[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[Bacris]

is it just me, or when reading this information on Randy's Blog, but are e-publishers basically excluded from the list of commercial use policy? The definition they have of digital object dealers would seem to indicate objects inside another piece of software (like a specific card inside Magic Online), rather than any other form of digital object - such as a PDF.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

While I appreciate your posting on the boards here I would rather it was in response to the questions and issues rather than pointing out someone elses possible IP violation.

From someone who does not have a link to any IP violations and is working towards setting up a game company to publish some games we have solely come up with that are entirely our own IP and rule systems I would like some answers before I decide to use Gleemax to even mention anything about our games.

Fair enough, I know my post comes off looking pretty big brother like. I just took issue with the notion that we are being suddenly "shady" trying to get something for free especially from someone who is using an IP that they do not own. My point is only to call out the irony of that. I am not here to be an IP cop. There are way bigger infringing parties out there. And before everyone jumps down my throat about "it's free, it's not like Kamikaze is selling his Planescape stuff" look up "use in commerce" and copyright use. Because something free does not remove copyright restriction. More times than not WoTC and the D&D brand have turned a blind eye to IP use by thrid parties so in terms of precedent in being the IP police we are far from the jack booted thugs we could be. For comparison, look to how Disney has protected it's IPs.

I can't specifically answer questions on the Gleemax TOS because a) I have not seen them and b) I will leave that up to Randy to cover.

It is my understanding that the spirit of the subject is that wizards wants to encourage and be able to recognize members of the community who do good work. This is not unlike the current submission guidelines from Dragon and Dungeons magazines http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20070803a These provide the community an outlet to get published (and paid) for their work. Now i don't know plans (if there even are any) for paying for content off Gleemax but it is safe to say this is not our "shady" way of getting stuff for free because at the end of the day we don't really need it. We pay a lot of talented people to do work for us. This is more about building a community.


You may get Randy to answer your concerns by actually posing these very valid questions on the Gleemax boards. He has been pretty good about addressing these types of concerns.

 

[BryonD]

I'm fairly neutral on the Gleemax idea, but what I don't like is the idea that by putting something on Gleemax, I'm basically donating it for free to WotC. If they're going to profit off of my work, I should profit off of it, too.

I'm pretty underwhelmed by Gleemax. BUT....

I don't see this as anything that someone working for a profit is ever going to look at for two seconds. And I don't see any chance that WotC will gain a remotely significant amount of material through this channel. The real effect will be that WotC can sift through a lot of crap and will come across the rare nugget and some fans will have their zero chance of ever being able to say they contributed to a D&D product increased to a very tiny chance. The ones that do get a tiny piece in somewhere will "profit" in being part of the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I just took issue with the notion that we are being suddenly "shady" trying to get something for free especially from someone who is using an IP that they do not own. My point is only to call out the irony of that.

I'm sympathetic, but I've certainly stated that I'm kind of hyper-paranoid about this in the thread already, and that I don't think WotC is honestly in this just to steal ideas from fourteen year old fans. That the ToS seems to make this POSSIBLE is something that makes me nervous, because to me, it does look pretty shady to say "Anything you post, we can use however we want."

And before everyone jumps down my throat about "it's free, it's not like Kamikaze is selling his Planescape stuff" look up "use in commerce" and copyright use. Because something free does not remove copyright restriction. More times than not WoTC and the D&D brand have turned a blind eye to IP use by thrid parties so in terms of precedent in being the IP police we are far from the jack booted thugs we could be. For comparison, look to how Disney has protected it's IPs.

You're right, which is part of why I'm kind of up in arms about how this sounds. WotC has an excellent history of treating their fans right, from "listening to fans" in designing 3e, to using a light touch with IP protection, to the entire OGL movement. Even Gleemax seems to be in that vein, of giving the fans something they can enjoy. It seems so out of character for WotC to claim the ability to freely feed off of what's posted. Compared to something like Linden Lab's stance on fan creation, it's quite mercenary.

