[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[I'm A Banana]

Again, it seems to me that this discussion is another "I don't like GleeMax, and I was Right In The First Place."

I'm pretty neutral with regards to Gleemax. However, I don't like not getting credit for my work. And I don't like not geting PAID for my work. And if my work is good enough that you use it in your book and people pay money for your book, I should get my cut of it. If my work makes you money, I should get some of that money.

WotC is taking advantage of the fact that a whole host of creative minds will gladly submit things without any payment that they can use. It's very smart, they know their community would do it, but it's quite mercenary.

Again, it would seem that the ToS is arguably better now. Instead of them owning everything you write, they reserve the right to use whatever you might design that they think is 'cool'. How is this different from any book put out under OGL? Again, yes, they could clarfiy and say 'If we use something, we will make sure you get a non-paying credit'.

Better? Sure. Good? Not by a long shot.

 

[Kem]

I'm pretty neutral with regards to Gleemax. However, I don't like not getting credit for my work. And I don't like not geting PAID for my work. And if my work is good enough that you use it in your book and people pay money for your book, I should get my cut of it. If my work makes you money, I should get some of that money.

WotC is taking advantage of the fact that a whole host of creative minds will gladly submit things without any payment that they can use. It's very smart, they know their community would do it, but it's quite mercenary.



Better? Sure. Good? Not by a long shot.

Actually the main reasoning behind it is that if they independantly come up with an idea that is on Gleemax they don't want to be able to be sued for using it.

What they could do is limit it to IP and mechanics for games they own already. But then it stops them from doing things that are similar to something somebody puts on there.

Problem with this? Just because you came up with an idea and put it there doesn't mean that you are the first to come up with that idea.

This is the problem with a company that is in the field making a site like Gleemax for its field.

Its a similar reasoning behind non-compete agreements when you leave a job in some fields. Your ideas while new might be built upon what they have, and they may already be working on or developing that idea.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually the main reasoning behind it is that if they independantly come up with an idea that is on Gleemax they don't want to be able to be sued for using it.

I can see this as a good reason for something like that, but there's gotta be a better way of forming that case, something that prevents WotC from legal action without basically giving them the right to use your copyright.

 

[Kem]

I can see this as a good reason for something like that, but there's gotta be a better way of forming that case, something that prevents WotC from legal action without basically giving them the right to use your copyright.

Its to protect WotC from Legal Action, not prevent legal action by WotC.

Thats the difficulty.

(Let us ignore copyright issues for the moment for sake of making an easy example )
Let us say you make Feat X and post it on Gleemax.

WotC publishes Feat X or a feat just like it.

Normally if you had it on the web, you could say they are stealing your work. They could then prove that they independantly developed it.

Now if its on their web site, how do they prove they did not take your idea? Their forums are moderated, and people from WotC post there. They might not have seen your feat (it was tucked into the middle of a normal good post) but how do they prove that?

Even if nobody from the R&D team reads the forums, people who work for WotC do, so how do you prove that the idea did travel from one person to another at the same company?

Hence they own what you post on their site. To protect themself.

Gleemax is an interesting step forward from that. The problem arises where people want credit. But really, how will you prove they used yours? The case is easy for something large, but for something like a feat or something like that good luck.

But then, how do you word that instead of what they are planning on having?

 

[GVDammerung]

From the Gleemax blog of Randy Buehler -

"Once Gleemax goes live and our new Terms of Use and Terms of Service kick in, you will retain ownership of any content you post (well, any content that you owned in the first place, anyway. And, of course, you are prohibited from violating or infringing the rights of others.). The one thing you do grant to us by posting your content onto our site is the right to use it as we please. . . .

Note that you are allowed (solely per the terms of the Terms of Use and Terms of Service) to use our IP when generating content that you put on our site, however you are not allowed to then publish that content anywhere else."

Please note there are two pieces to this - 1) we can use whatever you post and 2) you post it here, you can not "publish" it elsewhere. These two demandments work hand in hand, the second supporting the first.

