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="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8506650" data-attributes="member: 7023840">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quality of most of their products, but it is well-known at this point that the original Bell Lizard Man logo was superseded by the later, Sutherland Lizard Man logo- and nuTSR appears to be using a copy of the later logo, while naming Bell specifically in the Complaint.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.</blockquote>

Verification