"What are the legal risks associated with this idea?" Topic

Hello TMP,

Like most of the folks here I have delusions of self publishing a game and would like to get some feed back on the legal issues with what I would like to do. All of it seems reasonable to me, but then I am fairly naive in these regards. If there are issues, can you please also suggest legal alternatives.

Heres the plan:
1. Publish a set of rules and market them through lulu.com.
2. Provide free software that allows folks to design their own troops, armys etc for use in my game. The idea being that they can use their existing figures from any existing manufactures.
3. Provide a site that allows folks to share their data files for the software.
4. Create a website extolling the wonders and virtues of my game providing battle reports of games with miniatures from various manufacturers etc.

So is this just begging for legal action?

Sounds like a fine idea to me. Though it does depend on how many registered names, intellectual ideas etc you borrow from other rules/figure manufacturers.

Form an LLC. It's relatively easy and cheap and will create a legal separation between your business and your personal finances.

First off I'm glad you like the idea.

The game itself and all related publications for sale would be entirely devoid of any other companies intellectual properties, that I didn't have permission to use.

Where I see the potential for problems are steps 2 and 4. If folks want to make a list for one of their existing armies, it is entirely possible within the system. Part of what I would like to know is how can that list be used? Can it be shared (for free), used in battle reports, discussed in forums ? Does it make a difference if these things are done by my customers or if they are done by myself or one of my employees?

I see no issues if it is documented that the army was "converted" (and possibly the steps). Imperial Guard could be French and not SF

I had a really long post, but I'll sum up.

Doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. Somebody with enough money can sit on you like a bully and basically shut down your business for years.

Games Workshop will probably give you a cease and desist if you advertise the fact you have army lists (even in your rules format) of their armies and battle reports of these. They have the view that almost every unique word they use is trademarked (they have the word "ork" trademarked even though there is prior use). They also have the viewpoint that pictures of their miniatures are derivative work and can't be used to gain profit (and battle reports are advertisement and would give you profit).

If you back down and pull things from your website when you get harsh warnings you won't have any problems. You also won't have army lists or battle reports featuring any of the armies you'd probably want on your site.

You need to talk to an IP lawyer if you want to pursue this. Limiting your liability is one of the first things he'll advise (the LLC advice posted above).

I'd also like to point out that a judge can rule any way he see's fit. Civil law is closer to risk management then it is to "right and wrong". IP law is one of the fuzziest chunks of law right now. It's a center focus and won't be that stable for a while.

Just an idle thought re manufacturers. Some get very protective. Obvious ones, GW and (from a recent thread on TMP) Vendel. Others, such as myself, tend to feel that if you want to use/play with/convert our figures, great. You should have a good idea which manufacturers make figures suitable for your game setup.If you don't, pull out now as you don't know what you are doing and will get your fingers burnt.

So. Why not write/email as many as you can and say that you will provide links to these manufacturers? In return, they accept that pictures of their figures may be used in battle reports, possibly uncredited as they will have been sent in by other players. Say that you will assume they are happy with this unless they tell you otherwise.

Any that do tell you otherwise, you could also list on your site with a disclaimer saying that photos of figures from the following manufacturers should not be sent in.

My personal view re the legalities are fair usage – photos of figures in a battle report are a bit different to individual photos. However, a lawyer I'm not.

Just an idle thought re manufacturers. Some get very protective. Obvious ones, GW and (from a recent thread on TMP) Vendel. Others, such as myself, tend to feel that if you want to use/play with/convert our figures, great. You should have a good idea which manufacturers make figures suitable for your game setup.If you don't, pull out now as you don't know what you are doing and will get your fingers burnt.

So. Why not write/email as many as you can and say that you will provide links to these manufacturers? In return, they accept that pictures of their figures may be used in battle reports, possibly uncredited as they will have been sent in by other players. Say that you will assume they are happy with this unless they tell you otherwise.

Any that do tell you otherwise, you could also list on your site with a disclaimer saying that photos of figures from the following manufacturers should not be sent in.

My personal view re the legalities are fair usage – photos of figures in a battle report are a bit different to individual photos. However, a lawyer I'm not.

The best advice you can possibly receive is this: do not seek legal advice on TMP.

Allen

Sounds fine to me. You are doing your own game and creating an environment for the players. I have done the same thing with my (ancient) rules, no problem.

"2. Provide free software that allows folks to design their own troops, armys etc for use in my game. The idea being that they can use their existing figures from any existing manufactures."

I read this and thought "what's the problem?" I can think of any number of rules that include army lists of one sort or another. Then reading posts from others above, I got the impression that you would be trying to specify partucular miniatures in your army design software. Now many manufacturers wouldn't bat an eyelid at this (e.g. GZG) but there are others (dare I say GW?) who would throw a fit!

The answer is simple. If you allow the figures to be described generically and not refer to specific figures from particular manufacturers you will be fine. After all, some of the figures from EM4 are very similar to some from GW. Making it generic enough to cover both makes sense.

The best advice you can possibly receive is this: do not seek legal advice on TMP.

I would extend that to "nor anywhere else on the internet" myself. :)

GarrisonMiniatures2: I think that is a sensible way to proceed.

aecurtis and Hundvig: That makes alot of sense as well, but if I can go to a lawyer with a some ideas (not necessarily all correct) I can save some time and money.

