In case you didn't know: The WotC community is FREE

[Raven Crowking]

removed

 

[Garmorn]

That may be true. I want to clarify that I'm not saying that policy, if indeed it is their policy, is a bad one... only that it means that the board isn't actually free.

Ok, missunderstood. Then again, if ownership is not transferred what is it costing? If ownership was transferred I would agree.

Of course, the idea that WotC developers are going to waste their time sifting through the ideas on the forums looking for the one idea to steal as opposed to coming up with their own is, to me, solidly in the realm of Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies.

All it takes is one greed person to ruin things or give a large corporation a hard time.

 

[Garmorn]

Double Post removed

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wizards of the Coast

It reads as not a transition of ownership, but rather granting license for Wizards to use the content by default.

To quote the wise Admiral Akbar " ITS A TRAP!"

 

[Barastrondo]

To quote the wise Admiral Akbar " ITS A TRAP!"

Having been on the other side of some of these things, I can only say... it's complicated.

The "good sportsmanship" approach to this rule is fairly simple: Wizards would like to, for instance, promote the community by doing up pages that show sample bits of content and then link back to the user's created pages. Without a license, they can't do that. So it can be used in a sort of "everybody benefits" way, and I'd be surprised if most of the Wizards team had any other kind of aspiration.

Then there's the "covering our asses" angle. This is the sad requirement that lawyers place on companies who create. If you don't get out there and defend your IP, and you let it be used without penalty, you essentially lose the right to call it yours. Lawyers hate that, and for good reason: you're giving more away than you might eventually be able to afford. It's ugly and irritating, but that's IP law, and if you make a living off your IP, it's a concern.

I don't know if Wizards could do much less without going against legal advice. I do think that the terms of it you granting them a license to use your stuff instead of outright ownership is a strong sign of good sportsmanship, though.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Having been on the other side of some of these things, I can only say... it's complicated.

I know why they have to do things the way they do it just isn't the most friendly and relaxed forum for the average gamer to exchange ideas compared to non-corporate affiliated sites. Since there are many places without attached strings to gather and share ideas it doesn't matter if one particular site has more restrictive policies. Gamers can vote with thier bookmarks.

 

[mudbunny]

I know why they have to do things the way they do it just isn't the most friendly and relaxed forum for the average gamer to exchange ideas compared to non-corporate affiliated sites. Since there are many places without attached strings to gather and share ideas it doesn't matter if one particular site has more restrictive policies. Gamers can vote with thier bookmarks.

For the average gamer, whether their work is licensed to WotC or not makes little difference. For people planning on publishing their work, it might make a difference. But, if people are planning on publishing something, they really shouldn't be putting it anywhere on the internet in the first place.

 

[malraux]

wrong thread.

 

[pedr]

If you don't get out there and defend your IP, and you let it be used without penalty, you essentially lose the right to call it yours.

This is not true of copyright. Copyright exists the moment someone creates something and subsists until the right is transferred or whatever appropriate time period has passed (is the US duration life+70 years or something now?). I know the US has a registration requirement if you want an easy time of getting substantial damages for infringement, but as far as I know you don't have to defend copyright in any jurisdiction which has signed up to the Berne Convention.

You have to defend trademarks but that's different.

I think that the 'you must give us a permanent license to distribute etc' clause is primarily because of the fear of accusations that Wizards has committed plagiarism/copyright infringement - there is actually a quite small range of 'new' ideas for D&D (etc) and the chances that Wizards will be developing something similar enough to something posted on their forums is actually quite high. If Wizards can use that something posted, they don't have to worry about whether they can prove that they created it independently before reading the forum post - they're safe from claims that they've infringed copyright in that work whether they have copied it or not.

 

[Henrix]

If they didn't have that clause someone could claim to have the right to what might have started as speculation about future WotC products.

All the speculation going around sometimes gets it right, by pure chance.

It's not a clause to steal your ideas. Ideas are cheap - developing them is where the cost lies.