Whose "property" are the PCs?

[Brother Shatterstone]

What rules are being broken? What trust is being abused? THe player is no longer playing the character, its an NPC now. DM is in control of all NPCs.

Then the DM can make his own NPCs... You said it yourself, that it can lead to trouble so why chance it?

 

[diaglo]

Check again. OGL says you must include all the relevant copyright notices (S13) with all OGL works and indicate what portions of your work are OGL. Even if you OGL something you own the copyrights and grant a use license.

Many RPGs have released books of copyrighted characters and as long as they don't include the *rules* on how the character was created, they don't violated OGL. Exhibit A that WotC doesn't own the copyrights is the MMII, which included a 3rd party OGL creature (scorpionfolk, IIRC) *AND* the S13 giving notice the copyright belonged to a 3rd party but was used under the OGL.

Ignoring the game mechanics of the character, the name, race, sex, age, weight, height, description, background, and described personality of a character amount to a copyrighted body of work that is, barring some other contract, owned by the creator which is 99% of the time the player.

Now a character can include other copyrights (like Jedi(tm)) that could limit the player's ability to publish the character but the player is the owner of the character and Lucas couldn't take it from them. In other words, Lucas can't sell fan-fics without a contract from the author.

Same goes for DMs. Legally, if you did not create the PCs and hand them to the players, you do NOT own them. If you write a book/module/whatever about your campaign and include a character created by someone else they have a legal leg to stand on if they take issue with it. Especially since many players bring characters from one campaign to the next and can prove a history of ownership.

If it helps, think of the character as a cameo on a tv show or in a book. Just because the Hulk appeared on The Muppetshow doesn't mean Jim Henson "owns" the Hulk.

you and i agree. by the inclusion of the statements about OGL in the material you are giving notice that some of this is owned.
just like muppets and hulk. jim henson "owns" the right to air the episode or not. that is what he paid the hulk to do. for that one episode. jim does "own" hulk. and can air it when he wants.


OGL. that is what Open means. but you must still acknowledge that there is something to it. Giving cred... where it is due.

diaglo "hats d02 but still must call it D&D cuz they own the license" Ooi

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

$0.02 from a lawyer

I'd have to say the character belongs to the player who created it- its his copyright.

Look at the way the Thieves' World books worked: Author #1 creates a character and writes a story about it. Author #2 uses the same character- BUT ONLY AFTER GETTING PERMISSION from Author #1.

Unless the player expressly gives the PC to the DM to use as an NPC, the player has the right to nix that.

If the DM thinks he REALLY needs a PC like the one the player created, let him make his own.

 

[Steverooo]

It's Not Just The Law; It's A Good Idea!

As far as I, as a GM & a copyright specialist, am concerned:

Player of PC X is entitled to write & publish stories about PC X. If they want to set those stories in my gameworld, they need my permission. Which is to say, I could stop them doing it if I wished.

I as GM am entitled to write and publish stories set in my world that refer to PC X and their existence whether the player agrees or not. However if I want to make PC X the protagonist of my story, I would ask the player their permission & not do it if they declined.

In other words: "What's mine is mine, and I'll keep it! What's yours is mine, and I'll take it!" As a self-styled "copyright specialist", S'mon, I'd sure like to know which part of the Fair Use doctrine you THINK you're looking at?!?

Here's the real deal, for the Lawfuls in the group:

Any time that anything is fixed (that is, written, typed, saved electronically, etc., ad mauseum), the Copyright belongs to the person who fixed it, with certain very specific exceptions... (Works for Hire, for example, where I pay you to write me a story, with the understanding that *I* have all the rights to it).

Thus, when I create a character, and fix it in some form, I own the Copyright (for whatever that's worth... keep reading)! I also have the Moral Rights, under the Berne Convention (International Copyright Law). If a GM creates a campaign world, such as PirateCat's Spira, then (s)he owns the Copyright on that...

Now, when you use them together, it becomes a group work... If Eredave (my PC) enters Spira, Eredave remains mine, and Spira remains PirateCat's. We have no rights to each others' work, unless we allow it. (Think about this one, GMs: Eredave tells PC "Okay, now I trap Spira, creating a Sphere of Annihilation around it!" To which PirateCat replies, "Uh, no, you don't... he can't do that!") Now add more Players, each with their own PCs to the collaboration, and things get even messier!

