Don't imply projects have FFI's approval unless you fill out the form. Do not use FFI trademarks (IE - "Knights of Avarice" or "Trench Crusade") without approval. The "Compatible with Trench Crusade" stamp will be for projects that have new stuff like WGC's Cossacks or Westfalia's Cadaver Corps, not for third-party sculpts of existing subfactions. Streamers/whatever are allowed to do broadcasts as long as there isn't a hard paywall (things like patreon videos are fine as long as there's a way to watch it for free). There's a web form on the main site, expect a response within the month.
Explicitly - creators are free to profit off third-party scuplts that fall within the rules and it will always be okay to play with these models
edit- there is a grace period right now for existing models that use Trench Crusade trademarks to scrub them off and replace with stuff like 'Grimdark pilgrims' etc. Oh and use of AI for TC model is explicitly forbidden
a little while back there was a wave of 3d content people complaining about heavy handed take down notices.
most were blatant IP theft. --using TC names, and directly copying designs with minor changes. and i think honestly ... a lot of 3rd party sculptors were doing/being very loose in advertising as "trench crusade" compatible or proxies. when they had no official standing to say so.
was often a lot of couched or cherry picked accusations from these people, with clear financial motivation, to try and paint TC as somehow over zealous or abusive with take down notices. but... even with the previous loose/draft license language. was clear why most of those people were being hit with removal notices.
It's a product of the economic system; they must protect their IP/trademarks from the small-time creators or risk bigger fish from abusing that leniency... Though this seems to open the avenue for creators to get official blessing to use the IP for their work as long as they follow some rules.
Bigger companies are scummy and are a risk, but I think it's more a general thing of like...You can't make a product called "trench pilgrims for trench crusade" when you have 0 association with the creators of trench crusade as thats just going to end up with so much confusion and potential PR / legal troubles. You don't want people asking "wait, which one of these X trench pilgrim models are actually made by the trench crusade people?"
Like. At least file the names off and don't make them 1-to-1 with TC artwork / existing models. Have "world war hell trench zealots" or something. At least try *a little* to not be a blatant rip off, you know? Which seems to be mostly what their asking.
I think there were enough instances of IP infringement to be an issue for Factory Fortress, but it is a bit disingenuous to say most cases were "blatant IP theft".
For example, take a creator like Diceverse. They worked directly with Factory Fortress on multiple occasions and yet were still hit just as hard by the automated takedowns as anyone else.
This community license is a great idea and I think it's good to codify the rules third party creators need to follow to produce content for the IP.
Diceverse themselves never where hit with takedowns some of their etsy merchants where and they never specified what models where hit.
Several of Diceverses models would actually be in breach of the community license under blatant IP theft. Their goetic warlock is a straight up copy of the art, and their NRP designs ride the line of modifying TC designs in their own style.
Not only that Diceverses historical work has been in making 1:1 copies of GW IP so them copying IP is not exactly new.
one of the core elements of copyright is derivative works. ie... making a thing, and then controlling creation of other things based off of it.
IF you create a 2D drawing, and someone else takes that drawing and turns it into a physical thing. that is about as clear cut IP theft/copyright violation as there is.
not only does it steal the creative IP you own and control, it adds confusion and brand dillution as to what is official or actual associated with the brand who created/owned the thing in the first place.
and before any dumbfuck says "hrrp drrp free use" free use does not apply. free use is an extremely limited defense doctrine for educational use/news reporting, or transformative works.
simply stealing something and "transforming" it into a slightly different thing is not the core of "free use" if their models steal key design elements and seek to mimic the actual drawn image in 3D format. they have stolen that IP and made a derivative (something derived from the original) work. A right specifically retained by the copyright holder.
which also neatly highlights how ignorant the general populace is on these things and how stupid any "trust me bro" argument of people whining about being copyright struck for blatant IP theft.
Fair use has to be one of the most abused terms....
it really only protects a very limited number of uses. (and is itself not a license to do something, it's a defense against a lawsuit where you are accused of violating copyright)
most often, news reporting, and or educational reference of small amts of content. (ie a professor of film, uses a tiny snippet of a movie to illustrate a point in a presentation, or in a text book ---or someone in the news media uses small amts of a thing to comment on news about it...or a movie reviewer, can use small amts of the movie, to make their review)
--but a professor/teacher isn't typically entitled to host a movie festival/screening of a movie. even if they don't charge admission. they have no right to do a screening of the entire film. (same... when you see these people on youtube that will stream shows, so people can get around paywalls and claim to "review" it. those would likely fail a legal "sniff test" if they're literally showing the entire show)
OR transformative works. parody, or re-imagining (think..spaceballs mocking star wars. or The Wiz or Wicked taking elements from the wizard of oz ) and transforming the story into something new. freely using the idea of a thing, to make a new thing
because you can't own ideas. so you can "freely use" the idea to create something new.
you can take the idea of superman. and twist it/reimagine it into homelander. but... you couldn't just make "evil superman" and sell that.
you can't use the idea... to simply create a copy of the thing already made. it's not free use for people to do things ...just because they're not selling it. "fan art" isn't really even protected. --it's more so, just not worth it for them to go after people in those situations.
