We got a mail from WG

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “We got a mail from WG

      1. It sucks a lot, but legally I don’t think you have much choice other than to give up against WGs claim or put yourself in a dangerous place possible facing legal issues…

        Like

  1. I would respond back saying you will delete it, but asking if you can start getting exclusive contact for any of their products , before they are shown to anyone else. Doesn’t hurt to ask.

    Like

      1. Not true….. They give you, for free, all the ads and product info from shit they wanna sell, so they have a cheap/ free advertising platform. At least, that’s what they want.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. So Excalibur is officially dead: “This WAS an internal project…”

    I wonder if all the other sites who have shared the info will get am e-mail to delete them. Also how could Wotclue upload the videos to their Youtube channel? I tried to upload them to my channel unlisted and before the upload finished it was already disabled because it’s copyrighted material.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. sure, it’s covered by NDA BUT what does TAP have to do with that? they didn’t sign anything, right?
    as they said, it was internal development so those outside the company wouldn’t have access to it yet and would not be required to sign a NDA, so, they can’t accuse TAP of anything, right?

    Liked by 6 people

      1. But it is how NDA’s work. You can’t say “covered by NDAs, therefore publication of any materials related to it constitutes a copyright violation” – the two are entirely separate processes. If WG is invoking an NDA to claim copyright, either their lawyers have no idea how the law works, or they have nothing and are just trying to come up with something scary-sounding to intimidate TAP.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I signed an nda to not reveal any game im testing so if TAP did not sign nothing he had a right to share something.. I can’t say anything more cause of the NA pricks can’t say anything bad else its a ban ROFL

          Liked by 2 people

        2. NDA and copyright violation are two different things. The NDA prevents you to even talk about stuff in public. However releasing images and video material that you don’t own and have no license for does constitute a copyright violation even if you haven’t signed an NDA.

          So TAP can talk about Excalibur, but you can’t host/link to copyrighted image and video material without WGs approval. WG in this case only mentions the NDA to highlight that whoever uploaded the content did not have a license to do so.

          Like

    1. It’s not like they could do anything else, since TAP did not sign anything WG related at all.
      Also, those videos has been deleted since, so they can’t cry about those either.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. lol @ retards who are mad at WG
    shows how youre all kids that never worked. they asked only to delete, they could do much more damage if they wanted to.

    Like

  5. lol@ retards who don’t understand how copyright law works. They have to communicate in writing as the first step.

    How to get the content removed
    The first step is contact the website owner in order to remove the content. You should specify the original content URL (your webpage) and their webpage URL that has the same content.

    You can find their email address in most cases in a “Contact us” form. If not, another way to find an address is in “Terms of use” (which in most cases includes the company address). Another option is to get the address from WHO-IS.

    After finding the address and sending a request for removal, the content should be removed.

    Once this happens, the search engine will also remove the reference to this article and your page ranking will then be accurate.

    In serious cases where you do not receive a response from the site owner, actions include a cease and desist (and possible law suit) as well as send a request to search engines to remove the content manually You can request for Google and Bing to remove this content.

    If the website owner does not answer, in some cases you can contact the platform to remove this content. For example, if the website is hosted by Blogger and the website owner does not answer, you can contact Blogger directly to ask them to remove the content.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. zero fucking sympathy..and yet more clickbait headers from you as usual Seb. An NDA means exactly that just because you immaturely go against it doesn’t make it any less illegal…trashy content from a trash blog as per usual.

    Like

  7. So…
    1. Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution. This is usually only for a limited time. The exclusive rights are not absolute but limited by limitations and exceptions to copyright law, including fair use.

    So we can say that Excalibur is an exclusive work, but limited time since the game is shuttered?

    2. Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work’s creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned.

    Reproduce, distribute? Were these videos not made by WG and put up for public consumption, distribution?

    3. Piracy & Freebooting. The term “piracy” has been used to refer to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright. The term “freebooting” has been used to describe the unauthorized copying of online media, particularly videos, onto websites.

    So the gray area is unauthorized distribution and unauthorized copying onto digital media. But if the videos were put up for the public to download and view and thus copy themselves, doesn’t that make it a public fair use policy??? The next bigger question is TAP considered to be a commercial entity??

    4. Fair use is a doctrine in the law of the United States that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement.

    So it could be interpreted that taking videos that have been made public and thus re-hosted to a news and information website for games by gamer’s, can be fair use!?1?1?!

    **The first factor is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.**
    **Second factor: To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are not protected by copyright—only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection.**

    **Fourth Factor: The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner’s ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant’s specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner’s market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.**

    Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless the plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a “prima facie” case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant’s work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense. In addition, fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement.

    5. In order to qualify for protection, a work must be an expression with a degree of originality, and it must be in a fixed medium, such as written down on paper or recorded digitally. The idea itself is not protected. That is, a copy of someone else’s original idea is not infringing unless it copies that person’s unique, tangible expression of the idea. Some of these limitations, especially regarding what qualifies as original, are embodied only in case law (judicial precedent), rather than in statutes.

    So i am seeing here that id the videos were produced by TAP with talking about the points of the video, the game and relates to WoT and how it was shuttered by Seattle closing into the future of the game vs Armored warfare…then it becomes TAP idea and is thus protected. Right??

    Like

  8. :( Money makes the world go around! It’s not about law, it’s about what can WG do about this. They have lots of money, so they can do a lot if they want to…

    It’s funny how Sharky has no issues connect to this leak since he couldn’t bear to post something TAP watermarked :) :) :)

    Like

    1. Dude, why does everyone think Wargaming is super rich? lmao

      I hear idiot tanks streamers all the time saying “WG has billions” – are you actually that stupid?

      Show me some actual data, the only thing I see is data from 2012, Revenue of 217 million and a net income of 6 million, thats not exactly a ton of money for a company of 4000 employees.

      They can’t just buy whatever they want.

      They’re shutting down offices, what does that tell you?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Robopon i’m pretty sure you’re a WG employee. I’ve never seen you post ANYTHING critical of WG.

          Give me some data of this “Half a billion dollars someone calculated” because it smells like total bullshit.

          I didn’t buy a box, nor did anyone I know (of the 5-6 people i know that play this game)

          Liked by 1 person

          1. And you’re probably a child since I’ve never seen you post anything remotely intellectual. You’re probably not a child though.

            Like

    1. It is their intellectual property. Using it without permission is a copyright violation everywhere but maybe China. You can’t post Deadpool 2 on Youtube either…

      Like

  9. lol copyright. Right so every time you take ten Euro out of your wallet it is copyright because the public can see the 10 Euro note. Ridiculous and it was merely a request so just ignore it.

    Like

  10. I saw the video, the game looks like crap. Of course it is pre-alpha but a bunch of MBTs and attack helicopters fighting at point blank ranges looks bad. More arcade-ish than WoT.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.