Hasbro's plan to include AI in D&D brings WOTC's controversies over digital rights back into the spotlight, specifically the Dragon Magazine CD-ROM Archive.
(UPDATED: Thanks to See for giving additional context) That "legal dispute" was Greenberg v. National Geographic:
Relevant to the decision was another case, New York Times Company, Inc. v. Tasini. LEXIS/NEXIS archived New York Times articles written by freelance authors for various print publishers in a computer database:
The two cases were intertwined in how the courts viewed if a CD-ROM collection was legally feasible. Various appeals courts traded the issue back and forth over the years through 2008, adding enough confusion that TSR and WOTC were likely unsure as to their legal hurdles to produce a CD-ROM archive.
The question, which was new to electronic databases, was if publishers violated freelance author copyrights by publishing their articles in a database without their permission.
It was a risky bet. The Tasini case was referenced multiple times as the Greenberg vs. National Geographic case bounced around the courts. The Supreme Court decided in the Tasini decision by 7-2 that The New York Times Company did indeed violate author rights:
One appellate court ruled against Greenberg v. National Geographic in 2001. In 2005, another appellate court ruled that Greenberg was inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Tasini, and ruled in favor of National Geographic. In 2007, the Eleventh Circuit reversed its prior decision and remanded the case back to the U.S. district court, agreeing with the Second Circuit ruling that Greenberg was inconsistent with the later Tasini decision.
All this confusion was a problem for WOTC. Dragon Magazine included fiction, and many of those authors who contributed to the magazine over the years were members of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA). They turned to the organization for help, who took up the mantle in March 1999:
WOTC was in hot water. While details of the settlement to the fiction authors was never publicly shared (by all accounts, the SFWA secured a settlement for a number of authors to clear the way for the archive's release), The Knights of the Dinner Table comics were a different story.
Knights of the Dinner Table saw publication in Dragon Magazine starting in 1996 with issue #226, continuing through issue #250 in the Archive. It was not produced for the magazine as a work-for-hire; the agreement specifically excluded electronic reprint rights. This, coupled with the outcome of the Supreme Court case, made it clear WOTC was in breach of contract. David Kenzer, an IP attorney and founder of Kenzer & Company, wanted compensation for those twenty-five strips. None was forthcoming, resulting in a lawsuit.
As part of a settlement agreement, Kenzer gained a seven-year license to use the Dungeons & Dragons brand on Kingdoms of Kalamar products. The Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting was published carrying the D&D 3rd Edition logo in 2001, with more than thirty products later released with the D&D through 2007.
The Dragon Magazine Archive was part of the ongoing legal headache WOTC inherited from then parent company of Dungeons & Dragons, TSR. But it has a lot of parallels with how artificial intelligence is being used to farm content, and it provides a guidepost for future conflicts if authors and artists decide to use legal means to defend their rights.
We'll discuss the implications of these lawsuits and settlements and what they mean for AI, authors, and artists in the next article.
A Simple Idea
It all started with a simple idea: wouldn't it be great to have all the past issues of Dragon Magazine electronically searchable in one place? For fans, the Dragon Magazine CD-ROM Archive was a dream come true. It was also a nightmare for Wizards of the Coast:(UPDATED: Thanks to See for giving additional context) That "legal dispute" was Greenberg v. National Geographic:
Relevant to the decision was another case, New York Times Company, Inc. v. Tasini. LEXIS/NEXIS archived New York Times articles written by freelance authors for various print publishers in a computer database:
The two cases were intertwined in how the courts viewed if a CD-ROM collection was legally feasible. Various appeals courts traded the issue back and forth over the years through 2008, adding enough confusion that TSR and WOTC were likely unsure as to their legal hurdles to produce a CD-ROM archive.
The question, which was new to electronic databases, was if publishers violated freelance author copyrights by publishing their articles in a database without their permission.
The Gamble
WOTC took a gamble that, undoubtedly because the process would be onerous and expensive, they didn't need to contact the original authors and artists who contributed to every Dragon Magazine article. Broadly speaking, there were three groups of concern: tabletop game designers (the largest group), fiction writers, and comic artists.It was a risky bet. The Tasini case was referenced multiple times as the Greenberg vs. National Geographic case bounced around the courts. The Supreme Court decided in the Tasini decision by 7-2 that The New York Times Company did indeed violate author rights:
One appellate court ruled against Greenberg v. National Geographic in 2001. In 2005, another appellate court ruled that Greenberg was inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Tasini, and ruled in favor of National Geographic. In 2007, the Eleventh Circuit reversed its prior decision and remanded the case back to the U.S. district court, agreeing with the Second Circuit ruling that Greenberg was inconsistent with the later Tasini decision.
All this confusion was a problem for WOTC. Dragon Magazine included fiction, and many of those authors who contributed to the magazine over the years were members of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA). They turned to the organization for help, who took up the mantle in March 1999:
The Fallout
If Valterra sounds familiar, he subsequently left WOTC to form his own company, the Valar Project, which produced The Book of Erotic Fantasy, in response to WOTC's Book of Vile Darkness not going quite far enough. This triggered a "purity clause" in the then D20 license, which caused a migration to the Open Game License, The Book of Erotic Fantasy included.WOTC was in hot water. While details of the settlement to the fiction authors was never publicly shared (by all accounts, the SFWA secured a settlement for a number of authors to clear the way for the archive's release), The Knights of the Dinner Table comics were a different story.
Knights of the Dinner Table saw publication in Dragon Magazine starting in 1996 with issue #226, continuing through issue #250 in the Archive. It was not produced for the magazine as a work-for-hire; the agreement specifically excluded electronic reprint rights. This, coupled with the outcome of the Supreme Court case, made it clear WOTC was in breach of contract. David Kenzer, an IP attorney and founder of Kenzer & Company, wanted compensation for those twenty-five strips. None was forthcoming, resulting in a lawsuit.
As part of a settlement agreement, Kenzer gained a seven-year license to use the Dungeons & Dragons brand on Kingdoms of Kalamar products. The Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting was published carrying the D&D 3rd Edition logo in 2001, with more than thirty products later released with the D&D through 2007.
Why This Matters
The final ruling of the appellate courts was that National Geographic's magazine reproduction was privileged under the federal copyright statute. Since that ruling, several publications have produced DVDs or restricted websites for subscribers, including National Geographic, who released a 120-year archive of its magazines in 2009.The Dragon Magazine Archive was part of the ongoing legal headache WOTC inherited from then parent company of Dungeons & Dragons, TSR. But it has a lot of parallels with how artificial intelligence is being used to farm content, and it provides a guidepost for future conflicts if authors and artists decide to use legal means to defend their rights.
We'll discuss the implications of these lawsuits and settlements and what they mean for AI, authors, and artists in the next article.
