Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?

Dannager · Jul 8, 2011

Terramotus said:
Sure. you're strictly in the right in this case, and I'm sure your board or your shareholders or whatever Paizo's got will praise this decision.

As far as I know (and do correct me if I'm wrong - I might be forgetting one person), Paizo is wholly owned by their CEO (Lisa Stevens) and their Technical Director (Vic Wertz). No board or shareholder pressure factored into this at all.

AdmundfortGeographer · Jul 8, 2011

Dannager said:
As far as I know (and do correct me if I'm wrong - I might be forgetting one person), Paizo is wholly owned by their CEO (Lisa Stevens) and their Technical Director (Vic Wertz). No board or shareholder pressure factored into this at all.

But they are a corporate bloodsucking profit-squeezing money-grubbing soulless entity!

Beginning of the End · Jul 8, 2011

pawsplay said:
I think it's apparent that he was, in fact, distributing images of Paizo's cards, for the purposes for which the cards were intended, "tiny" or not. It is clearly infringing. Is this Fair Use? Good question.

I'm not familiar with any fair use doctrine that this usage would fall under. It's not transformative; it's not for educational purposes; it's not being used for review purposes; etc.

Is it reasonable personal use? Well, clearly not. You're publicly distributing the material to anyone with an internet connection and a web browser.

Would it be reasonable personal use if the website were non-public? Now, that's a question that's actually debatable. (I'd say it clearly is reasonable personal use; but I'm aware that there are others who would disagree.)

AeroDm said:
No, it probably would *not* fall under fair use. On that same measure, it is true that if a company doesn't defend its IP it can potentially lose said IP.

That's only true for trademarks. It's irrelevant in this case.

With that being said, Paizo is 100% in the right on this one.

poilbrun · Jul 8, 2011

Beginning of the End said:
Would it be reasonable personal use if the website were non-public? Now, that's a question that's actually debatable. (I'd say it clearly is reasonable personal use; but I'm aware that there are others who would disagree.)

Paizo probably think it, since that's why they requested the owner of the campaign to do...

Matt James · Jul 8, 2011

Oddly enough, C&D orders are a very kind/nice way of getting people off of your IP. Nothing in the law requires a C&D to be issued and it is solely at the discretion of the IP holder. I tried explaining this back when WotC issued them to several sites, but many put on the ear muffs and I was ignored, with the preference being "damn the man!" Paizo is doing the same thing and I think it's a positive way of handling it.

Very few things can be protected by law when it comes to our beloved D&D and Pathfinder. Of the things that can, images are HIGH up on the list. That's a big no-no.

Reynard · Jul 8, 2011

Matt James said:
Very few things can be protected by law when it comes to our beloved D&D and Pathfinder. Of the things that can, images are HIGH up on the list. That's a big no-no.

Besides, as it relates to this specific incident, all the item cards are are images. The only value they have are as a visual reference. Scanning and distributing them completely voids their value.

DaveMage · Jul 8, 2011

Erik Mona said:
Did I mention that we just hired Rob Repp?

--Erik

To do the page borders for your planescape products?

MrGrenadine · Jul 8, 2011

Terramotus said:
A few reasons.

1) The infringement, on a quick glance, seems pretty inconsequential. At least as described. I can't see it anymore because it's been locked away.

2) This may not be entirely Paizo's fault, but they've been praised as paragons of open gaming by many. If you support open gaming / open source initiatives, it goes with that same belief system that you oppose the indiscriminate use of copyright against your customer base. Use it against competitors stealing your materials, maybe even use it against large scale piracy, but don't harass your customers.

I agreed that the infringement is inconsequential initially, or by intent, but you have to see that those images could be proliferated by anyone who visits the DMs page, right? And that makes the usage potentially quite consequential.

I simply don't think its accurate to conflate "open gaming" with "please use our stuff without paying for it". We can agree to disagree on that point.

Papa-DRB · Jul 8, 2011

Actually they are not. They are an LLC "Limited liability company"

-- david
Papa.DRB

I didn't see a smiley so I am not sure if a smiley was implied or not...