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

[WizarDru]

It's possible that a Dungeon collection might be less problematic than a Dragon collection, if only because Dungeon didn't start publication until 1986, when presumably they may have been writing better contracts. I agree that a Dungeon collection would be a wonderful thing...espcially since I'm missing so many issues of that fine periodical.

 

[Henry]

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?

The truth is, the reproduction rights are not worth thousands, hundreds, or even "tens."

These magazines are wanted PURELY for gaming and story-related content. The odd collector may want the art, but the main purchaser is going to want the content for his or her gaming efforts, or purely for nostalgia purposes. That's all. In terms of the cost of the collection, the size of print run and the cost per copy is going to take the royalties for each individual contributor into the PENNIES. You can buy the Dragon Anthology in bargain bins for 30 bucks, or on Ebay for around $70.00 or so. The Original MSRP was $49.99.

It's different for first runs, because you are paying 6 or 7 dollars cover price, and that money-making is spread out over time - it's timely info, so people will pay for it. But to pay royalties to literally thousands of contributors, for one product valued at 50 bucks? It wouldn't be profitable to the company. Why put out a product with old info, something you would take a loss on, in the first place?

I'm all for someone getting their share of royalties, but their share for a compliation volume of gaming material will literally be worthless.

 

[Henry]

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

I'm sorry if my statement was unclear. To me, "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," means, "the case with these issue runs is that they are NOT available to the public." I didn't realize it could be read differently.

 

[silentspace]

In terms of the cost of the collection, the size of print run and the cost per copy is going to take the royalties for each individual contributor into the PENNIES.

I agree. What I don't understand is why the publishers can't afford pennies! Why can't the publisher make a simple agreement for the writers (the ones who they don't already have an agreement covering electronic rights with). Saying, for example, that they will be paid such and such a percentage of costs if sales exceed X dollars, but nothing if sales does not meet that amount? Seems like a solution that would make everyone happy.

Or, just ask for their approval to use their work for this purpose without payment.

Or if the publisher feels the administrative costs of doing that will be too high, release a CD with only the work that they already have agreements covering electronic copies with. (Meaning Jolly's work would not be included).

I just have problems seeing how the creators of the work have become the bad guy here.

But then again, I only feel this way because my momma raised me to obey the law.

 

[Henry]

I agree. What I don't understand is why the publishers can't afford pennies!

Because that's what the profit for the creators becomes when they pay it. Therefore, as I was saying, if they are forced to pay royaltues for each copy to the thousands of people involved, it no longer becomes profitable to even undertake it, and therefore it doesn't happen.

My earlier point about the freelancers getting more from the reproduction is the point that most freelancers who contribute to Dragon are dedicated gamers themselves, being how they came into the job in the first place. Therefore, an anthology of previous issues helps them in their pursuit as gamers, moreso than the pennies of profit helps their pocketbooks.

Maybe I don't have the proper perspective, not being a published freelancer, but if I were faced with the prospect of buying a Dragon Anthology and not getting paid for my old work, or not having the anthology published because I and other freelancers demanded proportionate royalties - I'd take the anthology hands down, and screw the pennies, or the $1.47, or whatever it was.

 

[WizarDru]

Yes, they were definitely off-topic and clearly had their own axes to grind.

Heh, it's kind of like watching your parents fight, you ask me. Fascinating, and you love 'em both, but you want them to stop it.

Again, I don't know much about the industry, but as I said earlier, I don't think the writers will be asking for "millions" as some think. They may not even ask for anything. And some of their contracts are probably written so that they can't ask for anything. Jolly said that his contract was written to include the publisher's rights to republish electronically, but he negotiated that out. I would guess that a lot of people didn't negotiate that out so don't have a say in it either way. I would further guess that those who do have a say (those who negotiated their rights) won't ask for much, will they? They probably weren't paid much for their original articles. So I doubt they would turn around now and demand "millions".

I do see the problem with finding some of the writers from the old days, but really, how big of a problem is that? So what, they have to make a few phone calls? And if they can't locate a writer, then just don't include their work. Simple. Sorry, I just don't have much sympathy for the publishers here.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think you've missed a few points.

First, let's talk about "they won't ask for much, will they?" You make the assumption that they are ethical, reasonable and have an actual desire for their material to see print. It's obvious from the discussion above that Jolly and Sean aren't on the best of terms, and that's hardly an uncommon occurence in the industry. Let's pretend that Publisher X suddenly was reprinting Dragon magazine. What if Sean decided he didn't want Publisher X to succeed, no matter what? What if Sean was a money-grubbing jerk (which to my knowledge, he certainly is NOT) who knew that Publisher X couldn't publish without his cooperation, and he needed some cash? What if he just has an unreasonable and overinflated sense of the value of his work? On the reverse end, what if Publisher X was pure evil....like say Lorraine Williams was. Sean might find he'd have to sacrifice some serious rights to see print...or perhaps he might compromise his ability to use the material again. Maybe he had already secured separate rights like Jolly had, and was already moving to publish them on his own...and agreeing to Publisher X's project would mean he'd have to cancel his own? Not to mention the trust issue....TSR burned many creators towards the end of it's life, and WotC has destroyed it's share of bridges, too. Some people just may resist on principle alone...especially if they spent months getting payment when the work was new.

