NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="schnee" data-source="post: 7733566" data-attributes="member: 16728">I've worked in publishing off and on for 25+ years, as a designer, people manager, and art director. So, hopefully, what I say here can clear some stuff up for most (but knowing this place nothing will ever satisfy a few).If my experience holds true, this is almost entirely about reducing their burden of policing their products for ignorant designers/content submitters who will get them into trouble with copyright infringement. And there's a decent chance it's even being driven by Wizards' legal team based on their legal exposure via proxy.They are trying to create an automated, turn-key system with as few touch points as possible that require active human intervention. They also want to reduce the burden on 'expert' employees, people who have a lot of training, cost a lot of money, and who are a scarce resource that needs to focus on things that have the most bang for buck for the company.You know who's really expensive? A Lawyer. Especially one that has a narrow skill set that isn't necessary in running the business day to day, and must be kept on retainer, or paid for even when they're not being used.You know what screws up an automated turn-key system, in a way that requires expensive people? Fending off copyright claims, cease-and-desist orders, or lawsuits resulting from content creators using copyright-infringing logos on material that they are wholly responsible for.So, here's the scenario:Content Submitter A submits their module. The cover has their logo next to the JG logo. Here's the nightmare scenarios they are trying to avoid:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That logo is done in exactly the same font as the D&D logo, with the same ampersand, attempting to look official</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That logo is a knock-off of any number of previous D&D edition logos</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That logo uses art that was not granted permission to use, probably snaked from a Google Images search</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I could go on, but you get the point.</li> </ul>The distinction between having 'text' of a company name and a 'text logo' of that same name is really telling. It means that a company name in a bog-standard, commercially available font (like Helvetica, Papyrus *ugh*, etcetera) doesn't worry them, but someone using a logo with letter forms specifically designed to stand out or function as a single piece (like the official D&D logo with the ampersand - with a font that is either custom or extensively tweaked). They really want to avoid anything on the cover that can be construed as a logo other than one they control.It's obvious they don't have the staff or the bandwidth to handle this stuff, because they haven't even properly worked through all their materials to catch the inconsistencies in their policies even to this point. And having to deal with even a few of these can be brutal to the bottom line.It gets worse because companies *have* to protect their brands, and they are getting increasingly hair-triggered about it because the process is getting so much easier to do. It's also cheap for them to act on potential 'false positives' - it's just an automated letter - so many firms send out letters to situations that meet a relatively low standard of possible infringement.It's going to get even worse, too. Look at how YouTube automates the process of copyright challenges entirely. Machine learning is making image recognition trivial. It's also poised to eliminate a huge number of positions of people in the legal world, because law itself is about creating a replicable logic flow and process, and once image recognition gets hooked up to a legal bot that can send out an infringement notice at the cost of pennies, and the cost to the company that responds has to measure that time spent in three-digit dollars per hour - it's going to get crazy.So, IMO, this is a good policy for them. They're not executing on it as well as the could have, but IMO that just signifies the necessity of them to do this for their own good. They can't afford to have people good enough to evaluate copyright claims on staff to handle them, even if they did it wouldn't be worth fighting it out, so they're punting, and this is the most efficient way to eliminate that huge risk.It kinda sucks, sure, but it's a natural consequence of how things are.</blockquote>

Verification