I find both worth thinking about. Here's why. On Canonfire.com, I have posted over 100 articles that have to do with Greyhawk. Some are Wotc IP heavy and some are Wotc IP light. I have on my hard drive a number of additional articles that I've written but not yet posted to Canonfire to include a 300 page mini-GH setting that has taken me over a year and a half to write. Now, I look at Gleemax' terms and conditions.

First Point, I have zero issue with Wotc using what I post. Greyhawk is a dead setting for all intents and purposes outside of Living Greyhawk and were Wotc to want to use my mini-setting I'd be pleased as punch because that would mean Greyhawk was being revived. I'm also going to imagine that if they were interested enough to want touse what I've written they would toss me a by-line as otherwise the next guy might steer well clear of Gleemax. So, no problem with the first point.

Second Point, if I drop my 300 page mini-GH setting on Gleemax, can I also post it to Canonfire? Arguably, reposting to Canonfire would be electronic publishing, just not for a profit. It would violate Gleemax policy as I read it and quote it above. This I would have a problem with.

I would like and would have every intention of using Gleemax. But I will not abandon Canonfire for Gleemax. I would like to use both.

Imagining that my reading of the "no publishing elsewhere" language is correct, I have a problem with Gleemax and I think I'm one of the fan creators that Gleemax would like to have participate, even though my interest is in lowly Greyhawk. I'd like to see clarification on this point.

Does Wotc mean, "not published elsewhere for profit?" That would clear matters up for me as I do fan creations as a hobby and for free.

One thought that comes to mind is that if ANY other publication is forbidden after posting to Gleemax, maybe I skate if I "publish" to Canonfire first and only AFTER that post to Gleemax. Arguably, I'm within the rules as I read them.

I'd be happy to post creative material to Gleemax, happy to let Wotc be able to use it, happy not to make a dime but I would not be happy to have my work be Gleemax exclusive.

Little help?

 

[Kem]

From the Gleemax blog of Randy Buehler -

"Once Gleemax goes live and our new Terms of Use and Terms of Service kick in, you will retain ownership of any content you post (well, any content that you owned in the first place, anyway. And, of course, you are prohibited from violating or infringing the rights of others.). The one thing you do grant to us by posting your content onto our site is the right to use it as we please. . . .

Note that you are allowed (solely per the terms of the Terms of Use and Terms of Service) to use our IP when generating content that you put on our site, however you are not allowed to then publish that content anywhere else."

Please note there are two pieces to this - 1) we can use whatever you post and 2) you post it here, you can not "publish" it elsewhere. These two demandments work hand in hand, the second supporting the first.

You cannot publish it elsewhere only if you use their IP to make that content.
If they do not own the IP used to make it, you can do whatever you want with it.

 

[GVDammerung]

You cannot publish it elsewhere only if you use their IP to make that content.
If they do not own the IP used to make it, you can do whatever you want with it.

Yes. I got that part. This does not address the question I asked, however.

 

[Kem]

Yes. I got that part. This does not address the question I asked, however.

I can't address the question you asked because I am unsure of the legality of posting on Canonfire.com.

Is it allowed because its legal or allowed because they don't care or whatever.

In other words if WotC wanted to could they shut down Canonfire without legal issue.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'd be amused if they pulled a bunch of stuff from people and used it as examples of how not to do game design.

 

[Gez]

You know, similar provisions hold true for about everything. You make a mod for a computer game, and the game's publisher has the right to take it and republish it. You put out a d20 game, and Wizards has the right to copy it.

The thing is that, ultimately, they won't. You know, the people in charge of the "stealing ideas from the fans" dept. are also the people in charge of the "let's get ideas on our own" dept, and in the layoff-happy society we live in, I can bet you the R&D staff at Wizards wants nothing else but to show to Hasbro that their bestselling lines -- Magic and D&D -- absolutely need their own personal talent and that they couldn't be fired and replaced by simple forum reviewers.