[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[Scott_Rouse]

Birthright's agreement with Wizards, written by "Jim Butler, Brand Manager D&D Worlds Wizards of the Coast, Inc.", can be seen here. I'm not sure of the date, but the page also includes policy set by David Wise, from 2007. It seems like WotC has a very specific agreement and relationship with Birthright.net, that extends far beyond "a handshake agreement done years ago".That is, frankly, partly why I commended WotC in my previous post and I'd be disappointed to learn it isn't so.

Thanks for posting this.

Jim and David were specifically mentioned in crafting this agreement when I have asked around and this confirms what I have been told in terms of Jim sending this in an email (this looks like a transcript of an email). I have not dug it up from the legal archives yet but it may be the best record of the agreement.

 

[Morrus]

It is my understanding this was little more than a handshake agreement done years ago. We maintain regular contact with many of the fansites and they do good job of maintaining the sites and keeping quality high. The current fansite policy is pretty vague and only really addresses use of content from Wizards.com

In case you decide to visit the issue formally at any point, Scott, we have the "current" (as in a few years old now, but the last said publically about it) policies on fan sites and such here:

Electronic SKU Download (ESD) Conversion Agreement (Anthony Valterra's "reign")

WotC's Policy On Fan-Sites (older - Ryan Dancey's era):

Jim Butler originally OK'd conversion of old 1E and 2E materials to 3E; this informal policy has now been replaced with WotC's Official Conversion Policy. Jim Butler's informal permission no longer applies - however, the Conversion Policy does allow conversions as long as certain rules are followed.

Ryan Dancey's statement regarding fan sites in general has not yet been replaced with any kind of official policy or statement (save for where conversions are concerned, as mentioned above). Here is that statement:
[bq]We really don't have a plan for "fan" sites. The problem with the old policy was that it was an unfair policy, because people could take stuff from D&D, make new things, post them on their web sites, and then claim some sort of pseudo-copyright to "control" that material so "other people can't get rich off my work". On the other hand, it will be a long time, if ever, before the bulk of the 3e game content is released in the SRD, and people are simply not going to wait before doing interesting things with it in public.

Right now, my plan is pretty simple: If you're charging money for any aspect of D&D, you're going to be required to use the OGL and the d20 STL. If you say you're following the OGL or the d20 STL, you're going to be forced to follow them. So, if you've got a fan site that's a collection of characters, and they don't claim to be using the OGL or the d20 STL, and they're not charging money, we're going to ignore them.

What I haven't decided yet is whether or not I'm going to be picky about the d20 logo itself. My leaning is to tell sites that don't want to use the OGL that they can't use the d20 logo either, and to make that the general policy. However, there are so many such sites, and I have so little time avaialble, that enforcement of such a policy would be essentially impossible.

For the time being, all we're worried about is commercial publishers.
[/bq]
Note that neither Ryan Dancey nor Jim Butler are at WotC any longer.

 

[Numion]

Gamers seem to be awfully paranoid lot.

Years ago some people thought that the d20 license was just a ploy so that WotC could use other peoples work. They didn't.

Some people even thought that the setting search competition (also by WotC) was a scam. One homebrewer even found the prize (120,000$ for essentially 100+ pages of writing) to be awfully small compared to the true value of his homebrew.

Now this .. WotCs 'again' trying to screw the brilliant gamedesigners out of their big buck$. Keep in mind that a single feat, spell, mechanic, etc.. isn't even worth that much - so there's no point for WotC to steal them. And if you've designed lots of good stuff so that the combined value is high, WotC'll just hire you and pay you more than you ever would've made on your own.

 

[Yair]

GamersPeople seem to be awfully paranoid lot.

FIFY

If you can't say "you saw it on gleemax!" then you're really not protecting the work at all. You'd have to prove that WotC saw your work outside of Gleemax, and you'd still not be able to defend your material if they stole it. It's basically the same thing.

If you present a significant amount of text worded like WotC's text but posted before WotC published theirs, a court will tend to find that WotC copied your work. You don't have to establish the exact way WotC saw your work, the mere fact that it's similar is evidence enough that it did. The exception is when the content is a "trivial" derivation (e.g. correcting the spelling of a section of some public domain text) or can't be reasonably cast in a different way (e.g. following the standardized expressions and style of SRD feats to express a certain game mechanic).

