Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?

Dannager · Jul 6, 2011

mtbOgre said:
If they were posted in the blog and he investigated it then why did he need to scan them at all?

I...what?

Dilandau Kale · Jul 6, 2011

mtbOgre said:
If they were posted in the blog and he investigated it then why did he need to scan them at all?

I could be mistaken but I think the problem is he did not investigate he just scanned the cards straight from the deck he bought. If he had investigated and just used cards that had appeared on the Blog instead of putting a whole bunch scanned from the deck (including ones not from the blog so not allowed) up there wouldent have been a problem.

gamerprinter · Jul 6, 2011

I'm just a small-time artist and cartographer and I have, on occasion found one of my maps posted on a Deviant Art account, and once on a public RPG site, I asked them to be removed and it was done.

I have no sympathy for anyone who posts art online that they do not have permission to do so. Its wrong and shouldn't be done.

Heck I even have CC licensed stuff intended to be shared and used, but in that share license its CC-BA-NC. The middle initials stands for "by Artist" meaning, when you do share the art of my creation, you have to say who did the work. When someone posts art and not mention the creator of said art. They are 'stealing'.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm saying good people don't take other people's stuff without permission (in the world where we're all supposed to treat each other fairly.) Simple.

GP

Patryn of Elvenshae · Jul 6, 2011

Dannyalcatraz said:
But, assuming you mean something else, please enlighten me with a definition, not a link to some 100 (or even 11) page thread I have zero interest in slogging through to divine your critique.

There are several varieties of Let's Plays.

Apart from the difference between screenshot LPs (in which written narratives and selected screencaptures form the basis) and video LPs (in which recorded video and voice overs form the basis), there are also variations in the amount of viewer participation.

There are some that have none - in which case, you get something very like a walk-through; do a YouTube search for Helloween to see a usually-pretty-funny British guy play through some nominally scary games.

There are some which are pretty heavily involved - I'm taking part in one right now which is playing through the entire chain of Paradox's grand strategy games; we started with Crusader Kings, and are now into Europa Universalis; eventually, we'll head off to Victoria, then Hearts of Iron. Each participant takes a turn as a ruling head of state (we started from the last heir of Charlemagne), and when he dies, the next person in line plays their turn as his heir.

The earlier-linked X-Com LP uses posters from a game-focused message board as the troopers in a notoriously difficult and blood-bathy strategy and tactics game, and the posting habits / persona of each person is reflected in the way Fishman, the LPer, writes out the story of Earth's fight against alien invaders.

The link I posted earlier for the Demon's Souls "walk-through" walks a middle line, where audience input determines the order in which he plays the game, but the decisions within each play session is his own.

So, no, I would not paint with a broad brush and call a Let's Play a "walkthrough" by definition, and the amount of "footage," for lack of a better term, varies wildly between styles.

But, seriously, you don't need to read through the entire example I provided; a short skim of any of them will give you a much better understanding of what an LP is.

EDIT: I wouldn't call an LP of EUIII, such as the one I'm playing, a walkthrough of the game any more than I would call Sepulchrave's Story Hours a walkthrough for D&D.

AdmundfortGeographer · Jul 7, 2011

Has this mysterious C&D been posted?

If not, might as well say it's drama queen martyrdom fantasy . . .

MrGrenadine · Jul 7, 2011

C_M2008 said:
Whenever WoTC issues a cease and desist there is widespread outrage.

Now that Paizo has issued a C&D they are just "protecting their intellectual property"?

Is this not blatant hypocrisy?

This is what I don't understand about comments like this:

Hypocrisy would only be involved if the same poster posted outraged comments in regards to WotC protecting IP, and supportive comments in regards to Paizo doing the same thing. Or vice versa.

So if you can find a quote from anyone in this thread who has posted the opposite view in a different thread in regards to another company, then yes, that might be hypocrisy....for that one poster. Or it could be the circumstances were different enough to warrant two opposing views.

In any case, its quite possible you're talking about two entirely different groups of Paizo and WotC fans--some who would defend a company's right to protect IP, and some who would become outraged. Implying that there's some overlap in those groups that would indict the whole fanbase for one game or the other? Strange behavior for someone with no horse in the race.

Dannager · Jul 7, 2011

Eric Anondson said:
Has this mysterious C&D been posted?

If not, might as well say it's drama queen martyrdom fantasy . . .

As Erik said only a few posts above yours, it seems it wasn't even an actual C&D. Just a note.

deinol · Jul 7, 2011

Zil said:
Yea, exactly. That or put it behind a password wall so that it is just for the campaign's players.

I actually ran into the Paizo IP patrol some time back for doing something very similar - a private web site dedicated to the Rise of the Runelords campaign I was running. I had broken apart the PDF of the first adventure and included some of the artwork plus bits and pieces of background text for the players. It was never intended for public consumption... however, one of my players went and posted a link to it on a forum somewhere and then Google and the like started to crawl through the private site and before I knew it I had a fairly friendly cease and desist letter. It basically amounted to please remove the offending material or put it behind a password so that it is not generally accessible.

I ended up cleaning up the site and learning about what Paizo images were fair game (basically what appeared in their community release download sets or on the various Paizo blogs). In the end it wasn't a big deal at all and I learned to be a bit more careful with someone else's IP on the wide open Internet.

Always a good thing to remember: If it doesn't require a password to get at, it isn't private on the internet. I have a private forum I run for my personal game. Item stats and house rules show up there. But only my players can get to it because of password protection.

In my experience Paizo has a fairly generous Community Use Policy.

MrGrenadine · Jul 7, 2011

Umbran said:
However, I do recall several folks berating WotC heavily for similar action, and I can't say the resounding lack of same against Paizo doesn't look a little weird.

You recall several folks berating WotC that are in this thread posting supportive comments about Paizo?

Because that would be weird. If that was happening.

Dannager · Jul 7, 2011

MrGrenadine said:
Hypocrisy would only be involved if the same poster posted outraged comments in regards to WotC protecting IP, and supportive comments in regards to Paizo doing the same thing. Or vice versa.

So if you can find a quote from anyone in this thread who has posted the opposite view in a different thread in regards to another company, then yes, that might be hypocrisy....for that one poster.

What happened to calling the issue of hypocrisy closed?