ATTN Piazo: Dungeon mag and Dragon mag CD-roms & the Tasini v NY Times decision

[JollyBGood]

Riddle me this ... how did KenzerCo, which at the time was a very tiny company, managed to land the greatly valued and expensive license to produce not only 3E D&D products with the official logo, but also the rights to 1E AD&D (i.e., Hackmaster)? If KenzerCo can land this license (which almost certainly required plopping down at least $10,000 as an initial fee, quite a lot in the RPG industry), how come none of the other big players in the early days of the d20 industry have managed that? Certainly White Wolf has the money, and having the D&D logo instead of the D20 logo is a guarantee of greater sales ....

And wasn't Kenzer a lawyer before he started KenzerCo?

Sure Dave's an attorney (and still is). That's common knowledge.

As for the rest -- there are lot's of theories. Take your pick. As we've said many times we can't go into details. I'm sure you can understand that regardless of your stance on the subject.

As for KenzerCo being a small company prior to HackMaster/D&D agreement the fact is Knights of the Dinner Table was then (and is now) our biggest selling product. Over a million copies of KODT have been published to date.

HackMaster and Kalamar D&D have been very good to us of course. But it certainly didn't put us on the map as many suppose.

We'd still be here even if the agreement had never taken place.

 

[JollyBGood]

I'm sure that most people (including me) see this as avoiding the issue and relying on semantics... Not that I care really, but when people say 'lawsuit' the mean that phrase to include 'threat of legal action' as well.

Understandable. But NDA's being what they are I'm at a disadvantage here.

My point in posting is not to deny KenzerCo may have benefited from the release of the Dragon CD compilations.

I'm simply saying our situation is quite different than the class action lawsuit brought by the other freelancers against WotC. (That is if they all signed the boiler plate contracts).

In other words the decsision NOT to come out with a Dungeon CD probably has very little to do with KenzerCo and KODT (since I'm sure it was a unique situation contractually) and more to do with the class action lawsuit and the Tasini case.

Threads on a KenzerCo vs. WotC lawsuit are scattered all about the internet. I typically refrain from commenting. My primiary reason for stepping out of lukerdom and posting here wasn't to refute the rumors that Kenzer threatened legal action. It doesn't really matter what people believe. And it's easy to read between the lines afterall.

I posted primarily because of Sean's remark, "Have you considered that Kenzer may not be telling the truth?"

That implies Dave Kenzer was lying which he wasn't. If that wasn't his intent then I really have no issue with the discussion here.

Peace

 

[d20Dwarf]

I'm sure that most people (including me) see this as avoiding the issue and relying on semantics... Not that I care really, but when people say 'lawsuit' the mean that phrase to include 'threat of legal action' as well.

I don't see it this way at all, so I'd be careful saying most people. A lawsuit implies coercive legal action rather than cooperative legal negotiations, which is more likely in this case.

Conspiracy theorists and jealous designers aside, who really cares about the particulars of the agreement? It's not as if some grave injustice happened.

 

[JollyBGood]

A lawsuit implies coercive legal action rather than cooperative legal negotiations, which is more likely in this case.

Well put -- What HE said.

Thanks, Wil, exactly what I was trying to say.

Perhaps it's because I've been in the publishing business for so many years but the two very definitely have different conotations for me.

I can think of a dozen situations where a potentially sticky legal situation was quietly resolved through cooperaive negotiation rather than escalating to a law suit. A law suit implies that communication has failed or that one party is disputing they are at fault.

 

[silentspace]

Just so I understand (and please correct me if I don't)...

1 - Publishers (such as NYT and Paizo) were not allowed to create and sell print copies of freelancer's work (such as compilations of past articles) without some sort of further renumeration to the freelancers?

2 - In order to get around this limitation, the publishers sold electronic copies of the work, since the copyright laws were less clear on this issue? This way they can collect profits without having to deal with the inconvenience of paying the producers of the work.

3 - The Supreme Court ruled in the Tasinin case that the copyright protections that freelancers have for their creative work also applies to electronic, not just print copies.

4 - Since the Tasini case, freelance contracts now include the rights of publisher to re-issue work in electronic form? Does that also include print copies?

5 - Since the Tasini case, a new case with National Geographic has set a new precedent, whereby publishers are now allowed to release compilations of previously submitted work without further paying the creators?

Is this right?

The general feeling here on the boards seems to be that publishers should be allowed to sell electronic copies of freelancer's work without paying freelancers. Just out of curiousity, why does everyone feel that way?

Is it really because the freelancers will refuse to allow republication because they think the rights are worth "millions"? Is that what people here really think? It seems more likely that they would ask for some sort of nominal fee (as opposed to nothing), with maybe some tiny fraction of royalties if the thing sells really well.

Or is it because you only want the folks at Paizo to get your money, and don't like the idea of them giving a part of it to the creators of the work?

Or is it because you feel that any work, once created, should be in the public domain? (In which case the compilation should really be free)

Please help me understand this. I don't really understand copyright issues. Thanks.

 

[JollyBGood]

Just so I understand (and please correct me if I don't)...

1 - Publishers (such as NYT and Paizo) were not allowed to create and sell print copies of freelancer's work (such as compilations of past articles) without some sort of further renumeration to the freelancers?

2 - In order to get around this limitation, the publishers sold electronic copies of the work, since the copyright laws were less clear on this issue? This way they can collect profits without having to deal with the inconvenience of paying the producers of the work.

