Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Hussar]

IANAL, but, reading that means to me that I can still publish my game world even if I did publish it on Gleemax as well. It's a "non-exclusive" right. It doesn't stop you from publishing at all. It does stop you from suing them because you happened to put something on the forums that looks like something that later appears in a rule book.

Is this a bad thing?

 

[Cergorach]

...you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees...

When I use the OGL I am a (sub)licencee of Wizards. Does that mean I can use all the material that is posted on Gleemax? It's clearly not the intent, but I'm not talking about intent here...

 

[MerricB]

When I use the OGL I am a (sub)licencee of Wizards. Does that mean I can use all the material that is posted on Gleemax? It's clearly not the intent, but I'm not talking about intent here...

No. It's legal speak for "the companies that Wizards gives a licence to for some particular information on gleemax", not any old licence you have with gleemax.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

I believe this is unfortunate wording and I don't agree with it, but I doubt they will ever steal anything without contacting the writer if it truly is valuable content. Paramount has a similar clause with Star Trek. They would receive fan submissions all the time and they had a clause that anything submitted to them by fans belonged to the studio. They tolerated fan films or other projects but if they were made, Paramount had the right to take them away, though I doubt they ever actually did so.

 

[Sigurd]

I don't wish them harm but I feel badly used when I post there now. More than anything else it makes me feel unwelcome and taken advantage of.

I won't post again on a WOTC site ever. There _are_ plenty of other sites.

Sigurd

It doesn't feel like a collaborative site to me.

 

[Will]

They HAVE to have that language. They absolutely have to.

Otherwise? Every damn thing they ever publish can result in a lawsuit, and they'll be bound up in litigation until the end of time.

Other forums aren't connected to publishing enterprises; ENWorld doesn't have to worry about fans saying 'you stole my post in your Core Book revised!'

For similar reasons, a lot of authors have enstated similar rules in anything officially sanctioned, because authors have repeatedly gotten upset fans claiming that some fanfic was 'stolen' for a subsequent novel. That only has to happen once or twice before authors get sour about the prospect of online communities.

 

[Delta]

Thanks for bringing this language up for discussion. I agree with the OP that this is unacceptable. I don't currently have a Gleemax login, and I definitely won't make one now.

 

[Delta]

They HAVE to have that language. They absolutely have to.

Otherwise? Every damn thing they ever publish can result in a lawsuit, and they'll be bound up in litigation until the end of time.

Now, that's just downright silly.
(1) Were they bound up in endless litigation before this language was created? No.
(2) Does this language actually prevent a troublemaker from filing lawsuit? No.
(3) Does copyright law support a WOTC defense against such troublemakers anyway? Yes.
(4) Can't a troublemaker just post something on their own site and make the same claim anyway? Yes.

So, really, this language only gives minimally more defensive power to WOTC, and only at the point when they're already engaged in a legal dispute in the first place. What it clearly does is exactly what it says, they can republish any good ideas posted with no reciprocity or credit given.

 

[Cergorach]

They HAVE to have that language. They absolutely have to.

How long has WotC operated a forum? How long have they operated it without this clause? How many lawsuits did they get from fans regarding this content?

This doesn't protect them from the same trouble from other sites (as if that has happened or is likely to happen). Just because something is not posted on the Wizards/Gleemax site doesn't mean that folks can't sue (for Wizards having used their material). A lot of folks are complaining about the whole sue and counter sue culture, this is an attempt to circumvent that problem, but in a 1984 way. Instead of solving the problem, it's justifying it...

No. It's legal speak for "the companies that Wizards gives a licence to for some particular information on gleemax", not any old licence you have with gleemax.

They don't specify that...

 

[MerricB]

They don't specify that...

They don't need to. This is a licence: you are permitting Wizards to use your work nonexclusively. The only "sublicencee" that can exist is to this licence. It's a very specific legal term in a contract.