Here is an idea on how to handle uncooperative mini-vendors:
a.The army list would be similar but use mildly changed names (say swap a's for o's, i's for y's etc). Or would I need to radically change the names to avoid issues?

b.Use photoshop to blur out their minis in the reports and/or just use digital maps showing troop movements…

Hey, legal advice is usually worth what you pay for it.

If you have a truly original idea, have some brass and go for it. Anyone can sue. The question is can they win?

If you care merely putting a spin on someone else's product and trying to pass it off as your own, then you have an issue to the extent that you are seeking to profit. If you are not "profiting" from the enterprise, what damages do the owners of the idea have? If anything you are promoting their products.

Best of luck,

mjc

The aforegoing is my personal opinion and does not constitute legal advice. I do not represent any of the above individuals, nor do I seek to represent any of the above individuals in any capacity. If you have questions about a legal matter you should confer with a competent attorney in your own jurisdiction. . . . well I could go on but that's enough legalese for one day.

quidveritas:
My game is (afaik) very original in terms of mechanics. However since I am providing a way for folks to use any minis they want against any minis they want, I am concerned about how people will name armies that are the IP of other companies, and how to refer to them in batreps etc.

Obviously I am not concerned about historical armies since they aren't restricted, its the fantasy/sf stuff that I am concerned about.

As far as just publishing and going off half-cocked and off balanced, well that seems like a huge waste of all the effort I have already put into the project.

"However since I am providing a way for folks to use any minis they want against any minis they want, I am concerned about how people will name armies that are the IP of other companies, and how to refer to them in batreps etc."

You are making a rod for your own back. There are many games that allow players to use any miniatures. A good example is Stargrunt II. Granted, GZG do produce their own range of minis suitable for the game but the rules explicitly state that you can use any miniatures you have. And many players do!

So, say I decide to play SGII (or your game) with some minis I already have. No problem. I then write up a report about it and post it on a web site. Where have I infringed any IP rights of the mini manufacturers?

You suggest that if I use the name of a force "owned" by the manufacturer (come on we all know which manufacturer we are talking about here) then I infringe their IP. That may be true. But why should I want to? Unless I want to set my game in "their" universe then there is no point. Let's face it, there's far better "fluff" around than that a certain Nottingham based company would claim as theirs.

Forget it. Publish your game "usable with any miniatures you have!". If anyone produces an army list or publishes a game report for your game that infringes IP in the way you have suggested – it's not YOUR fault!

However since I am providing a way for folks to use any minis they want against any minis they want, I am concerned about how people will name armies that are the IP of other companies, and how to refer to them in batreps etc.

The law allows for fair use. For example I can write the words Games Workshop, without breaking any law whatsoever.

BTW just because firms claim a wide remit for their IP does not mean a) that they are right or b) that they would succeed if they took it to court (which they have to do themselves, because its a civil matter).

Mike: I feel exactly the same way about fair use, but others may not. Also I am not just thinking of 40K and WH Fantasy, I am also interested in Rackhams prepaints and the Starship Troopers from Mongoose. So there is lots of potential folks to behave in ways that I would consider unreasonable but still find financially crushing.

At the end of the day the main reason why I want to provide rules for these particular minis, is that they are in wide use and also because I have a ton of them painted up. If I need to find alternatives, painting up more minis isn't the end of the world now is it :)?

Overall it seems that most of the folks here seem to be in line with my thinking which is nice.

"Mike: I feel exactly the same way about fair use, but others may not. Also I am not just thinking of 40K and WH Fantasy, I am also interested in Rackhams prepaints and the Starship Troopers from Mongoose. So there is lots of potential folks to behave in ways that I would consider unreasonable but still find financially crushing."

You originally asked for advice re the legality of your proposal. While it is true that legal advice from here or anywhere else on T'internet is worth what you pay for it, I would say that personally I can see nothing wrong with what you propose to do.

1. You publish a set of rules that can be used with any miniatures.
2. People buy your rules and start using minis from 40K, WHFB, Rackham, AT-43 you name it. So what? They are perfectly entitled to do what they like with their minis – they paid for them! In the case of the boxed sets from the likes of Rackham and Mongoose they have already bought the "official" rules anyway! There is no way GW, Rackham, Mongoose or anyone else can claim YOU are infringing their IP – all you did was publish a set of rules. (I am assuming here that you don't do anything daft like say in your publication "you can use figures from XYZ company for these rules" or include photographs of said minis in action). Keep it generic and they can't touch you.

As I said before Stargrunt II does exactly that. GZG have not been sued for IP infringement.

If it still bothers you, either quit now or seek proper legal advice.

Originally I DID want to have lists and batreps for/depicting specific miniatures from other companies. This thread has convinced me that such a course of action would be pushing the line further than is prudent, and I will instead go with more generic lists. Batreps that include IPed (hee hee) minis will only use diagrams and not photos to show the action.

What about companies that have gone out of business: such as warzone etc?

So now that I have sorted out how to use IPed minis, what about non-IPed minis? Do companies have any legal right to keep me from using photos of thier historical minis in battle reports? I dont want to be a dick about it, but I cant see how a company could have a legitimate reason for me not use historical figs, of course I would give credit where due about which companies produced which figs. This assumes I still remember which figs are from which company, some of my 15's are 15+ years old…

I was looking at the Armies of Arcana site and noticed that they have a bunch of GW figs in their batreps. That site has been around for quite awhile, have they ever had any issues with GW because of it? If not is it because they are under the radar or because the minis are fantasy figs from "generic" armies (high elves etc), that are not part of the GW IP?

Just wondering…