Second, "So what, they have to make a few phone calls?" is not that simple, either. Quick, find Dave Trampier. If you move at the speed of the D&D community, you should be able to find him in......15 years or so. Of ACTIVE SEARCHING. Trampier dropped out of the gaming/art community, and disappeared off of the face of the earth. The only reason anyone knows where he is? He showed up in a minor newspaper article as a taxi cab driver. Could he have been found faster? Probably. But the margins on these kind of products don't allow for that sort of thing. Spending $10,000 or $20,000 to find Dave Trampier isn't worth it. As it was, they took a risk and printed it anyways. But at the same time, many people would have been very disappointed if "Wormy" wasn't included in the Archive. Imagine if that happened with 10 different authors. People might reject the project as incomplete, invalidating it.

Third, many of the authors/artists/creators signed contracts back in the ripe and heady days of the late 70s and early 80s. When "Gandlaf was a 4th-level Wizard" was written, BBSes hadn't caught on yet, let alone USENET, e-mail or the web. Contracts didn't consider future possibiliies, any more than current contracts consider holographic reproduction or thoughtwave broadcast. As such, they might have to hire a lawyer to negotiate such details, or engage an agent...and they may be 10 or 20 years out of gaming and away from the business with no interest in bothering with such trifles, now.

It's not that cut-and-dried, I'm afraid.

 

[silentspace]

Because that's what the profit for the creators becomes when they pay it. Therefore, as I was saying, if they are forced to pay royaltues for each copy to the thousands of people involved, it no longer becomes profitable to even undertake it, and therefore it doesn't happen.

My earlier point about the freelancers getting more from the reproduction is the point that most freelancers who contribute to Dragon are dedicated gamers themselves, being how they came into the job in the first place. Therefore, an anthology of previous issues helps them in their pursuit as gamers, moreso than the pennies of profit helps their pocketbooks.

Maybe I don't have the proper perspective, not being a published freelancer, but if I were faced with the prospect of buying a Dragon Anthology and not getting paid for my old work, or not having the anthology published because I and other freelancers demanded proportionate royalties - I'd take the anthology hands down, and screw the pennies, or the $1.47, or whatever it was.

Actually, I think we're saying close to the same thing. The only point I'm adding is that I think the publishers should honor the agreements they made with their writers. They should address the issue. Even if it is asking the writers for the right to make the compilation without payment (as we both suggested). I don't feel they should be able to toss their contracts out the window just because, well, because they're the publishers, dammit!

I'm not a freelancer either, and am not involved in the industry in any way.

 

[silentspace]

It's not that cut-and-dried, I'm afraid.

Wow, so many interesting anecdotes! I guess it's not that simple. Also, it sounds like the publishers have, err... mismanaged their relationships with their freelancers, making it even harder. Ah, well.

 

[JollyBGood]

Perhaps a fair question to Jolly is, would he want a piece of the action if someone were to reprint his old magazine articles, or some such in a big collection CD?Janx

To be honest, I'd have no problem whatsoever if the publisher had a clear right to do so. And let's face it -- as a writer it's nice to know your work isn't lost and hidden away in stacks of old magazines that aren't read any more.

I'm probably an odd egg however -- as a general rule I *never* sold the full rights to anything I wrote. I was the guy most editors hated because I insisted on only selling first publishing rights. I had no problem walking if they weren't willing to bend. Being published just wasn't as important to me in the early days as maintaining ownership.

Not that I thought butter was dripping from my pen. It was just my nature to want to control anything I'd had a hand in creating regardless if it was crap or not.

Having said that if a publisher was compiling a CD and came to me to say they thought something I wrote should be included. I'd probably have no problem letting them run it with little or no renumeration -- it would depend on the material.

If I'd signed away my rights, however it wouldn't really make any difference. They could run it without any consideration from me, I suppose and I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

As you said, cartoons are a bit different. Most cartoonists are keenly aware that republishing strips in Trade Paper Back form can result in significant sales so they tend to go about negotiating a bit differently than the guy turning in a 1500 word article.

 

[JollyBGood]

It's obvious from the discussion above that Jolly and Sean aren't on the best of terms, and that's hardly an uncommon occurence in the industry.

Not sure where you got this idea.

I've never met Sean and certainly don't have any problems with him personally. I can't speak for Sean, but as far as I know he doesn't have a beef with me. If he does it's certainly news to me.

I was simply stepping up to take issue with his comment that Dave Kenzer "might not be telling the truth".

Anyone who knows, Dave knows that honesty is one of his strongest traits. I just didn't want the remark to go unchallenged.

Other than that I haven't given the matter a second thought.