Now you have multiple Copyright owners, working together (well, USUALLY!) to create a story. Each owns their own creations, and the act of collaboration does not change that fact! So who owns the tale of the adventure, when they're done?

ALL of them. None can use the others' parts without their permission! You GMs may not like it, but that's the truth! (If Mariah Carey and I write a song, she does the words and I do the tune, can either one of us use it without the other's permission? Well, yes, if we don't mind being SUED for it, just like the artist whose painting got the moustache & glasses added on can sue the vandal who did it!)

We did an online, round-robin story, one time. One person started it, another added to that, and it continued on, each developing the story in turn, until it was dropped by the mass... I took the story, and finished it. One of the other writers didn't like what I did with his character... and the story was never published! Couldn't use his characters without his permission! One guy stopped the project, cold! That's the way it works.

But wait! With games, it gets even MORE fun! Y'see, as Diaglo was trying to point out (I think!), when I create Eredave in D&D stats, under some theories of law, that is a "Derivative Work". WotC COULD (if they were dumb) try to claim that this belonged to them. (Hey, think back! T$R DID this, disallowing posts of ANY D&D material on the net, suing web site owners (who couldn't afford to go to court to fight it!), creating a lotta ill-will against thenselves, and eventually cutting their own business throats!)

And if I do up Eredave in D&D, GURPS, & LA stats? Wotc, Steve Jackson, and Trigee could all come after me... even though any claims that my work was somehow "derived" from each of them would thereby be weakened... It is MUCH more likely that my work came first, and was translated into all of them! But still, they could sue... Just like I could sue you, for spitting on the sidewalk, charging you with, oh, say, "Creating a Public Nuisance", or "Littering", or some other such stupidity. Just because a lawsuit is stupid doesn't mean it can't be pursued, in court. Believe me, it can!

So, GMs, suppose your player sues you... If you so desire, and cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for you, without charge... (from the Public Defender's Office). Off to court... He presents his character sheet, showing that he created the PC, and he has Copyright. WotC thinks you two are silly, and doesn't claim Derivative Rights. You admit that he created the PC. What happens?

It depends. He owns the Copyright, so the case is going against you. He can probably produce friends to back up his claim. You probably won't perjure yourself. You propose your theory of "Well, he played in my game, so it's understood that I have certain rights"! "No, it's NOT understood!" he shouts. The Judge asks to see this contract you're playing under... You can't produce one. You both produce witnesses who testify to their recollections and understandings... Finally, the Judge pronounces "A Verbal Contract isn't worth the paper it's NOT printed on!" The GM has no grounds to stand on, there!

The Judge agrees that the Copyright for the PC belongs to the player, and that the GM has violated it. He then turns to the player's attorney, and asks him "Do you have proof of monetary loses?" Uh-oh! Nope! Not looking great for the player, now!

Since the player can't really show how he was damaged by the (mis-)use of his Copyright, the GM will probably be told to stop using it, have a record as a Copyright violator, and have to remove his material from the web (or wherever). The player will have the satisfaction of being vindicated... and a whole HEAP of legal bills!

UNLESS! Did that sneaky player ever actually bother to pay the $20 fee, and fill out that one little form, sending a copy of his character to the Copyright Office, for Copyright Registration (which is different from Copyright!)??? If so, then when the Judge asks that damages be proved, the attorney for the prosecution (Player) can simply say "No, your Honor, but my client has Registered his work with the Copyright Office, therefore we ask for the..." (I forget the proper word; usual, standard, customary, whatever) "...damages!" "Awarded!" says the Judge, "Pay the cashier, on your way out!"

So y'see, asking the Players' permission is not only a good idea, but can save you a whole heap'a trouble, Bunky! It's not just the law, it's a good idea!!!

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

How very capitalist to want to know the ownership rights of any property, intellectual in this case.

For what it is worth I take a socialist pov & the pc belongs to all within the group while the player is the primary caretaker. Without interaction and context the character is meaningless and like so without animation.

 

[Dryfus]

Really??

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that most of the responses so far come from "career" GM's...