3 - The Supreme Court ruled in the Tasinin case that the copyright protections that freelancers have for their creative work also applies to electronic, not just print copies.

4 - Since the Tasini case, freelance contracts now include the rights of publisher to re-issue work in electronic form? Does that also include print copies?

5 - Since the Tasini case, a new case with National Geographic has set a new precedent, whereby publishers are now allowed to release compilations of previously submitted work without further paying the creators?

Is this right?

The general feeling here on the boards seems to be that publishers should be allowed to sell electronic copies of freelancer's work without paying freelancers. Just out of curiousity, why does everyone feel that way?

Is it really because the freelancers will refuse to allow republication because they think the rights are worth "millions"? Is that what people here really think? It seems more likely that they would ask for some sort of nominal fee (as opposed to nothing), with maybe some tiny fraction of royalties if the thing sells really well.

Or is it because you only want the folks at Paizo to get your money, and don't like the idea of them giving a part of it to the creators of the work?

Or is it because you feel that any work, once created, should be in the public domain? (In which case the compilation should really be free)

Please help me understand this. I don't really understand copyright issues. Thanks.

I'll only comment on the areas I have any knowledge of...

As I recall the orginal boiler plate from TSR had a provision that allowed for the 'electronic publication' of material that appeared in Dragon without further payment.

At least the contracts presented to me had that in there. I asked that it be removed and they readily agreed.

Granted web pages and pdfs weren't at the forefront of people's thinking back in '95/'96 but I had plans on reprinting the strips someday as a trade paper back and didn't want them popping up online where they could be downloaded.

I would imagine the boilerplates have been updated to cover such things since that time. Which would make the business of doing CD Compilations a rather sticky venture at best. You would have to review the contracts signed on a freelancer by freelancer basis and determine exactly what rights were released.

It's possible National Geographic's contracts were worded in a way that there's no doubt where such rights fall when it comes to electronic republishing.

Copyright issues can be very tricky when to comes to periodicals. For example I could sell a magazine the full rights to my article, first publication rights (which would allow me to sell that same article to a competing magazine down the road -- usually 18 months after the first publication), etc. It really comes down to how the contract and release paperwork is worded.

 

[DaveStebbins]

1 - Publishers (such as NYT and Paizo) were not allowed to create and sell print copies of freelancer's work (such as compilations of past articles) without some sort of further renumeration to the freelancers?

DRS - True, but see below.

2 - In order to get around this limitation, the publishers sold electronic copies of the work, since the copyright laws were less clear on this issue? This way they can collect profits without having to deal with the inconvenience of paying the producers of the work.

DRS - I don't think this is quite the problem. Publishers are (I believe) allowed to reprint works in their entirety, such as making another print run of the publication. What they cannot do without renumeration to contributors is reformat and republish the work in a different, new, publication. The publishers stance is that since the CD compilations contained the entire original publications unchanged, they were just an electronic form of reprint and not a new work.

3 - The Supreme Court ruled in the Tasinin case that the copyright protections that freelancers have for their creative work also applies to electronic, not just print copies.

DRS - I don't know enough to comment with reliable information here. The ruling MAY have been that the electronic format was not a simple reprint and thus was a "new work." Again, just ignorant suppositions.

4 - Since the Tasini case, freelance contracts now include the rights of publisher to re-issue work in electronic form? Does that also include print copies?

5 - Since the Tasini case, a new case with National Geographic has set a new precedent, whereby publishers are now allowed to release compilations of previously submitted work without further paying the creators?

DRS - Again, I'm not sure.

The general feeling here on the boards seems to be that publishers should be allowed to sell electronic copies of freelancer's work without paying freelancers. Just out of curiousity, why does everyone feel that way?

DRS - Perhaps those people agree with the publishers' stance that electronic copies of the entire publication, unchanged except to bring it to electronic format, constitute a reprint instead of a new work. Or maybe they just want relatively cheap access to large quantities of past published material.

Is it really because the freelancers will refuse to allow republication because they think the rights are worth "millions"? Is that what people here really think? It seems more likely that they would ask for some sort of nominal fee (as opposed to nothing), with maybe some tiny fraction of royalties if the thing sells really well.?

DRS - But merely having to keep track of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of individual contracts involved would escalate the administrative costs of CD compilation projects past the point where they could ever be profitable, regardless of whether the authors want lots, little or even no renumeration.

The fact is, rooting for the publishers is the only wayt these projects will ever happen. Some people see that as reason enough, while others simply agree with the publishers' opinions that these are not "new" works, but (electronic) reprints.

Does that help?
-Dave
PS - I may have gotten the opinions completely wrong or misremembered outdated information. If so, someone will hopefully correct me and this entire post can be happily ignored.

 

[johnsemlak]

Lawsuit - n. a case in a court of law involving a claim, complaint, etc.
- Random House Webster's College Dictionary

Of course words can imply meanings not stated in the dictionary, but but it's the only place to go really to sort out what a word means.

 

[johnsemlak]

nor are they easily available to the public, as in the case of the first 100 issues of Dragon, or the first 10 or 12 issues of Dungeon.

Mmm, how are the first 10-12 issues of Dungeon easily available to the public? I wanna get my hands on those.

 

[frankthedm]

Mmm, how are the first 10-12 issues of Dungeon easily available to the public? I wanna get my hands on those.

IRL i have a spare # 10

issue 1 was pdf'ed on a CD rom in an issue of dragon / dungeon in 03 IIR