Impetvs is in its second edition. With that second edition, a rejiggering of army lists was required. What this means is that all of the Army Lists in the base rules and all of the Extra Impetvs booklets are now obsolete.
Before Warbook1 was published, tips for converting Impetvs 1.0 Army Lists to Impetvs 2.0 were provided. Those suggestions were welcomed but I hoped these transitional approaches would be fully retrofit to the Army Lists in the booklets already published.
Well, it may come as no surprise but when Warbook1 was announced, I ordered a copy of the booklet. When the book arrived, I checked a few of the lists and found a lot of similarity between Warbook1 and the older versions.
One surprise in the book was the inclusion of the photo below:
Yes, I recognized this piece straight away since it is one of mine. Of course, the photo is attributed to me but it was used without permission. Is copyright meaningless in the Internet Age? Now, I am still on the fence whether to be flattered or annoyed. Is it really that hard to seek permission? Had permission been requested, I could have at least provided a higher resolution photo.
Your thoughts? Would you be flattered, annoyed, or under the realization that copyright is outdated and unenforceable in today's society?
Bad form, to say the very least. They should have sought permission, end of story.
ReplyDeleteI agree especially for commercial use.
DeleteYeah - I am kind of on the fence on this one I guess - I would be happy if one of my images was published and at least they did attribute it - BUT when a book is being professionally prepared and published, they surely could take a couple of minutes to contact you and ask if you had any objections....
ReplyDeleteYep. A little effort would go a long way.
DeleteInteresting.....I do think they should have sought permission, although I am not really sure of the rules. I started blogging to share what I was doing, get feedback and the engagement/interaction we all enjoy. For me I would take it as flattering 😀
ReplyDeleteOK, a vote for "flattering". If contacted, I could have provided a better quality photo...
DeleteConsidering that they managed to find your blog they could at least have left a comment asking permission to use an image - not hard really
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteTwo things fall out of your post. The first annoys me and that is the whole Codex thing about rule sets and then doing a revision that causes a re-purchase of everything.
ReplyDeleteIn this day and age, where web hosting is easy and cheap, I would prefer to see a company sell a really good rule set and then do army lists on line. This is the way that Mortem et Gloriam has gone, with over 650 lists.
Swordpoint have just brought out 2nd edition rules, but they have been designed to work with existing list books, also they have brought out a massed battle set of rules (15mm and less) which also work off those lists, so that is good.
The real problem with list books is that you generally just want two armies from the fifty offered, so in effect you pay book price for 3 pages worth of lists and then the thing has to be stored as a dust collector!
Copyright - yes bad for a professional publication. I think that over the last 20 years, there has just been an erosion of ‘rights’ and more importantly consideration. The idea that everything on the internet is free has probably been the single most detrimental impact on copyright, followed by the difficulty for the ordinary person to pursue any real sort of re-dress.
With that said, I would feel complimented by the inclusion in the rules of the photo and the attributed label, but disappointed that such a fine piece of work is not represented by a high res, crisp image to do it justice.
If you type ‘wargame hittite image’ into google, your bases do show up early in the list.
You've pretty much put my thoughts into words Norm!
DeleteNorm, changing codices is irksome, no doubt. This publisher has begun releasing rules and codices in pdf after the paper copies have been in circulation for a while. Still, your point about wanting only one or two armies from the books is a good one.
DeleteCopyright and IP laws are being dashed upon the rocks in this age. For a commercial publication, copyright permissions ought to be sought and obtained before publishing.
As for "wargame hittite image" in Google, I gave it a try and mine are nowhere to be found! Your Google search engine is more discerning than mine!
Mine is set to ‘look for nice stuff’!
DeleteYou're funny.
DeleteI understand your annoyance but I rather think I'd be flattered Cheeky buggers all the same.
ReplyDeleteAnother vote for "flattered" in the books!
