Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 1387470" data-attributes="member: 151">You ask a bunch of different questions there, and I'm not sure how to answer all of them, so I'll just discuss how I see the situation.  I certainly don't think that any of those viewpoints discuss the broad opinion of the boards, if such an ephemeral thing exists. First off, folks want stuff.  Seriously.  Many of our current technological debates center around the distribution of copyrighted materials and the new models for said distribution.  Traditional channels are being challenged in different ways, from Blair Witch to Napster to DC++, and all of it because of the simple fact that people want stuff.  There are many different approaches to the probelm, from the Grateful Dead's open-taping policy to the RIAA's legal wranglings.  However, most folks don't give a damn either way...they just want their stuff.  The tenet of 'information wants to be free' is another way of saying "I don't care if you have the right to NOT publish something, I still want it, anyways."  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> That said, the issue centers around a couple of issues.  First, the concept of work-for-hire and freelance contracts...in this case producing a written work for a periodical.  Second, the changing nature of media distribution, specifically new forms of media distribution that simply didn't exist at the time of prior contracts.  How those issues are resolved is what the central discussion is concerned with.  This problem greatly mimics a similar situation that faced the comic-book industry a few decades ago, and came to a head in the mid 70s-early 80s, and a similar battle that was fought within the music industry for decades. At issue is the question of reproduction rights, and whether or not the original authors are owed further renumeration after a particular work is re-issued or reused in some fashion.  For example, Jack Kirby created thousands of pages of material for Marvel comics over the course of his career.  However, his contracts (while generous compared to his peers at the time) gave him no money when Marvel extensively reprinted his works throughout the 70s...and they destroyed his original storyboards as often as not, to prevent him from selling them to collectors, after the fact.  Compare that with the situation of Bob Kane, creator of Batman.  Kane stopped doing Batman relatively early, but he had an excellent lawyer and some shrewd business skills, and his name still appears on every Batman production to this day.  Compare this unethical and extremely unpleasant treatment Siegel and Schuster, creators of Superman, received from the same publisher. The point being this: the original authors, artists and so forth signed different contracts at different time periods, presumably with different rights signed away.  Releasing such a CD with an electronic archive (or allowing access to an online library of PDFs, or what have you) was clearly not envisioned until relatively recently.  Further, the assumptions that were in force with one iteration of TSR or WOTC's management may not have been reasonable with another...and in some cases, there may have been an expiration to the rights or any number of other issues.  I think it's safe to assume that the contracts under Gary's reign were much less stringent and draconian (and perhaps less sound business-wise, as well) than that of....HER. Consider the case for the video and later DVD releases of the animated movie, Heavy Metal, and the CD release of the Soundtrack.  There was a significant delay in the CD issue and an even longer one in the release of the DVD.  Why?  Many of the same reasons you see here with the Dragon Archive.  Musical groups hand't agreed to a CD, only a tape and vinyl recording.  The movie required even more negotiations, since various artists whose stories had been used were now involved.  Complicate this further with artists dying in the ensuing period, bands breaking up and reforming, record and movie companies being bought out, closing, reorganizing and so forth....and you've got one hell of a mess.  Spiderman movie, anyone?  Consider that some folks have died, some had dropped out of sight (Trampier) and some were already badly burnt during TSR's final dark days. So what do I want?  Well, I've got the archive, already. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> But seriously, what I'd like to see is the artists get what they legally are entitled to.  Artwork is easier to apply a future market value to, but in many cases, the real issue is one of reasonable expectations.  It's already been mentioned that the archive didn't sell astoundingly well...I think that it's reasonable to believe it never would.  It's a nostalgia item for some, and it's a niche market to begin with. So do I think that writers who wrote an article on the "new, improved super-duper Jester NPC class variant #8" should receive nothing for their work?  Well, if the contract signed away their rights, and it was reasonable at the time...then yes, I think I do.  There certainly wasn't any expectation of attaining great riches in the RPG industry.  The most successful companies involved in the industry today are ones with business-savvy owners or managers. Ideally, a situation might be developed like that of Carl Barks and Disney.  Carl Barks, for those unfamiliar with him, is nothing short of an comic-book art legend.  Ever read a Donald Duck story as a kid?  That was him, most likely.  He did hundreds of them.  The Duck Tales TV show was populated almost entirely out of Bark's works.  Ask many of today's top artists, and they'll quote his name, for his mastery of layout, his fantastic command of perspective and scenery and so on.  (But I digress...)  In the 80s, Barks, then retired, began doing commisioned paintings for enthusiasts.  IIRC, someone wrote him and asked if he would paint them a Donald and Scrooge picture, and he'd pay him several hundred dollars for it.  At this same time, Disney had been reprinting some of his work, for no additional money, for decades.  Barks wasn't poor, but he wasn't rich, either.  A bit suprised, he began commisioning works and discovered a plethora of enthusiastic fans willing to pay thousands for commisioned works of the Disney characters he embellished or often created.  Barks checked with Disney, and they OKed.  Later, they changed their minds, and then later changed it again, often commisioning original works from Barks directly.  All of which is a long way to say that perhaps WotC could negotiate some deals with some of these writers to give them some leeway in updating some of their material, if it's relevant to do so. I mean, let's be honest, here.  Most RPG writers are doing it as much for the prestige of being published or getting the material out there as they are of actually turning any sort of profit.  It's easy to forget, 20 years later, that someone producing a 5,000 word article for a magazine with a readership of perhaps 50,000 readers  would be eager to sign away rights that likely were worthless at the time. If you're still here <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(:" title="Smile    (:"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname="(:" />)), I guess what I'm saying is that it's not a simple answer.  I wouldn't like to see creators robbed of their fair share of a creative work...but at the same time, they assumed the risk of such an event when they signed the original contracts.  For the writers in the late 70s through the 80s, it would reasonable to assume they had a right to renegotiate such issues (as the whole spectrum of distribution had changed, and simple 'electronic rights' would be insufficient)....but someone in 1996 should have been able to see the possibility, unless they were wilfully ignoring the web.</blockquote>

Verification