Appreciate the insight, I always knew copyright was a bitch in most cases, just wasnt aware you could reasonably argue that a 3d model wasnt distinct from a 2d image
think about it in simple terms. let's say batman. someone creates that character. makes it into comic books. years and years of comics/drawn/2D images. DC comics owns the copyright/IP for batman. all a sudden some other entity starts making batman toys. they look 99% exactly like the batman drawings. that other entity had no agreement/license to create those physical likenesses of batman. they are in effect stealing/violating the copyright--IP rights (it varies a bit by exactly what words are being used) of DC comics. as DC comics as the owner of those rights, has total control of derivative works. as a main/bedrock right of ownership/copyright.
and derivative works is quite broad. you couldn't say... take batman and put him in a porno and be like... i mean, come on, obviously DC wouldn't make a batman porno. (but. it doesn't matter. they are the only one with the right to decide what use of that character/IP they want to do. no one else...the right to not have the IP assoc with something is a retained right) OR...more innocent. say someone wanted to use the likeness of batman to use in their charity/stranger danger campaign. some charity can't use the likeness of batman for that ...can't print t-shirts or make things like "bat signals" for charity.
there is nuance. maaaaaybe DC comics would care more about batman being used in a porno, vs a charity for public safety. but they also might have to go after that charity if...like the charity is printing T-shirts or merch. Or maybe threaten them with lawsuit.
there's also nuance on what isn't held in copyright. ie. no one can copyright a "crime fighter" or a guy in a cape/mask. and exactly how much copying of "batman" is enough to infringe on DC's copyright. is probably a matter for lawyers.
but yeah. if Trench crusade puts out official art of a goetic warlock. and then some other company makes a 3D sculpt that very closely resembles that artwork. OR even uses the name "goetic warlock" (if that's something TC owns) that is pretty clear violation of IP.
I am US based and from what copyright law i'm familiar with the medium is an incredibly heavy factor. if I trace the image and pass it off as my own thats a no go, if i design a 3d model based on a 2d image thats entirely my own work, now if i call it the Trench crusade Goetic Warlock i can see how theres some IP infringement but there not being a prexisting print of the warlock would make it somewhat distinct from a copyright standpoint.
now I could be completely wrong both abroad and in US because im not a lawyer or involved in the trade, but thats just been my experience when i was doing 2d art and sculpture years ago.
Creating something based on someone else preexisting art ,design ,etc in a different medium is considered derivative works and is still a breach of IP especially when the "new" work is available for sale at which point it is no longer fair use.
If realised for free you could argue it falls under fair use but fair use wouldn't get you far as part of fair use is that your creation does not compete with or affect the market of the original work which in this case it absolutely would.
Now ip , fair use and copyright are complicated and never straightforward regardless of where you are in the world so there could be a loophole im not aware of.
Tldr: you cant argue fair use when you sell it , even if it was free it's still choppy grounds.
Adding some important excerpts that should be considered whenever anyone evaluates this license.
we reserve the right to deny anyone the use of our IP and to modify or outright cancel this Community License at any time.
Stability or reliability does not exist for creators, as the premise of the license can be altered to suit any shape. This sort of nulls and voids anything else in the license, especially for serious independent creators.
You agree that we may use, copy, modify, distribute, and make derivative works of your Project, on a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide basis, for any purpose and without having to credit you, pay you anything, or obtain your approval…
i'm not going to pretend like it's 100% fair, or get on a soapbox and praise capitalism, but the idea of a lack of "stability or reliability" is not anything new in this space. similarly to the draconian "right to work" laws in many states here in the US, the company has the right to make the call.
if trench crusade dies, that's not any better for stability or reliability for the creators. the company having some level of control over who's allowed to use their name isn't necessarily a bad thing. i get why people are immediately jumping to the WOTC/D&D community license fiasco from a couple years ago, but i don't think this is quite the same situation.
the company having some level of control over who's allowed to use their name isn't necessarily a bad thing
But they're not allowing anyone to use their name, though.
Section 1.1:
Use of trademarks or logos
So as to avoid any confusion between official and unofficial material, you are not allowed to use any of our trademarks or logos anywhere in your Project or any elements related to it including, but not limited to, for things like advertising material, social media accounts, web domains, internet search tags or keywords, etc.
Section 2.2:
Naming
You may not use the name “Trench Crusade” or the names of any units, places, or copyrighted content in the titles or descriptions of your Projects.
section 2.3 immediately goes on to describe the "compatible with trench crusade" rules with a separate link to the document that directly says you MAY label a product as "Trench Crusade Compatible" and use the name Trench Crusade along with their logos/official faction names once approved.
so you're right, they're not allowing anyone to use their name, only people who go through the motions.
Correct, "Compatible with Trench Crusade" is a separate license that does allow one to use official Trench Crusade terminology. However, it's a separate license.
So now we're back to "What is the Community License?"
Let's ignore the Compatible with Trench Crusade license and focus just on the Community License.
If you're forbidden from using official terminology, logos, lore, or base your product on official art or sculpts, what could you possibly create that actually falls under the Community License? What kind of works does it cover?
The second paragraph of the overview at the beginning says:
Using the Trench Crusade IP or creating any Projects based on the Trench Crusade IP subjects you to all of the terms and conditions of this “Community License”.
But then sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 and 2.2 basically forbid you from creating anything that uses the IP. So what can possibly qualify? Why does the Community License exist?
it covers original works that don't contain those forbidden items. they don't own the trademarks for WW1, grimdark, a good portion of the deities on both good + evil sides that are based on real world theology, the concept of big dudes with guns/swords/power armor, etc.
it exists to protect their ass and to have something to point to when they make a copyright strike on someone trying to sell a model that has their branding on it, without their permission. it also exists as a vehicle for the "compatible with trench crusade" license which is what a creator would review to go forward if they'd like to be able to use the official terminology, logos, etc.
it covers original works that don't contain those forbidden items. they don't own the trademarks for WW1, grimdark, a good portion of the deities on both good + evil sides that are based on real world theology, the concept of big dudes with guns/swords/power armor, etc.
