Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[I'm A Banana]

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

This.

RC, I'm pretty much in full agreement with you here.

I don't mistrust WotC as a company in general.

Giving them ownership of my posts is like giving my child to them.

Even if I think they're swell guys, it's my child.

Gleemax doesn't want me as a member.

 

[resistor]

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.

I've made my major points already, which I don't plan to comment on further, but I'd just like to point out that this is actually not exactly true.

In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. In a civil case, which this would be, the burden is shared. In additional, civil cases require a lower amount of evidence: "a preponderance of evidence," which is considered less than the "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. This is why you will sometimes hear of people being acquitted of a crime but ruled against in the correlated civil proceedings: the standard of how much evidence is required is lower in civil proceedings.

If someone posted their material on ENWorld, which is provably read by several WotC employees, and then claimed that WotC employees had read and copied their material, WotC would definitely need to put together some evidence to the contrary. They'd probably win, but it definitely wouldn't be a don't-bother-putting-together-a-defense-because-it'll-get-thrown-out-immediately situation.

 

[resistor]

EDIT: You know what, I'm not going to bother. If I haven't convinced you already, you're not going to be convinced, and you're certainly not about to convince me.

Nothing to see here; move along.

 

[MerricB]

If someone posted their material on ENWorld, which is provably read by several WotC employees, and then claimed that WotC employees had read and copied their material, WotC would definitely need to put together some evidence to the contrary. They'd probably win, but it definitely wouldn't be a don't-bother-putting-together-a-defense-because-it'll-get-thrown-out-immediately situation.

Oh, indeed. The "it'll get thrown out immediately" is if you post on gleemax under the TOU... which is why Wizards wants it.

OTOH, if gleemax didn't have a TOU, then you'd have a much easier time of making a case of Wizards stealing your stuff than if it were on a random website that few people visit.

Cheers!

 

[2WS-Steve]

As a point of comparison, here's a generic release form that you'd use when submitting a screenplay to a production company or studio:

I realize that you (and your staff) are in the production and/or management of material for motion picture, television and/or other media and, as such, are likewise engaged in the search for material and literary properties and the development of ideas, stories and suggestions for exploitation in any and all entertainment media which said production or management necessitates. Such material, ideas or suggestions may relate to format, theme, characterizations, treatments and/or means of exploiting a production based on such ideas and suggestions once completed.

As a result, I recognize that you will not discuss, consider or read ideas, scripts, treatments, formats or the like submitted to you by persons not in your employ without first obtaining the agreement of the person submitting same to the provisions of this letter. I hereby acknowledge and agree as follows:

I warrant that I am the sole owner and author of the above described material and that I have the full right and authorization to submit the material to you.

I agree that any part of the submitted material which is not novel or original and not legally protected may be used by you without any liability on your part to me and that nothing herein shall place you in any different position with respect to such non-novel or non-original material by reason hereof.

You shall not be under any obligation to me with respect to the submitted material except as may later be set forth in a fully executed written agreement between us.

I realize that you may have had access to and/or may have independently created or have had created ideas, themes, formats and/or other materials which may be similar to the theme, plot, idea, format or other element of the material now being submitted by me and I agree that I will not be entitled to any compensation by reason of the use by you of such similar material.

Note that movie studios/prodcos are often subject to much larger lawsuits than what you might get off a roleplaying supplement, submitting a screenplay for consideration puts the recipient directly in the chain of custody (a vital feature of a copyright infringement claim) -- and that the above release form doesn't require that one grant a bunch of rights over to the recipient.

There are reasonable terms of use and release forms. I think the Gleemax terms could be better while still protecting WotC's rights -- and here's an example.

That said, I've also seen some pretty monstrous release forms.

 

[Yair]

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.

The idea is that what's posted to Gleemax just doesn't count. It's as if it was never posted (as long as you had the right to post it to begin-with). So if you post something to Gleemax and your site under THESE rules, you do NOT cede rights to wizards and may sue them just like you could if you only posted it to your site. But the fact that you posted it on Gleemax amounts to nothing, it's meaningless. You'd be in the exact same position if you only posted to your site, as the posts on Gleemax just don't count.

If something is on my site Wizards can't copy it. They might if it's only on Gleemax, under THESE terms, since what's on Gleemax just doesn't count. If you want protection under these rules, you need to post the stuff elsewhere too.

