No 4E Fan Content Allowed on the Intenet?

[Mark]

I think any company that publishes material also knows that the default fansite policy is whatever the law between the parties involved dictates. Of course, if it is a website, it not only makes a difference where both parties reside but where a company might have representation and the location the server on which the website lives. One approach beyond relying strictly on actual law is to offer an incentive to get fans to agree to a more restrictive policy in exchange for some benefit, like specific images or logo use. Another approach is to publically express that you are being more lenient than the law would normally allow, perhaps to spread word of your products more widely by using the fans as a network. A company not having a specifically stated public fan policy does not mean they have no policy nor that they do not care or are not aware of what the fanbase might be doing. Just to be clear.

 

[evilref]

I think any company that publishes material also knows that the default fansite policy is whatever the law between the parties involved dictates. <snip>.

Absolutely. WotC's one offers artwork and 'some rights'. White Wolf offers exposure via their website and 'some rights'. They also claim other rights that are arguable (some judges might rule yes, some might rule no).

I'd definitely agree that the best policy would be one that encouraged more fansites and more exposure (virtually free marketing) for the game. How well WotC's one does that is hard to say. To date, aside from friend of my dog's second cousin's postman rumours aside, they've only publicly gone after sites which were clearly in violation of international copyright laws (and flagrantly so).

Personally I think the policy could be better, but it's far from the worst out there (Catalyst Games having the best specifically for Eclipse Phase where the game and its art are all under Creative Commons).

 

[ki11erDM]

It's a good point but you should elaborate, please.

To over simplify it, a public company must protect the shareholder’s interests or risk being sued by them. In a private company you have no such concerns (outside of any partners you have) so you can make unilateral decisions even if that means it will devalue your company.

That does not mean that WotC can’t say “sure put up whatever you want” but if they do and that somehow devalues the company the shareholders are well within their rights to sue, so they have to make sure every I is dotted and every T is crossed, and even then they probably could have issues. They have to decide if it is worth having their lawyers spend time appeasing a minuscule amount of their customer base or just keep it vague.

The next time you see Adkison at a convention ask him about it… I am sure he has a few interesting things to say about it.

 

[Wicht]

Fantasy Flight Games
Chaosium (nothing easily findable)
AEG (nothing easily findable)
Green Ronin (nothing easily findable for M&M other than Superlink or for AGoT)
ArcDream (nothing easily findable)
Archaia Studios Press
Eden Studios (it had one but the link's gone dead)
Eos Press (nothing easily findable)
ICE (nothing easily findable)

I could keep googling, but as I said, most...

[aside]Is ICE still in business? I thought they had close down.[/aside]

My first observation would be that a small publisher doesn't need a fan site policy. Not to be snarky, but you have to have enough fans who care enough to get fan sites. Small publishers just simply aren't well known enough to require one so it would be a bit presumptious of them to make one before it was ever required. Paizo only came out with theirs when it was clear that their fans wanted to make things. Which is when one should be made

So if you are including every small publisher who ever put out an RPG in your statement that Most Don't Have One then I would say "yes, you are right, so what?"

My second observation would be that to have a policy, I would think that the work you produce must be your own and not a license. AEG does Farscape I believe but I doubt they are legally allowed a fansite policy for that game. (There are fan sites for legends of the five rings but I don't know the relationship between AEG and their customers, not being one.)

So... on your list you googled, the only two I think should have a policy that doesn't would be Green Ronin and Chaosium. I wouldn't be surprised if Green Ronin came out with one before too long as they continue to garner fans. I also notice that the Chaosium web site links to fan sites directly, so I am guessing there is some sort of policy there.

But again, to summarize, only the big boys in RPG publishing need a fan site policy and who are the big boys?

My list would be:
WotC
Paizo
White Wolf
Chaosium
Steve Jackson

Of those five, four have clearly stated fan site policies and the other (Chaosium) openly supports fan sites.

Others can feel free to suggest why other publishers might have a bigger following than the five I listed.

 

[Wicht]

Please don't strawman my position.

At no point did I say any other rpg companies were not willing to do so. I stated that other companies didn't have one. That's not the same thing at all.

My apologies.

 

[evilref]

[aside]Is ICE still in business? I thought they had close down.[/aside]

Google's your friend...


