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."

 

[TheSword]

Precisely, good faith is everything.

When that disappears it’s best to part ways.

I really don’t blame WOC for doing that in a way that they believe will save them money.

 

[Stormonu]

When times are good, corporate is too busy wallowing in money to much care about minor speed bumps. The coin made evens out the bumps. However, when times are bad, everyone gets the hairy eyeball, and slightest thing out of whack becomes someone's ticket to save the company and their job.

That's what I think we're seeing here. If the woes of 2020 had not struck this year, I don't think neither the Dragonlance or GF9 case would have occurred; WotC would have just rolled along with the contracts and things would have been dandy. But there's too much at stake now, on both sides of the table. And I suspect we'll hear of Chistmas layoffs and other problems with freelancers and other 3rd party companies "getting the shaft" before much longer.

 

[NotAYakk]

Precisely, good faith is everything.

When that disappears it’s best to part ways.

I really don’t blame WOC for doing that in a way that they believe will save them money.

Downloading WotC books without paying anyone for them also saves money. Should everyone, and if WotC objects that this is wrong they can prove their case in court?

"They can do whatever to need to to save money" and "prove it in court" is basically the same. Regardless of the personal cost:benefit matrix, tossing money at content creators of content you like is important.

The common thread is WotC decided it wanted to end a contract, and instead of following the pre negotiated "end contract" rules, is attempting to weasel their way out. And telling the other side "see me in court, I have more lawyers".

And excusing them for doing this once is one thing. When you have two points, draw a line.

Capitalism - trade itself - requires more than just nominally following contracts and legal judgements. I could understand it if WotC ran into a problem and went "nuclear" (breaking spirit of agreement) once, but it happening twice in short succession like this is a serious smell.

 

[TheSword]

Downloading WotC books without paying anyone for them also saves money. Should everyone, and if WotC objects that this is wrong they can prove their case in court?

"They can do whatever to need to to save money" and "prove it in court" is basically the same. Regardless of the personal cost:benefit matrix, tossing money at content creators of content you like is important.

The common thread is WotC decided it wanted to end a contract, and instead of following the pre negotiated "end contract" rules, is attempting to weasel their way out. And telling the other side "see me in court, I have more lawyers".

And excusing them for doing this once is one thing. When you have two points, draw a line.

Capitalism - trade itself - requires more than just nominally following contracts and legal judgements. I could understand it if WotC ran into a problem and went "nuclear" (breaking spirit of agreement) once, but it happening twice in short succession like this is a serious smell.

Well of course the big difference is that this seems to be a legal method within the contract, whereas what you’re suggesting is copyright theft. I hope you can see there is a difference there.

If it isn’t a legal method, allowed under the contract then no doubt gf9 will get a nice big payout in a settlement and everyone carries on.

I’m not surprised it has occurred twice. Their legal team clearly think they are entitled under the law to act this way.

Im just saying I’m not outraged by their behavior. Which is saying something because all I’ve read is the plaintiff’s briefs for the two cases and even they don’t outrage me - even without hearing a rebuttal of that from WOC.

The only thing I can smell is a company protecting its IP by preventing future publishing likely to bring them into disrepute.

 

[NotAYakk]

Well of course the big difference is that this seems to be a legal method within the contract, whereas what you’re suggesting is copyright theft. I hope you can see there is a difference there.

No, we don't know if it is legal. Its legality is in dispute.

That is why there is a lawsuit. It is, as others have said, a matter for the courts.

Similarly, copyright has lots of rules about when it is permitted to copy something without paying royalties.

Determining if this is the case is a matter of the courts.

If it is so fine for WotC to do an action that is against the intent of the agreement and say "sue me" and take the one with (in their judgement) is the statistically cheapest one, why isn't ok for everyone to do that to WotC?

Same poop, different mountain.

If it isn’t a legal method, allowed under the contract then no doubt gf9 will get a nice big payout in a settlement and everyone carries on.

Same for downloading and copying PDFs of WotC stuff.

If that isn't a legal method of getting WotC PDFs, no doubt WotC will personally sue each and every person who does it and get a, well, tiny payout.

