Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ninjayeti" data-source="post: 9422044" data-attributes="member: 6789120">This seems like a defense, but when you read it closely it  just raises more red flags.  "Neither Wizards nor the Arneson family estate had the license when this project began."  Even if this is true it is not even a little bit relevant to whether or not Ink Bat has the rights to use the IP in 2024.  The statement seems to hint at the fact (mentioned by Robert Reed of Code Monkey, linked above) that the project was started by Code Monkey in 2009 under a proper license.  But even if some work was done under a license in 2009 it does not mean a freelancer on that project could take the unfinished work, fill it in, and profit off of it in 2024. If there was no "conflict" (unclear what that even means - did you have the rights or didn't you?) why did Ink Bat approach the Estate asking for a license at all?  It seems like Ink Bat understood they needed one, and only balked when the Estate asked for proof of Arneson's involvement - at which point Ink Bat went radio silent.  This jibes with what Reed says about Suleiman being a freelancer who had no contact with Arneson.  Suleiman would not have had any proof, and the guys at Code Monkey who did have the proof would not have been inclined to help him out.  So the Estate's request was effectively a non-starter for Suleiman, who seems to have decided to take his chances without a license.  The bottom line is Ink Bat either had a license to use the IP or they didn't.  If they did, there is absolutely no downside to saying so.  The fact that the only defense that they even hint at is completely frivolous doesn't give me a lot of confidence that we will see they were acting in good faith when it all shakes out.</blockquote>

Verification