Moreover, your post shows you really don't have that much grasp on the industry. AEG published L5R long before they even conceived of doing Farscape, likewise 7th Sea. And given the Farscape license has reverted, why would you even mention it? Likewise there are companies with far larger sales/profits than Chaosium or SJG. Paizo's sales pre-Pathfinder's release were nowhere near the top five. It remains to be seen if Pathfinder will push them into it long-term with their publishing strategy (they were certainly in it for the month of PFRPG's release but that could be a (very large) blip).

As for your argument, nice moving of the goalposts. Sure if you want to pick and choose which companies 'need' a policy you can frame it however you like. My entire point, however, was that most RPG companies don't have one (or an obvious one). Which is true.

 

[Wicht]

Moreover, your post shows you really don't have that much grasp on the industry. AEG published L5R long before they even conceived of doing Farscape, likewise 7th Sea. And given the Farscape license has reverted, why would you even mention it? Likewise there are companies with far larger sales/profits than Chaosium or SJG. Paizo's sales pre-Pathfinder's release were nowhere near the top five. It remains to be seen if Pathfinder will push them into it long-term with their publishing strategy (they were certainly in it for the month of PFRPG's release but that could be a (very large) blip).

As for your argument, nice moving of the goalposts. Sure if you want to pick and choose which companies 'need' a policy you can frame it however you like. My entire point, however, was that most RPG companies don't have one (or an obvious one). Which is true.

I only mention Farscape by way of example.

RE I.C.E. I see they are still there. For some reason I thought someone else had bought them out or they had stopped publishing. (The Last I.C.E. product I bought was in the mid eighties.)

I agree that Paizo's success is recent and I mentioned that their fan-license is recent too. Strangely though WotC has been big for much longer and Paizo released their's first IIRC. Paizo however has a very active fan base at the moment.

I view Chaosium and SJG as big boys in the hobby because while they may not sell as much as others they have devoted bases who are well established. As to your point as to others selling more, that may be so, but I would be interested in knowing where you get your figures. And I did offer invites into suggestions as to which companies deserve to be in the top five.

As to moving the goal posts. Please. I said quite plainly that if you are making an open statement which includes every little RPG publisher ever, "what is your point?" Its true that most RPG companies don't have one. I acknowledge its true. But it proves nothing one way or another as most RPG companies dont need a policy. They simply aren't well known enough. Its, to borrow a phrase, a strawman. Of the ones who need a policy, how many have one or don't?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It's funny you should mention that, because my cousin twice removed's lover's bigsister's fiancé works in WOtC's legal team, and he says they have never sent out such C&D letters. The only people getting those have been people charging for WotC IP or otherwise abusing it (such as posting wholesale parts of WotC products).

Of course, I can't give you his name, because obviously, he would lose his job immediately.

Cheers

You know, it's easier to say "I don't believe you" then to make a whole paragraph that basically says "I'm a giant prick"

Cheers!

 

[evilref]

As to moving the goal posts. Please. I said quite plainly that if you are making an open statement which includes every little RPG publisher ever, "what is your point?" Its true that most RPG companies don't have one. I acknowledge its true. But it proves nothing one way or another as most RPG companies dont need a policy. They simply aren't well known enough. Its, to borrow a phrase, a strawman. Of the ones who need a policy, how many have one or don't?

How do you define 'well known enough'? Move away from EnWorld and you'll see far more games and gaming companies being discussed.

Edit: Moreover, if your only determination of whether a company needs a policy is size then I find it confusing. Surely the determination should be how many fan sites there are, or how many people want to have fan sites for the company's products. The one doesn't automatically correlate to the other.

 

[Wicht]

How do you define 'well known enough'? Move away from EnWorld and you'll see far more games and gaming companies being discussed.

Edit: Moreover, if your only determination of whether a company needs a policy is size then I find it confusing. Surely the determination should be how many fan sites there are, or how many people want to have fan sites for the company's products. The one doesn't automatically correlate to the other.

I'm getting confused. I thought it was you who made the point about Steve Jackson Games being too small and that it was me who retorted that they had a large and established fan base.

Well Known is part of the factor. Makes games that make you want to make a fan site is certainly another. To reiterate: Paizo has a large, active, creative fan-base that were chomping at the bit to make fan sites. Paizo released a policy. To reask the relevant question: How many RPG companies need a fan site policy that don't have one? (I ask this not to be arguementative but in an effort to move the conversation along in a constructive manner.)