Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?
- Thread starter Agamon
- Start date
Marius Delphus
Adventurer
Whether or not the infringement is of consequence only matters when you're measuring damages.
No, this argument doesn't work; the conclusion doesn't follow logically from the premise. Publishers using the OGL must be very mindful of copyright, whether it involves using other people's copyrighted material or other people using their copyrighted material. The "indiscriminate" thing is just hyperbole.
Paizo sent a polite message through the OP feedback system saying, in essence, "please see to it that this content is protected by a password where only the individual gaming group in question can see it." This is a definition of "harassment" I find very odd. Paizo did not:
- Have their attorney send a formal cease and desist letter to the DM
- Have their attorney send a formal cease and desist letter to Obsidian Portal
- Demand Obsidian Portal delete the images from the DM's page
- Demand Obsidian Portal delete the DM's page
- File suit against the DM who posted the images
- File suit against Obsidian Portal
Again, this is a complete non sequitur. The open gaming movement and the OGL do not equate to "let's just let people use all our IP for free." From Erik Mona's comment above, I take it Paizo themselves would agree. The illustrations on the Item Cards are not open content; therefore, they are not free to use under the OGL.
I disagree: I think the real question is, did Paizo perceive infringement of its copyrights here? If so, I think the call of a company that wants to protect their IP should be to make sure the infringing behavior ceases.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Ai! The giant lidless eye awakes! Its attention drawn away from its armies of fawning hypocrites.
[edit]
<- smiley
darjr
I crit!
Dinging Paizo for not being open with their game and products strikes me as very unfair. Take one look at the pfsrd or the rules in third party products from paizo products that weren't original OGL stuff from WotC. It seems like overwhelming evidence that Paizo is dedicated to open gaming.
Matt James
Game Developer
Marius, are you an attorney? Your prose is a lot like one! Great points all around.
Last edited:
Well, I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised to see my campaign mentioned and being discussed so heavily in this thread. Had a friend who's a member here who ran across it and decided to cue me in.
I'm the guy who posted the item card images in question, so I figured I'd chime in to set a few things straight.
1) It's a personal campaign, and my reaction to the situation was on that basis. I didn't attack anyone. In fact the only things I posted in relation to the situation were this:
a) a message on our campaign pages, which have now been set to private, explaining why the page was set to private. I did this as a courtesy to the several dozen who were following had been following the storyline, and chimed in with some great ideas and concepts for the storyline.
The exact message I posted to those now-private campaign pages reads, "Sorry to all who were following, but Paizo reported copyright abuse due to tiny/low-res thumbnails of item cards on the wiki. Images have been removed, and we're now private so we can enjoy OP without trolling from the copyright police."
Whether the low-res images were 34 pixels or 180 pixels doesn't change the intent or extent of use as is legally definable.
Do I feel like it's overreaching the spirit of copyright protections? Absolutely. Does it matter what I think? Not really, and I even went so far as to state such. However, I am entitled to my own views on the matter, and on the personal decision that I made not to invest further into Paizo products.
The images were removed within 30-minutes of receiving the notice which came from the website administrators in a very polite message informing me what had been reported as copyright infringement as well as who specifically reported it.
To read some of the conversation in this thread it sometimes sounds as if I tried to start some sort of anti-Paizo campaign, or at least the situation is being used as a basis for such, but that's simply not that case. The reason I invested so much in their products to begin with is, well, because they're good products.
Did the intrusion upset me? Yes? But, thankfully, I'm free to feel however I want whether or not someone else feels it's "justified", and to purchase (or not purchase) from whatever distributor/manufacturer I please for whatever reasons I may have.
b) The *only* other place I made any mention on this was in the comments of a blog entry that was specifically related to our campaign, and an interview the website had done with me when they decided to feature our campaign as a "campaign of the month" which stated that 1) I set the campaign to private to avoid further issues, 2) felt Paizo was overreaching with their concept of protections and how it seemed to me to be related to other companies that have taken similar actions, 3) I believe (and still do) my actions fell into the category of fair use as defined by the U.S. Constitution 17 U.S.C. SS 107, and justified in practice and prima facie associated with transitive works (it was for personal reference). In other words, I owned the product, and the asserted violation was an obvious personal, non-profit and functional use of the product. How others might use the derivative of that I'm not legally or morally liable for.