DeleteIt would have been easy to have asked for permission, and they probably should have done. They probably work on the principal that wargamers are just happy to have their stuff in print.
ReplyDeleteYes, it would have been easy to ask for permission. I think this principle is counter to the law and common courtesy.
DeleteHi Jonathan- You already know my take on people who take things - without so much as a thank you. Being 'used' is a very disturbing situation to be in. Yes, they should have sought permission to publish your photo. Regards. KEV.
ReplyDeleteHi KEV. Yes, I know your disappointing saga very well. Compared to your situation, mine is a nit.
DeleteYes that thought had struck me too, before I even got to KEV's comment....
DeleteI hear you, I believe I was stung with Bolt Action version 2 and the new German Army lists, both basically cut and paste jobs. What more annoys me is that having spent time actually researching my army it's pedigree is questioned because what I have does not sit with the 'official' lists. I would prefer to be asked should someone want to use my stuff, I would be chuffed and would no doubt give my permission but it is only common courtesy to ask, wait, it's 2021, duh.
ReplyDeleteI know that one wargaming company some time ago photocopied my scenario books because I would not sell the copyright and had no more to sell. I regret not facing him down. I also know that someone else was selling them on a CD on the internet, or so I was told, I wasn't given a link so couldn't track the perpetrator down.
Thanks for your personal perspective and encounters with these issues. For me, the codices are useful guides to build an army. If I think differently on army composition, I am quick to make changes especially since I am not a tournament player.
DeleteCopying someone's hard work and reselling as your own is unforgiveable.
Definitely bad form, or an admin oversight. They obviously knew where the picture came from as they credited it.
ReplyDeleteAt least my name was spelled correctly!
DeleteDisappointing is what I would say, I don't think I'd be flattered to be honest. I've got extra Impetus 1 for the Italian wars and 100 years war, mainly because I appreciated that basic was free and its how I got back into historical gaming, but still disappointing!
ReplyDeleteBest Iain
Thanks, Iain. It is disappointing and something so easily avoided with a little courtesy.
DeleteIt is always nice to be asked.
ReplyDeleteIndeed it is.
DeleteI would feel rather conflicted, in that I'd be flattered they were used, but more annoyed they didn't have the good manners to let me know. Copyright does still mean something, but only if you're big enough to enforce it.
ReplyDeleteMy business purchased a number of images from Getty to use in our marketing material and one of our resellers in the UK unwittingly reused it without our permission. We are generally happy for our products to be promoted by our resellers as long as it is done within certain guidelines, but would have told him not to use those particular images as, unlike the bulk of our stuff, we had purchased a licence just for our own use. Long story short, it seems that Getty have a legal team devoted to scouring the internet for unlicensed use of their images and hit him with an invoice for tens of thousands of pounds. He settled with them for a lot less, but it cost him a fair bit all the same. Fair enough in many respects, as that is Getty's business.
Having also been involved in trademark disputes in both Australia and the UK, I am also aware how expensive these cases can be to run and also that there can be a lot of inconsistency between jurisdictions when it comes to outcome, even when based on the same system of law.
Our old mate Tango is a different matter. I personally do find it quite amusing and a little flattering when he posts something of mine over on TMP, but realise that you don't and can completely see your point of view. You have a far wider audience with your blog, not least because you put a lot more effort in and have a large amount of interesting variety, so the Palouse Wargaming Journal stands on its own two feet, whereas I find myself in the contradictory position of not really being bothered to post on TMP anymore, and yet always interested to see how much extra attention it gets when he does lift something. I still struggle to understand what he gets out of it though.
And as a long-time WRG Ancients player who has just returned to DBMM, don't get me started on revised lists. I must have ten complete sets of WRG, DBA and DBMM lists on the shelves with many of them exactly the same from revision to revision, but I suppose the forty year period over which they have been released should be taken into account. At least it doesn't appear they have changed the base sizes on you!
Lawrence, I appreciate your comprehensive response greatly. Thank you!
