Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[S'mon]

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?

It's established US case law (Monopoly case) that game mechanics per se are not copyrightable. File a Patent, or don't bother.

 

[S'mon]

(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...)

No case under US or UK law, but German Uhrheberrecht (sp?) is quite different, and you don't know how a German court might approach it, or what the licensee thinks their license obligations with WotC are. In general though German author's rights law is prett restrictive over what it protects - higher standard of creativity than US/UK - and I wouldn't give much for their claim having a legal base even without the OGL. They probably just expected your OSP to take it down to prevent liabilty under the E-Commerce directive Hosting standard, basically notice/takedown. (I teach this stuff).

 

[MerricB]

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.

Only if you try to protect your idea. And that means *not* posting it online: on Gleemax, or anywhere else online for that matter.

Now, the reason that creative sites have these disclaimers (and many authors *don't* allow fan fiction) is because you have many examples of independent creation; that is, two different authors come up with the same idea at the same time.

Wizards relies on the creative process to make its money. Without the protection of this license, if a fan posts an idea they were already working on, they can...

(a) ignore the fan and publish their book, in which they open themselves up to legal action from the fan for them "stealing" his or her idea, or...

(b) not publish the book, thus losing a lot of money, or...

(c) work out an agreement with the fan, which costs money, for producing something that the fan hasn't contributed to in any way.

If Wizards wants a community (such as Gleemax) that its employees can contribute to, they *have* to have such a licence. Note that it isn't an exclusive licence. You can take your idea anywhere you like and still sell it, although posting an idea publically is normally a great way of reducing its value.

Note also that Wizards isn't *just* in the business of game mechanics. There's a lot of story information and artwork (and novels) which are all very copyrightable.

 

[Neil Bishop]

Oh. Just stop and give it a rest. If WotC or Hasbro makes money - it won't be because of your post to their forums. (snip)

Finally, someone speaks the truth!

 

[Carpe DM]

MySpace tried stealing intellectual property of its users through an identical phrasing, and there was a riot. MySpace backed down. Wizards' lawyers should have known better.

Here's a link. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/08/blly_bragg_myspace/

 

[Flynn]

no. but let's pretend that i post a description of my game world on there, for brainstorming and discussion. then i publish it, all by myself. let's say that Wizards want to kill off competition and decide to sue me. there is no case, they win even before going to court, because all of my posts belong to them.

I thought it said that WOTC got non-exclusive rights. Doesn't that mean that you can still publish it and they have nothing to stand on, because your content is not exclusively theirs? In fact, the material still remains yours, and they just get permission to use what you've posted without paying you or crediting you because you've given them non-exclusive rights?

I am not a lawyer, but the words "royalty-free, non-exclusive rights" do seem to carry a particular meaning that does imply you get to keep your work, but they get use it as they see fit without paying you for it, but in a manner that does not hinder you from using it yourself. All this agreement appears to be saying is that if you post it there, you can't stop WOTC from using it nor can you charge them from using it. I believe that this Terms of Usage agreement has no limitations on your ability to use your own work yourself, and you are not giving WOTC the right to stop you from doing so.

Or at least, that's what I read from it. Again, I am not a lawyer, nor does this constitute legal advice, so you might want to consider talking to one if this is a serious consideration for you.

Food For Thought,
Flynn

 

[Spell]

That's completely not what it says. Let's stick to the facts and the actual content of the ToU, folks.

my bad, you are right, but the phrase

"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."

is not that completely away from "you IP is ours, too". i just misread it and omitted the ",too."

i am not a lawyer, so i might be getting this wrong, but what it says to me is that, if you had such a clause on EnWorld, you could collect all the posts made by WotC design team member and sell today a book called "inside D&D 4e", or something similar. maybe it could be argued that, say, mike mearls doesn't own the copyright of the term "Dungeons & Dragons", but i'm sure that this same division between copyright owners and design teams exists for many other game publishers.

i also think that (granted the inclusion of this clause on the EnWorld Terms of Use) it would be perfectly legal for you to come out with a PHB book that collects all the rule hints we have read so far, and sell it months before the PHB4e see the light of the day.

i might be wrong, but that's what it says to me.

it's not as bad as "you can't publish your product, because it's mine", but it's not even that completely far away from it, given that it comes from the biggest RPG publisher out there...

