Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?

[Matt James]

I'm not sure he was speaking about you. The pages of debate here (and other places) is likely where he found the DSCS

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")

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Coming Soon - Cook's Source: The Role Playing Game

The Auld Grump

 

[Morrus]

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:

I think using terms such as "copyrght police", "threat to the mighty game company’s copyright", "harassment from copyright trolling", "they just didn’t want *us* using them", comparing them to TSR, and then wondering why people would start discussing the subject might be a little disingenuous.

With all due respect, your post was pretty angry and vitriolic. Exactly the sort of thing which gets people on the internet talking about things. Claiming "However, I didn't "make a stink" about it" isn't exactly true!

If that message is set to "private", why can I still see it? It reads as follows:

Sorry, but we’ve set this campaign to private due to the copyright police @ Paizo. Apparently the tiny thumb nailed images of their items cards that I was handing out to the players associated to each of our items in the wiki for our personal campaign was a threat to the mighty game company’s copyright. So much for usefulness and using their products as a game supplement. I have removed the images from Obsidian Portal and set the campaign to private players-only in hopes that we can enjoy use of OP without further harassment from copyright trolling.

A simple 5 minute stroll through the campaigns here brought up literally dozens upon dozens of images copyrighted by Paizo, but I suppose they decided they just didn’t want *us* using them. So, I would recommend to anyone utilizing reference materials containing images of their cards, maps, game mats, and anything else set your campaign to private immediately, less risk getting a notice from the company about unauthorized use of their product.

I seem to remember another company who made this a common practice. TSR I think was their name? Wonder how the practice of targeting their loyal customer base and accusing them of copyright infringement for personal use of materials worked out for them?

 

[MrGrenadine]

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.

First of all, thanks for joining the discussion!

Second, I just want to comment on a couple of your points:

... 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."

Its clear from this paragraph that you're aware others could've taken those images, and used or proliferated them, which is an important distinction. But the key part of your example, to me, is " I simply used the product as intended by playing the MP3", because using the cards as intended doesn't include posting them in a public forum.

.The reason I invested so much in their products to begin with is, well, because they're good products.

I hope you'll realize soon that the products are just as good as they always were, despite the fact that you were asked nicely to not post some of them to a public campaign blog, (but can still publish them to your blog as long as its set to private).

 

[rangerjohn]

True that is not the use for which they were intended. But is there a market for that use anymore? How many face to face games are there anymore? Actually, come to that, people might see them, so that would be against the policy as well. I guess they are just meant to be looked at in the privacy of your home. I can think lots of things I would rather look at as artwork, then items. Portraits, landscapes, fantasy creatures but a ring for example?

 

[nedjer]

If I want to use someone else's content I simply email them. Most say 'go right ahead'. A quick email to the entity would have avoided all the grief.

The corporate vampire lady surely has grounds for complaint for the publication of Pathfinder materials in a low resolution, i.e. somewhat scabby, condition. Not so great for Paizo's reputation or the artist's good name.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not interested in either WoTC or Paizo's offerings at this point (being a convert to the glories of Warhammer FRP 3e), but I thought I'd play devil's
advocate.

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?

Like I said, just raising a point, I don't really have a horse in the race anymore.

Hypocrisy by who, precisely?

 

[Croesus]

...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.

...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."

...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.

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.

While I can understand your point of view, I believe you are missing one important point - the internet is generally considered public space. This is something many people do not seem to grasp - the internet is not, by default, considered private. In most cases, posting anything on a freely accessible blog, website, etc. is akin to standing on a street corner, yelling for all to hear. Posting copyrighted material is akin to handing out copies to all who pass by. I find it difficult to see that as fair use, even if your intent was to facilitate a personal activity, as you posted the material in a public space.

The internet can be a very useful tool for managing and enhancing RPG campaigns, but those using it have a responsibility to understand its limits and restrictions. Honest mistakes happen (and I freely concede that is what this appears to have been), but your irritation with Paizo seems misplaced. Based on what I've read here, Paizo took appropriate action and did so in a professional manner, IMO.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hypocrisy by who, precisely?

Gah, my inner Grammar Police popped up and yelled 'whom!'

I blame you for that.

The Auld Grump

 

[Steel_Wind]

The thing that boggles my mind about this, is that:


A- There was no lawyer's letter or a cease and desist, DMCA takedown Notice or other formal warning shot across the bow. This was just a private e-mail; and

B- There was no request that the GM stop scanning the images, nor was there a request that he not send or share those scanned images to his players for use in his personal game, either.

No, the request was a lot simpler (and a lot less mean-spirited) than that: if you are going to scan our art and distribute it to your players, do so in a manner so that only your players can access those images and not the entire internet, writ large.

What the hell is unreasonable about that request? It did not impact upon the GM's campaign, reduce the utility of the cards in question or otherwise interfere in the enjoyment of the game or the game product. Win-Win.

Seriously: what's the problem with this? Paizo politely asks via private e-mail that if you are going to copy our images for distribution, do so only for the gamers at your table.

They don't even have to allow THAT, but they did (and they have on many other occasion too when the matter has arisen in relation to sharing maps).

Seem to me this is a request that falls far short of the legal remedies available to Paizo and appears, to this lawyers view, to be a very reasonable balance between the commercial interests of Paizo and the interests of its customers.

Looks fair to me; in fact, so fair that I would have thought this to be self-evident to everyone. But dozens and dozens of posts later, the jury is still out? WTF?

Wow. Just ... wow.

It occurs to me that the subtext of these reports that Lisa Stevens has somehow morphed into The Wicked Witch of the Northwest are more than just a little over-the-top.

*sigh*