It is my understanding that the spirit of the subject is that wizards wants to encourage and be able to recognize members of the community who do good work. This is not unlike the current submission guidelines from Dragon and Dungeons magazines http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20070803a These provide the community an outlet to get published (and paid) for their work. Now i don't know plans (if there even are any) for paying for content off Gleemax but it is safe to say this is not our "shady" way of getting stuff for free because at the end of the day we don't really need it. We pay a lot of talented people to do work for us. This is more about building a community.

This is more in line with what I'd expect from Wizards, and is all and all a very good plan. I just hope that the actual wording of the ToS and things makes that evident and binding. Because as much as I trust my friends, I wouldn't let them raise my child. As much as I trust WotC, I wouldn't let them have Carte Blanche over the stuff I'm posting to Gleemax.

I don't see this as anything that someone working for a profit is ever going to look at for two seconds. And I don't see any chance that WotC will gain a remotely significant amount of material through this channel. The real effect will be that WotC can sift through a lot of crap and will come across the rare nugget and some fans will have their zero chance of ever being able to say they contributed to a D&D product increased to a very tiny chance. The ones that do get a tiny piece in somewhere will "profit" in being part of the game.

100% more about the principle than the practice.

 

[Scribble]

I'm pretty underwhelmed by Gleemax. BUT....

I don't see this as anything that someone working for a profit is ever going to look at for two seconds. And I don't see any chance that WotC will gain a remotely significant amount of material through this channel. The real effect will be that WotC can sift through a lot of crap and will come across the rare nugget and some fans will have their zero chance of ever being able to say they contributed to a D&D product increased to a very tiny chance. The ones that do get a tiny piece in somewhere will "profit" in being part of the game.

I think thats rwally it in a nutshell..

Wizards recognized their current business model was lacking. There are only so many feats skills classes spells and monsters we can feasibly want/use...

How do they get people to be more interested in the game.

Take a page from online sites which for the most part don't sell much of anything to the people that use them. Make the people feel like they are a part of the whole thing. A comunity rather then a consumer.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

....which quite obviously falls under what WotC has long upheld as valid fan use?

Or do you see somewhere where I expressed ownership of any of WotC's IP in those documents anywhere?

Or anywhere where I asked for payment for them?

I am not trying to be the IP cop but your post does allow you to be used an example of what a complex issue this is . The TOS is trying to both to accomplish community creativity while preventing certain headaches. Yes it is a CYA that's why companies have TOS on their websites. But the Gleemax TOS is also trying to create a space where fan generated content can live and flourish (and maybe even see further use in products).

The thing with the Gleemax arrangement is that WotC asks for money for stuff that I did and just shared with my buddies over the gaming networking site. As a paranoid citizen of the DMCA and grandma-suing RIAA era, I'm quite hyper-sensitive to people co-opting my IP. Gleemax obviously doesn't want to be a home for gamers like me, and I'm certainly allowed to gripe about that fact here at ENWorld.

So how do we know when you post something on Gleemax that it's for friends only vs something that you wish to be paid for? This is just one of the complexities the TOS has to try to wade through.

I don't know what the plans are for Gleemax specifically but we have demonstrated time after time that we pay for work we use.

Of course you are allowed to gripe about it here and I would suggest you also take the gripe to the source and post it on the Gleemax boards.

Certainly, if WotC wanted to send me a Cease and Desist for my little PSNPC thread, or if Square-Enix wanted to shut down my fan FFZ project, or if WotC wanted to close down all discussion of D&D on the web except at WotC's own boards, they might be able to. WotC has generally shown a lot more savvy than that, however. Which makes this move all the more surprising to me.

Yeah they could if they wanted too. For example look at what Disney has done with daycares that had pictures of Disney characters up on their buildings. But again I am not here to be an IP cop. We would spend way to much time and money on this stuff and never even make a dent. It was just an easy way to make a point.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not trying to be the IP cop but your post does allow you to be used an example of what a complex issue this is . The TOS is trying to both to accomplish a great things and while preventing certain headaches. Yes it is a CYA that's why companies have TOS on their websites. But the Gleemax TOS is also trying to create a space where fan generated content can live and flourish (and maybe even see further use in products).