To expand a bit for the sake of relevance and the basis of my point of view, I'll fall back on music... If I buy a MP3 and play over speakers in my back yard, and it happens to be loud enough for someone next door to record it and make a copy, and they do so, I am not at fault. If they then keep that copy for their own personal use, they have indeed infringed on the copyright protections. However, I simply used the product as intended by playing the MP3. I'm not liable if someone else decided to make a derivative of my personal and legally fair use of a product I purchased, nor does the protection of those copyrights have legal ground to compel me to "not play my music so loud" on the basis that "someone might record it instead of purchasing it."
c) The last and final comment I made on the blog was in response to someone who pointed out Paizo's Public Use policy and inferred it was an "agreement" and that it had the power to dictate how I use a product. To which I replied that it's a "policy" not and "agreement" which would infer a contract, that fair use is afforded by the constitution and is my constitutional right, and that no policy can revoke a constitutional right regardless of its intent.
Regardless of how people might feel about what copyright laws should or should not be, there is "what those laws currently allow and don't allow", and if you read the constitution, and the fairly well defined rights it affords for fair use, my actions do in fact fall within those legal guidelines, and my legal rights.
However, I didn't "make a stink" about it, I simply removed the images, posted my point of view (in a few sentences) on the page in their place, and then went private and have moved on with playing my campaign with my players (which was all I wanted to do to begin with).
My goal was not to get into a legal debate, or try to make a point about copyright protections, but instead to express reasons and logic for the actions I had taken and ensure that there wouldn't be further intrusions into our game, which in the end make this a moot debate: The images were immediately removed because I entered an agreement (contract) with the owners of the website when I started using their service, that clearly stated that they retain the right to ask for images/text to be removed "for any reason". They requested I do so, therefore I honored that agreement.
I'm just a guy who's trying to enjoy role-playing on weekends with his friends. When our methods of gaming came into question, I abided by all requests, stated my point of view, and moved on. That's the extent of the situation.
I'm the guy who posted the item card images in question, so I figured I'd chime in to set a few things straight.
1) It's a personal campaign, and my reaction to the situation was on that basis. I didn't attack anyone. In fact the only things I posted in relation to the situation were this:
a) a message on our campaign pages, which have now been set to private, explaining why the page was set to private. I did this as a courtesy to the several dozen who were following had been following the storyline, and chimed in with some great ideas and concepts for the storyline.
The exact message I posted to those now-private campaign pages reads, "Sorry to all who were following, but Paizo reported copyright abuse due to tiny/low-res thumbnails of item cards on the wiki. Images have been removed, and we're now private so we can enjoy OP without trolling from the copyright police."
Whether the low-res images were 34 pixels or 180 pixels doesn't change the intent or extent of use as is legally definable.
Do I feel like it's overreaching the spirit of copyright protections? Absolutely. Does it matter what I think? Not really, and I even went so far as to state such. However, I am entitled to my own views on the matter, and on the personal decision that I made not to invest further into Paizo products.
The images were removed within 30-minutes of receiving the notice which came from the website administrators in a very polite message informing me what had been reported as copyright infringement as well as who specifically reported it.
To read some of the conversation in this thread it sometimes sounds as if I tried to start some sort of anti-Paizo campaign, or at least the situation is being used as a basis for such, but that's simply not that case. The reason I invested so much in their products to begin with is, well, because they're good products.
