Whose "property" are the PCs?

Falkus said:
On 95% of my characters I make, I could change twenty words, and have them fit in 95% of the campaigns out there.
All that means is that you've written up an absolutely generic character as it has no ties to the campaign world. Don't get me wrong, I believe you, I think I could say the same thing about MY characters. Still, 5% of the character uses things the DM made up. Also, once the character enters the game, his history then gets modified by the DM every second he is playing as his present becomes his past.

Plus, it's about expectations. The other players in the group are as much "viewers" of the game as well as participants. They expect the game to continue on the way it always has and for events to make sense. So, if a player leaves, there is no reason why their character should act anyway different than he did before. It annoys other players just as it annoys viewers of a television show if someone just ceases to exist. And, it's always possible that the DM gets the personality wrong or decides that his plot would be better served if they did something different. No big deal.

I can give an example of when I did a similar thing. One of my players was possessed by an evil spirit that controlled his body while he was asleep. He found this out and decided rather than getting it fixed, he'd just roll up a new character. His character was a paladin and had a plot device with him at the time (he was the last party member left after a TPK). So, I told him that his old character showed up to give the new party the plot device before he headed out on a quest to absolve his sins and become a paladin again. The evil acts done with his body had tainted his soul. I didn't consult the player about what he'd do, the player chose to stop playing the character, that made him under my control. Same thing if someone doesn't show up for a session. Who knows, they may run into that paladin again sometime.

Falkus said:
Ridiculous. He's just defined some limits, nothing more. It's like saying that the ESRB collaberates with computer game companies by providing the definitions for what content is suitable for what age.
In a way, it does. When a company sits down and says "Ok, we need an idea for a new game that will sell well, give me some ideas" if an employee suggests something that would likely get too high a rating, it may be shot down. Then, during the actual process of making the game, graphics may be changed to stay withing a certain rating.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

>>fusangite:
Could Lucas have sued me and my friends Adam and Taaz for marrying Luke and Leia when we were 8? Of course not!

Dannyalcatraz:
Could? Yes.<<

And you say you're a lawyer? *eek*

Um, unless you are differentiating "could sue" from "could win"...
 



Dannyalcatraz said:
fusangite said:
Could Lucas have sued me and my friends Adam and Taaz for marrying Luke and Leia when we were 8? Of course not!
Could? Yes.

Would? No.
S'mon said:
>>fusangite:
Could Lucas have sued me and my friends Adam and Taaz for marrying Luke and Leia when we were 8? Of course not!

Dannyalcatraz:
Could? Yes.<<

And you say you're a lawyer? *eek*

Um, unless you are differentiating "could sue" from "could win"...
Dannyalcatraz said:
So, you believe that a movie producer could not win a suit against a group of three kids who created and narrated an alternate storyline about his characters but you believe that I could win a lawsuit against my former gaming group for narrating, without my consent, an alternative storyline about places and people I created? What is the difference?

The US courts may be crazy but I don't think there is any danger of them ruling that conversations in a gaming group constitute publication, regardless of the letter of the law you point to. There are few unfettered absolutes in law.
Copyright arises at the point of creation.
And the creation of a D&D character is a hybrid process, a dialogue between player and GM with a bunch of random chance thrown in too.
And could just as easily be re-imagined as being from a steppe in Kruzizhstan, member of the Dire Dog clan, worshiping the Unnamed Goddess, etc. if someone wanted to use it without permission.
You are assuming that what makes these things unique, special and interesting is just their names -- that there are no exciting and original ideas contained in the culture, history and theology my GM built. That these things are just tired dusty archetypes whose only original component is their name.

I think you need to step back from looking at the legal aspect of this and start asking yourself what is right for our hobby. Do we want a hobby where ideas flow freely or a secretive and jealous culture?
It should have read "So if I wanted to use one of my players' characters as an NPC without that player's permission...", especially if I'm using the PC in a way that the player might not agree to- an alignment change or any other plot twist that fundamentally alters the PC.
I guess my solution would be not to game with people who would freak out, possibly to the point of threatening me with legal action, about their need to control a character they don't even play anymore to the detriment of an interesting situation or plot twist in my campaign.

I've had GMs take my old characters and have things happen to them after I stop playing them. It would never occur to me to ask to be consulted; all that would do is limit the GM's ability to come up with something creative that could surprise us.
My core point is: if the player objects to the way the PC is being used, and there is no agreement that the GM is sole or co-owner of the PC, then the GM should back off and use a different PC for his purposes. Its disrespectful of the player, of his rights, of his creation.
And my point is: don't hang out with people who need to be consulted about how a character they don't even play anymore will affect future event in a campaign. If my GM comes up with something cool that has befallen a guy's character or that the character has done since he stopped being played, the last thing I would want is to game with a player who goes into a pout saying, "It's not fair... I don't wanna become undead."
 

fusangite
So, you believe that a movie producer could not win a suit against a group of three kids who created and narrated an alternate storyline about his characters but you believe that I could win a lawsuit against my former gaming group for narrating, without my consent, an alternative storyline about places and people I created? What is the difference?

