Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[xechnao]

the offending content.

How would they have defined it in the letter?
Would this have been something general as: "if there are parts in your site that offend our copyrighted property take them down". But would this be necessarily enough to be legally ok?
Or would the letter's demands have been something more specific like a catalog or list of protected content being offended? But how would have they managed to list such a protected content in a letter?

 

[catsclaw227]

How would they have defined it in the letter?
Would this have been something general as: "if there are parts in your site that offend our copyrighted property take them down". But would this be necessarily enough to be legally ok?
Or would the letter's demands have been something more specific like a catalog or list of protected content being offended? But how would have they managed to list such a protected content in a letter?

I suppose only Ema and WOTC know this.

 

[mudbunny]

How would they have defined it in the letter?
Would this have been something general as: "if there are parts in your site that offend our copyrighted property take them down". But would this be necessarily enough to be legally ok?
Or would the letter's demands have been something more specific like a catalog or list of protected content being offended? But how would have they managed to list such a protected content in a letter?

A C&D letter being a legal document, they need to make it pretty clear that they (WotC) were clear to the recipient what was being asked of them. Thus, WotC would have given examples.

Not being a lawyer, or ever having seen a C&D letter, I imagine the wording would include language similar to:

Your site uses the following trademarked images without permission from WotC, who is the lawful holder of said trademarks. Please remove them from your website.

Image 1
Image 2
image 3
Image 4​

The C&D probably also included screenshots of pages with the offending images indicated.

If he used terms that were not permitted, then there would have been examples of those as well.

WotC would have had to write it in such a way that it is extremely clear to the person receiving it just what is the infringing content.

I imagine that they would also have had to indicate what the minimum Ema would have had to do in order to render the site non-infringing.

 

[xechnao]

I suppose only Ema and WOTC know this.

Yes but what do you think? There must exist some practical ground how it may have worked out that we can figure it out more or less -even if it did not happen this way in reality. If not -we cant figure out any possible kind of way- things could be different and what we are hearing from one or the other have less validity or credibility.
Also, beyond this specific case I am curious more generally how Wotc or anybody else that could have been in their place could have coped with such a matter with a legal letter.

 

[xechnao]

If he used terms that were not permitted, then there would have been examples of those as well.

WotC would have had to write it in such a way that it is extremely clear to the person receiving it just what is the infringing content.

I imagine that they would also have had to indicate what the minimum Ema would have had to do in order to render the site non-infringing.

Yes but your explanations here are too vague. I cant see how it could have been achieved this in practice. Can you give an example that according to you it could have been possibly and rightfully in the letter?

The part about the pictures regarding the logos and images you said is something I understand and find it plausible too. But what about the other things?

 

[mudbunny]

Yes but your explanations here are too vague. I cant see how it could have been achieved this in practice. Can you give an example that according to you it could have been possibly and rightfully in the letter?

The part about the pictures regarding the logos and images you said is something I understand and find it plausible too. But what about the other things?

If there was more than just images, that is to say, that Ema used text to which WotC holds the copyright (for example, fluff descriptions of powers, feats, etc), then they would have given him enough examples of things from his website that are infringing.

I am not sure how much clearer I can be. WotC would have given Ema examples from Ema's website, of the things that were infringing, be they images or text.

 

[xechnao]

If there was more than just images, that is to say, that Ema used text to which WotC holds the copyright (for example, fluff descriptions of powers, feats, etc), then they would have given him enough examples of things from his website that are infringing.

I am not sure how much clearer I can be. WotC would have given Ema examples from Ema's website, of the things that were infringing, be they images or text.

So you mean reference some verbatim from the site and indicate that such verbatim offends their copyright property of the book that such verbatim is found. So from what we have known so far about Ema's site this should be about named power's descriptions.

Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement? If yes how could they actually claim it?

 

[mudbunny]

Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement? If yes how could they actually claim it?

That gets into the finer details of copyright law that I don't know and won't even hazard a guess at.

 

[xechnao]

That gets into the finer details of copyright law that I don't know and won't even hazard a guess at.

Perhaps the power's name given to its technical rule is something Wotc can claim copyright to?

But someone said in the thread before that Wotc can not claim copyright on terms such as Armor Class which seems to be in contrast with what I am saying above here.

 

[Mavrickk]

Well, actually:


According to the site operator, WotC made him take down his fansite. I think it's safe to assume they threatened legal action in the event of non-compliance. That means that they literally did "take down a fansite."

edit: Fortunately, his character sheets are still available elsewhere on the internet, and will continue to be available until people lose interest in them.

Can you point me to where they can be found, have been searching with no luck
thx