TSR Darlene tells NuTSR NO!

The artist Darlene, who designed one of the original TSR logos that TSR3.5 is currently using, has emphatically and publicly refused to endorse the company's use of the logo. Darlene's work appeared in early Dungeons & Dragons materials, and included the full-color map in 1980's World of Greyhawk. In December, I finally reviewed the contract Justin LaNasa (JL) wanted me to sign. That’s...

The artist Darlene, who designed one of the original TSR logos that TSR3.5 is currently using, has emphatically and publicly refused to endorse the company's use of the logo.

Darlene's work appeared in early Dungeons & Dragons materials, and included the full-color map in 1980's World of Greyhawk.

17AEE64F-2E34-4876-9FBB-FB37032C296D.jpeg


In December, I finally reviewed the contract Justin LaNasa (JL) wanted me to sign. That’s when I took a stand and gave this answer: “I prefer not to be directly involved in any way with your lawsuit against WOTC. Therefore, I do not give permission to use the Wizard-head logo."

For the longest time, I tried to remain neutral, aloof, and unaffected. I wanted to avoid being associated with the bombastic claims of the new TSR.

JL first responded with a denial: “We were not planning on having you in the lawsuit this is why we ask for your permission.” Then a guilt trip: “We really tried to bring back something good with TSR.” Then played the underdog card: “it seems like WOTC and their supporters have a lot of fear and sway amongst the industry.”

It’s upsetting if JL thought I would be stupid enough to sign a contract without reading or comprehending it. In my response, I referred him to item #3 which obligates me to defend his position in his WOTC lawsuit. 


The pressure they are putting on me to reconsider has increased. Ernie Gygax thinks granting my permission for them to use the logo—which, btw, they are already using anyway—is key for their successful arbitration. He intimated if I don’t give in, sign away my rights and take their money, I’d be hurting some people I really care about. He also suggested I can “up the ante” for double the amount initially offered.

JL has since amicably proposed to work out a contract that excludes me from the lawsuit. He’s been very nice and cordial to me throughout. Nevertheless... The contract will most likely retain the first sentence where I declare that I have “not previously transferred my rights to any entity or party.” What? As I understand it, logos don’t work that way.

The most important thing to me has not been addressed. As a visual thinker and logo designer, I am very particular about the nuances of what I create. Yes, I designed the original wizard-head logo back in the ’80s. That is not in dispute. However, the logo produced as “Exhibit ‘A’” in JL’s contract is not my logo. It’s a bastardization—a greyed-out, fuzzy, lesser version—of what I designed. I detest the spindly letters used for "The Game Wizards." Ugh!

Therefore, I cannot honestly take money for it because I do not and will not claim it as mine. I’m extremely picky about choosing my clients. Before I would consider designing a new logo for the new TSR, they would have to demonstrate ethical behavior as a business entity.

Ever since they appeared on the scene, the new TSR has been plucking the heartstrings of those who fondly remember the good ole days when the hobby was in its infancy. JL’s lofty words: “to honor and remember TSR, the Dragon, Gary and all the alumni of the old days of gaming” sound inspiring. But I remain unmoved. I never want to return to Lake Geneva to relive those “good old days."


If I were to endorse the new TSR, they have to correct the mistakes of the old TSR. They must be kinder and more generous to artists and authors in their employ. They would show proper respect, listen to, and honor women, both within the gaming field and as consumers. They would be more inclusive and sensitive enough to address the needs of individuals beyond the white male demographic. They would be fair to their customers and transparent in their actions.


Besides, the idea of me endorsing TSR—new or old—is laughable. Not always, but in general, I did not have a positive experience freelancing for TSR. Looking from the outside in, I witnessed how the growth spurts of TSR turned it from being an “all-for-one; one-for-all” company into an uncaring corporate entity with an “us vs them” mindset. With few exceptions, success brought out the worst in those TSR people given positions of authority. I witnessed how the creatives got the brunt of TSR’s unfair predatory policies. No, I do not yearn to return to that stressful, hostile, and toxic atmosphere.


My memories of TSR are clear because they are frozen to the time I needed to leave Lake Geneva for my own mental health and well-being. I turned my back on the growing number of small-minded TSR people who created and spread malicious rumors and hurtful lies about me, made me feel unwelcome whenever I visited the building, told me my art was not very good and caused me to doubt myself and my abilities.

I left to pursue knowledge, my MFA, and the prospect of new beginnings with no intention of returning. Gary Gygax contacted me in 2005 and coaxed me back. That’s when he and I became fast friends. In the years since, I’ve discovered—for the most part— nothing much has changed for females in the gaming world (ie: gamergate). TSR’s unfair internal practices (abusing creatives financially) seem to have followed the RPG industry. How do I know? Having worked as a professional in the “real world” since 1984, I’m aware of the many disparities.


Today, I decided to publicly share my “power of no” because I recognize this as a teachable moment for the dispossessed. Charged with 42 years of suppressed emotional pain, my “no” is big and empowered. It includes “no” to bullying and unethical business practices; “no” to the unfair treatment and compensation of artists, creatives, and women; and “no” to taking advantage of the disadvantaged to profit at their expense.


My “no” is also cathartic for me. With it, I officially reclaim those lost parts of myself I abandoned so long ago. To have the courage to take this stance, my desire for money had to be relinquished. Only then could I clearly understand the implications of what saying yes meant. As tempting as a yes would be, it is ultimately disempowering.


Compromising my integrity for money is the same as selling my soul.

