WotC Gale Force 9 Sues WotC [Updated]

In the second lawsuit against WotC in recent weeks (Dragonlance authors Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman sued the company for breach of contract and other things about a month ago), Gale Force 9 is suing the company for breach of contract and implied duty of good faith.

Gale Force 9 produces miniatures, cards, DM screens, and other D&D accessories. They’re asking for damages of nearly a million dollars, as well as an injunction to prevent WotC from terminating the licensing contract.

From the suit, it looks like WotC wanted to end a licensing agreement a year early. When GF9 didn't agree to that, WotC indicated that they would refuse to approve any new licensed products from GF9. It looks like the same sort of approach they took with Weis and Hickman, which also resulted in a lawsuit. The dispute appears to relate to some product translations in non-US markets. More information as I hear it!

UPDATE. GF9's CEO, Jean-Paul Brisigotti, spoke to ICv2 and said: "After twelve years of working with Wizards, we find ourselves in a difficult place having to utilize the legal system to try and resolve an issue we have spent the last six months trying to amicably handle between us without any success. We still hope this can be settled between us but the timeline for a legal resolution has meant we have been forced to go down this path at this time."

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

nvm

 

[Dausuul]

Imagine what the facts would look like if WOTC found out the translations were being done poorly and in a way which was damaging to them, and they then issued a "cease all new translations of previously approved and released products" order, and gave GF9 time to cure the prior error, and no cure could be found. Wouldn't it look...like what you just copied and pasted?

We only have GF9's side of the story. GF9 does not mention any of the things you just said.

Now, maybe if we heard WotC's side, it would sound like your version. And maybe that's what really happened. I don't claim that GF9 is necessarily telling the gospel truth here.

My point is that GF9 does in fact claim WotC was withholding approval without giving a reason ("19. Wizards did not note any issue with the products, yet declined to approve the products for release"). That's very similar to what Weiss and Hickman said in their suit. Doesn't mean it's true, but it is a pattern worth noting, especially if more people start making similar claims.

 

[NotAYakk]

Yes. As explained previously, this was likely done on look and format, as they had no in-house person translating and that was part of the point of outsourcing this. They probably trusted it based on their prior relationship and only found out later the translations were a disaster. This is not an unreasonable set of circumstances.


Yes I understand their argument, and I think you can understand if you later find out they are a disaster you'd order them to cease immediately as soon as you found out. Approval of a foreign language translation in the context of oursourcing the translation would I think tend to imply you're approving based on the original material and your experience with the company and not the translation.



I think they are being judged on their own merits. They were a disaster. No new standards, but same old standards. They didn't approve anything they knew to be a disaster and only gave notice when they realized it was in fact a disaster.

It think you're in a position to understand where they are coming from now, right? Your entire premise seems to be "they knew what they were looking at when they saw a product they liked which was translated into Korean which they could not read". I see no basis for that belief. We have product X in English, they approved translating product X into Korean based on the English version, and after it was translated it was discovered they had not in fact competently translated it into Korean. That is a reason for a breach of contract claim. There is nothing "scummy" in this set of circumstances. It's pretty ordinary business.

The English version was the WotC product.

If they approved the GF9 translatiom based on the WotC product, that isn't "approving a translation".

Regardless, the similarity of this lawsuit has nothing to do with the previous products. It has to do with the claims made about WotC's planned response.

Say "old products are garbage" and get them to fix it to tge limits.of the contract. Claim breach of contract and terminate contract. Those are all not what GF9 or the Dragonlance are claiming WotC is doing.

Instead, they are claiming WotC is bypassing the contract termination clauses, not terminating the contract, and turning their right to QA future product into an effective one sided termination without using the termination clauses negotiated or claiming material breach.

It is that claimed similarity that is being highlighted by myself and others.

I am not assuming "they knew what they where doing when they approved the translations" at all. I am claiming they approved the translations. That is all.

If the books read "word word word end of sentence." in non-English repeatedly, my position on tge similarity of WotC 's actions with GF9 and Dragonlance case wouldn't change. My position has nothing to do with the quality of GF9's past product.

Regardless of the quality of GF9 past product, using the "I have QA rights" part of a contract to bypass the termination clauses is what I am talking about. Both claim that WotC told them "regardless of the quality of your future submissions, we automatically reject them, don't bother sending more".

Everything else is noise.

 

[Mistwell]

We only have GF9's side of the story. GF9 does not mention any of the things you just said.

Now, maybe if we heard WotC's side, it would sound like your version. And maybe that's what really happened. I don't claim that GF9 is necessarily telling the gospel truth here.

My point is that GF9 does in fact claim WotC was withholding approval without giving a reason ("19. Wizards did not note any issue with the products, yet declined to approve the products for release"). That's very similar to what Weiss and Hickman said in their suit. Doesn't mean it's true, but it is a pattern worth noting, especially if more people start making similar claims.

GF9 admits WOTC had issues with the translations, right?
We know from that Reddit post above there are very serious issues with the company that did the translations and the quality of those translations, and we know that is who GF9 was using for the translations. The post says the products are literally offensive and gibberish.

I don't think, in light of that information, it's a reasonable reading of GF9's complaint to read it that way anymore.

I think GF9 says WOTC approved it without issue - not that WOTC was reading it for the translated version rather than the original version.
I think GF9 says after they came out, WOTC then said there was a problem with the translation.

None of that is similar to the Weiss and Hickman issue. Weiss and Hickman are not alleged to have come out with a disaster of gibberish product. I think we can agree on that right?

 

[Mistwell]

The English version was the WotC product.

If they approved the GF9 translatiom based on the WotC product, that isn't "approving a translation".

