Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[Storm Raven]

Pardon me, but I don't have to show anything at all to a US court. End of story. I might choose to tell them my position, but I don't submit to their jurisdiction.

You are not understanding this. Among other beses, U.S. Courts use a "stream of commerce" theory of personal jurisdiction. That is, if you introduce something to the "stream of commerce" with a reasonable liklihood of entering the U.S., then they have personal jursidiction over you. Your consent is beside the point. I think it is obvious that there is a reasonable liklihood that OSRIC and products derived from it will enter the U.S., subjecting you to personal jursidiction under U.S. law. You don't have to show up and defend the suit, but then a default judgment will be entered against you. The judgment may or may not be enforceable (likely not outside the U.S., but certainly against anything in the U.S.), but it will be entered.

And if you do choose to tell them your position (by showing up, sending a letter contesting the merits, or anything similar), then you have waived personal jurisdiction. And the whole "stream of commerce" issue is moot.

 

[dcas]

Gygax's case didn't just involve IP from what I understand, there were stockholder issues and business contracts and so on mixed in. I do recall that Gygax did lose control of most of the IP he produced while working for TSR, so I don't think he is a very good example to cite on this.

I guess it depends on which Gygax case we're talking about. IIRC, he tried to stop the hostile takeover of TSR and lost (just or no). He then sold all of the IP he owned from works published while he worked for TSR.

TSR later brought suit against GDW and Omega Helios (which I think was a corporation formed by GDW and Trigee Enterprises, Gary's company to manage his IP) claiming that Dangerous Journeys infringed on TSR's intellectual property. This case was settled by TSR buying the rights and the stock to Dangerous Journeys for a sizable amount of money. Some believe that the legal fees spent by TSR pursuing this case, as well as the settlement money, was a big factor in TSR's later money woes.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm still blown away by the damages.

The damages are an "up to" amount. For inadvertent infringement, the range is from $750 to $30,000 per violation. So, the damages could be as low as $750 for a single instance of infringement. Willful infringement has a much higher damage ceiling, but it is harder to prove.

And the fact that just about every professional illustrator and artist I've personally known swares (at some point) they've seen someone else immitating their work doesn't help.

Similarity isn't enough. You must prove actual copying. In the case of something like OSRIC, that's not an issue, since we know that P&P is using WotC material to produce it. The question there is "is the material subject to copyright to begin with" in the case of systems information, and "was the material made subject to open license" with respect to terminology. But in the case of an artist saying "hey! that t-shirt design looks like one of my paintings!", they have to prove that the t-shirt artist used their painting as a basis for their copy.

Also, I don't know a single pro. artist/illustrator who's incorporated (which makes me think it offers no protection regarding copywrite violation). So, that means if some nut job takes your buyer (say a greeting card company) to court over something they claim you copied, and an idiot judge agrees, you (the artists) could loose your house, your life savings.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If they are suing your buyer, how do you stand to lose money? if they sue you and are found to be infringing, then the buyer is on the hook for the material he sold that infringed, but it doesn't travel upstream unless you are brought in on the suit.

Nah. I just don't buy it. I've just never heard of this kind of thing happening. The general rule of thumb in the art community seems to be, as long as you don't actually copy the work, your fine.

Funny enough, that's the rule of copyrights. Similarity is not enough - copying is the question. Heck, it's in the name of the area of law: COPYrights.

So, I could do an impressionistic painting of a photo I've seen, or a sculpture could do a piece based on that painting (as long as none of these were close duplicates). Now if I wanted to do a photo realistic painting of another artists photo, I "might" need to get that artists permission (and most without a doubt would).

if they could demonstrate that you used the artist's work to make yours, then you would likely have created a derivative work, which would infringe. But they would have to show you copied from the photo or painting when you made your impressionistic painting or sculpture, and were not simply inspired by a similar bit of scenery. Proving copying can be easy, or it can be hard. That is an issue that depends on the facts of each case.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, Storm Raven, I must say that all this confirms that I personally couldn't be harmed by the US courts. There's no revenue stream coming to me from OSRIC, from the US or otherwise, so a decision from a US court would affect me... well, about as much as a decision from the court in Timbuktoo.