That's all very good. But this thread calls out that they need to be VERY careful in how they do that, or else hyper-paranoid folks like myself will hate the place. "We can use whatever you post however you want" is not the best way to do this. I'd hope that Wizards understand this.

So how do we know when you post something on Gleemax that it's for friends only vs something that you wish to be paid for?

Possible idea: a submission process, a la dungeon/dragon. Check a box when you make a post that you want this to be considered for use in a WotC product. Make some interns slog through it. You can opt-into allowing WotC to use your stuff, but they don't get it by default.

Or even if you could opt-out of it, checking a box that says "I don't want this to be used by WotC." The idea of putting it in the user's hand, rather than leaving it totally up to WotC.

I don't know what the plans are for Gleemax specifically but we have demonstrated time after time that we pay for work we use. Of course you are allowed to gripe about it here and I would suggest you also take the gripe to the source and post it on the Gleemax boards.

Good idear.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

That's all very good. But this thread calls out that they need to be VERY careful in how they do that, or else hyper-paranoid folks like myself will hate the place. "We can use whatever you post however you want" is not the best way to do this. I'd hope that Wizards understand this.

Fair enough, I am usually hesitant to make "I am watching you" posts and I'll remember that in the future.

Possible idea: a submission process, a la dungeon/dragon. Check a box when you make a post that you want this to be considered for use in a WotC product. Make some interns slog through it. You can opt-into allowing WotC to use your stuff, but they don't get it by default.

Or even if you could opt-out of it, checking a box that says "I don't want this to be used by WotC." The idea of putting it in the user's hand, rather than leaving it totally up to WotC.

The opt-in/out is an interesting idea, very web 2.0. In that vein the community themselves will play a significant roll in deciding what is good and bad. A number of community based metrics will be used to determine awesome vs average user based ideas/content.

The actual TOS may make the opt-in/out idea a moot point especially if they address compensation for use. If people think may get paid they'll almost always opt-in.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Fair enough, I am usually hesitant to make "I am watching you" posts and I'll remember that in the future.

Blame the RIAA.

As far as I'm concerned, if WotC is watching me, that's generally a good thing. Maybe they'll take some of my ideas as a fan!

The opt-in/out is an interesting idea, very web 2.0. In that vein the community themselves will play a significant roll in deciding what is good and bad. A number of community based metrics will be used to determine awesome vs average user based ideas/content.

The actual TOS may make the opt-in/out idea a moot point especially if they address compensation for use. If people think may get paid they'll almost always opt-in.

And that's really mostly fine. The big uproar in my head was over that little statement in the blog that said that WotC gets to use what you post basically without answering to anyone about it. That's a problem. If that doesn't happen, I don't really have a problem.

Indeed, if Gleemax makes good on the desire to have fans contribute, you probably have a supporter in me. I am, as you say, very web 2.0.

 

[guildofblades]

I guess it all boils down to how they define "content". If it is left undefined, then no sane publisher with a IP or trademark of their own would participate on the site. Not at the risk of WOTC then being able to lay claim to a royalty free, open ended, use as they will license to use that "content" (copyright or trademark).

The copyright issue is not too big really, since other publishers could express their ideas in one manner and express them differently in print. The "ideas" themselves can't be protected anyway, short of an idea being worthy of a patent.

If, however, by "content" WOTC also intends to claim trademarks also fall under their TOS and their right to license, then its a deal breaker. No publisher would ever participate on the site.

I guess time will tell if WOTC decides they want Gleemax to be a WOTC fan site or a broader industry site. How they construct their terms of service with respect to other publishers' IPs will plan an important roll in which they get, regardless of intent.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com
http://www.1483online.com
http://www.thermopylae-online.com