I hope that makes it clearer. At any rate the point isn't that my solution is necessarily best, but rather that there ARE solutions. Wizards' lawyers just don't care. They slapped on the easiest solution for them, and moved on to other issues. They haven't invested the time and effort of mind to come up with the best solution for everyone, thinking (rightly, probably) that Wizards won't be damaged by the fans' rights being diminished in this way.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar,

If you want to push buttons with buzz words go ahead. You might derail a reasonable conversation but I don't think so. You've quoted me twice about "hate" and I am going out of my way to be reasonable to WOTC. People considering this are expressing their opinions about the terms of use. Do you feel 'sensitive' or threatened by objections to the TOU? People are expected to accept or reject it. If you reject it you are allowed to have reasons - that is the nature of an offer.

If they are not reasons you share that is your opinion and good right but casting accusations and villainizing other people's opinions is bad form.

If you feel I've been hateful please report me, if it will make you feel better. If you don't maybe you should apologize to some of these other people who have found your suggestion disturbing. Perhaps they misunderstood your intent. These are words that carry powerful overtones in gentle places like Enworld.


Sigurd

Wow. Hate=Really don't like. Hate=/= racism or any other bizarre definition you guys feel like trotting out in order to defend making massive over-reactions over standard TOU wording. Yes, when you cast things as "Ethically reprehensible" that sounds a lot like someone hates something.

Again, hate DOES NOT MEAN racism. That's your particular interpretation. Bizarre as it might be. I would certain not report you for hating game mechanics. Nothing in En World's TOU prevents you from hating a TOU. However, when you use the very strong language that I quoted, it does sound like you have very strong negative feelings on this issue.

"Very strong negative feelings" is pretty much the dictionary definition of hate.

 

[Hussar]

I think it would be helpful if we avoided imputing motives on other people.

I did characterise Gleemax's terms of use as "ridiculous and more than a little pathetic" but that's a far cry from what I understand by hate-speech.

What I said is that I wouldn't post on Gleemax on those terms. What I implied is I would continue to post on ENWorld instead, and that's what I recommend.

"Ethically disgusting" (which I didn't say) is strong language, but I think for some posters in some circumstances it could be quite justified.

Again, hate =/= hate speech. Please, that is completely not what I wrote. This entire side bar was ridiculous. That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[Delta]

The :\ in this case means I'm being sarcastic. But if my faith that WOTC won't republish my valuable, valuable message board posts is wishful thinking, then why isn't the fear that WOTC will "steal" from message board posters just so much message-board drama? (I know, I know... it's just "common sense." :\)

Here's where some of my sensibility may be coming from. I usually work from home, and when I have lunch I turn on the TV for a half-hour. At that time here in New York there's mostly these judge-arbitration-court shows on.

The thing that comes up over and over again (like 50% of the cases) is that once you have a written agreement, whatever someone said verbally about the agreement -- before, during, or after -- holds no legal weight whatsoever. You can have your best friend for life, that you've given thousands of dollars over the years, swear on everything that's holy that they'll do something -- but if there's a piece of paper saying otherwise, you've got zero right to it.

That's specifically the rather tough entertainment value of these shows, they search for people in exactly these situations, and then day after day when it comes up the judge laughs at them for believing something said contrary to an official contract.

So when WOTC writes a license and then immediately following the license says, "It is not the intention of Wizards to commercially exploit User Content through the foregoing license grants," that in and of itself is outright bad behavior. It's the kind of trickery that's played on people who are fuzzy on the status of contracts in the law, and all by itself it smells bad. My TV schedule is filled, day after day, with judges laughing at people and wondering why they'd ever believe something like that.

Even if WOTC never does use those rights -- just the fact that they're trying get people in the habit of favoring unofficial words over official binding licenses is in and of itself bad behavior, and detrimental to the people who are their customers.

 

[Hussar]

Well, there's one thing, no two things that this thread has demonstrated to me.

1. If you want to publish something DON'T PUT IT ON THE GLEEMAX BOARDS. Of course, why anyone would want to put something they want to publish on a public forum is beyond me, but, apparently people want to be able to do whatever they want without consequence.

2. It is abundantly clear that WOTC should use language which is 100% in their favor. Showing the slightest bit of caring would result in people twisting their language and screwing WOTC as hard as they can. If they tried to be fair about it, people would abuse them like a ... really abusable thing. I applaud them actually for being upfront about this and saying it straight out. It's not a secret. There's no nefarious agenda here. They are flat out saying, "Don't post here if you think your idea has commercial value". So, they lose out on the .00001 % of posts that they might have gotten otherwise.