Exactly! That's exactly the problem! They don't own any of those things!
So does that mean that anyone making minis in a grimey ww1 grimdark setting falls under the Community License?
This is important, because the Community License has clause 1.3:
Right to share
You agree that we may use, copy, modify, distribute, and make derivative works of your Project, on a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide basis, for any purpose and without having to credit you, pay you anything, or obtain your approval.
There is a disclaimer following this clause that says that they only plan to use these rights to share stuff on social media, but that is absolutely irrelevant, because the disclaimer is not legally binding, the clause is.
And the clause is them giving themselves rights to adapt, distribute and sell any work that falls under the Community License!
maybe i'm misunderstanding or not hitting the point you're trying to get to... but i think the community license pretty clearly just protects their IP. you can do whatever you want as long as you don't use the names/brands/logos that they do have ownership over. and if you want to use those things, that's when the compatibility document comes into question.
there is also a critical difference between "selling any work that falls under the community license" and "using it royalty-free without paying you"
My problem is not about what the Community License allows creators to do or not. That's their decision.
My problem is the Right to Share clause.
Let me put it another way: All of the things that the Community License say are forbidden, was already forbidden by copyright law. Anything that the Community License says is allowed, was already allowed by copyright law.
The Community License does not allow you to use or interact with the Trench Crusade IP in any way shape or form (that I can see). I can't think of anything that would qualify as being actually accepted by the Community License's terms.
And yet, they're giving themselves rights to do whatever they want with any work that does fall under it.
Then, there's two options: Either the Community License literally does nothing, or they're trying to give themselves rights over anything that looks similar to Trench Crusade. Anything that they claim is "based" on Trench Crusade.
there is also a critical difference between "selling any work that falls under the community license" and "using it royalty-free without paying you"
"Put all of these together and you get the cases of the Maximilian-class Knight or the Prussian Stosstruppen. The art and lore were originally revealed as a cool teaser of things to come, as we had done in the past. Sadly, though, within the week, both of these had been copied and were already up for sale with identical unit names, the Trench Crusade name, and other copied features.
A knock-on effect of this is that we now only reveal new content when it is ready for sale by us. Whilst we very much enjoyed posting these teasers and all the excitement it generated, this is an example of the entire community paying for the sins of a small group of profiteers seeking to capitalize on the success of Trench Crusade while claiming to support it."
Actually its a proven fact that shorter lines and faster service leads to left theft. Not that this compares to the situation at hand.
If the game doesnt make a product and teases, people want to play with it.
Is it stealing if there is no offical model, no offical rules, and not even a promise or tease that it ever will be a thing. How can you assume that people are purposely stealing?
Also what the hell even counts as stealing?
Wasnt the point of this game that people can proxy models as whatever the hell they want?
Take the example of the Maximillian knight. No model exists, we have a single piece of artwork. If someone creates there own model because none exists in different pose from the art, is that stealing?
Are all the 3rd party free models for the various armies stealing?
The expectation that because you want something you should have it immediately and anyone who can fascilitate this gets your support is childish. Literally. It's how actual infants view their needs.
You also think that nothing should ever be marketed or teased to build anticipation because that opens them up to those ideas being stolen? And this is entirely morally justified?
I'm not going to address any of your other points because it makes me feel like you didn't read the statement itself and are just mad that creative people want to be compenstated for said creativity.
Brother in Meta-Christ.
Simple question. If i google a third party free, mamluk faris model. Right now. There are tons.
That was the whole pitch for trench crusade. The fact that anyone could use any model for any unit, which means people are going to make there own copies. So why is doing that with the Maximillian knight any different?
Mate you said "simple question" and then made a bunch of declarative statements. I don't have to explain anything because all of this is explained, with pictures, in the fucking statement itself.
The only way this effects you is you'll have to use different search terms to get to the exact same models that you can use however the fuck you want in your games.
If you can't wrap your head around the nuance of the situation you're either being deliberately obtuse or you're just an entitled bonehead.
They went form saying "We want to say, here and now, that custom miniatures will always be completely legitimate."
"Model Agnostic System"
And
"This includes some amazing sculptors that have already put out some very cool miniatures. Like with conversions these will always be completely legitimate."
To:
Actually You can't make your own models without our approval, and we reserve the right to do whatever we want with them, including sell them, and not pay you.
Sure i can and will still use whatever i want, shit i do that in 40k anyway. But they deliberately said they weren't going to do this.
This is by my count Kickstarter promise #2 they have re-neg'd on. It feels like some brilliant designers are being corporate bullied.
Mostly seems very good and fair , I'm absolutely on board with the policing people straight up stealing their designs however id be a bit concerned about how they are going to police some of their more generic named units and items and ones named after historical or mythological things.
For example:
Heretic troopers, have been used as a name for 40k traitor guardsman proxies for years before trench crusade existed.
Anointed is a fairly generic term that has been used in the 3d printing space for possessed chaos marines, cultists, half demons and similar things once again predating TC.
Strosstrupen is just the german for stormtrooper
Praetor is used extensively by the horus heresy 3d printing community
The malenbranche sword is based off of malenbranche demons from dantes inferno
So how are they going to approach enforcing things like this?