DeleteIt is good to know that Getty Images defends itself. Others do not have that luxury. Hope I never grab one of its photos by mistake!
As for Tango/TMP, I enjoyed having my works flagged by Tango at first too. In the early days, he would publish one or two and then a link to the blog. At some point, he began posting most, if not all, of the photos in one of my posts. I would see many hundreds of pageviews on TMP but only a handful directed back to the blog. There became no incentive for more than the most curious reader to click back to the blog. I asked for this practice to be limited to one or two photos per post. After several unsuccessful exchanges with Admin, I replied to one of Tango's posts suggesting that Tango's contributions be limited to one or two copyright violations per episode. Well, my account was immediately locked without any explanation and that particular post deleted. That was nearly two years ago. TMP receives revenue per pageview so there is no incentive to stop this practice but one party ought not to monetize another's work.
That would annoy me beyond belief; to be locked out of a forum for making a complaint, and then having to put up with continued instances of your work being shown without permission which was the very practice you were asking to be limited, but now with the right to respond removed. I'd be very annoyed.
DeleteIt is indeed nice to see your toys in a publication Jonathan...
ReplyDeleteBut...
I am sure I would be able to to find a way to ask your permission...
Especially if I thought you could provide a better quality image...
You may have even had a more suitable picture...
So... nice try but no cigar...
All the best. Aly
Thank you, Aly!
DeleteI think it would be a mix of all three at the same time. Perhaps a line at the top of your blog is in order to let people know your preference.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to think about it myself. I've occasionally been amused and bemused to see a google search pop up some of my own pictures as a reference for me to use (a reminder of how unreliable it can be as a source of fact) but who might decide to use the images for who knows what purpose once posted? ......
Hi Ross. There is a copyright notice in the blog footer. At different times, I have placed more obvious notices near the top of the blog but those went unhonored as well. If you write it, you hold copyright whether specified or not.
DeleteYeah, for commercial purposes, I'd say permission is needed.
ReplyDeleteI think so too.
DeleteRegarding the photo, I suspect that if it originally appeared on your blog, then you may have already signed over any copyright to Blogger (and therefore, Google or its parent company). If you can bear to spend the time, it might be worth checking the Blogger terms and conditons (does anyone ever?!).
ReplyDeleteSo I'm afraid if anyone has a right to take action against the Impetus guys, it may in fact be Google. I guess I have assumed that by making my blog open to the public, I have effectively allowed anyone to copy anything I post. The TMP issue is interesting, I was amazed when one of my efforts ended up on there, but I think I resigned myself to it for the above reason - at least the chap included a link to my blog, and I got some extra views from it. But having already heard about the way he operates, I have steered clear of his page.
I sympathise with Norm's view re: army lists and new editions, it often looks like a money-making scheme. But that's the business model, I suppose, and it has a long pedigree, famously going back to WRG Ancients - though they weren't charging '30 quid a pop'. Let the buyer beware, I suppose..
This has been a very successful post, in terms of generating discussion - all good stuff!
DeleteHi David! Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your are correct, this short post has generated a good debate.
On the topic of Google/Blogger owning content posted on its platform, that is not true. Well, at least from what I read. The author still holds all copyright on the content. Blogger is a platform only. For a practical example, if Blogger or Google owned the content of your blog then Google could prevent you from transferring your content to another platform (say, Wordpress). That is not the case. Google/Blogger could remove content violating their terms of agreement but they do not take ownership.
This is the opinion of an IP layman...me!
thank you, that is interesting, I was clearly being too pessimistic!
DeleteI think you might suggest that 'Impetus' give you a free copy of their next publication..
I've not had the problem of having pics from blog posts being used without permission, but I don't do searches for figures online. I would be flattered by it but they should have asked you and since they are making $$ from it, maybe a free copy or some credit to the new version. And on that note, I have binned several rule sets when they issued a vol 2/3/4... and all the previous items were then useless: WFB, 40K, Bolt Action, Flames of War, Saga... the list goes on and on. It wouldn't be so bad if the books weren't usually in the $40+ range. Maybe I'm just cheap...
