Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Hussar]

The problem is that D&D has a long history of being built on the back of fan-contributions when the fans weren't compensated for their work? And the Open Gaming movement was supposed to stop that?

Never mind what Morrus said, but, if you publish under the OGL, then you lose any chance of compensation for your idea anyway. If you reserve material as IP, then it's no different than if you didn't use the OGL at all.

In any case, you can still profit from your idea. That's what's being ignored here. There is nothing stopping you from posting your game world on Gleemax and then publishing it. The only difference is, WOTC could do exactly the same thing.

But, let's look at this IP you're talking about. Mind Flayers, submitted by Charles Stross are actually ripped from a George RR Martin story. The material wasn't his to submit in the first place. The TOU here would say that WOTC couldn't use that material because you didn't have the right to submit it in the first place.

Now, if you had a license to use that material and then posted it to Gleemax, you'd be handing over your license to WOTC. That would be utterly and completely foolish to do. Then again, posting it on EnWorld would likely be just as foolish anyway.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Mind Flayers, submitted by Charles Stross are actually ripped from a George RR Martin story. The material wasn't his to submit in the first place. The TOU here would say that WOTC couldn't use that material because you didn't have the right to submit it in the first place.

Hussar, you are wrong.

The Gleemax TOU say that WotC could use it, trademark it, copyright it, patent it, and then sell those copyrights, trademarks, and patents, and if there was ever any legal fallout, you must pay all costs and damages.

RC

 

[JPL]

Everything else is just insults.

RC

Everything else is just comedy, Raven.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Everything else is just comedy, Raven.

Only if your notion of comedy consists of, and only of, insulting people because they point out problems that you are uncomfortable with.

RC

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Never mind what Morrus said, but, if you publish under the OGL, then you lose any chance of compensation for your idea anyway. If you reserve material as IP, then it's no different than if you didn't use the OGL at all.

What?

I'm certain that people who publish under the OGL are compensated for their ideas. (Eg: Expeditious Retreat Press...)

But, let's look at this IP you're talking about. Mind Flayers, submitted by Charles Stross are actually ripped from a George RR Martin story.

Charles Stross didn't write them. He wrote the Githyanki, Githzerai, Slaadi etc.

 

[JPL]

Only if your notion of comedy consists of, and only of, insulting people because they point out problems that you are uncomfortable with.

RC

Well, that and bawdy limericks.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, that and bawdy limericks.

Really? Well, send me an email and I'll send you a bawdy limerick.

I can't post it here, any more that I can post a frank response to the Gleemax TOU.

RC


EDIT: I got your email, and sent you a limerick.

 

[JPL]

Really? Well, send me an email and I'll send you a bawdy limerick.

I can't post it here, any more that I can post a frank response to the Gleemax TOU.

RC

Done.

I'm going to check out of this discussion...even if you are overreacting here, that's ultimately your call to make, and I suppose one should err on the side of caution.

 

[resistor]

The idea ("a collectible trading card game based on fantasy role-playing memes") isn't and can't be protected by patent or any other IP-related legislation. The implementation is protected.

OK, we're just squabbling over semantic now.

In my mind there are three "levels" at which an idea exists:

1) It's actual physical manifestation. The precise words of how it is written. The art and layout of MtG cards, etc. This is protected by copyright.

2) The detailed ideas. The specific mechanics of the game, including, in the case of the MtG patent, the mechanic of tapping by turning a card 90 degrees. This can be protect by a patent.

3) The broad idea. "A card game about dueling wizards with cards representing spells." This is unprotectable, unless the branding is too similar in which case it becomes a trademark case.

In you terminology, level 2 is one implementation of a level 3 idea. I can go with that, but also assert that there may also be multiple level 1 implementations of a level 2 idea.

One level 3 -> many level 2
One level 2 -> many level 1

I could make a game with identical (or similar enough to fall within the claims of the patent) rules to MtG without every duplicating an MtG card. This is the difference between copyright and patents.

End of tangent.

 

[resistor]

Suit yourself, resistor. Maybe I'm spending too much time in the grownup world right now, because I'm thinking about the real purposes behind this sort of boilerplate user agreement, and the real world consequences, and not some sort of abstract moral issue or worst-case scenario.

Maybe I spend too much time in a world where IP agreements are very important.

As an aside, licenses like this are all about the worst case scenarios. As many have pointed out, the entire thing exists to protect WotC from a worst case scenario. If they're entitled to include language to protect themselves from worst cases, I don't feel bad about asking for the same to protect me.