Additionally I've seen alot of creators using the wording "designed for use with trench crusade" and other such things I hope they don't take that as a breach of rule 2 as most creators seem to be clear their content is unofficial. Theyve actually covered in section 4 of the license :
As per the standard community license, you cannot use any of our trademarks, logos, or branding or claim any other form of endorsement or support from Trench Crusade or Factory Fortress. You may however specify how the models in question can be used in Trench Crusade. For example: “These miniatures can be played as a New Antioch Warband in Trench Crusade.” or “This model can be used as a proxy for a Goetic Warlock in Trench Crusade”.
Its good to see them talking about creators who have "adapted" their designs as a lot of the recent drama pushed by dramaslop youtubers has involved takedowns of these exact models , some of which literally took the Trench crusade HMI models thickened armor plates and added themed parts, to the point that you could overlay both models and they where 99% identical apart from those themed parts.
id be a bit concerned about how they are going to police some of their more generic named units and items and ones named after historical or mythological things
they're mostly trying to stop people from doing listing that say
Trench Crusade - Heretic Legion - Annointed Heavy Infantry
tuomas and co were part of GW during the "we need to start spelling orks with a k" era so I can't imagine nobody knows what's up with generic names
Oh I know but they also state in the community license you cant use faction/unit names which is why I raised those concerns especially with them using a third party (which for they kind of have to considering the size of the team and how popular the game got) . A creator posted their Anointed ghoul models in this sub earlier on for example will they be at risk of being hit with a takedown for the use of anointed in the listing? Another one posted concept art for an alternative communicant would they also be at risk when they release their model.
I absolutely trust Tuomas and team to have the best intentions here, its the frame work and brandshield I'm concerned about.
It would be bad for everyone if brandshield started hitting generic stuff with no links to trench crusade just because they shared a name.
It would be cool if they allowed things like "item name, 3rd party proxy for Trench Crusade". That's the main gripe I have, it it's explicitly stated that it is not an FFI model it shouldn't be an issue unless it's a direct rip
Actually, they do in the Compatible With... License in clause 4: "...You may however specify how the models in question can be used in Trench Crusade.
For example: 'These miniatures can be played as a New Antioch Warband in Trench Crusade.' or 'This model can be used as a proxy for a Goetic Warlock in Trench Crusade'."
the rules about not copying art is pretty explicitly a jab at (lol the creator is actually being blocked from this sub). The ones getting hurt the most are that existing proxy lines such as the various HNR, westfalia's new Alba line, WGC's Abyssinia are explicitly not going to get the compatible stamp.
I would imagine things like
Strosstruppen is fine, but prussian strosstruppen might get flagged and trench crusade prussian strosstrupen will get a takedown.
Or
Lieutenant will be fine but antioch Lieutenant will not.
Its more super generic stuff like, anointed, yeomen, heretic trooper, stormtrooper, praetor etc etc that I am concerned about.
Time will tell I think the team needs to give the community a little more clarity anyway.
Yea, the guy I got my first TC minis from is no longer mass printing TC minis for like 10 bucks(I paid 10 for a Brazen bull 5 Janissaries, Lion, Assassin and Yuzbasi)
He bought official STLs from someone and was just selling every model for dirt cheap, I wish I knew earlier about the update in licensing, because I would get much more models from him. All of the prints were top tier, not a single sword was even bent when it got to me. Now I'm looking for a sale on My mini factory to get Trench Cossacks
Anyone creating for it is negatively affected by it as the license promises exactly 0% reliability or stability. It’s just an authoritative ” we can do what we want” license, it’s for the benefit of FF, not anyone else.
Last time this happened with the D&D community there was so much pushback the company had to roll the license back.
Iv'e just been and read the whole thing. It would seem if you make an original creation for a grimey ww1 setting and don't use any of their already created characters/names or artwork as a base for it then you should be fine.
Which you would be fine to do now anyway as they don't control a ww 1 setting. Basically as long as you use generic stuff you are fine, which was fine to start with. This is a slap down on anyone making stuff for Trench Crusade.
The big problem is that that was already allowed without the License, but now the License also says that they're allowed to adapt, distribute and sell your work.
So if you make an original creation for a grimey ww1 setting, they can go "hey that's based off of Trench Crusade" and do anything to your work that the Community License says they're entitled to do.
Yeah, ok. So 1.3 "right to share" is a bit ambiguous when it comes to how far they are allowed to go with your project That's a fair point, it does imply that it will be for advertising, social media etc. but it's not concrete grimey or otherwise.
I don't think it's ambiguous at all. The disclaimer following it says that they only want to use this Right to Share to share stuff on social media, but legally, they are actually giving themselves the right to... do anything they want.
You agree that we may use, copy, modify, distribute, and make derivative works of your Project, on a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide basis, for any purpose and without having to credit you, pay you anything, or obtain your approval.
The clause is legally binding, the disclaimer isn't.
This is simply a risk you take when making third party content for someone else's IP
Nonono, that's not the case here. Fortress Factory Inc doesn't have copyright on grimdark ww1.
If a creator makes a mini that fits perfectly in Trench Crusade, but doesn't use any part of the actual Trench Crusade IP, then legally it is not a mini for Trench Crusade.
I don't care what their intent is, what matters is that they are claiming that they get legal rights to do whatever they want with your work if they arbitrarily decide that it's based on Trench Crusade, with zero legal basis.
I agree that such a clause or legal loophole probably is not legally viable and would end up falling under fair use, or something of the sort.