Did the intrusion upset me? Yes? But, thankfully, I'm free to feel however I want whether or not someone else feels it's "justified", and to purchase (or not purchase) from whatever distributor/manufacturer I please for whatever reasons I may have.
b) The *only* other place I made any mention on this was in the comments of a blog entry that was specifically related to our campaign, and an interview the website had done with me when they decided to feature our campaign as a "campaign of the month" which stated that 1) I set the campaign to private to avoid further issues, 2) felt Paizo was overreaching with their concept of protections and how it seemed to me to be related to other companies that have taken similar actions, 3) I believe (and still do) my actions fell into the category of fair use as defined by the U.S. Constitution 17 U.S.C. SS 107, and justified in practice and prima facie associated with transitive works (it was for personal reference). In other words, I owned the product, and the asserted violation was an obvious personal, non-profit and functional use of the product. How others might use the derivative of that I'm not legally or morally liable for.
To expand a bit for the sake of relevance and the basis of my point of view, I'll fall back on music... If I buy a MP3 and play over speakers in my back yard, and it happens to be loud enough for someone next door to record it and make a copy, and they do so, I am not at fault. If they then keep that copy for their own personal use, they have indeed infringed on the copyright protections. However, I simply used the product as intended by playing the MP3. I'm not liable if someone else decided to make a derivative of my personal and legally fair use of a product I purchased, nor does the protection of those copyrights have legal ground to compel me to "not play my music so loud" on the basis that "someone might record it instead of purchasing it."
c) The last and final comment I made on the blog was in response to someone who pointed out Paizo's Public Use policy and inferred it was an "agreement" and that it had the power to dictate how I use a product. To which I replied that it's a "policy" not and "agreement" which would infer a contract, that fair use is afforded by the constitution and is my constitutional right, and that no policy can revoke a constitutional right regardless of its intent.
Regardless of how people might feel about what copyright laws should or should not be, there is "what those laws currently allow and don't allow", and if you read the constitution, and the fairly well defined rights it affords for fair use, my actions do in fact fall within those legal guidelines, and my legal rights.
However, I didn't "make a stink" about it, I simply removed the images, posted my point of view (in a few sentences) on the page in their place, and then went private and have moved on with playing my campaign with my players (which was all I wanted to do to begin with).
My goal was not to get into a legal debate, or try to make a point about copyright protections, but instead to express reasons and logic for the actions I had taken and ensure that there wouldn't be further intrusions into our game, which in the end make this a moot debate: The images were immediately removed because I entered an agreement (contract) with the owners of the website when I started using their service, that clearly stated that they retain the right to ask for images/text to be removed "for any reason". They requested I do so, therefore I honored that agreement.
I'm just a guy who's trying to enjoy role-playing on weekends with his friends. When our methods of gaming came into question, I abided by all requests, stated my point of view, and moved on. That's the extent of the situation.
Matt James
Game Developer
Rob Bodine just put up an article under his column on the topic. He is an avid and active member of the D&D/Pathfinder community and is an IP attorney as well.
Loremaster - Protection from Chaos Part VII: Thumbnail Images
Loremaster - Protection from Chaos Part VII: Thumbnail Images
Read the blog. I got a laugh out of the "dime store constitutional scholar" reference. Think I'm actually going to make a nametag to wear while playing our campaign with that title on it. I do find it mildly amusing though that my little campaign and opinion have prompted so much debate, yes, even a blog post from an IP Lawyer.
Meh, I bought Item $700 worth of cards to give out to my players during the game, then in the "Items" section scanned in low res images to be used as a visiaul reference by the players on a list. Each image thumbnail was accompanied by personally generated content on "what the item does" in the game. That's what happened. And, that's what I was asked to remove.
-- Thanks (your local neighborood "DSCS")
Meh, I bought Item $700 worth of cards to give out to my players during the game, then in the "Items" section scanned in low res images to be used as a visiaul reference by the players on a list. Each image thumbnail was accompanied by personally generated content on "what the item does" in the game. That's what happened. And, that's what I was asked to remove.
