Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Spell]

Oh. Just stop and give it a rest.

i always find fascinating how people are happy to give away their rights and then be shocked and pissed off when they realise what they've done.

according to the international laws of copyright, you have total right over the distribution, reproduction and use of your intellectual work. this includes your posts on a forum.

while giving away such rights might be ok for you, it might not be ok for other people.

also because, as someone has pointed out, even without such a language, WotC would be rather safe from lawsuits (if i wanted to sue, *i* would have to prove that they actually stole my intellectual property, not just that they had the chance. if you think this is as easy as drinking a glass of water, or that little angry men can stick it to corporations with the big bucks, you might want to think again.)

 

[Spell]

Then WotC should drop the clause. If they don't, it matters

funny how this little logical argument never seems to cut it, in these discussions...

 

[Spell]

Another thing: some complain about WotC could use simple ideas posted on their forum (which usually aren't whole well thought out work), but forget that we are able to use their SRD at leisure and for free... (Without the OGL and SRD, I could not say hell to 4e and turn to True20 or C&C.)

but you forget that we didn't handed them a contract saying: "if we buy your books, you are hereby forced to published the SRD, which we will be using at our leisure and for free".

that was a business decision that they took freely and without any pressure. a wise business decision, because D&D wouldn't be what it is today without SRD. and a nice business decision because it forsters a sense of community that is so vital for the well being of the RPG market in general.

nevertheless, as i said, it was their decision. like it is one's decision whether or not to post on Gleemax, granted. only, you have to admit that it is a bit fishy to put such a clause in the ToU of a forum, especially when it's not common practice. (or is it, and i am totally unaware that RPG publishers have been selling products based on IP stolen by my crappy posts since 2001?!?! :O )

 

[Nikosandros]

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.

I don't know about the EU in general, but in Italy the situation is as you describe. There is an extra tax on blank CDs and DVDs and it was introduced as a compensation for file sharing.

 

[Spell]

There is also a rather successful screenwriter who has posted extensive stories on ENWorld -- perhaps not the kind that he'd normally sell for 6 figures (or more), but some of those d20 Modern ideas could have legs.

who is this?!?!

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.

the crazy thing is that i firmly believe that most creative people are not interested too much in someone else "stealing" their ideas and giving them a new spin. i am one, and i have no such problem. very very very few (if any... i can't remember one single case, but there might be people like that out there) of my colleagues that i met in 4 different universities around europe and u.s. had that type of attitude, and we are talking about musicians or theatre writers or filmmakers with completely different social background and political views.

and yet, in almost every case, you want your idea to circulate. the thing that creative are really wary of is people taking credits for their idea. i would *love* if, say, britney spears "stole" one of my song ideas and published it with a new twist, and gave me some credit for it... and not because i would sue or what not, but because it would look FANTASTIC on my c.v. and i would find open doors where now i see only uninterested "who are you again???" faces.

this might be only my personal opinion... but it's not that romantic, when you back it up with new theories of authorship issued by foucault, toynbee, and others.

 

[Spell]

As a comparison, Games Workshop lays claim to everything you post online ANYWHERE which is derived from their IP.

i get your point, but i think the situation here is a bit different because of SRD. without it, i couldn't publish a d20 book without having written permission from WotC or whoever owns the copyrights. unsurprisingly, there has never been a flood of warhammer supplements on the market... whereas such was the case with D&D, even before the d20 days (remember those old "generic fantasy supplements" books? most of the time "generic" meant "usable with D&D or AD&D with little modification).

in addition, while WotC has not laid claim that anything talking about illithid or beholder is owned by them, the terms of the SRD also prevents anyone from using those terms in their works. it is also (obviously) stricly forbidden to publish any book bearing the D&D logo, even if it's just to say that that given book is compatible with the D&D system or "world" (whatever meaning "world" might have here).

so, in this sense, while you are not giving away your copyright to WotC every time you create anything that derives from what they have decided is their IP, it's not like you can use your material freely.

 

[Spell]

In fact, I can too: "Anything Games Workshop publishes or has published belongs to ME!!" And, look, our claims are equally legally valid!

not really, because you would have to prove that you own the IP contained in their products.

in other words, as yourself put it

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.

but that doesn't mean that you can claim that you have ownership of their IP.

There was a legal case along these lines where someone had written a Rambo 3 and the courts clarified how these sorts of mixed intellectual property situations would be worked out.

i would *love* to read about this case. do you have a source?

 

[Spell]

To me, the companies are the least of my worries.

i agree again... but isn't it so because normally the companies pay for use your IP because otherwise they wouldn't have access for it, whereas a fan think that he can get away with "rebranding" your ideas for his?

if a company had access to your IP and didn't even have to ask for your permission or pay you a penny to repackage it and sell it, wouldn't you object?

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.

but that's not the point of the discussion. of course there will be plenty of posts in the gleemax forums. i would be (happily) surprised if it was otherwise!

 

[Spell]

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.

probably. i still see how the public would be divided, though.

to cite some examples of unfair uses of IP and copyright laws, i could cite food corporations copyrighting rice in india and forbidding people to grow plants (like they have for centuries... they are, in fact, the owners of the IP, if there should be one!) because they would break the companies copiright if they did so.

sure, you won't find that companies embracing these practices are the most loved and respected in the world... but they are powerful, politically and economically, and it's likely that they will stay that way.

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.

similarly, one could argue that unitl ONE fan sues WotC over illicit use of his IP, WotC has absolutely no need to word their forums ToU in that way...

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I find it funny and amusing how everyone is getting worked up over something that 99.999% of people don't ever bother to read and won't ever be affected by.

You could read the fine print of your mortgage or car insurance and be equally "outraged."

It's legalese folks. It's for lawyers, not you and I (real lawyers, not "armchair" lawyers).

Don't lose any sleep over it.

Actually, I'm outraged that you're outraged! And I'm sure someone else will be outraged that I'm outraged that you're outraged.

There's more important things to worry about...