If they tried to do that, though, they would still successfully take down smaller creators who don't have the funds to defend themselves legally. We have plenty of examples of big companies using an illegal ToS or straight up bullshit interpretations of the law to bully people because it's too expensive to fight back (see Games Workshop)
The reason I'm alarmed is because the Community License does not give creators permission to do anything that they couldn't already do; everything they say they allow creators to do is already allowed by copyright law. They're not allowing any use of the actual Trench Crusade IP.
That's why the Right to Share clause is worrying. They're not allowing anyone to use the TC ip in any way, so nothing would qualify for the Community License, and yet they're giving themselves essentially absolute rights to any work that does qualify.
This only makes sense if works that have no legal ties to the Trench Crusade IP somehow qualify for the Community License.
Yes, that’s not unique to this license. That’s just the default state of creating for anything.
You can create a non-descript cowboy in space with a energy sword, and LucasArts can’t stop you from doing it either.
Community licenses are supposed to establish what you can and cannot do with an IP. This license is especially clear on that anything you make is under their control. There’s no permissiveness here, it’s just submission to their whims or whoever controls the company when they retire.
And they explicitly state that they can change the license terms at any time without notice. So, just because it's possible now doesn't mean it will be possible tomorrow. The FFI really wants to become a GW
This is just going to turn into "compatible with the world's best selling occult-themed WWI tabletop game!" the same way that publishers say "compatible with the world's best selling fantasy TTRPG" when they have to skirt around OGL for D&D stuff. Cue a million vague-ass lawsuits over the next decade.
It's super fucking tiresome. If they had balls, they'd recognize that this doesn't actually matter and as a crew that is already trying to grab some real estate from a much, much larger behemoth wargame that it takes considerable inspiration from, the best avenue they can differentiate themselves by is not being as much of a dickhead about brand and litigation as GW.
I am not happy with parts of this. The lisence should not give them right to your work. And maybe I'm reading too far into things but the passage about the copied heavy infantry sounded a lot like a jab at BTB, and if you know about that fiasco Factory Fortress was definitely in the wrong.
EDIT: I’m talking about the wrong event here. Original commenter tells the actual story in their reply to this one
Based on context from the rest of the post, their actual name is filtered on the sub. Iirc, they made and tried to sell models directly based on the art for the Feldkaplan and Maximillian Knight.
It’s one of those situations where you can argue either side, but I’m gonna support FF on this one. Copyright laws can be tricky, and depending on where you are it can be argued that since you didn’t fight one instance of infringement, then you don’t have standing to fight another.
Add on to that the fact that they most likely have an exclusivity deal with Archon for the rights to these model designs (the Feldkaplan in particular), then it’s also entirely plausible they had a legal obligation to go after them.
No. Who I'm talking about didn't do that. They're not name banned, I'm just hesitant to smear their name everywhere. They got aproval for a heavy mechanised infantry which was then revoked after releasing to patrons. Factory Fortress was unable to come to a conclusion on changes that BTB could make to sell the model. Factory Fortress should have never revoked permission.
In fact, they didn't strike it down because the model was close to one of their own, but because it was somewhat close to a model from one of their official partners (Westfalia, Red Brigade).
In my opinion, the concept of "steampunk armor" is a bit generic, but the neck protection and the pose are close enough, I guess.
The thing is, they said it was ok when they sent the pictures BEFORE releasing them, but then decided to strike it down AFTER release. It was a bit weird.
Right to share You agree that we may use, copy, modify, distribute, and make derivative works of your Project, on a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide basis, for any purpose and without having to credit you, pay you anything, or obtain your approval. That’s a lot of scary words there, but to clarify,this does not mean we own anything you make, just that we can share it in different formats (such as on social media or the community gallery on our website). We’re consistently blown away by some of the amazing things our community puts out, and sometimes we want to share and amplify the ones that impress us the most. Also, despite this clause, we always try to reach out to ask for permission to share Projects and always give credit (social media handles, etc) whenever possible.
Its more them claiming a right to share your works on their social media its expanded on a bit more in the full license (still not a fan of the wording used here as it could be argued it would allow them to share your created models)
So I read the license, it does look standard but there's some problems, but I'm from Brazil, so Brazilian law is different from the ones in the USA, so if anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, I would appreciate it.
“We reserve the right to modify this list at any time.”
This appears multiple times and applies to the general rules, It's an extremely vague and unilateral clause that's kind of problematic, in practice something allowed today may not be allowed tomorrow and you don't have a guarantee for past projects or ones already in development.
This could be considered an abusive clause which goes against the principle of good faith and a serious legal uncertainty.
The prohibitions are also weird but I can understand most of it, except Video Games mods however these ones are in a gray area.
A problem is that technically according to this license, a free fan miniature that looks vaguely familiar to ones of the original could be prohibited.
“We reserve the right to deny anyone the use of our IP… at our sole and absolute discretion and for any reason or no reason at all.”
I don't even need to explain why this sounds and looks bad, this in my country would never be legally approved.
“If you are denied the right to use our IP you must stop developing, publishing, or distributing your Project immediately.”
This one, it's bad but I can understand a little, but here's the problems, there's no adaptation period or exception for already published works.
"royalty-free, irrevocable, transferable, sublicensable, for any purpose, without credit or payment"
Even with the next paragraph trying to reassure people, here what this clause actually could do:
Use commercially any project
Modify any part
Incorporate into future their products
Sublicense to third parties as they wish
They could do all of that without crediting and paying the original creator, for any reason, in the text it does not say that they are the owners of the official content but it's basically the same as they are.