If you can't say "you saw it on gleemax!" to protect your work, you can't protect work published only on gleemax. You're still just as capable of protecting work published elsewhere, regardless of whether it was posted on gleemax or not. You'll have to prove that Wizards saw your work outside of gleemax to the same extent you have to show it now, sans gleemax. You'd be able to defend your work to the exact same level you can now. My suggestion for the TOS doesn't give you extra power to sue WotC, but doesn't weaken your power to sue WotC either (assuming you post a copy of your material outside of gleemax).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now this .. WotCs 'again' trying to screw the brilliant gamedesigners out of their big buck$. Keep in mind that a single feat, spell, mechanic, etc.. isn't even worth that much - so there's no point for WotC to steal them. And if you've designed lots of good stuff so that the combined value is high, WotC'll just hire you and pay you more than you ever would've made on your own.

...For my mileage, at least, I've been very vocal in saying that I don't think my worst fears will come true with this wording. That said, the wording doesn't do anything to ally my (admittedly paranoid) fears. So it means that rather than play along with something I feel confident about, I'm finding myself opposing something that I'd like to be optimistic about.

I didn't mistrust the d20 license or the setting search. I'm not one to often jump at corporate shadows. I don't think WotC is in it to screw the little guy.

But I don't give power over my creations to others at the drop of a hat. As an author, as a creative professional, I'm very sensitive to giving others the ability to use what I make. Gleemax, if they go with what the blog posted, obviously doesn't want to be a home for THIS gamer (or those who are in similar positions), which is a sad affair, because I think WotC would like to be, and I think a relatively minor wording issue would be all that is stopping them from being it.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

...For my mileage, at least, I've been very vocal in saying that I don't think my worst fears will come true with this wording. That said, the wording doesn't do anything to ally my (admittedly paranoid) fears. So it means that rather than play along with something I feel confident about, I'm finding myself opposing something that I'd like to be optimistic about.

I didn't mistrust the d20 license or the setting search. I'm not one to often jump at corporate shadows. I don't think WotC is in it to screw the little guy.

But I don't give power over my creations to others at the drop of a hat. As an author, as a creative professional, I'm very sensitive to giving others the ability to use what I make. Gleemax, if they go with what the blog posted, obviously doesn't want to be a home for THIS gamer (or those who are in similar positions), which is a sad affair, because I think WotC would like to be, and I think a relatively minor wording issue would be all that is stopping them from being it.

It sounds like the best thing for you (if you so choose to embrace Gleemax) is to get a publisher account and then you are not subject to the public TOS. If you post stuff to a message board you would just provide a small overview with a re-direct top your personal page so as to not put up work WOTC would have access to.

I would guess this is what a lot of established (Ari, Mona, etc) writers would do since they typically get paid for their work.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

No, it does not.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the end any company is concerned with the bottom line, to think otherwise is naive. I'm not saying the guys at WotC are a bunch of hacks or thieves. But I'm also not going to claim I know for a fact none of them ever used another person's ideas or that they definitely wouldn't in the future. No they're not evil masterminds, but they are about making Hasbro money, and in the end that's what they're jos boil down to.

Indeed.

I will post nothing to any site that claims to gain rights to my work, or limits my right to use my work, on the basis of my posting it there. If such a thing appeared in the EN World terms of service in the future, I would remove my each and every post from this forum.

It doesn't require paranoia, or imagining that the big, bad corporation is out to get you. Handing your rights away without compensation is a tremendously stupid thing to do, and appearing on Gleemax is simply not compensation enough. When WotC published under the OGL, they were compensated by creating both good will and an environment under which their core products could flourish. What compensation is there for handing your rights to WotC in this case?

None that I can see.

If WotC is worried about limiting their liability, there has to be a better way of handling the problem.

RC

 

[tzor]

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.

Scott, since you mentioned this several times I think I need to bring this up. (I used to work on a consultant basis for Met Life and they had this problem with their relationship with the Schultz Estate.) The example you give of Disney is not one per se of copyright, but of trademark. All the characters are in effect trademarks of Disney. Trademark law is different from copyright law in that it must be vigorously defended or else it is lost. (Consider, for example the lost trademarks of Kleenex and Xerox.) Disney could loose the rights to their own characters if they are reproduced freely in the public domain. The same is not true for copyright.

 

[Solice]

In hopes that I do not sound like I am herding people over to our site; Randy has started a thread to address many of these concerns over on the Gleemax Forums:

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13331789#post13331789

Hopefully you can get some of your questions or concerns answered there.

Jennifer Paige
Aka "Solice"
Community Liaison
Wizards of the Coast