Therefore, I choose to continue living like I always have, modestly. I choose not to allow temporary feelings of desperation or depression to rule me nor compromise the greater truth of who I am. Perhaps I should credit JL for catalyzing my healing process and helping me demonstrate what feminine power looks like.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

darjr

I crit!
She could be called as a witness, to a deposition or records production or otherwise, by WOTC.
If she is, ultimately who's fault is that? WotC's? Or the grits wrastling master LeNasa who kicked this whole thing off?

Frankly if you were to ask me who's going to behave better now in this situation I'd not put money down on LeNasa.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
If she is, ultimately who's fault is that? WotC's? Or the grits wrastling master LeNasa who kicked this whole thing off?

Frankly if you were to ask me who's going to behave better now in this situation I'd not put money down on LeNasa.
Not sure it's a question of fault. We were discussing if NuTSR could prevent her from being dragged into it on their own and I am saying no I do not think at this point they necessarily could. And of course LeNasa will continue to be a train wreck - he only has one gear, and it's crash.
 

darjr

I crit!
Not sure it's a question of fault. We were discussing if NuTSR could prevent her from being dragged into it on their own and I am saying no I do not think at this point they necessarily could. And of course LeNasa will continue to be a train wreck - he only has one gear, and it's crash.
I suppose he could drop all his claims. But I don’t think he’d do that, not even for Darlene’s sake.
 


Zardnaar

Legend
Tim Kask spoke out in support of Darlene in his latest video cast, The Curmudgeon in the Cellar 2.0.3, about 11 hours ago.
I have set the link to start below at 22:40 where is starts talking about Darlene, her statement, and her time at TSR. It is a bit long (he reads her statement in full). I will say David Sutherland does not come out looking good in all of this.
Quote of the cast (In reference to NuTSR): "You arn't TSR, you never will be. You can't... because most of us are dead. TSR was like Camelot. A magic thing happened and, uh, the magic is gone."


It's not like Dave Sutherland was that good at art himself.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I suppose he could drop all his claims. But I don’t think he’d do that, not even for Darlene’s sake.
Would him dropping all his claims stop WOTC from filing their counter claims now that they know there is this issue hanging out there?
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Would him dropping all his claims stop WOTC from filing their counter claims now that they know there is this issue hanging out there?

So here's the essential problem with this- and I'm going to make this slightly technical, but without going into the weeds.

When it comes to the copyright claims, there are two- one is for the Darlene image, the other is for the lizardman image. Normally, this is how things work with a copyright claim-

A. Person A with copyright sues Person B infringing on right.
B. Person B who is infringing on right tries to say there is no infringement- one way to do this is to say that Person A suing doesn't have a valid right. That Person A suing doesn't "own" the copyright.

Now, if you're with me so far, you're beginning to see what LaNasa's "idea" might be. "A ha! They can't do this because .... reasons ... and they don't own the copyright!" This is perfectly fine and acceptable. After all, if you're sued for copyright, it's part of the prima facie case for the person suing you to prove that they own the copyright!

See, here's the thing. That's a very dangerous game for LaNasa to play. Let's examine why-
1. First, LaNasa's actual knowledge seems really bad. For example, nuTSR is just using poorly scanned imaged of the originals, and they don't seem to know which poorly scanned images they are using. It's hard to tell given the terrible quality of most of their products, but it is well-known at this point that the original Bell Lizard Man logo was superseded by the later, Sutherland Lizard Man logo- and nuTSR appears to be using a copy of the later logo, while naming Bell specifically in the Complaint. So they might not even have stolen the right thing.
2. Normally, you wait for the company to sue you, or you comply with there C&D letter of the company unless you have good reason. This is especially so (complying with a C&D) when you are knowingly and willfully copying the work of other people. Instead, LaNasa caused to be filed a "declaratory action," which is requesting that the Court declare the rights of nuTSR and WOTC. Now, for reasons that are also too complicated to get into, procedurally the federal court might not like this very much; while declaratory actions after C&D letter such as this are allowed, it becomes a little more questionable for claims that seem to be simply raising the rights of third parties (here, the artists).
3. This is where we get into the more complicated issue- first, as a matter of basic truth and honesty, LaNasa is provably a liar. He named Darlene in the Complaint, and it would be impossible to litigate this claim without "involving" her. But this brings up the more germane issue- what is his strategy? If you think about it, and before even getting into the complex issues of the intertwining of logos with marks, what can he possibly accomplish here?

The worst-case scenario (assuming various procedural bars are cleared) is that nuTSR gets their posteriors handed to them in Court. The best-case scenario is that Darlene (in this example) owns the copyright- and at that point, who will she license the rights to? Will it be nuTSR? I don't think so. There is no scenario where a Court is going to say, "Hey, we are just going to award the copyrights to nuTSR, because why not? Sounds awesome to us!"

Ugh. Anyway- if nuTSR dismisses the declaratory action, then the following will happen-
1. They keep using the images, at which point someone will sue them eventually and this will become an issue if they keep saying that WoTC has no rights (assuming that this is the case- maybe WoTC doesn't, and then they'll have to figure out what arrangements they want to make w/r/t their legacy products, but none of that will involve nuTSR).
2. They stop using the image created by other people, and try making their own products and maybe even paying artists to create a new logo for them. I know, weird, huh? Just think- they could pay a graphics designer and artists a TINY FRACTION of what they will be spending an attorneys. And then not have Darlene involved at all.
 

darjr

I crit!
Would him dropping all his claims stop WOTC from filing their counter claims now that they know there is this issue hanging out there?
Yes I think so. Wasn’t there three logos and Lana’s let one claim go? And hence no counter from WotC?

Why are we in the weeds here? Why do you seem so dead set to show WotC would be a bad actor and force Darlene to court? Almost blaming them for it?
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top