If they do not sue someone, clearly it is just as moral as WotC's actions, right? We are saying that "act in the way that most benefits you financially" is the right choice?

At least that is how you seem to measure WotC's actions.

 

[TheSword]

No, we don't know if it is legal. Its legality is in dispute.

That is why there is a lawsuit. It is, as others have said, a matter for the courts.

Similarly, copyright has lots of rules about when it is permitted to copy something without paying royalties.

Determining if this is the case is a matter of the courts.

If it is so fine for WotC to do an action that is against the intent of the agreement and say "sue me" and take the one with (in their judgement) is the statistically cheapest one, why isn't ok for everyone to do that to WotC?

Same poop, different mountain.


Same for downloading and copying PDFs of WotC stuff.

If that isn't a legal method of getting WotC PDFs, no doubt WotC will personally sue each and every person who does it and get a, well, tiny payout.

If they do not sue someone, clearly it is just as moral as WotC's actions, right? We are saying that "act in the way that most benefits you financially" is the right choice?

At least that is how you seem to measure WotC's actions.

I’m surprised you are equating something that is a legal dispute with copyright theft.

The first is disagreement over the meaning of terms in a contact between two companies with different but arguable views.

What you are talking about is simple theft. No I don’t think in most cases there is much dispute about whether posting and downloaded pdf copies of people’s protected work is legal or not. It isn’t pure and simple. It may be difficulty to enforce but that doesn’t stop it being illegal.

The two are completely different. Not least because both companies have profited from the contract, or that copyright theft takes advantage of a third party creator not involved with the process.

Victims of theft of IP don’t get a nice big payout like a contract settlement. At best they get a cease and desist, before someone else picks it up and it starts again.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I don't like this at all. It's not only about causing a great damage against WotC's repurtation or prestige but the translations to another languages are being blocked or stopped. If I am lucky only I will await more months for the publication of more new translated titles, for example the Moderkainen's tome of foes. The time without new titles may be very useful for rival RPGs, for example, Pathfinder 2 or Starfinder, fulling the empty space left by D&D 5th.

What if after there is a new controversy? I start to suspect the reason Renegades Games, and not WotC, will publish the RPG adaptation of most famous Hasbro's franchises. WotC is too burnt, tainted, and maybe we could face some new scandal in a near future.

 

[NotAYakk]

No, there are piles of common law and statue limitations to the right of a copyright holder to have exclusive control over every copy of their works. It isn't "theft" under most juristictions, but a distinct act, and usually making a personal copy of something is at worst means you owe them money. And in some cases not even that.

Stealing a physical object is, meanwhile, punishable by far more severe consewuences, sometimes even imprisonment for small items.

I can cite court cases about the difference if you like. But it exists and is large. And copying for personal use can be legal when distributing said copies is not. Depending on juristiction.

I wouldn't advocate for doing this; I gice money to people who make content I want made. I also hold that contraxt termination clauses should be the method used to terminate contracts.

 

[TheSword]

No, there are piles of common law and statue limitations to the right of a copyright holder to have exclusive control over every copy of their works. It isn't "theft" under most juristictions, but a distinct act, and usually making a personal copy of something is at worst means you owe them money. And in some cases not even that.

Stealing a physical object is, meanwhile, punishable by far more severe consewuences, sometimes even imprisonment for small items.

I can cite court cases about the difference if you like. But it exists and is large. And copying for personal use can be legal when distributing said copies is not. Depending on juristiction.

I wouldn't advocate for doing this; I gice money to people who make content I want made. I also hold that contraxt termination clauses should be the method used to terminate contracts.

I’m not interested in debating the justifications for copyright theft. While it may be dressed up as ‘infringement’, such pirated IP is usually referred to as stolen, which is good enough for me.

As a well known British advert once said...

 

[Olrox17]

NotAYakk’s comparison is interesting and appropriate, more so in light of a simple fact: if distribution of legit d&d products is abruptly interrupted in several countries because of this legal dispute, you can bet people will resort to piracy.
And, well, I won’t judge them.