-- Thanks (your local neighborood "DSCS")
Aberzanzorax
Hero
Well, to be fair to all parties, including recognizing yourself (for good or for ill), wasn't ObsidianPortal nominated for an ennie award?
I mean...if that's the case, you rock hard, and Paizo recognizes that (and probably welcomes it/is proud of you), but at the same time, they start to worry that a very nice campaign website is using their product in a way that they thing might be problematic for their company.
I know some have mentioned this, but I'll put it in my own words....if you sucked, no one would go to your page or care what you were doing, for good or for ill. There would be no complaints, because you'd be too boring to warrant complaints.
But you're not boring...you're pretty awesome (according to the Ennies judges, and to be honest, myself as well). BUT being awesome makes you noticed.
Being noticed (as most/every? celebrity will tell you) is both a boon and a curse. There is free publicity, admiring fans, and adoring benefactors, but there is also papparazzi, stalkers, and miscreants who want to profit off of your fame.
In my opinion, Paizo is none of these...it is a company whose products you've enjoyed and used and treated with respect. It seems they've respectfully (in turn) asked you to make your use of those products less public.
I like how you've not made a stink. You're certainly entitled to whatever opinion of your own gaming you may hold and whatever opinion of Paizo you may hold.
HOWEVER:
You chose to be public.
I'll say that again, because it's pretty important.
You chose to be public.
When you decided to make your blog public, you were sharing your campaign with everyone who cared to look. Many have since cared to look, to the point you may win an award, and good for you for your efforts and campaign. I mean that sincerely. I'm not sarcastic/facecious (sp) at all here. You have done something wonderful, using a very good company's very good products...and likely you've made them even better if you won an award for how you presented things.
You, sir, have done good stuffs. Good RP stuffs that I quite sincerely applaud you for.
I'm not sure about the whole stink at all, and I don't think you're promoting it. I also am not sure why you might not buy Paizo products in the future (though I understand feeling burned by a company and not wanting to support them).
I wish you the best of luck, support you and Paizo both, and hope for Ennies wins for both of you as well.
I mean...if that's the case, you rock hard, and Paizo recognizes that (and probably welcomes it/is proud of you), but at the same time, they start to worry that a very nice campaign website is using their product in a way that they thing might be problematic for their company.
I know some have mentioned this, but I'll put it in my own words....if you sucked, no one would go to your page or care what you were doing, for good or for ill. There would be no complaints, because you'd be too boring to warrant complaints.
But you're not boring...you're pretty awesome (according to the Ennies judges, and to be honest, myself as well). BUT being awesome makes you noticed.
Being noticed (as most/every? celebrity will tell you) is both a boon and a curse. There is free publicity, admiring fans, and adoring benefactors, but there is also papparazzi, stalkers, and miscreants who want to profit off of your fame.
In my opinion, Paizo is none of these...it is a company whose products you've enjoyed and used and treated with respect. It seems they've respectfully (in turn) asked you to make your use of those products less public.
I like how you've not made a stink. You're certainly entitled to whatever opinion of your own gaming you may hold and whatever opinion of Paizo you may hold.
HOWEVER:
You chose to be public.
I'll say that again, because it's pretty important.
You chose to be public.
When you decided to make your blog public, you were sharing your campaign with everyone who cared to look. Many have since cared to look, to the point you may win an award, and good for you for your efforts and campaign. I mean that sincerely. I'm not sarcastic/facecious (sp) at all here. You have done something wonderful, using a very good company's very good products...and likely you've made them even better if you won an award for how you presented things.
You, sir, have done good stuffs. Good RP stuffs that I quite sincerely applaud you for.
I'm not sure about the whole stink at all, and I don't think you're promoting it. I also am not sure why you might not buy Paizo products in the future (though I understand feeling burned by a company and not wanting to support them).
I wish you the best of luck, support you and Paizo both, and hope for Ennies wins for both of you as well.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
