[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[Scott_Rouse]

I... want to say "Yes, they can", but I'll bow before your wisdom. [Aren't agreements a way "around" trademark/copyright exclusivity? And isn't clicking "I Agree" on the TOS legally a binding agreement?]

I am neither wise nor a lawyer so until the TOS is published it is speculation on my part. My thought was along the lines that because JK Rowling starts stating out Hogwarts students on her Gleemax page don't expect Complete Gryffindor to come out a few months later.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Y'know, that actually supports my argument against Kem even better than my own argument. If true, WotC doesn't NEED any protection against fans who come up with the same idea that they do, and the ToS for Gleemax effectively amounts to them blatantly admitting to be taking your stuff for their own use and giving you nothing for it (though letting you retain the ability to publish it other places...which, IMO, is of extremely dubious benefit).

Which basically means that Kem's argument that WotC needs to be able to use people's stuff for free or they'll be in trouble is....bunk.

The issue is simple really, but seems to be talked around in your arguement.

If WotC comes up with Material A, and someone posts a similar Material B, before WotC prints it, then they either have to compensate the non-contributor, or defend themselves.

The fact is, the arguement is that they obviously had access to it because it was in their own site. The obvious conclusion to protect themselves is either:
1) Tell folks that they can't post stuff. (Like OotS does now, no posting theories because they might be too close to what actually happens.)
2) Tell folks anything they post could be used by WotC without further permission. (This basically means you must trust WotC to compensate you if it actually IS original material, rather than just some random item they already had.)

the third option of "just leave themselves open to having to compensate folks for stuff they didn't take" leaves something to be desired I'd imagine.

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.

If you don't trust WotC to fairly compensate, then by all means don't post stuff, and you're no worse off than Option 1 above.

 

[Yair]

I am neither wise nor a lawyer so until the TOS is published it is speculation on my part. My thought was along the lines that because JK Rowling starts stating out Hogwarts students on her Gleemax page don't expect Complete Gryffindor to come out a few months later.

I certainly agree with your thought, which is why I maintain that the TOS won't be as Randy's post presented it. According to his post, if JK Rowling starts statting our Hogwarts students WotC could publish the Complete Gryffindor, which doesn't make sense As I understand it, Randy essentially said "the TOS say that by posting on Gleemax, JKR gave us unlimited rights to use her work", which is not the sort of TOS I expect JKR to agree to...

For the record, if JKR does post on Gleemax, I'll be very impressed

 

[woodelf]

Enworld is just a message board - it's not any kind of legal entity that can possess anyone's right to anything. It's _just_ a message board. So, post away. It's your stuff.

Of course, that doesn't mean that someone can't come along, see your work, and replicate it for their own. Being as how ENWorld is a public forum, after all. Once posted, it essentially becomes public domain, but then IANAL.


But I agree - that Gleemax policy is BS. I'll certainly never post anything there.

Unless there's been a change in copyright law that i missed, posting something publicly doesn't negate your copyright. In fact, in many cases, you don't have copyright control over something *until* it's been made publicly available in some fashion. IOW, while it's sitting in your notebook at home, you might not have copyright over it, but the minute you stick it on the message board, you definitely have an automatic and implicit copyright. It's precisely this automatic and inherent copyright that is the basis behind forbidding reposting of private emails on a lot of message boards--because the original author of the email could potentially sue.

Strictly speaking, one can no more take something off an EnWorld post with impunity than they can out of a book they bought at the FLGS. Now, as a practical matter, it tends to be much easier; and the lines of Fair Use are much less clearly drawn WRT this medium. But that's not because there's any less copyright protection due to the medium.

But, EnWorld is not a public forum, it's a privately owned website. The fact that they have the right to delete anything they want to pretty much negates any ownership you might claim over anything posted.

So, because the bookstore can choose to throw an unbought book away, rather than sell it, that means that the author doesn't have ownership over the content of the book? EnWorld is merely a medium of expression--the owners control that expression, not the underlying content that is being expressed.

 

[Hussar]

The difference with the book is that throwing away the book does not change the fact that there is other records of that book existing. If I post something to a message board, and its deleted, there is no record that I ever did such a thing.

In fact, any message board owner could simply delete a few posts, and then claim ownership of any posted idea and there would be little or no way to prove otherwise.

 

[Aeolius]

In fact, any message board owner could simply delete a few posts, and then claim ownership of any posted idea and there would be little or no way to prove otherwise.

http://web.archive.org/

 

[Hussar]

If you happen to be very lucky and your page was archived.

My point is, TOS or not, posting something you want to publish on a public forum and then whingeing about losing control over it is pretty naive. There are many ways in which your fantastic new ideas could be stolen from you. At least WOTC is being straight up and saying, "Look, if you want to publish your ideas, don't post them here. If you don't care, then fine, do so."

Of course, the simplest answer would be to stick an OGL license on the end of your post and you're good to go. WOTC won't publish OGL by and large since they don't include Open Content in their books.

Just as a question though, who in their right mind posts prepublished works on a public forum?

 

[Vrecknidj]

http://web.archive.org/

Oh my God, this is the coolest thing ever. Thank you so much.

And, back on topic...

If I post something on ENWorld, which I love and hold dear, and then someone else copies it and pastes it onto Gleemax (let's even suppose this other person is so kind to even include my name in the copy), do I now grant WotC the right to do whatever WotC wants to do with it, even though I never posted it on Gleemax?

Anyone know the answer to this one? (I know the ToS isn't complete yet, and I expect "The ToS isn't complete yet Dave" to be a common reply.)

Dave

 

[Kem]

Oh my God, this is the coolest thing ever. Thank you so much.

And, back on topic...

If I post something on ENWorld, which I love and hold dear, and then someone else copies it and pastes it onto Gleemax (let's even suppose this other person is so kind to even include my name in the copy), do I now grant WotC the right to do whatever WotC wants to do with it, even though I never posted it on Gleemax?

Anyone know the answer to this one? (I know the ToS isn't complete yet, and I expect "The ToS isn't complete yet Dave" to be a common reply.)

Dave

IIRC No. Since the person posting it didn't own it, WotC doesn't make a claim over it.

In the post by Randy he specifies your content that you make.

 

[Yair]

If I post something on ENWorld, which I love and hold dear, and then someone else copies it and pastes it onto Gleemax (let's even suppose this other person is so kind to even include my name in the copy), do I now grant WotC the right to do whatever WotC wants to do with it, even though I never posted it on Gleemax?

No. The poster on Gleemax didn't, strictly speaking, have the right to post your work, so can't grant WotC any rights over something he doesn't own. That's regardless of the TOS.

The question is whether if you post something you have rights over (Randy mentions a rules system or setting), you thereby grant Wizards an unlimited right to use your work in any way they please, including (but not limited to) the publishing of your work or derivative work based on it without so much as recognizing your contribution (not to mention payment). Randy's post seems to suggest the TOS will indeed be such - that any of your material posted on Wizard's site will be available to Wizards to do with as they please. That's a very poor strategy for a site that aims to include non-WotC content, so I'm guessing Randy's post is somehwere in the spectrum between misleading and mistaken.