 

[Spell]

If I a am not entirely mistaken, this is not a Tax, and it definitely exist way before file-sharing was ever an issue.

maybe that's the way it was in germany. as far as i know, this was introduced in italy way into the 2000s, and adopted by the EU after heavy lobbying from the majors. again, i am not a legal expert and what i know might be wrong.

 

[MerricB]

i am not a lawyer, so i might be getting this wrong, but what it says to me is that, if you had such a clause on EnWorld, you could collect all the posts made by WotC design team member and sell today a book called "inside D&D 4e", or something similar.

It gets a bit complicated by "authority to contribute", but that's basically the idea.

You've really got to ask why Wizards would be printing a book full of "stolen" gleemax-member ideas, though. What will it gain them over what they'll lose? The contract means they don't have to ask, but they still can.

The validity of their IP is extremely important to Wizards. Consider these links as well:
http://www.fanworks.org/writersresource/?tool=fanpolicy&action=define&authorid=53
http://www.fanworks.org/writersresource/?tool=fanpolicy&action=define&authorid=30
http://www.fanworks.org/writersresource/?tool=fanpolicy&action=define&authorid=100

The last, that of Terry Pratchett's "tolerance" for fan-fiction, only extends to if it isn't posted somewhere he is likely to read it.

"[F]ans are asked NOT to post fan fiction to alt.fan.pratchett because, as the AFP FAQ say, posting it will cause Terry Pratchett to leave the group for fear of litigation."

If Gleemax has people posting creative ideas there and Wizards staff contributing as well, then such a ToU is necessary to prevent legal suits arising.

Cheers!

 

[Spell]

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

some say that swords were invented because (and after) someone invented the shield.

what does it mean, in this case? that the average joe the gamer might have never dreamed to sue WotC because feat X looked like feat Y that he "published" on their forum, but he might be aware that he could now (well, not with gleemax, but maybe with other companies).

again, a parallel with what happened in the music business. when napster came out, i was living in italy all the time. nobody knew about filesharing. then WHAM! napster is on tv because the majors are suing.

effect #1: everyone and their dog downloaded napster even if just out of curiousity, and tried to download music. the creators of the program couldn't have had more success if they had spent millions on advertisment.

effect #2: file sharing immediately acquires a "stick it to the man" flavour. magically, a "counterculture" is born. countercultures have a funny way of developing, especially in a global situation like internet, and especially when file sharing is not illegal everywhere.

effect #3: music majors and some musicians appeared like spoilt children accusing their customers to be thieves. hardly a wise business practice, when these "thieves" are the fans that are supposed to pay 15$+ for your latest album, or to come to your concerts, or buy your merchandize and so on.


i agree that they have to protect themselves from random lawsuits, but i think that there is a way of wording things that is less draconic and more friendly. for a hobby like RPG that is not mainstream and that involves the sense of belonging to a community (and a positive, collaborative one, for that matter), going draconic really seems like the worst possible solution, here. but then again, what do i know?

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!'

why not? joe the gamer might try to sue for using one of his posts in one of their published supplement. just because EnWorld doesn't make millions of dollars every quarter, it doesn't mean that the principle doesn't apply here.

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.

you surely do appreciate the difference between a novel and a game, though...

That only has to happen once or twice before authors get sour about the prospect of online communities.

well, as far as i know "the new rules looks like the house rules that we used at my gaming table since 1983" argument has always been used in a positive fashion by role players. i am not aware of people becoming upset for this, but i surely don't spend my days reading the forums. are you aware of any such circumstance?