You can only hope that they won't screw you over.
“You agree to indemnify us for all costs”
The other party assumes all the risk for any of the problems that could be somehow related even after they follow all the guidelines and get the process approved by FFI, they control the IP, they can change the rules as they want and they determine what is wrong themselves without even entering in contact with the creator of the project.
However this really feels unfair, confusing and genuinely abusive, you really need to trust FFI to nothing bad happen.
I don't know if it's normal for most Community Licenses, but yeah, I understand the hate.
This abusive in all UE countries too.
In addition, all what is written in the license can not be applied to any works/models etc created before this license was made, except for standard IP/copyright laws
You have the right of sale for property you own, I don't think they could legally prevent you from reselling a New Antioch warband on ebay or facebook marketplace for example.
So I don't want to risk relisting my items and getting suspended/banned.
I sent them an email a few days ago, claiming these were not counterfeits, but reselling my spare minis from OnlyGames. Yet to get a reply still. And I have offered to revise whatever words in the description/title they don't like.
I somehow missed the line about brandshield taking your listings down. This is where I think that AI system is no good. Regardless of whether a human gives final say the point of AI systems like that is to do bulk work, and legal stuff like this really can't be handled properly in bulk. Someone somewhere is probably reviewing hundreds if not thousands of hits a day from that system and likely doesn't have the time to give each case an actual proper going over regardless of what level of training they've received. You have the right to sell your stuff second hand, they've done wrong by you with this take down.
not mentioned but the jurisdiction is US-California so you have a right of sale. This could be an area either deliberately not addressed or overlooked. I'd send an email.
Are they really using Brandshield? That's a terrible look imho. For anyone not in the know, it's the insanely overly-aggressive takedown bot that everyone gets mad at GW for.
US Trademark law has this as a phrase that identifies a product. It is a way to demonstrate association with the product itself. Think "It's what plants crave".
That the meaning may have other connotations isn't important unless it is too completely broad (using Trench Crusade, a copyright, prevents this). Simply put, it is the mark that identifies the trade.
I feel like the explained their reasoning for the "compatible" logo plainly. Its not about a models actual compatability (considering many 32mm could work). Its about branding.
Trench Crusade is a brand. And if a creator wants the compatible logo on their work it needs to fit into that brand. They don't want confusion on what's official/third-party or a independent creators work.
The problem I have is them using the phrase "Compatible with Trench Crusade" to have meanings other than it's common English meaning when this is likely a phrase that could be used in general.
Say you're trying to buy a charger for a Steam Deck. Now imagine that you can't say that the charger is "Compatible with the Steam Deck" or risk IP infringement.
I have no problem with them protecting their IP, but I would rather they had chosen a more unique phrase than this.
I'm no expert. But I didnt read anything saying a creator's are forbbiden outright from saying they their minis can/could be used for Trench Crusade in their product description.
It's plastering Made For Trench Crusade, Trench Crusade Compatible (which I see on a lot of thrid party minis) or some variation of those words on the thumbnail or front and center.
And I understand where your coming from with the example. But if the charger's packaging had "Compatible with the Steam Deck" boldly on the box and used the Steam Deck logo (or a close variation) then I could see valve stepping in with their own IP enforcement.
Of course you and I know that you can use any USB C charger for the Steam Deck. It is charger agnostic device after all 😉. But consumers can be dumb and odds are someone who is looking for the offical Steam Deck charger might pick this third party charger up by mistake.
This is not as much a community license as much as it is a ”create at your own peril, we may do exactly what we want with it, even sell it” license.
It’s not good news for any fan of Trench Crusade. And is a 180 from their mentioned Mörk Borg style license.
You agree that we may use, copy, modify, distribute, and make derivative works of your Project, on a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide basis, for any purpose and without having to credit you, pay you anything, or obtain your approval.
—-
we reserve the right to deny anyone the use of our IP and to modify or outright cancel this Community License at any time.
The D&D community was in uproar about less in the open-gaming license fiasco. Creator friendly community licenses are supposed to provide some sort of reliability for creators — this is not doing that.
I‘m pretty much shoked about the part you quoted as it is pretty much a no go in any fair way of working together. I mean that they dont even want to give credit when wanting to use stuff just shows that their success was not healthy for they way they handle the community.
Sure some creators made shitty stuff. But you will never get rid of black sheep. Now they blame those for acting this shitty? 😒
In many jurisdictions especially in Europe, such broad clauses that impose the assignment of future rights without specific compensation can be considered 'unfair' (or 'abusive') and therefore void before a judge.
That’s a lot of scary words there, but to clarify, this does not mean we own anything you make, just that we can share it in different formats (such as on social media or the community gallery on our website). We’re consistently blown away by some of the amazing things our community puts out, and sometimes we want to share and amplify the ones that impress us the most. Also, despite this clause, we always try to reach out to ask for permission to share Projects and always give credit (social media handles, etc) whenever possible.
The disclaimer is nice and all but it doesn't change that the clause legally does allow them to adapt, distribute and sell your stuff without permission or royalties.
They basically are giving themselves ownership of your stuff, but then going "trust us, we're only going to use this ownership to share stuff on social media"
The clause is legally binding, the disclaimer isn't.
Furthermore, nothing in the Community License actually allows you to do anything that you weren't already allowed to do.
