Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?
Agamon
Adventurer
You clearly have chosen a side.
Maybe just my annoyance at not being able to see the campaign page, lol.
This is my main point. Obviously, if you switch out Paizo for White Wolf, it's as shocking as a mugging in NYC (I could get in trouble for typing the word Warhammer here
) The fact that it was Paizo struck me as very shocking.
AeroDm
First Post
[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]
There are definitely times when that line blurs. If we are talking about an accessory where the utility is derived from its physical form or a photo where the value is derived from its visual form, then sub-par reproductions of those doesn't diminish or cannibalize the original IP. My interpretation of this situation puts it in that later category.
There is actually a really interesting parallel to this situation going on right now in the video game industry.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7-vSrp6y8[/ame]
Edit because I didn't realize a link to youtube auto embeds the video. I am a noob.
There are definitely times when that line blurs. If we are talking about an accessory where the utility is derived from its physical form or a photo where the value is derived from its visual form, then sub-par reproductions of those doesn't diminish or cannibalize the original IP. My interpretation of this situation puts it in that later category.
There is actually a really interesting parallel to this situation going on right now in the video game industry.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib7-vSrp6y8[/ame]
Edit because I didn't realize a link to youtube auto embeds the video. I am a noob.
AeroDm
First Post
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. However, a company can also broadly license usage of its IP or declare that it will not prosecute certain violations without jeopardizing its IP either. Paizo could lay a blanket statement down that says, "We authorize the use of our IP in publication so long as that usage does not infringe on commercial uses of said IP." With that, they wouldn't need to send C&Ds, would have a protected IP, and could still send C&D to people that actually abuse the IP in a way that is detrimental to the company. (Now, if they deemed this was actually detrimental to the company, then more power to them--they have the right to defend their IP however they choose).
Treebore
First Post
Ah, but distributing pictures of their artwork and such IS detrimental to their company. People just don't understand how it is, can be, etc....
You know why lawyers are so widely disliked? Because they can turn the simplest seeming things into nightmares. Why? Because it is part of their job to take all possibilities into account when looking at their cases. Things most people will never even think of.
Agamon
Adventurer
Agreed there. I'm not saying they shouldn't protect their IP, I'm just surprised that this would fit into that criteria. Obviously I haven't read their Community Use Policy, and if this infringes on that, well, apparently a lot of peepers were drawn to the professionalism of the page, and I can then see how this happened.
(Note to self, make a crappy OP site that no one wants to look at
)
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
I am curious, too. This is my main point. Obviously, if you switch out Paizo for White Wolf, it's as shocking as a mugging in NYC (I could get in trouble for typing the word Warhammer here
I doesn't seem to rise to the level where switching is warranted or prudent. Looked upon as a single incident, where we have not seen the problem ourselves and the details are largely unknown, it doesn't seem shocking but when you clump them in with the companies you first professed were similar, then suddenly it seems amazingly shocking.
Neither of us having seen it, and given the lack of frequency with which this occurs from Paizo, it seems safer to assume that someone overstepped usage boundaries and was asked to C&D. Given Paizo's track record and openness to fan policies and publisher IP usage licensing, coupled with your having not seen the actual site nor even read the policy or licensing, I have to wonder why you would make the leap toward equating one C&D letter in the history of Paizo to companies that were notorious for legal action (rightly or wrongly) against fans.
(Note to self, make a crappy OP site that no one wants to look at
Or make a good one using clearly legal means.
I just looked at Bill S.978, and I'm not convinced by the argument in the video.
You can include a certain portion of material being reviewed in the review. That's clear-cut Constitutional IP law Fair Use.* This proposed bill won't change this. This is about reducing the amount of stuff online like streamed TV shows, etc., as the person states by upping some penalties.
In the videogame context, that will mean that perhaps the wise reviewer reduces the clip length included in his review, but will not eliminate his ability to include such clips.
His predictions are also a bit premature. What would count as "public performance" and so forth is decided on a case-by-case basis, and will be extremely fact-dependent. Nebulous? Yes. But that's how many laws are drafted to maintain flexibility, especially in the face of rapidly advancing technology.
*
(And yes, they talk about bloggers & samples, suggesting "It is feasible that a court could find fair use under these facts or slightly different facts because of the variables of the balancing test.")
You can include a certain portion of material being reviewed in the review. That's clear-cut Constitutional IP law Fair Use.* This proposed bill won't change this. This is about reducing the amount of stuff online like streamed TV shows, etc., as the person states by upping some penalties.
In the videogame context, that will mean that perhaps the wise reviewer reduces the clip length included in his review, but will not eliminate his ability to include such clips.
His predictions are also a bit premature. What would count as "public performance" and so forth is decided on a case-by-case basis, and will be extremely fact-dependent. Nebulous? Yes. But that's how many laws are drafted to maintain flexibility, especially in the face of rapidly advancing technology.
*
(And yes, they talk about bloggers & samples, suggesting "It is feasible that a court could find fair use under these facts or slightly different facts because of the variables of the balancing test.")
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Do you understand what a Let's Play is?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
