Stan! Talks "Life After Wizards (Again)"

[Morrus]

This is about principles, not price. Were it not, it would still be legal to sell yourself into slavery.

Well, no. It's about price, not principles. But that aside, given that you believe otherwise, and working on an assumption that you are right -- my question is: what are you going to do about all those other people at Hasbro who have been sold into slavery? According to Wikipedia, it has 5,800 employees who need urgent rescuing. 5,800 slaves! Slavery in America is not a trivial matter and should be brought to the attention of the authorities!

 

[Kaodi]

Corporations own things for the purposes of making money. The creative rider does not afford for ownership of all ideas regardless of their use or intention. Specifically it calls for ownership of all creative ideas for the expressed purpose of making a profit off of them and is written to avoid intellectual property that belongs to Hasbro from showing up on another game company's IP list.

I am not sure I understand what "ownership of all creative ideas for the expressed purpose of making a profit off of them" is supposed to mean, as there is hardly any creative endeavour these days where it is not, in principle, possible to make a profit. In the politics example, for instance, say you write well put-together blog posts on local issues. If your posts would be functional editorial columns in a paper, does your employer own the right to that work because you could be profit off them as freelance articles?

 

[Kaodi]

Well, no. It's about price, not principles. But that aside, given that you believe otherwise, and working on an assumption that you are right -- my question is: what are you going to do about all those other people at Hasbro who have been sold into slavery? According to Wikipedia, it has 5,800 employees who need urgent rescuing. 5,800 slaves! Not a trivial matter.

Pursue legislation that explicitly prohibits such clauses from reaching beyond reasonable limits as defined in the legislation or by a high court. I already have in fact started asking around about whether this sort or ridiculously broad contract clause would be enforceable in Canada, with the view that pushing for legislation on this might be the required course. If that came to pass, that would be the time to think about bringing the issue to attention of jurisdictions beyond my own.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I am not sure I understand what "ownership of all creative ideas for the expressed purpose of making a profit off of them" is supposed to mean, as there is hardly any creative endeavour these days where it is not, in principle, possible to make a profit. In the politics example, for instance, say you write well put-together blog posts on local issues. If your posts would be functional editorial columns in a paper, does your employer own the right to that work because you could be profit off them as freelance articles?

Hi Kaodi -

Read my other post directly below the one you quoted above. It explains the matter with reasonable thoroughness for the conversation's sake.

If Hasbro is not able to profit off of political speech, because it is not a political media company at the time of said writing of political blog, it is not covered under any lawsuit brought by Hasbro against that employee unless he continues to do so AFTER Hasbro becomes a political media company.

 

[Morrus]

Pursue legislation that explicitly prohibits such clauses from reaching beyond reasonable limits as defined in the legislation or by a high court. I already have in fact started asking around about whether this sort or ridiculously broad contract clause would be enforceable in Canada, with the view that pushing for legislation on this might be the required course. If that came to pass, that would be the time to think about bringing the issue to attention of jurisdictions beyond my own.

What does this 'ridiculously broad contract clause' say?

 

[Kaodi]

What does this 'ridiculously broad contract clause' say?

I can only quote how it was portrayed:

I could get technical and talk about the terms, but the crux of the problem was this: The documents stated that anything I created, committed to paper, or even thought about during the term of my employment—whether on the job or at home in the middle of the night or while on vacation in Bora Bora—all of it was Intellectual Property belonging to Hasbro.

The unreasonable way to view it is that we all have many thoughts that have nothing to do with the company and workplace. And I, in particular, have a long work history and many different creative outlets, most of which are of no interest to Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro, and there is no good reason for them to get ANY claim to those creations just because they are paying me to perform a managerial role in their corporate structure.

Parts I took to be important in bold. Why would Stan! phrase it that way if he did not really mean that the clause was so broad as to apply to things that Hasbro has nothing to do with?

 

[Kobold Boots]

reaching beyond reasonable limits

Look up jurisprudence and application of the law in regards to intellectual property and creative ownership in the United States, or whatever jurisdiction you live in and see if your argument matches up with legal outcomes.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I can only quote how it was portrayed: Parts I took to be important in bold. Why would Stan! phrase it that way if he did not really mean that the clause was so broad as to apply to things that Hasbro has nothing to do with?

Because Stan is a game designer and not a lawyer. Hasbro can write whatever they want in their contract. They can't get a judge to agree with it based on applicable property laws. Contracts can be found to be irrelevant to whatever action has occurred or just plain non-binding.

However, with respect to Stan, he'd need to reply to get a solid answer.

 

[Kaodi]

Look up jurisprudence and application of the law in regards to intellectual property and creative ownership in the United States, or whatever jurisdiction you live in and see if your argument matches up with legal outcomes.

A friend of mine has said she will ask her contract law professor about it, so I am definitely looking forward to seeing what results from that conversation.

 

[Kobold Boots]

A friend of mine has said she will ask her contract law professor about it, so I am definitely looking forward to seeing what results from that conversation.

Ok, cool. Thanks for taking the advice. I expect that the answer will be:

"Without seeing the exact agreement and knowing certain variables about the case that would be levied against the defendant it's hard to say what the outcome would be."

"However, the judge or mediator has considerable latitude to judge in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, often with the case decided on the strength of the advocates arguments and the submitted evidence. One piece of which has to be the plaintiff showing beyond reasonable doubt that their business is losing income as a result of the evidence."

Note though that it's not contracts alone, it's also IP. So if she has a professor specifically focused in IP, that's better.

All that said, what you've done for us is put us in a position to discuss something real instead of imaginary within this particular sub thread of the larger conversation and I appreciate it. Hopefully, it'll die off.

Important thing to say is: Stan, good luck with your future endeavors!