It is conceivable that, in the future, I might begin to earn tens or even dozens of dollars. Not worth getting stressed over.

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't fight in the US. It just means I don't have to.

 

[WSmith]

OSRIC or no OSRIC, it won't matter to me cause AD&D takes me back to 1980, when my 20-sider was labeled 0-9 twice, and I had to color on of each number with a crayon for numbers from 11-20!

I love OSRIC, but it is just a way to get mo' newer stuff for the Original.

 

[tx7321]

Raven Crow: "if they could demonstrate that you used the artist's work to make yours, then you would likely have created a derivative work, which would infringe. But they would have to show you copied from the photo or painting when you made your impressionistic painting or sculpture"

Hmmm...thats very interesting. Its always been my understanding if the final image looks somewhat different from the original you were "safe". But apparently the derivative aspect could stretch into "similar" to almost completely different. All you have to do is prove in court (there might be a witness, or even the artists own admission) that anothers work was copied (or used as the primary reference) and walla he's toast. Yet if there was no witness, and no admission etc. the offending artists could have an almost exact duplicate of anothers work and he'd be safe (assuming you couldn't prove copying...despite the fact that its obvious...why am I not surprised).

EDITED - found answer to that question, so here's another.


Raven wrote: "And derivative works of an infringing work are also infringements. So publishers under OSRIC, even if they thought it was kosher to use could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights."

So, would OSRIC first have to be found to be in violation of Copywrite law before WOTC could go after the publishers? Your statement sounds like that. "...could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights"

Also, wouldn't that require a seperate case per offender? I realize this is all academic, the sales numbers (for now) for these modules are way to low for WOTC to ever mess with. And, as others have pointed out, WOTC probably has a very shaky case if they did bring it to trial (given the OGL, that it might be in a British court, etc.+



Oh, BTW I wasn't referring to Papers and Paychecks situation with OSRIC, but rather just about the law in general.

 

[EditorBFG]

I simply don't understand the complaints about descending AC. It seems perfectly intuitive to me; it's hardly advanced math!

I'm not one to shy away from advanced math, even if it were, but I always think whatever makes things go faster at the table is best. Some of us are number crunchers (I certainly am, as you can see by many of the products I write) and some of us aren't-- by aptitude or more likely desire-- and a game is better off appealing to as many people as it can.

This is why I think AD&D 1E will remain a niche market, and it will never gain many more adherents than it already has. There is nothing wrong with that at all-- thanks to the Internet, niche markest can be reached directly and cheaply, resulting in everyone getting what they want. And that is a Good Thing. But I still believe my response to the original poster's question was correct, though only time will tell.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that, is considered easy.

 

[Storm Raven]

Raven wrote: "And derivative works of an infringing work are also infringements. So publishers under OSRIC, even if they thought it was kosher to use could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights."

So, would OSRIC first have to be found to be in violation of Copywrite law before WOTC could go after the publishers? Your statement sounds like that. "...could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights"

No, you don't have to go after the originator first. Making copied works, no matter your relation with the original producer, is an infringement. So if I make prints of an artist's work, and then another person uses those prints to create a derivative work from them, the artist doesn't have to go after me to go after the creator of the derivative work. He could go after me and the other guy, or just me, or just him. It is the plaintiff's choice. Of course, securing a judgment against one of use will make it all the easier to go after the other later.

Also, wouldn't that require a seperate case per offender? I realize this is all academic, the sales numbers (for now) for these modules are way to low for WOTC to ever mess with. And, as others have pointed out, WOTC probably has a very shaky case if they did bring it to trial (given the OGL, that it might be in a British court, etc.+

In some cases, yes, it would require a seperate suit. In others, no. That comes down to a fact oriented question in which the answer varies depending upon the circumstances.

The biggest issue for WotC here is likely to be the OGL, although a lot of people have, I believe, an overly expansive view of what it covers. The venue question is really a non-issue: the plaintiff almost always gets to choose the venue, and if WotC doesn't want to go to a British court, they can almost certainly get personal jurisdiction over P&P in a U.S. court, should they so choose. They could go to a British court at their option, but they don't have to.

 

[Storm Raven]

I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that, is considered easy.

In general, people find adding easier than subtracting.