together. Did GW's employees write the original text and images and layout ... yes. But that document was lost by them and it was the fans that spent all the time to retype it and reformat it. It is splitting hairs on my side I get. But to me at its core the Icepelt book is a labor of love by the fans to save the game when GW dropped the ball by destroying the rulebook files.

was that more to do with the selling of their individual miniatures so people could complete their full bloodbowl teams thing?

Actually no. BB.net was actually built with GW's advice and help. I had to close that site because my source for the individual figures become unable to get them anymore. Not because GW objected.

Also, out of nothing more than curiosity, are you explicitly not allowed to publish any C&D letters etc you've received?

They are long and dry ... but I have no issues putting on the record what the 3 C&D letters I received said as I think folks are always surprised to hear that Impact! was not on the list (nor BB.net).

The 1st said: I had to remove my post requesting companies not create star players for the ones that did not have official GW figures posted on TFF. As punishment for posting that I was banned from life from the BBRC and for ever helping Cyanide or GW again with any project (which didn't hold as I was asked back to work on Khorne soon after ... so much for the legal rage (which is another reason I think NAF should host Icepelt ... the woman who sent me these 3 C&D letters is gone from GW and I don't think her brand of legalese is their ticket anymore (especially after the Chapter House lawsuit))).

The 2nd said: I had to remove 5 specific images from BB.net that they objected to as I had used 5 stock images from the GW site for individual figures that I could not find that anyone has painted and photographed.

The 3rd said: I had to rename the blood-bowl.net website as they said the name was protected and that I had to remove from blood-bowl.net all my documents regarding Blood Bowl rules from any GW source. Specially list was all the Citadel Journal articles I had posted on my site as an archive for players. Then in normal legal fishing net wording ... they included in the fishing net that anything related to BB rules from a GW source should be removed from the site. So because of the fishing net ... I pulled down LRB 6.0 but it was never specifically mentioned in any of the C&Ds.

So there is the full content of all 3 C&D letters I received back in December 2009. I just wanted to post this so it was clear that GW has never protested directly the Icepelt rulebook when it was called the LRB 6.0. And that Geggster was remembering incorrectly that it was that document that caused any of the legal uproar. It was my post about the Star Players that was what got Ms. New GW Legal up in a fit.

Tom

[Digger Goreman]

I really don't get #1.... Sounds like you were protecting the ol' hag... and you got the severest punishment....

Vindication of all you've done for the community: banned or not, you are still the people's expert on all things Blood Bowl....

Throw a bucket of water on the witch and slam the door against her arse as she passes... she's done....

[VoodooMike]

There's really no question that hosting their documents is/will be a copyright violation they can do something about. That said, there's no IP protection for the rules of a game, only for the specific wording of documents and associated images, etc. Though it would be a major project in itself, a re-write of the document specifically to NOT simply copy it verbatim, and using different images and such, would bypass all the IP concerns. That includes most trademarks, too, since trademarks are not universal - they cover only specific uses not all references. The trademarks would only be an issue if you tried to include the resulting document in a package with actual gaming materials like minis or a board, etc.

Now, granted, that doesn't mean GW won't still send you a C&D letter... it just means that it would carry no weight.

If the community actually created a new document in this fashion, however, it would handle pretty much every GW-related issue from that point on. It'd also put control of the document back in the hands of <whomever>, with that whomever not being GW anymore. Given GW's most recent move, it's a semi-inevitable step if the game is to continue.