Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Yair]

Err...

You post something to Gleemax and to your site. Wizards copy it from Gleemax. You sue them, because there's no proof they copied it from Gleemax, it could have been from your site.

Yep. That's what protecting your rights over your content means. Under the situation you describe Wizards isn't hurt one iota by the posts on Gleemax. That's the idea. The idea is to draw up a license that doesn't put Wizards at risk from posts on Gleemax, not one that grants Wizards the freedom to violate your copyrights at their whim.

Again, though, even if you dislike my idea - don't you think there are ways Wizards can protect itself from being sued due to posts on Gleemax without granting itself the rights over these works?

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's correct; they have a non-exclusive license to use them. This, however, doesn't prevent your own use or affect your ownership of them.

Maybe you and I are reading different licenses, because when I read the Gleemax TOU, I can see that the TOU could very well be used to take ownership of your posts, without any cost to WotC.

(1) WotC publishes a sourcebook with your material in it.
(2) WotC claims ownership of said material (say, through its copyright statement, or by claiming it as WotC IP.
(3) The TOU make it clear that if there is a legal dispute, you must pay all WotC's costs, including any costs of settlement.
(4) Therefore, there is no means by which you can render a meaningful judgement against WotC in this case. Or whoever they decide to sell your work to.

In any event, you lose any right to control over your work, forever and without the means to ever regain control over it.

Allowing this sort of power to anyone is a bad idea. Allowing that person to be able to transfer that sort of power is an even worse idea. Allowing transferable power to an entity that will (over the course of your lifetime) be controlled in all likelihood by many different people, each of whom has the power to transfer that control, is so obviously a bad idea that it is mind-numbing that anyone would champion it as a good idea.

(Except, of course, those people who directly benefit from it.)

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, it's clear you have strong feelings on the subject, but you're not actually reading the TOU; you're basing your opinion on what you think the TOU probably say. The key points are the words "grant" and "non-exclusive license". The former requires you to have the legal power to make that grant (so it doesn't affect other peoples' art you found and posted, as you don't have the power to grant rights over it), and the latter does not touch ownership of the property.

You're all right, though as RC points out, it wouldn't be hard for them to assert ownership.

But as I prefaced my statement with, this isn't about what they actually do with your stuff, it's about what it signifies when you give up control of your postings like this.

And as far as WotC is concerned, with this TOU, your stuff is their stuff, too. And when you let them do whatever they want with your stuff, it's not dramatically different from giving them ownership, it just contains the caveat that you still have ownership, too. I went too far into hyperbole to have it grounded in the real consequences of the TOU, but the core of the argument: that you don't get to tell them what they can do with your stuff, remains intact.

And being more of an idealist in this regard than a practical thinker, and having no particular NEED to go to Gleemax, it is entirely fair of me to have a problem with this on mere principle.

I don't really blame those who agree to the TOU. Practically speaking, everything you say is probably accurate. WotC is not some giant evil vacuum corporation who just wants free fan labor; more than likely, they just want to be able to publish a 'best of the boards' type compliation or something without having to jump through the legal hoops. The intent behind this wording is, I'm sure, entirely fair.

The wording, however, isn't, and it really could be. Gleemax doesn't need a draconian TOU to do what Wizards wants to do with it. But they went and did it anyway. When that goes away, you might see me at Gleemax. Until it does, there would have to be a MASSIVE motive for me to go over there and give Wizards anything without them negotiating with me the terms of their use of my material.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Okay... I think some of the posts here may be based on an imperfect understanding of intellectual property.

Basically, the various laws around IP protect the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. So you can't own the idea of "a brown fizzy cola-flavoured drink", but you can own the "Coke" brand. You can't own the idea of "an adventure featuring children who go to wizard school" but you can own the character of Harry Potter and his distinctive likenesses.

Let's imagine someone has an idea for an adventure and posts it on Gleemax. WOTC could publish a reasonably similar idea that they'd derived independently without this TOU. But in the absence of the TOU, they couldn't simply copy and paste it into their own document.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay... I think some of the posts here may be based on an imperfect understanding of intellectual property.