Regardless, the similarity of this lawsuit has nothing to do with the previous products. It has to do with the claims made about WotC's planned response.

Say "old products are garbage" and get them to fix it to tge limits.of the contract. Claim breach of contract and terminate contract. Those are all not what GF9 or the Dragonlance are claiming WotC is doing.

Instead, they are claiming WotC is bypassing the contract termination clauses, not terminating the contract, and turning their right to QA future product into an effective one sided termination without using the termination clauses negotiated or claiming material breach.

It is that claimed similarity that is being highlighted by myself and others.

I am not assuming "they knew what they where doing when they approved the translations" at all. I am claiming they approved the translations. That is all.

If the books read "word word word end of sentence." in non-English repeatedly, my position on tge similarity of WotC 's actions with GF9 and Dragonlance case wouldn't change. My position has nothing to do with the quality of GF9's past product.

Regardless of the quality of GF9 past product, using the "I have QA rights" part of a contract to bypass the termination clauses is what I am talking about. Both claim that WotC told them "regardless of the quality of your future submissions, we automatically reject them, don't bother sending more".

Everything else is noise.

Weiss and Hickman alleged this, but GF9 has not. I do not see where GF9 is alleging WOTC did not claim a breach of contract and cessation of new work (which is what you do in breach of contract issues).

Show me where GF9 says WOTC didn't do that?

I think we're going in circles here. If WOTC found a breach, and claimed a breach, and told them stop all new products because of the breach, then GF9's complaint would be written...how it is written. They don't make the allegation you're making. You're inferring it. But I don't think it's the same.

 

[billd91]

GF9 admits WOTC had issues with the translations, right?
We know from that Reddit post above there are very serious issues with the company that did the translations and the quality of those translations, and we know that is who GF9 was using for the translations. The post says the products are literally offensive and gibberish.

I don't think, in light of that information, it's a reasonable reading of GF9's complaint to read it that way anymore.

I think GF9 says WOTC approved it without issue - not that WOTC was reading it for the translated version rather than the original version.
I think GF9 says after they came out, WOTC then said there was a problem with the translation.

None of that is similar to the Weiss and Hickman issue. Weiss and Hickman are not alleged to have come out with a disaster of gibberish product. I think we can agree on that right?

We know from the Reddit post that someone had a problem with the Korean translations. We don't really know how extensive the complaints are nor about the alleged problems with customer service and physical quality of the product. The Reddit post offers some context to the allegations of a bad translation and of bad customer service. So I'd be wary of considering the Reddit post as indicating we really have substantial knowledge of the situation.

And I'd argue that GF9 is saying that WotC was reading the translated version for their review.

29. Wizards’ notice of breach states that it intends to terminate of the 2017 Agreement, unless GF9 remedies its breach to Wizards’ satisfaction within the applicable time periods for cure. 30. However, the products translated and distributed by TRPG Club, which are the subject of Wizards’ allegation of breach, were submitted in their final translated form to Wizards and approved by Wizards for release. Wizards informed GF9 that it had reviewers on its staff who were fluent in Korean who reviewed the product as translated and did not note a single correction or issue.

(emphasis mine)

 

[NotAYakk]

Weiss and Hickman alleged this, but GF9 has not. I do not see where GF9 is alleging WOTC did not claim a breach of contract and cessation of new work (which is what you do in breach of contract issues).

Show me where GF9 says WOTC didn't do that?

I think we're going in circles here. If WOTC found a breach, and claimed a breach, and told them stop all new products because of the breach, then GF9's complaint would be written...how it is written. They don't make the allegation you're making. You're inferring it. But I don't think it's the same.

From the OP:

From the suit, it looks like WotC wanted to end a licensing agreement a year early. When GF9 didn't agree to that, WotC indicated that they would refuse to approve any new licensed products from GF9. It looks like the same sort of approach they took with Weis and Hickman, which also resulted in a lawsuit. The dispute appears to relate to some product translations in non-US markets. More information as I hear it!

 

[Umbran]

I personally use Broflake. But it is a bit broader I guess.

Mod Note:

How about we not call people names, in general, hm? Thanks.

 

[Dioltach]

Speaking as a professional translator, there are a lot of dodgy translations out there. It's a more difficult job than it might seem to an outsider, particularly if the subject matter is in a specialist field. But there's a lot of pressure on rates, and freelancers who work for translation agencies are paid less now than they were 20 years ago. Combined with tight deadlines, this often leads to large projects being farmed out to dozens of less experienced translators, with the agency (which will take the lion's share of the fee that the client pays) supposedly reviewing all the separate bits for quality and consistency - but in practice this step will often be skipped, or only paid lip service. Freelancers who are being paid a pittance will be less likely to put much effort into their work, assuming (rightly or wrongly) that the agency's margin should cover quality control.

Even worse is MTPE: Machine Translation with Post-Editing, where an agency will run the text through machine translation software, and then pay someone to make sure that it's a good translation. Again, the rates are never high enough to justify a skilled translator devoting the time and effort necessary to ensure a decent standard of quality.

Presumably a thorough round of playtesting of any translation would be needed to make sure that every rule is clear, that it's been translated as it was intended, and that the text overall is consistent. And WotC asking "reviewers on its staff who are fluent in Korean" to look at the text won't reveal every quality issue, and (based on my own experience of how many clients review translation work) likely didn't involve much more than, "Hey, you speak Korean, right? Could you randomly look at a few sentences and see whether they make sense?"

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't know anyone who speaks Korean. I could possibly look over a bit of French or German to check for accuracy, but anything beyond that, I'm dependant entirely on the good faith of the translator.