Goodman NOT going GSL it looks like

[Thunderfoot]

You need to check your facts. It's been the policy in America for years that private works automatically have copyright applied to them. You don't need to "apply" for it.

I direct you here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/myths/part1/

The very first myth dispelled is this one:

Correct - it doesn't have to fly the flag - but when the tax man comes to pay the bills, you had better have your affairs in order...trust me. Also from the quoted document:

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended
to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for
protection, the copyright law provides several inducements
or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. (emphasis mine)
Among these advantages are the following:
• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright
claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration
is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, registration
will establish prima facie evidence in court of
the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in
the certificate.
• If registration is made within three months after publication
of the work or prior to an infringement of the work,
statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to
the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an
award of actual damages and profits is available to the
copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record
the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection
against the importation of infringing copies. For
additional information, go to the U. S. Customs and
Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import.
Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”
Registration may be made at any time within the life of
the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has
been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to
make another registration when the work becomes published,
although the copyright owner may register the published
edition, if desired.

 

[Knightfall]

Daaaaaammmmmnnnnn!

I am so interested in that setting, but 4e is not my playstyle at all. Played it, don't want anything at all to do with it. I own your 3.5e materials. Violet Dawn is a strong non-traditional setting like Athas and has a lot of potential. Shame I won't be able to use any of the mchanics.

Well, the Inner Circle hasn't ruled out doing a systemless version of Violet Dawn for those not keen on 4e and the GSL. Make sure you check out the company's new forum...

http://www.the-conclave.com/

 

[Alzrius]

Correct - it doesn't have to fly the flag - but when the tax man comes to pay the bills, you had better have your affairs in order...trust me. Also from the quoted document:

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended
to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for
protection, the copyright law provides several inducements
or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. (emphasis mine)

I appreciate that you're backpedaling as fast as possible, but that doesn't make your original point...

As a music publisher, if you do not apply for a copyright you are not granted a copyright.

...any less wrong.

It's advantageous to register your copyright, certainly, but you still have copyright without registration.

EDIT: And the tax man doesn't come to pay the bills; he comes to collect the taxes.

 

[pemerton]

A "Cease and Desist" letter in no way proves whether or not something is legal.

Nor does the failure of WoTC to take legal action.

I know certain lawyers around here said they think OSRIC is illegal, however WOTC's inactivity towards OSRIC is far stronger proof that it isn't. Especially since WOTC and OSRIC had legal communication and nothing went to court.

The failure to sue is not proof that OSRIC does not violate WoTC's rights. It is evidence that WoTC has chosen not to try and enforce any rights it feels are being violated. There can be all sorts of reasons for this.

Plus WOTC only has/had 3 years to do anything about OSRIC. If that time frame has passed, then OSRIC cannot be touched simply because the statute of limitations has run out.

In copyright matters, when does the statute begin to run? I would assume it is in respect of each violation. Thus, I would have thought that every time the publishers of OSRIC distribute a copy, or another publisher using the OSRIC licence distributes OSRIC material, then WoTC gets a right of suit.

It may be that WoTC may be said to have sat on their rights and thus be precluded (maybe estopped) from enforcing them. But if they've been sending out cease and desist letters then they certainly have not been sitting on their rights.

 

[Treebore]

Nor does the failure of WoTC to take legal action.


The failure to sue is not proof that OSRIC does not violate WoTC's rights. It is evidence that WoTC has chosen not to try and enforce any rights it feels are being violated. There can be all sorts of reasons for this.

In copyright matters, when does the statute begin to run? I would assume it is in respect of each violation. Thus, I would have thought that every time the publishers of OSRIC distribute a copy, or another publisher using the OSRIC licence distributes OSRIC material, then WoTC gets a right of suit.

It may be that WoTC may be said to have sat on their rights and thus be precluded (maybe estopped) from enforcing them. But if they've been sending out cease and desist letters then they certainly have not been sitting on their rights.

WOTC has from the time OSRIC started being distributed. Or, more precisely, from the time they are aware of the work. So whenever WOTC became aware of the existence of OSRIC. Likely to be the time in which WOTC and OSRIC communicated with each other.

Another angle that I find interesting about OSRIC. You cannot be sued for copyright infringement unless you can prove financial loss/damage. You have to be able to prove that, or you cannot sue successfully (this is a point I got from one of the Copyright Law professors papers I read, which I also saw something in the law itself that also supported this).

So even if, and I still think it is a big if, OSRIC does actually violate copyright law, WOTC can't sue unless they can prove financial loss/damage. WOTC isn't actively producing any product directly competing with OSRIC. They allow the sale of old edition PDF's. In all liklihood OSRIC can claim it helps WOTC sell those PDF's, not reduce their sale.

Interesting stuff.

 

[pemerton]

WOTC has from the time OSRIC started being distributed. Or, more precisely, from the time they are aware of the work. So whenever WOTC became aware of the existence of OSRIC. Likely to be the time in which WOTC and OSRIC communicated with each other.

Can you cite authority for this? I'd like to read it.

Also, what happens when someone else distribute OSRIC material under licence from the OSRIC publishers? Presumably time in respect of that violation runs from the time that it is distributed.

You cannot be sued for copyright infringement unless you can prove financial loss/damage.

