Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[resistor]

No, I know, I know, the people that work at WOTC have no respect for the creative process, the ownership of intellectual property, or the hard work of individual authors, and they're ready to mercilessly plunder the Gleemax messageboards for any idea that is even remotely publishable. I get that. :\ (Always remember to rob and plunder before you pillage and burn, after all.)

...

I'm not denying that, on the face of it, the provision gives WOTC the "power" to republish anything that appears on Gleemax. I believe it does, technically. But I guess somebody forgot to notify me that WOTC had changed from "a bunch of folks that work hard on games because they love them" to "a bunch of evil corporate suits who are looking to plunder the fans' collective creativity."

I'm sure they're wonderful people. I'm not questioning them personally.

However, it is quite common, in the tech industry, for example, for failed companies to sell off their intellectual assets to "companies" whose sole purpose is to exploit any lingering patents, copyrights, and license that the company held to maximal profit. As an example, see the SCO vs. IBM case.

The point is, what if 4e fails miserably and Gleemax is sold off? What if the buyer is someone less scrupulous than WotC? The TOS make no provisions for the termination or non-transferal on the license. I trust Scot Rouse to be honorable in his intentions, but can I rely on that being the case for whoever holds that license in five years? Ten years?

 

[Marius Delphus]

You probably can, because the "gift" of a license to your work cuts both ways.

Why would WOTC, or its successor, publish something it doesn't own, free and clear?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why didn't you include

by posting or submitting any text, images, designs, video, sound, code, data, lists, or other materials or information (such User-submitted content, collectively, "User Content") to or through the Site, including without limitation on any User profile page, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.​

Please note that this is irrevocable, worldwide, and perpetual.

(shudder)

Nor does the wording you quoted about WotC's intentions in any way actually limit them, prevent them from having different intentions at a future time, having an affiliate or sublicensee with different intentions, or transferring these rights wholesale to someone else, whose intentions you do not know (or know that you do not like). And, if such an occurance should occur, you have already agreed that you have granted irrevocable rights.

Note also that

You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of any User Content posted by you to or through the Site.​

so that, if you run a DCC module here, and WotC later prints part of it, you get to pay not only WotC's legal bills, but also any judgement for monies against WotC. Moreover, should WotC decide to do so, they can then also sue you for the hassle because you violated the TOU.

EN World doesn't permit the language required to fully respond to the Gleemax TOU.


RC

 

[resistor]

You probably can, because the "gift" of a license to your work cuts both ways.

Why would WOTC, or its successor, publish something it doesn't own, free and clear?

Because they're desperate? In the example of the SCO vs. IBM case, SCO was failed UNIX producer. When their primary business failed, they turned into an IP company and tried to use poorly worded agreements to make broad claims about IBM's obligations to them. It was generally pretty obvious that the claims were bogus, but they did it as an attempt at a fast cash grab. Who says someone who bought out a failing WotC/Gleemax wouldn't make a similar cash grab?

You can NEVER assume good faith when writing a contract. The whole point is that you can rely on the wording of the contract rather than on the other party's intentions. I guarantee you that any lawyer you talk to will agree with that. NEVER agree to terms that you would not want to be carried out. NEVER.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You probably can, because the "gift" of a license to your work cuts both ways.

Why would WOTC, or its successor, publish something it doesn't own, free and clear?

BTW, nothing "cuts" both ways.

You grant WotC, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

WotC grants you the right to post to the Gleemax site, which it can revoke.

And, the language is pretty straight forward -- WotC may not own your work, but it is free and clear to use it or sell it, forever.


RC

 

[Marius Delphus]

I'll certainly eat my words if it's proven that WOTC (or its successor) publishes something that originated at Gleemax without first getting additional permission from the poster from whom it came.

I don't anticipate it, and I don't fear it. YMM (and clearly does) V.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why would WOTC, or its successor, publish something it doesn't own, free and clear?

Because there is case law that suggests that a publicly traded corporation must make all decisions with profit in mind? Because, if they have the ability to turn a profit, and do not, they are liable to their shareholders? Because other companies have been successfully sued by their shareholders in the past for making decisions on ethical grounds that resulted in a lower projected profit?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'll certainly eat my words if it's proven that WOTC (or its successor) publishes something that originated at Gleemax without first getting additional permission from the poster from whom it came.

Of course, by that point It'll be too late for eating your words to do any good.

Permanent and irrevocable, remember?


RC

 

[MerricB]

As has been said before, fans can post stuff on their own website and file suit and avoid this license entirely. There's nothing in the license that prevents filing of suits (even for things on the WOTC boards). The license does not provide the protection that Marius claims it does. What it does do is exactly what it says -- allow WOTC to reprint User Content for free.

I'm sorry... huh?

If I post something on Gleemax, and then sue Wizards, regardless of whether I've posted it on my site or not, then Wizards only have to show the agreement to the judge, and that the mateiral is on gleemax, and at that point my case gets dismissed and costs awarded against me. Ok, it may be a little more involved than that, but Wizards have the upper hand in a big way.

If I only post something on my own site, I then have to prove that Wizards staff visited my site and read the material. That's a lot harder. The step of proving Wizards staff read it is reduced for any material on gleemax, which is why the licence is there.

My own suggestion is for for the license to state that Gleemax is a "copyright free zone", effectively - that whatever you post there cannot be used as a source-copy in a copyright infringement suit. So if you post your house rules there and Wizards then prints a book with them, you can't sue Wizards based on the fact that they were posted to their site. You can sue Wizards based on the fact that they're on YOUR site, just like you can now (without the Gleemax agreement, and unrelated to it). One can also sue you for posting something that isn't yours into Gleemax; I'd add a public policy allowing posters to use Wizards' IP on Gleemax as long as they aren't quoting it or rewriting extensive parts of it.

I'm trying to work out what you're saying here.

If you post something on Gleemax and on your site, you have no recourse to sue Wizards. You might try, but you'd lose. Once you open the material to gleemax on Wizards, you cede part of your rights to it, regardless of the fact that it's on your site.

If you try to say "gleemax is a copyright free zone", and because it's on your site and gleemax, but gleemax doesn't count, then Wizards can't copy it... but they could if it were only on gleemax... I'm sorry, no. It doesn't even begin to work.

 

[MerricB]

Personally, I think the right way to go is never to post anything you don't want to pollute the rights to. In any public forum, not just Gleemax. I've said it multiple times in another venue, but it's equally applicable in this case... if you really think you have something worth publishing, then see about publishing it. Don't give anyone else rights to it.

Absolutely. I agree completely, and it can't be stressed enough.

If you are serious about keeping the rights to your ideas, don't post them on the internet. Certainly don't post them in a public place.

Legally, the best information I have access to confirms that Gleemax and Wizards need this TOS/TOU provision to keep the message board alive in the face of Wizards' publishing business (last I checked, MySpace doesn't have a publishing arm).

I agree with this, in my non-legal way. That Wizards is a publisher complicates things significantly for them, and they need protection.

Cheers!