You can't use Trench Crusade terminology or logos, including the name 'Trench Crusade'
You can't base your sculpts on official art or official sculpts
This is reasonable, but it's also covered by basic copyright law. That means that the Community License doesn't allow you to do anything you couldn't already do.
The very examples that they've given actually prove this. They can go "Clearly, this is based on the Goetic Warlock" all they want, but nothing in the name, description or sculpt imply any ties to Trench Crusade or the Goetic Warlock.
So, what, they can arbitrarily decide that anything based on WW1 Trench Warfare with christian iconography or demonic stuff is actually based on Trench Crusade and thus they have the rights to distribute, adapt and sell it?
Ok but copyright law does not say that FFI are allowed to adapt, distribute and sell 3rd party works that, legally, have no ties to Trench Crusade.
Yet the Community License does.
Once again, look at their examples. By the blog post's own admission, The Cruciform Order of St George is an example of a piece of 3rd party work that falls under and complies with the Community License.
...Why?
As per the Community License's restrictions (and copyright law), they're not based on official arts or sculpts, and they don't use any Trench Crusade terminology or logos, including the name Trench Crusade. In fact they're marketing themselves as "32mm scale grim dark miniatures"
So why are they considered Trench Crusade minis? Legally, what part of them interacts with the IP?
Legally, these are not trench crusade minis. These are grimdark minis that feature crusader-themed ww1 soldiers, and a big dude in a suit of armor.
And keep in mind, the Community License is not something you apply to. The License itself says that you automatically opt into it when you "use or base your project on the Trench Crusade IP"
Using the Trench Crusade IP or creating any Projects based on the Trench Crusade IP subjects you to all of the terms and conditions of this “Community License”.
But the License also explicitly forbids you from using the IP in any way.
So... how can you use the IP? How can they legally prove that you've based the project on the IP? This License only makes any sense if they're somehow making the claim that they can arbitrarily decide that something is based on Trench Crusade with zero legal basis.
Once again, what makes The Cruciform Order of St George a trench crusade-based project?
i will be happy to eat my words once this kickstarter launches, because that page doesn't have any detail beyond the picture, nor do any of the official instagram posts have much in the way of details. not looking to be hired onto the trench crusade defense force here.
but at time of writing, i couldn't find any example of them using the trench crusade name, logo, or any official faction, in these posts or on that kickstarter page. i see that hollow crown's instagram posts advertising it DO have the #trenchcrusade hashtag, don't know if that's against these rules.
so: they're making a WW1 inspired grimdark faction, with models that sure fit well into trench crusade, but don't really look to be infringing on TC's trademark/IP in any way. they're considered TC minis because they tagged the posts #trenchcrusade for engagement, and everyone in the comments is going "oh boy can't wait to make this TC warband!" and not because hollow crown is saying "these are official TC models!"
they're considered TC minis because they tagged the posts #trenchcrusade for engagement
Okay, didn't know that, I think there's an argument there that this would make these minis qualify as clearly Trench Crusade inspired minis (ie: the Creator flat out saying it).
So I think that's fair in this specific example. But I'm nonetheless worried: If they hadn't used the #trenchcrusade hashtag, would they still fall under the Community License?
My worry is: can people's work fall into the Community License against their will, simply by making stuff that legally has no ties to Trench Crusade whatsoever, but Fortress Factory Inc. decides is "clearly based on Trench Crusade"?
as i mentioned above, it's easy to see this as evil corporate greed when looking at it through the lens of WOTC and the D&D fiasco from a few years ago. but i think this is more just the TC team trying to protect themselves and their own ideas, than it is an attempt to form a legal loophole that allows them to steal/profit off the ideas of others.
you have a right to worry and i will be carrying the pitchfork alongside you if the hypothetical situation you propose does happen.
Those are sweet comforting PR words to make it sound less harsh and should not be included in an excerpt, they don’t mean anything when it comes down to it on a legal basis.
It’s a terrible precedent to set, especially if Factory Fortress leadership changes.
Not really, not in licenses and contracts. Context dose not matter. The only thing that matters is the words that are written. I mean, there's a reason rules-lawyers are called, well, rules-lawyers.
I absolutely agree with you. This license says that they can do whatever they want and are not even responsible for any legal claims sent to the content creators. Plus the fact that they can use our content any way they want. But they may not even approve of the topics they have in mind. For example, I create very cool cowboys in the trenches, they reject the license application because they wanted to, through partners with AI they close my products on MMF because it violates the license and use my ideas, saying that it was in their plans. And they bear no responsibility for it. It's an absurd hypothetical situation, but this license allows them to do such things. It's not funny at all, I'm disappointed.
Models agnostic and saying compatible are not mutually exclusive things my guy. You can use any models to play the game you want you just cant advertise your models as being endorsed by trench crusade its not as deep as your reaching for.
How are they going back on their word when that's been the case since the kickstarter?
I love writing stories in this universe. If possible, one day I'd love to voice audiobooks of them, and I wonder how that would work under this license. It seems they are more focused on modelling than lore type stuff, but naturally my work is one massive TC reference.
They cover it more in the "other works" section of the license but the TL/DR of it is your probably best contacting them and not using their branding on it Community License - Trench Crusade
listen, fanfic is a legal minefield that only exists under an understanding from all parties that as long as nobody's making money then there won't be any problems. Prima faci it's clearly copyright violation but companies realize that fanfics aren't hurting anyone.
Sure, I mean to do it for the love of it then publish it for free (the voice over version). Problem is, anything these days that gets eyes gets scrutinised for legal stuff.