I'm a player/GM, so does that mean my oppinion counts more??

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with most of you. The player owns the character, simply put. While the GM may provide the settings and circumstances under which the character is created, it is the player who creates the character, determines his personality and attributes, and ultimately defines his "essence". It's like somebody handing a canvas and paints to an artist. Sure, you can claim credit for providing the tools and backdrop for what was created, but that gives you no right to claim the creation as your own. Perhaps the artist will allow you to display it after he is gone. But to change the character (a la "my character wouldn't do that", "too bad"... etc.) is to alter something that you did not create and, essentially, destroy the original. To return to our artist analogy, you can't walk up to the portrait that was created, scribble glasses and a mustache on it, and still claim that it's the same piece of art. To do so is to destroy what was, and create something new. Thus, while it's possible for any GM to claim ownership of a former PC and turn him into an NPC, he has no right to claim the two are the same character.!"

I have used, and have had PC's used, in later campagins. It brings continuity to the world, and makes it more believeable IMHO. I had a halfling thief(who was a mean ornary SOB) turn up later in the campagin, very old, and he had become a goodie two shoes, and I thought it was great for the story line, and the world, b/c it gave a relationship between the world that was and the world as it is now. just my $.02

I agree with quickleaf. There is supposed to be a trust of sorts between GM and player. The two are constantly involved in a creative collaboration blending the macroscopic world of the GM with the relatively small world of the player. While the GM is the authority on what happens in the game world, the player must be the authority on what happens within the character.

As I so often say to my fiancee (and just as often are hit for), "know your role!"

Yes there should be a trust, but if a PC has become an NPC(because the campaign ended, and it was so many years ago, that the PC has been dead for a long time). Then what difference does it make that in the annals of history he was depicted(sp??), weather he was or not, as a greedy throne grabbing @$$ that died of advanced syphalys. I belive that was the original question,that if it's been a LONG time in the game world. Again, just my $.02


edited for spelling

 

[kigmatzomat]

you and i agree. by the inclusion of the statements about OGL in the material you are giving notice that some of this is owned.

OGL. that is what Open means. but you must still acknowledge that there is something to it. Giving cred... where it is due.

diaglo "hats d02 but still must call it D&D cuz they own the license" Ooi

you're right, we do agree. To me, credit where it is due means DMs dont' take PCs for their use without player approval. Players, by the same token, don't write up stuff about DMs game worlds without their approval.

Which goes back to: any wanna-be author who plans on using their gaming as the foundation should plan on either a signficant amount of sanitization, getting the agreement of the rest of the group, or the possibility of being sued for failing to give credit where it is due.

 

[S'mon]

In other words: "What's mine is mine, and I'll keep it! What's yours is mine, and I'll take it!" As a self-styled "copyright specialist", S'mon, I'd sure like to know which part of the Fair Use doctrine you THINK you're looking at?!?

(disclaimer: typing while drunk)

As a UK citizen & resident, I don't have to give a crap about your 'fair use doctrine'. I was talking about the contract between players & GM that exists at the game table.

Also I'm styled a 'copyright specialist' by the folks who awarded me a PhD for my thesis on "The Philosophy of Copyright" and the folks who employ me to teach Intellectual Property Law at a UK University. And the folks who've published my articles. And the folks who have asked me to speak at conferences and teach at international summer schools in Malta & Romania.

 

[S'mon]

It depends. He owns the Copyright, so the case is going against you. He can probably produce friends to back up his claim. You probably won't perjure yourself. You propose your theory of "Well, he played in my game, so it's understood that I have certain rights"! "No, it's NOT understood!" he shouts. The Judge asks to see this contract you're playing under... You can't produce one. You both produce witnesses who testify to their recollections and understandings... Finally, the Judge pronounces "A Verbal Contract isn't worth the paper it's NOT printed on!" The GM has no grounds to stand on, there!

In the UK we have these things called 'implied terms'... which are not reliant on both sides agreeing in court as to what they are!

 

[S'mon]

To reiterate: in a typical table's gaming contract IMO PCs always remain the property of the player who created them. The player merely licenses the GM to do various things with them. That's morally. Legally that's what I'd argue for too in terms of copyright, in the absence of contrary evidence.