[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[Imaro]

Why would you do that? Aren't there nWoD forums and sites more appropriate than Gleemax for that?

WotC can say what they want to say, Gleemax will be first and foremost for WotC games.

Uhm...that's great YOU feel that way...I guess.

 

[guildofblades]

As a publisher with copyrights and trademarks that in no way are related to D20 or the OGL I can say that there is absolutely no chance in hell they would get NON D20/OGL publisher participation in their social networking site if they think they can use it as free license IP grab.

Those terms of service will have to change if they expect to draw participation from other publishers. If they don't care for said participation, that's fine too, but with the terms I read above, no sane publisher would post anything remotely IP related on the site. Nothing. If that extends to my trademarks as well, then the attempt to join the site for marketing purposes and community building is dead in the water also.

Somebody at WOTC must think we are all idiots....

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

 

[Kem]

One way would be to say "If you post something good to Gleemax, we might use it in a book, and pay you for it."

That'd work.

Nope because you are on the wrong side of the issue.

What if they came up with it without knowledge that you posted it?

Now after they publish it, they haven't given you credit so you sue them showing that you have something similar or maybe even exactly the same (How many ways can you phrase a feat), and they now have to pay you for work they did.

Sounds messed up doesn't it?

 

[Jim Hague]

As a publisher with copyrights and trademarks that in no way are related to D20 or the OGL I can say that there is absolutely no chance in hell they would get NON D20/OGL publisher participation in their social networking site if they think they can use it as free license IP grab.

Those terms of service will have to change if they expect to draw participation from other publishers. If they don't care for said participation, that's fine too, but with the terms I read above, no sane publisher would post anything remotely IP related on the site. Nothing. If that extends to my trademarks as well, then the attempt to join the site for marketing purposes and community building is dead in the water also.

Somebody at WOTC must think we are all idiots....

I love it - a thread started by someone that helped turn the last post-Dragon thread into a flamefest, and already people are choosing sides and hurling accusations with nary a shred of proof on how WotC is going to handle this. More pointless, unsubstantiated accusations, more conspiracy theorizing.

Until you learn to read minds, folks, I'd refrain from calling the guys at WotC - fellow gamers, I'd note - 'idiots' or other pejoratives. You don't like Gleemax? Fine, super; me neither. But hurling insults like monkeys hurl feces at a zoo isn't going to help a damn thing.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

But hurling insults like monkeys hurl feces at a zoo isn't going to help a damn thing.

But..
But...
Monkeys make everything better.
DOn't they?

That said, Jim makes a valid point.

Everyone has their own opinion about this "Gleemax" situation, and are entitled to it. (FWIW, I have no interest in Gleemax: there are plenty of other sites I visit to get my gaming fixes. Not to mention I'm still rather annoyed about the Dragon/Dungeon situation.)

For those who want to visit?
Have fun, and keep us updated. (I'm paticularly interested to see if it becomes the "GamersHaven" it purports to be; my speaking suspicion is that it will become D+D/D20/OGL-centric.)

 

[Glyfair]

This is what I don't get, from my understanding, game mechanics can't be copyrighted ( I mean how many companies use a roll d20+ modifiers, highest wins mechanic?

This is the big issue. It's a fact that a "game" can't be copyrighted. The basic issue is that there isn't a definition of "game", and it hasn't really been tested (there was a Monopoly lawsuit, but I think it was decided on a side technicality).

Some relevant text, BTW:

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

To register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:

 

[Yair]

I don't like these rules. I don't like WotC having the right to do whatever they want with my posts, I don't like them being allowed to publish some poster's work and not even credit him, and I certainly don't like the idea that said poster can't publish his material elsewhere. That these terms claim you retain ownership over your work is a cruel irony - yeah, you got ownership, except we can do whatever we want with this and you can't publish it elsewhere...

I don't think it's going to matter to 99% of the people posting on Gleemax, however, so it's not like it is going to matter.

I don't think we've seen the real terms of use. We've only seen a brief and sketchy outline. I hope the real terms of use will be better. Perhaps something like "If you post something based on Wizard's IP, we can use it. This does not allow you to publish anything containing Wizard's IP in other venues, but doesn't void other licenses and permissions to use our IP (e.g. Canonfire and other official fan sites)". This will still sum up to about them same, but the limitation to Wizard's IP makes a big difference - it's not like you can normally publish material based on wizard's IP (legally) anyway.

At any rate, unless the rules are clarified regarding others companies' IP and WotC backs down from its demand to publishing rights, I'm not gonna be a member of Gleemax. I was intending to run an Ars Magica game using their tools, or at least check out the possibility, but under these terms I can't see how I can.

What if they came up with it without knowledge that you posted it?

Now after they publish it, they haven't given you credit so you sue them showing that you have something similar or maybe even exactly the same (How many ways can you phrase a feat), and they now have to pay you for work they did.

Sounds messed up doesn't it?

What if yopu came up with it and posted in on ENWorld, or your own site, or published a pdf of it on RPGNow? The fact that you came up with it and posted it to their boards shouldn't give them cart blanche to ignore your copyrights.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nope because you are on the wrong side of the issue.

What if they came up with it without knowledge that you posted it?

Prolly should have done their research better, eh?

Now after they publish it, they haven't given you credit so you sue them showing that you have something similar or maybe even exactly the same (How many ways can you phrase a feat), and they now have to pay you for work they did.

Silly of them to publish something someone else might already own the rights to anyway, isn't it?

They'd be in no worse a position than they are now with regards to, say, them publishing a feat that's almost an exact copy of a feat from, say, the Netbook of Feats. Technically, they're already in hot H2O because they're using someone else's IP without (presumably) paying them for it.

 

[Maggan]

For those who want to visit?

Well, those who hate the service and name, are sure doing their best to help us remember the name and the service exists!

/M

 

[Imaro]

I love it - a thread started by someone that helped turn the last post-Dragon thread into a flamefest, and already people are choosing sides and hurling accusations with nary a shred of proof on how WotC is going to handle this. More pointless, unsubstantiated accusations, more conspiracy theorizing.

Okay I started this thread...and what post-Dragon thread did I ever participate in and help turn into a "flamefest"? As far as proof, the user terms are in the blog...exactly what "proof" are you talking about? This isn't unfounded allegations, it's discussion of something that has been anounced.

Until you learn to read minds, folks, I'd refrain from calling the guys at WotC - fellow gamers, I'd note - 'idiots' or other pejoratives. You don't like Gleemax? Fine, super; me neither. But hurling insults like monkeys hurl feces at a zoo isn't going to help a damn thing.

Uh...read the post again, he didn't call WotC idiots. Nuff said.