Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Sigurd]

I'm not even talking about money

It's respect and courtesy. If you are the author of something or a contributor to a good idea, you should expect consideration in th use of the idea.

Its also the message - WOTC writes material you should respect but WOTC licenses away the respect they might owe a talented author just because they use Gleemax.

And why shouldn't there be material and talented writers on Gleemax. With due respect to Gygax et al. the technology of collaboration and the breadth of experience available on the internet today is far larger than ever before. WOTC has the memberships and the writer emails but they license away the need for them to use them. I have seen gems among the material on line and I think the authors of those ideas should not be giving up consideration as a matter of course.


I have no illusions of untold riches - I just think the situation is wrong.

If you write something original you should be treated as its author.

 

[Maggan]

Even though you couldn't publish your original writings based on their IP without their permission, they can't publish your writings without your permission either.

I know. But even if they did, I wouldn't care much. I've never had stuff "stolen" by any company. But I have had stuff stolen by other fans, which rebranded my stuff as their own.

To me, the companies are the least of my worries. I'm more worried that some fan of the game will swipe my stuff and claim it as his own.

And basically, what I'm suggesting is that even if a company has legal text that seems draconic and over the top, that in itself is not an indication that the well of fan created material will dry up.

I don't think Gleemax will suffer in the least from this. If Gleemax fails, it will not be because of this legal writing. MySpace seems to be doing fine, and boy, those terms of usage are draconic.

/M

 

[Vegepygmy]

How long has WotC operated a forum? How long have they operated it without this clause?

That's a good question. I don't have the answer, but as a lawyer, my guess is...

NEVER.

This clause is absolutely ordinary, standard, you'll-find-it-on-just-about-every-messageboard-run-by-a-company-of-any-respectable-size boilerplate. You've all posted to a dozen boards with a clause just like it a hundred times, and you never even noticed. It is, as others have mentioned, a purely defensive move on their part.

Get a grip, people.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

I know. But even if they did, I wouldn't care much. I've never had stuff "stolen" by any company. But I have had stuff stolen by other fans, which rebranded my stuff as their own.

To me, the companies are the least of my worries. I'm more worried that some fan of the game will swipe my stuff and claim it as his own.

And basically, what I'm suggesting is that even if a company has legal text that seems draconic and over the top, that in itself is not an indication that the well of fan created material will dry up.

I don't think Gleemax will suffer in the least from this. If Gleemax fails, it will not be because of this legal writing. MySpace seems to be doing fine, and boy, those terms of usage are draconic.

/M

Just a minor tetchy thing...

The word is draconian. "Draconian," meaning "laws which are unduly harsh or strict," relates to the Athenian lawmaker Draco (lived in the 7th Century BCE) who created the first written Greek constitution, and who was known for his harsh laws. "Draconic" of course, relates to our favorite multicolored scaly friend/enemy/total bastards.

 

[Fifth Element]

Really, if you're planning on posting sometime on a public forum, is it really something you expect to ever make money off of? You're giving it away to everyone for free, yet you'd be upset if someone actually used it? :\

 

[Steel_Wind]

If you don't plan on having a creative career, everything's cool. But if you do plan on doing so, you'd be better off sharing your best and most creative ideas at places like ENWorld.

Sorry. I disagree.

I'm involved in computer game development. I talk about games, I listen about games and gaming all the time here - and elsewhere on the internet.

But I don't talk about the games and concepts we have in development until the time is right to do so. If we have a truly valuable idea (and to be honest - that's a very rare thing indeed) we don't talk about it at all. Every person who works for or is a contractor of roXidy signs an NDA to ensure that does not happen.

I think that most of the "ideas" that people talk about as being valuable simply are not. It's just talk. Such talk lacks the specifics to be made commercially valuable - let alone viable. Moreover, it lacks that air of reality to be turned into something commercially valuable by those who are talking about them.

Generally speaking, truly valuable ideas are exceedingly rare.

If you believe the idea you have is truly a valuable one - treat it as such and do the things you need to do to commercialize that idea and put your ducks in a row. Talking about it on a website is the last thing you need to be doing with it.

 

[Cergorach]

This clause is absolutely ordinary, standard, you'll-find-it-on-just-about-every-messageboard-run-by-a-company-of-any-respectable-size boilerplate. You've all posted to a dozen boards with a clause just like it a hundred times, and you never even noticed. It is, as others have mentioned, a purely defensive move on their part.

I've seen a similar clause on other (corporate) boards, but the ones I post on and have a similar agreement aren't really hobby minded. Sure I posted on a couple of computer hard/software forums, those don't have much to do with new ideas and creative thinking. If the Wizards forum and the Gleemax site were only aimed at questions and answers for their products, then I wouldn't really have a problem. But these sites are aimed at creating new content by their users.

If a graphical artist were to post an image on that board, Wizards could keep using that without cost, forever. If I posted an image I did not make, the owner of that image would have to jump through hoops to stop WotC from claiming it for their use.

For me this isn't about money, I don't have a large enough ego to think that someone will ever pay a dime for anything I write or paint. But it's the principal of the idea that someone can claim the use of my ideas while viciously protecting their own. (I love working on Open Source projects, because everyone is contributing, and the end result is open for everyone)

I would prefer to use ENWorld and similar sites (unless they also implement a similar greement).

 

[Glyfair]

If a graphical artist were to post an image on that board, Wizards could keep using that without cost, forever. If I posted an image I did not make, the owner of that image would have to jump through hoops to stop WotC from claiming it for their use.

And if WotC ever did, without the consent of the artist, then their name would be dragged through the mud far worse than TSR ever did during the "T$R" days. Until something like that clearly happens, I think the concerns that they would really do that are mostly smoke & mirrors. It could happen, but it won't. WotC doesn't want that sort of a PR nightmare.

 

[Maggan]

Just a minor tetchy thing...

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. It's always good for me to expand my vocabulary in foreign languages.

Draconian it is.

/M

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then WotC should drop the clause. If they don't, it matters.The wise man doesn't ignore the contracts he's agreeing to.

Let's say I create a "Rage Mage" paragon path for 4E and post in in the Gleemax house rule forum. It could be picked by either the Feral Berserker or the Sorceror class, and would mix the berserkers rage with sorceror spells.

1 year later, WotC puts out a new supplement, containing a paragon path called "Spell Berserker".
It has a very similar concept, the names of a few powers are different, but some are the same, and some even share the same mechanics.

Now, did WotC "steal" my idea? Or was it just so obvious to anyone familiar with 4E and the two classes that it had to happen? What if I decided to sue WotC? What if the judge/jury decides that WotC copied from me? Suddenly, WotC has to pay me just because I accidently posted something that looked like one of their ideas, but just a few months later?

(By the way, I picked this example because the opposite thing - minus law suits or anthing like that - happened with my group. We posted - on our own web site - a rage mage class, and the German publisher for D&D at the time emailed our webmaster that we had to remove it because a similar class appeared in a Dragon magazine. I doubt that they had any real legal base here, with OGL and fair use and what else around, but it's still an anecdote that gets me thinking...)