Gail Gygax Sued By Movie Producer

In June it transpired that Gail Gygax, the widow of D&D co-creator Gary Gygax was being sued. This isn't the first time she has been embroiled in legal disputes, there having been major family disputes between her and Gygax's children over recent years, but this is the first time with a Hollywood movie producer!

According to Variety, the Gygax estate partnered with De Santo to oversee the catalogue of published and unpublished works. In June of this year, according to the Courthouse News Service, "Tom DeSanto — producer of “Xmen” and “Transformers” — sued Gail Gygax — the widow of Gary Gygax, creator of “Dungeons & Dragons,” claiming they formed a partnership to exploit the brand, but she tried to negotiate a video game deal without him, in L.A. Superior Court."

That this is ongoing has been confirmed yesterday by a public Facebook post from Gail Gygax, which reiterates that she is being sued in California by Tom DeSanto (X-Men, Transformers) and New Myth Entertainment for $30M over plans to publish Gary's original dungeon. The post is below, verbatim, although it has been edited a few times, as can be seen in the post's edit history, and it's a little incoherent.

"What is on my mind?@

The 30 million lawsuit Tom DeSanto filed against me in CA, the prestigious producer, lol,DELAYS MY HOPE TO PUBLISH Gary's original dungeon. An historical work.
I guess i will be losing our home and Garys dungeon.

I am 62 years old. Can any one say Elder Abuse? Hunter. The thought of losing our home in the next two weeks has me devastated.

No one, except my agent has stepped up to defend me. She was fired from APA. TOM deSanto said to me an agent from APA was up on child molestation and basically said they were a third rate agency. Also that he knows the owner. Wow. Then my fantastic agent gets fired from the agency he, Tom, said was third rate.

My agent is fantastic and I can only say after many years in LA, she is the best.

I almost died in 2014 when Luke and Ernie sued me, and Margaret Weis. Shocking Margaret as Gary was so kind to you.

Weis as a board member. Not sure why She was so negative against me other than to gain financial control over the Gygax trademark..

I believe Tom DeSanto, accordinding to his email wants to strip me of our home and all properties Gary and i were working. On.

I refuse to attend GarybCon as Luke Gygax is so very negative to me. I love our much beloved Gen Con, however due to what i believe are Luke Gygaxes rants with his friends against me i am afraid to attend Gen Con. I would not to put Peter in a bad position. .Peter and Gen Con has only been respectful and loving to me and Alexander.

My home has been invaded, there was a trip wire by my back step to kill me and I know what is missing from our home.

My stepchildren places a headstone without a body. It reads. E Gary Gygax. Beloved Father and Grandfather. So my step childrens hatred of me is front and center. I was his beloved wife. No respect from them. I was shocked and dismayed when Harold Jog son informed me of this act at Gen Con. I was indeed devastated and bed ridden for two months.

With NO CONCERN FROM MY STEP CHILDREN.

I was Told by Chris Hoffner if i didnt licence GaryCon to him they would run over me.

Nice. I created GaryCon in my husbands memory. Guess my stepchildren cant share with me and Alex.

i can only believe TOM DESANTO AND NEW MYTH entertainment with David Ranes has victomized me. Not sure calling the FBI TOMORROW

Tom is suing me for $30mil. I asked my stepchildren to help me. Only to get the answer from Luke if i didnt make him branding manager there would be no agreement with his sibblings. What doess that even mean?. He wants control over my 30+ year company.

So i start a new jouney to make sure my husbands works are brought forward. I am disappointed Hasbro WOTC will not return my emails.

I WANT garys original dungeon i. With HIS original rules. Dungeons and Dragons.

I hope i have support for this historical moment.

Mrs. E. Gary Gygax
I will love him until the day i die. He was a truly special man. I was so honored to be married to him."

 

[Nagol]

Never mind just "McDonald's" - here in Canada they've gone after "Mc<anything>" in the past. A chain of coffee stores called McBeans* spent ages defending themselves against this 15-20 years or so back; I believe they won in the end but I'm not sure the company survived for long afterwards.

* - I can't remember now whether the founder/owner's name was McBean or not.

Lanefan

https://ca.vlex.com/vid/mcdonald-s-corp-v-681652761

The opposition to McBeans failed in the end, although McBeans as a trademark was refused for selling drinkable coffee. It was allowed for selling coffee "stuff" like beans and makers. There were further appeals and cross-appeals, but I can't be bothered to look. Google is unaware of McBeans or Coffee Hut Stores so the company is probably dead.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Thus we see the massive negative effects of perpetual ownership of copyright. Gary died. His work is done and over and belongs in the public domain. If his wife or kids want to make money, they can do so on their own work and efforts.

When you die, be sure that you leave all your belongings and investments to the public and don't give any of it to your family... Afterall, you're not using it anymore.

 

[Nagol]

When you die, be sure that you leave all your belongings and investments to the public and don't give any of it to your family... Afterall, you're not using it anymore.

That's my plan.

 

[drklassen]

Copyright ≠ belongings => false equivalence fallacy.

 

[Lanefan]

Thus we see the massive negative effects of perpetual ownership of copyright. Gary died. His work is done and over and belongs in the public domain. If his wife or kids want to make money, they can do so on their own work and efforts.

I don't see any problem with copyright benefits passing to one's successors provided the IP remains in use and in more or less active development by said successors and-or under their guidance. In this instance EGG's sons seemed to be trying to do this - all is good. Another fine example is the continued development of JRR Tolkein's IP by his successors.

Where it becomes problematic is when an inherited IP is left to founder - or worse, is intentionally suppressed or buried - by the successors; or when there are no clear successors and-or no will or guidance as to who should gain control of an IP whose copyright holder has died. The IP has to then sit stagnant for (is it 75 years in the US?) until the copyright falls off and anyone can use it; this happened with HP Lovecraft's works relatively recently.

Lanefan

 

[Morrus]

Thus we see the massive negative effects of perpetual ownership of copyright. Gary died. His work is done and over and belongs in the public domain. If his wife or kids want to make money, they can do so on their own work and efforts.

People make things in their lives. Sometimes it’s an object; sometimes it’s an intellectual object; sometimes it’s something even more abstract, like a bank balance. All are equally the result of hard work and can be left to others when you pass.

(All said in a theoretical context as a reply to the general concept of IP ownership; I’ve no insight into the Gygax situation).

 

[drklassen]

Where it becomes problematic is when it lasts longer than 7 years. Period. The Constitution provides exclusive rights to works of art and creativity for a "limited time". Since nobody creates in a vacuum, society is a co-creator so the generation that inspired the creation should also have access to it. Longer than 7 years means they don't.

 

[drklassen]

If you make a chair, you sell it. Done. If you write a song, why should you be able to be the exclusive seller of it for all eternity?

Bank balances are not "things made" so that's a false equivalence fallacy.

 

[Morrus]

Where it becomes problematic is when it lasts longer than 7 years. Period. The Constitution provides exclusive rights to works of art and creativity for a "limited time". Since nobody creates in a vacuum, society is a co-creator so the generation that inspired the creation should also have access to it. Longer than 7 years means they don't.

Your house wasn’t built in a vacuum. Society was a co-creator. The generation which inspired it should have access to it.

 

[Morrus]

If you make a chair, you sell it. Done. If you write a song, why should you be able to be the exclusive seller of it for all eternity?

Bank balances are not "things made" so that's a false equivalence fallacy.

If you make a chair, you can leave it to your children. If you make a song, you can also leave that to your children.