Welcome to the InterWeb.

Basically, the various laws around IP protect the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. So you can't own the idea of "a brown fizzy cola-flavoured drink", but you can own the "Coke" brand. You can't own the idea of "an adventure featuring children who go to wizard school" but you can own the character of Harry Potter and his distinctive likenesses.

Nonetheless, if you are the creator of Harry Potter, you might find an author of a previous version of "an adventure featuring children who go to wizard school" suing you on the basis of claiming a distinctive likeness. As did, to my understanding, actually happen.

The intent behind this wording is, I'm sure, entirely fair.

The wording, however, isn't, and it really could be. Gleemax doesn't need a draconian TOU to do what Wizards wants to do with it. But they went and did it anyway.

Absolutely true. And, unless WotC is worried about doing a cut-n-paste on your posts, they're probably concerned with more than merely the specific wording with which you expressed your ideas.

And, even then, it is still draconian and wrong.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Maybe you and I are reading different licenses, because when I read the Gleemax TOU, I can see that the TOU could very well be used to take ownership of your posts, without any cost to WotC.

(1) WotC publishes a sourcebook with your material in it.
(2) WotC claims ownership of said material (say, through its copyright statement, or by claiming it as WotC IP.
(3) The TOU make it clear that if there is a legal dispute, you must pay all WotC's costs, including any costs of settlement.
(4) Therefore, there is no means by which you can render a meaningful judgement against WotC in this case. Or whoever they decide to sell your work to.

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but you think WotC will sue me for publishing something that I put on Gleemax, even though the TOU clearly state that I retain ownership?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but you think WotC will sue me for publishing something that I put on Gleemax, even though the TOU clearly state that I retain ownership?

No, if you read this correctly, you will understand that WotC can claim ownership of your posts, even though the TOU clearly state that you retain ownership, because the TOU effectively prevent you from persuing a claim of ownership irrevocably against Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees. This is because "You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any User Content posted by you to or through the Site." doesn't differentiate whether it is your User Content or someone else's.

Also,

You agree to indemnify, defend at your cost and hold harmless Wizards, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent companies, and contractors, and each of their current and former officers, directors, employees, agents, licensors, licensees and representatives (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties"), from and against any losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, damages and costs of any nature, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or relating to any User Content you post, store or otherwise transmit on or through the Site or your use or inability to use the Site, including without limitation any actual or threatened suit, demand or claim made against the Indemnified Parties arising out of or relating to your User Content, your conduct, your violation of these TOU, or your violation of the rights of any third party.​

would make it nigh impossible (if not impossible) to pursue any claim. Therefore, there is no means by which you can render a meaningful judgement against WotC in this case. Or whoever they decide to sell your work to.sible) to pursue any claim.

Moreover, the TOU specifically says

The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction.​

Which means, yes indeedy, you are granting them the perpetual, irrevocable right to copyright, trademark, patent, and otherwise claim your posts as intellectual property. In case that wasn't clear.

And, it has nothing to do with whether or not you trust the current guys in charge at Wizards. You must trust Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, perpetually and irrevocably. That's a bit of a hard cheese to swallow.


RC

 

[crazy_cat]

lots of stuff about the Gleemax TOU.

Could I perhaps suggest a solution?

If you don't like or can't accept the Gleemax TOU then don't use the website. Problem solved.

I personally will not be using them - but thats more because I find the whole Gleemax thing to be quite silly, and the mindless drivel that passes for debate on the WOTC forums to be very annoying , rather than due to any particular issue with the TOU.

All obviously IMHO, YMMV etc etc

 

[Ourph]

<snip very good points>

After reading some of this discussion, I still have no problem with the fundamental idea behind the Gleemax TOU, but have come to understand that the implementation of that idea in the current TOU is extremely flawed and in many cases contradictory with itself. Thanks (to everyone who posted meaningful comments, not just RC) for the insights.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Double post. Sorry.