FA+
Shop
GW Puts Kibosh On Space Marine eBook
13 years ago
General
If you haven't already heard about this -- and this being the kind of small, close-knit community it generally is, you probably have -- this is a brief tale of a Giant trying to kick aside a dedicated self-published credentialed writer over the usage of a popular SF term: "Space Marines".
M C A Hogarth, who has won a few awards here and there, including the Ursa Major for Best Short Anthropomorphic Fiction, has recently completed a new novel titled Spots, The Space Marine. Upon completion, she set it up for publication as an eBook available through Amazon. Very shortly after its publication, Amazon pulled it from the lists because of a complaint that the book was in violation of an already established trademark.
The complaintant was Games Workshop, who claim that they have an outstanding Trademark upon the term "space marine". Seems silly, as the term has been in usage in SF books and literature since Robert Heinlein first coined it.
Here's the basic info from Maggie's blog: http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html
Any support you can whip up would be appreciated. Spread the news to other outlets. Send letter of (polite) complaint to GW. (Not to be confused with GDW.) Look for the book through other outlets, such as Smashwords (where it hasn't yet been pulled).
Don't let the Giant get away with being a bully.
ADDENDUM: The fracas has caught the attention of the Guardian over in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/201.....ht?INTCMP=SRCH
Further Addendum (2/8/2013): Amazon has relented and allowed the book to be posted to their eBook lists. The legal issue of whether or not there is a legitimate claim to infringement is yet to be resolved, however.
And the story makes the BBC news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003
M C A Hogarth, who has won a few awards here and there, including the Ursa Major for Best Short Anthropomorphic Fiction, has recently completed a new novel titled Spots, The Space Marine. Upon completion, she set it up for publication as an eBook available through Amazon. Very shortly after its publication, Amazon pulled it from the lists because of a complaint that the book was in violation of an already established trademark.
The complaintant was Games Workshop, who claim that they have an outstanding Trademark upon the term "space marine". Seems silly, as the term has been in usage in SF books and literature since Robert Heinlein first coined it.
Here's the basic info from Maggie's blog: http://haikujaguar.livejournal.com/1208235.html
Any support you can whip up would be appreciated. Spread the news to other outlets. Send letter of (polite) complaint to GW. (Not to be confused with GDW.) Look for the book through other outlets, such as Smashwords (where it hasn't yet been pulled).
Don't let the Giant get away with being a bully.
ADDENDUM: The fracas has caught the attention of the Guardian over in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/201.....ht?INTCMP=SRCH
Further Addendum (2/8/2013): Amazon has relented and allowed the book to be posted to their eBook lists. The legal issue of whether or not there is a legitimate claim to infringement is yet to be resolved, however.
And the story makes the BBC news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003
Yes - Games Workshop must be burned with fire. We are utterly ridiculing them about this...
I'd forgotten that they'd tried to TM 'Dragon" as well.
These levels of pointless hubris usually seem to indicate a company is on the road to implode. They indicate a sad disconnect with reality.
Heinlein aside, you could even argue that John Glenn was the first "Space Marine"
good luck, Hogarth!
Considering how much of the 40k universe is based around Space Marines and indeed the Black Library (the book-side of the 40k stuff) is all about Space Marines; the walking tanks of zealotry, it's be confusing for both fanbases to have something about a Space Marine who isn't a space marine in the most common sense, not to mention that GW might not want aflliation with the publication for whatever reason.
TL;DR Kicking and screaming because you can't use that word won't do much as GW are more than within their rights to do this, it's how copyright works.
Essentially, GW is claiming to have trademarked a term that was already in the public domain, having been coined and used in SF stories for many decades prior to the claim. Comparative examples (some already made in the other comments in this journal) have been past attempts by TSR to Trademark the words 'nazi' and 'hobbit'. Put simply, you can't do that.
Sure it's not perfect, but that's buisness for you.
And can everyone just put down their torches for just a second; the problem here isn't trademark or copyright as you internet-lawyers suggested, it's really a dilution claim. It's the idea that the Space Marines of Warhammer 40k are iconic enough (a de-facto trademark somewhat) that they can say that naming another book 'Space Marine' would mislead customers. Indeed, I bet 99% of the people serching for Space Marines are looking for the 40k variety rather than Hogarth's ones.
Hell, the problem here isn't even with the book, it's the title. In the book, Hogarth references Starship Troopers, which I'm sure if you put those on the title too would rile a Hollywood Studio or two.
People are making mountains out of molehills for one bumhurt author in a lawsuit that'll end with a big wet fart of Hogarth perhaps changing the name of their book.
Secondly, GW has a right to trademark and protect their games; that does not give them the right to trademark common terms. They can trademark a specific "Space Marines" logo, but not the words themselves. If that were so, they could put out a game called "The Cow" and try to claim Trademark on any usage of the word 'cow'. That ain't gonna happen. Likewise, they can't go around Trademarking a phrase created and used by other people; if the term could have been Trademarked, the estate of Robert Heinlein would be all over their backsides on this. GW is overstepping their bounds and making claims they have no right to be making.
It isn't a matter of claiming trademark, indeed this is no trademark there. It's a matter of the dilution of a brand by using similar titles that seems to be GW's problem.
Also shouldn't we hear GW's side of this story, as so far we just have Hogarth's bawwings and I'm pretty sure GW are just sat there rubbing their hands and twiddling their mustaches.
GW's side of the story thus far has been pretty unresponsive, turning all attempts at communication over to the legal department, who simply responded with a non-responsive form letter. (Links and posts of some of the responses were posted in the comments section of Maggie's journal entry.)
And I do not discount Maggie's account as being the 'bawwing' of some spoiled, over-entitled Internet-age dilettante. She's a level-headed professional writer who has worked hard at her craft and knows her way around the biz. This is a blocking attempt by a bigger business concern who hope to bully her into submission by forcing her into a legal battle in the hopes that her money will run out long before it ever gets heard in court. That is pretty much GW's 'side' of the matter.
srs?
Re-tweeting this shit.
~ I don't mean to sound like a cold hearted bitch, but it's not even the living situation, it's the fact that this is more or less patent trolling, and that, in and of it's self hurts creativity and originality.
I, do not, want to live in a society where being anything but safe and derivative actually poses \legal threat\. Raeg raeg.
And not only was this extremely dishonest of Games Workshop in terms of intellectual honesty, but also LEGALLY as well;
http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics.....FactSheet.aspx
This is the second news concerning the English language to depress the crap out of me this morning since Washington's all gender-neutral bill, which is another story in itself. Such maddness against people's creativity and free speech needs to stop. I need help trying to get by this world.
http://www.amazon.com/Spots-Space-M.....N%3DB006MGJYOE