I'm don't quite see how this can be right. To eject you from my property I don't need to prove loss. I just need to prove it's my property. That's the point of property rights.

I find it hard to believe that I need to prove loss to get an injunction stopping you distributing material that infringes on my IP rights. Certainly, in Australian law loss is not an element in breach of confidence, and I don't see why copyright would differ.

Furthermore, if loss has to be proved, then what is the purpose of the statutory damages regime that operates once copyright has been registered?

So even if, and I still think it is a big if, OSRIC does actually violate copyright law, WOTC can't sue unless they can prove financial loss/damage. WOTC isn't actively producing any product directly competing with OSRIC. They allow the sale of old edition PDF's. In all liklihood OSRIC can claim it helps WOTC sell those PDF's, not reduce their sale.

See, what you say about the Limitations Statute and what you say about the need to prove loss make no sense. It would make no sense that, if OSRIC causes no loss to WoTC until year 6 of distribution, then they can't sue at that point because more than 3 years have passed since the commencement of distribution.

If that was correct, then I could violate anyone's copyright I liked by distributing in only very small quantities for the 1st 3 years, thereby causing no loss, and then going to town once the 3 years had expired.

Sometimes the law is stupid, I'll admit, but it's rarely so stupid as to make itself pointless. So either there's something I'm missing in what you've said, or there's something wrong with what you've said.

 

[CountPopeula]

See, what you say about the Limitations Statute and what you say about the need to prove loss make no sense. It would make no sense that, if OSRIC causes no loss to WoTC until year 6 of distribution, then they can't sue at that point because more than 3 years have passed since the commencement of distribution.

If that was correct, then I could violate anyone's copyright I liked by distributing in only very small quantities for the 1st 3 years, thereby causing no loss, and then going to town once the 3 years had expired.

Sometimes the law is stupid, I'll admit, but it's rarely so stupid as to make itself pointless. So either there's something I'm missing in what you've said, or there's something wrong with what you've said.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I did learn a little about this because I followed the Gaiman vs MacFarlane case. There is indeed a 3 year statute of limitations on this in the US, and it is from the time you become aware of the infringement. It came up because MacFarlane tried to use this to his advantage, but was struck down because simply publishing something and (in this case) claiming a copyright you don't own doesn't start the clock, the copyright owner becoming aware of it does (in this case it was in a letter discussing Miracleman rights MacFarlane had sent Gaiman almost, but not quite, 3 years before he filed suit). It's not the copyright owner's responsibility to scan everything published to find infringements, but he does have to act in a timely manner once he becomes aware of an infringement.

As for proving damages, that can be as simple as "doing damage to the brand." It doesn't have to be an actual monetary loss. If I drew a comic of Donald Duck performing carnal acts with Mickey Mouse, Disney could sue because it dilutes their copyright, not because it was competing with Disney's new music about mickey and donald doing the nasty.

As far as OSRIC goes... I dunno. There's nothing to be gained by Wizards preventing people from writing and selling 1e adventures/products. They do have a financial interest in 4e compatible products, though, so they'll be more vigilant with those.

If the C&D rumor is true, this could all be very interesting. Wizards will have to be very sure they can win a lawsuit to push forward with one, because a loss would do more damage to them than a win would prevent.

 

[pemerton]

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I did learn a little about this because I followed the Gaiman vs MacFarlane case. There is indeed a 3 year statute of limitations on this in the US, and it is from the time you become aware of the infringement.

The question I'm interested in is "what counts as the infringement"? It is just the initial distribution, or each consequent distribution-event?

As for proving damages, that can be as simple as "doing damage to the brand." It doesn't have to be an actual monetary loss.

Right. That would be like the "detriment" dest for breach of confidence in English law. It is not what Treebore said, which was that financial loss must be proved.

 

[CountPopeula]

The question I'm interested in is "what counts as the infringement"? It is just the initial distribution, or each consequent distribution-event?

That I couldn't tell you, the case in question was about an issue of Spawn/ownership of Medieval Spawn and Angela. It was also a great lesson in not relying on an oral contract. And to a lesser extent not spending $4 million US on a baseball.

The actual dispute, in this case, was over copyright ownership. MacFarlane claimed to own the copyright in an issue of the comic, but Gaiman didn't become aware until he offered to trade the characters for MacFarlane's share of Miracleman/Marvelman, and MacFarlane basically responded that he owned them already.

It's not a perfect match for the 4e/GSL debate, but the statute of limitations is the same.

 

[rkwoodard]

I don't think OSRIC comparisons can be used

Hi,
I don't think we can use OSRIC for comparison anymore (ok, that is my dream anyway).

1) Stuart has stated he has had communication with WOTC, and he is not sharing it (good for him) but there is no danger. So, the legal speculation seems pointless untill WOTC does something to prove him wrong.

2) I belive it was M, Mearls that commented that if he wasn't playing 4th, he would play 1st edition and it was cool that it was still supported by efforts like OSRIC. Not a legal endorsement but heck it is enough for me to see OSRIC as a non-issue (legally speaking).

But, to add something on the OP. I think the evidence is adding up to show they are not using GSL. Sure they could backtrack everything come Oct, but really why go to all this trouble if you are going to come into compliance with the GSL in a matter of months anyway.

I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night,

RK