ReplyDeleteSome form of good will would be a step toward correcting this oversight. Thanks for the visit and the comment!
DeleteSeparate from your issue, I don't think it's unreasonable for there to be a second edition of rules,it has been some years since the original version and it was possible to use the old lists, really you would only need the new lists if you were playing in tournaments, I don't think either Impetus's publishers or Warlord with their blackpowder/bolt action are doing the same as as GW with their frequent codex changes and insistence on the use of only their figures, they should still have asked for permission for your photos but I don't think they're all bad!
DeleteBest Iain
I don’t think a second edition is unreasonable either. In fact, I bought second edition when it came out. I agree that many of the lists I checked in Warbook1 were very similar to the earlier or beta lists. As you say, probably more important for tournament players.
DeleteI doubt they actually needed permission to use the photo but I think the polite thing to do would of been to inquire about it. But hey, done Is done now. Still, you probably own the market on photos of nicely painted chariots with all that have crossed your painting desk recently. 😀
ReplyDeleteHi Stew. I maintain that even fair use policy does not cover the use of copyrighted material. If permission is not needed for use of copyrighted material, why have copyright protections at all?
DeleteYou are very kind on your support of my work and that is much appreciated!
Thanks!
Lorenzo is charging money for the Warbook. I have no issue with asking people to provide photos and not offering any form of recompense - the flattery of having them published for a favourite set would be more than enough. However, simply taking and not asking permission is wrong on all counts.
ReplyDeleteRichard
I am with you.
DeleteSeems poor form to me to be honest Jonathan! One should ask for permission for this sort of use I think.
ReplyDeleteAs to revision of rules and lists, I guess I don't mind too much given the frequency of this for historical games I play tends to be fairly low (DBX family of games). I basically stopped any interest in GW because of their vastly expensive and frequent revisions.
Second Editions are a good way to bring all of the errata and clarifications into one text so I have no objections either.
DeleteJohnatan get in touch with Lorenzo he used one of my images with permission and I was given a free copy of Warbook 1 so you should have your cost reimbursed at the very least I'm sure he would sort that.
ReplyDelete*Johnathan* sorry typed whilst in a moving vehicle (not driving!)
DeleteThanks, Tony! I am glad to see that your permission was sought before using your photo.
DeleteYes I responded to a facebook call out for pictures with a free copy, I am surprised your image was used without consent I hope you get something sorted.
DeleteA hazard of not bring on FB!
DeleteHmm, in one regard, I say congratulations on the photo. In other respects, I agree with others that permission should have been requested.
ReplyDeleteAsking for permission first seems reasonable and not that hard.
DeleteI have had wargame photos of mine used several times for non wargaming publications, and each time permission was sought in advance (and given). Any photos that I know of in wargame publications were ones that I had assisted with anyway.
ReplyDeleteArmy Lists - they have their purposes, but as I am not a tournament player, strictly guidelines which I feel free to ignore. Having worked on quite a few wargames rules sets thus far, I have to say that writing Army Lists is a royal pain in the posterior; the authors deserve the compensation. which is miniscule in comparison to the work involved! On the other hand, pdf's are the way to go with these now days even more so than actual rule sets.
Wargame photos in non-wargame publications? Tell us more, Peter.
DeleteI am with you with respect to army lists. I am no tournament player and typically follow historical OBs anyway. But, being a curious fellow, I want to see what is in the latest version...
Lorenzo should of asked permission and I'm bit surprised he didn't because he always asked me before including my models in his books. He is a nice guy so maybe he forgot he didn't ask? All that said I would be more flattered then annoyed, but maybe I'm biased as I like his rules.
ReplyDeleteI still haven't ordered my copy yet so that's something that needs to be rectified soon!
Christopher