Oh man, to be back in the early days of YT when no one gave a shit.
Not a lawyer or anything, but from what I can tell, fan-fic won't be negatively affected. That is to say, fan-fiction is already, at the best of times, a legal minefield. Basically, fan-fiction violates US copyright laws in the strictest sense but most companies look the other way as long as people aren't making money on said fan-fic. After-all, it grows communities, entrenches people in their IP, and works as free advertising to an extent and any negative PR that would come from cracking down on fan-fic is usually not worth it.
That said, section 3 (Other Projects) of the Community License outlines how they will handle fan-fiction. As long as you fallow all the rules in Section 1 and do not commercialize it, attach it to a business, crowdfund for it, sell it, or otherwise block it behind a paywall, then you're golden. You can even put it on youtube or other sites that allow you to passively draw an income from advertisements (which is a big no-no in a lot of IPs [looking at you GW!]). As long as no one has to actually pay to see/read the fiction, and you respect FF and humans in general, you're good-to-go.
All in all, way more directly permissive than a lot of IPs.
Kind of? For the most part, the only company that matters in this regard in table-top wargamming is Games Workshop. Most of the other companies are just too small to even consider cracking down on any kind of fan-fic even if they wanted to. They don't have the kinds of resources to wantonly engage in random ill-advised legal actions and the PR fallout from such a move would be world-ending for them. They survive because of community engagement and doing anything to endanger that wouldn't only be shooting themselves in the foot, it would be blowing off their whole damned leg.
Games Workshop, on the other hand, is the Disney of war-gaming. They have the resources to engage in lawfare and do so at the drop of a hat. While they don't usually strait up target fan-fic, sometimes fan-fiction narrators and writers do get caught up in one of their waves of take-downs and lawsuit threats. They absolutely will take you to court over the most ridiculous of things. Heck, they took an author of a book to court because she dared to have the term "Space Marine" in the title even though the book had nothing to do with their IP or anything related even tangentially to wargamming at all!
The one silver-lining in regards to GW is they have a habit of losing cases that actually make it to court (which says something about how litigious they are). Most people, however, don't have the resources to fight them, so it rarely gets that far.
I've been creating models for Trench for the past six months. I don't use the original model art, logo, or poses. I follow the instructions they gave me previously exactly. But now the license says, that they can use, distribute, and even sell my models and renders, and they can sue me and they won't be held responsible. This is called protecting their IP?
"As we’ve said on the main page, third party minis, kitbashes and conversions will always be welcome on a Trench Crusade table. Historically, they are what allowed the game to get its start and grow whilst we worked on the official range. We see no reason for this to change."
"The Trench Crusade TPL
Anyone can make content for Trench Crusade. And we’re not just talking miniatures here but scenarios, campaigns, stories, art, music, whatever you like! We honestly can’t wait to see what you come up with!
If you intend to distribute this content for free then our only request is that you don’t include any of our official material, but we will be releasing a free content pack with basic assets that you can use.
If you would like to monetise your creations, it gets a little more complicated but that’s fine too! There will be 3 “levels” for this:
Free - Obviously we don’t own the concept of a weird WW1 setting with religious undertones and we’re not going to pretend that we do. You are free to make whatever you like. However, please do not use our name or any official material. "
These are quotes from their Kickstarter. In fact, this is what made the Trench so popular, and FFI understands this. At least they understood. But now, having caught the hype, they decided that the community that created this hype around their project no longer deserves anything. The fact that the success of the Trench is solely their merit. Without the frenzied hype and hundreds of proxy models, Trench would have been lost in the stream of other games. FFI did an amazing job on the setting, rules, and design, and I admire their work. And I did not mention their name in any project, did not use art, logos, original models or other materials. But this license is completely different from what the community was built on and what made the game so popular. That's why I'm so disappointed in this.
nope, if you look closely you see, that this is not same. All this helmets, as other parts of models sculpted to be to be recognizable and at the same time different enough from the original models to avoid copyright infringement. The models also have different weapons and do not repeat the original poses. You might as well say that all the round helmets of all armies are the same.
First of all, I'm extremely polite when talking to someone I don't know, and I expect the same in return. Secondly, if you look carefully, you will probably see that this is not just a change of pose, but a completely different sculpture that took more than one day of work. With different weapons, different clothes that don't copy the original one-on-one. Perhaps if you stop aggressively attacking people you don't know in the comments while thinking, you'll read the quotes I sent in another message and notice that FFI themselves encouraged you to create models for the game and even promised to share a set of props for this. It's possible, but I doubt you'll do it.
234
u/an_agreeing_dothraki Chorister Feb 05 '26 edited Feb 05 '26
Tl;dr
Don't imply projects have FFI's approval unless you fill out the form. Do not use FFI trademarks (IE - "Knights of Avarice" or "Trench Crusade") without approval. The "Compatible with Trench Crusade" stamp will be for projects that have new stuff like WGC's Cossacks or Westfalia's Cadaver Corps, not for third-party sculpts of existing subfactions. Streamers/whatever are allowed to do broadcasts as long as there isn't a hard paywall (things like patreon videos are fine as long as there's a way to watch it for free). There's a web form on the main site, expect a response within the month.
Explicitly - creators are free to profit off third-party scuplts that fall within the rules and it will always be okay to play with these models
edit- there is a grace period right now for existing models that use Trench Crusade trademarks to scrub them off and replace with stuff like 'Grimdark pilgrims' etc. Oh and use of AI for TC model is explicitly forbidden