Each IP infringement suit is fact dependent.

The differences lie in intent, how much of an infringement and the purpose of the infringement of the IP there is. It is perfectly fine for me to make a copy of a song to make a mix tape/CD for my personal use. Its another thing to rip an entire computer game from its CD-Rom and give it to my buddies.

The kids playing Star Wars have made minor alterations for personal use and likely lack the requisite intent to be found guilty. It is unlikely that any jury would believe that the kids had any commercial intent. In contrast, a jury could very well believe you intended to self-publish your campaign materials if you so alleged, especially given the state of the industry today.

fusangite
The US courts may be crazy but I don't think there is any danger of them ruling that conversations in a gaming group constitute publication, regardless of the letter of the law you point to. There are few unfettered absolutes in law.

The US and English courts have found publication in IP cases where the IP was loaned to another party- so if any of the campaign materials changed hands, even briefly, publication could be found.

However, publication isn't key to copyright anymore. Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

fusangite
And the creation of a D&D character is a hybrid process, a dialogue between player and GM with a bunch of random chance thrown in too.

99% of the time, the DM supplies place names and some house rules, and not much else. In 28 years of gaming, I've had significant PC creation input from the DM 3 times- twice from the same DM- and once because the game was based on a particular novel which demanded VERY specific strictures on PC creation.

The character as copyrighted IP arises as soon as the player's got pencil on paper with a name, race, and class or sketches him out in a sketchbook. The PC concept is independent of the rule system in which it exists, and may even be independent of the campaign. (Personally, I have a couple of universal concept PCs that I can drop into almost any setting- and no, they're not generic.)

fusangite
And my point is: don't hang out with people who need to be consulted about how a character they don't even play anymore will affect future event in a campaign,

And how will you know until the situation arises?

And, more importantly, if you DO offend the player by messing with their PC, what will you do then- kick them out?
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
And how will you know until the situation arises?

And, more importantly, if you DO offend the player by messing with their PC, what will you do then- kick them out?
I believe I would apologize for offending them, inform them that it wasn't my intention that I either needed their character to do something for plot/story reasons in my game or that I honestly thought their character would do that.

If I was still good friends with them and didn't want to offend them further, I might work in the next session to correct the problem by having either rumors that history may have recorded the fate of that character incorrectly or have the NPC do something to make up for it (if it was still alive).

I'm not saying that DMs should kill off ex-players characters or do something bad to them out of spite, but they should be able to do anything they want to them.

I've played the same character in about 5 different D&D games and in 2 different MMORPGs, I expect by this point that someone has mentioned my character or used him without my permission. I don't care much, I like my character and I want him to appear as much as possible. I think he has a life beyond my vision for him. Even if he were to become a villian and totally evil in one game, I'd think it's cool that my character made something of himself. *grin*

And I apologize if it offends someone, but as a DM, I'll use the characters in my game any way I want, even if you created them. If your character wasn't interesting, they likely WOULD fade into the background and never be seen again. I only keep them around because I like the characters and want to honour the creators.
 

fusangite said:
And my point is: don't hang out with people who need to be consulted about how a character they don't even play anymore will affect future event in a campaign. If my GM comes up with something cool that has befallen a guy's character or that the character has done since he stopped being played, the last thing I would want is to game with a player who goes into a pout saying, "It's not fair... I don't wanna become undead."
Well put!
 

Majoru Oakheart said:
And I apologize if it offends someone, but as a DM, I'll use the characters in my game any way I want, even if you created them. .... I only keep them around because I like the characters and want to honour the creators.

I'm not sure you can use the phrase "use the characters ...any way I want" alongside "because I ..want to honour the creators." That's kind of like saying "You are a scumbag, with all due respect."

If you want to honr the creators, honor their wishes and intent. Otherwise you end up with the Mohatma Ghandi Riot Baton.
 

And I apologize if it offends someone, but as a DM, I'll use the characters in my game any way I want, even if you created them.

I only keep them around because I like the characters and want to honour the creators.

Rarely have I ever seen 2 more inconsistent statements in the same paragraph.

I'm fortunate that this has never come up for me, I guess, but if it did, I think it could cost a friendship. Why?

While I am a lawyer, I'm also an artist/musician- I have been since childhood. If someone were to use one of my creations in a matter I deemed inappropriate, I would let them know. If the inappropriate use continued I'd take action. Depending on the particular creation, that could range from refusal to do further business to a lawsuit. In any case, that person would no longer be welcome in my presence.

Using someone's creation over their objection is like spitting in the creator's face- but only in the nicest possible sense.
 

Remove ads

Top