Gleemax - Anyone see this gem yet?

[Crow]

Regarding the new terms of usage agreement. Discussion already in progress...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=907547

[JadedDM]

Oh, yeah. I heard about that. Kind of a raw deal, I guess.

[Ranis]

There always was and always had been since day one that case on the WotC boards. Anything you post on any forum can be used by anyone else for whatever purpose they want to use it for, and there's not one thing you can do to stop them. Anyone who posts any original content, homebrew or otherwise, that honestly believes that their material is safe on the internet is a loony anyway.

This is not new.

[horseboy]

Not surprised.

Edit: Why does it matter? If people love this game as much as they claim, then don't they want to help make the game better? Back before the eldar codex came out we would have long, long threads on GW's forums with ideas on how to make them compatable/fix issues with 4th edition. When the codex came out they used a LOT of our ideas. Did we scream/throw a fit that they stole our ideas? No! We were happy they would listen to us, that they had worked with us. Why exactly is this a bad idea?

[Inane-Fedaykin]

Blizzard (starcraft, warcraft, diablo) will only ever even consider using something posted on their forums if it's in the suggestion forum. Back in the forum's glory days it wasn't all that uncommon for mods to reply to posts and ask that the OP remake the thread in the suggestion forum so they could tell the dev team to take a glance at it.

[Crow]

There always was and always had been since day one that case on the WotC boards. Anything you post on any forum can be used by anyone else for whatever purpose they want to use it for, and there's not one thing you can do to stop them. Anyone who posts any original content, homebrew or otherwise, that honestly believes that their material is safe on the internet is a loony anyway.

This is not new.

Read the whole thing. This is for all Gleemax content, you know, the "Myspace for gamers".

Myspace has no such stipulation.

[Renegade Paladin]

Anything you post on any forum can be used by anyone else for whatever purpose they want to use it for, and there's not one thing you can do to stop them.
Untrue. Copyright law still exists on the Internet, and unless there's a user agreement such as this one, then there's all kinds of things you can legally do to a company that steals your work.

[skywalker]

It wouldn't be that I was going to try to publish it, it would be that they took my idea and made money with it.

Whenever I discuss any of my mental creations with people, there is the understanding that I'm not going to take them to court if something they publish sounds vaguely like what I told them(this stems from an ex-girlfriend who had trouble with a guy who told her he would do just that), but I also think it's understood that they can't straight plagiarize my idea and publish it. Wizards is giving themselves free reign to take whatever is said on those forums and publish it for mega-bucks, without giving credit to the originator.

The internet is a place where, yes, things get stolen, but there is far more respect for those who credit the original, and usually, plagiarizers are outed and sent to hell(or at least IRC). No, it won't affect the vast majority of posters, but it will affect those who don't mind you using their idea, but do mind you making a killing off of it, without giving credit. IE, most homebrewers etc. If I took everything in the Fax Encyclopedius, re-branded it with some different names, and sold it to 50 people, I'd be a bad person.

In short, I've signed up for gleemax for the chance to playtest, but I'll keep all my rules ideas and creations here on GITP, where I know there's(mainly) respect for that sort of thing.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It wouldn't be that I was going to try to publish it, it would be that they took my idea and made money with it.
This summarizes my problem with this kind of ToU. Apparently, it's not an uncommon stipulation, (and a rather necessary protection for corporate websites), and I will therefore carefully read all such agreements on other forums I visit in the future.

I never had a Wizards forums account, and with this rule, I can say with certainty that I will never have a Gleemax account ever. I do not wish to license any ideas to Wizards of the Coast without compensation, and will therefore not agree to these terms of use.

[Crow]

All my homebrew stuff stays in my three-ring binder. Nobody wants to see my wacky creations, but I just wanted to see what people thought about this.

Besides, I do all my "social networking" on Crossfit (http://www.crossfit.com/).

[ArmorArmadillo]

Blizzard doesn't do it because they sell software, not fanart.

This kind of stipulation already exists in the Open Gaming License as a whole. As much as fans will want to get snippy about the "theft" of their ideas or work, there is nothing compelling them to post homebrew stuff on the wizards forums...they do so for entertainment and with full understanding.

If you're worried about accretidation or rights, then you need to be worried enough to keep your ideas private until publication and to read terms of use agreements!

I don't like it when people claim things are hidden because they don't usually bother reading ToU agreements.

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh it's not hidden, but it is scummy. They're deliberately setting up a place where gamers will, among other things, discuss their ideas, and then making sure that if they like those ideas, they may legally steal them and use them to make money. Is it legal? Yeah. But it's still theft in the moral sense; they're using other people's work to make money for themselves without compensating the originators of the work. This is why none of my homebrew stuff ever gets posted to the WotC forums, even though I spread it around privately owned boards all the time.

[Inane-Fedaykin]

Blizzard doesn't do it because they sell software, not fanart.


Yes, but they also update their games regularly with changes suggested by the gaming community. They could simply put a piece in the TOU like that site has done but they didn't simply because it pisses people off.

[horseboy]

It wouldn't be that I was going to try to publish it, it would be that they took my idea and made money with it.


That just means you now know your ideas are worth money. Go have more ideas and make your own money now.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Oh it's not hidden, but it is scummy. They're deliberately setting up a place where gamers will, among other things, discuss their ideas, and then making sure that if they like those ideas, they may legally steal them and use them to make money. Is it legal? Yeah. But it's still theft in the moral sense; they're using other people's work to make money for themselves without compensating the originators of the work. This is why none of my homebrew stuff ever gets posted to the WotC forums, even though I spread it around privately owned boards all the time.
Scummy?
First, you're assuming that because they have such a clause, that it was the intention of the board to be a lure in the use of stealing information.

More likely, this was a caveat placed because they have no reason not to.


Also, in no way does this interfere with the environment that you claim is a front; gamers can still gather to discuss ideas; but in no way are these ideas meant to be confidential, it's the freaking internet. There's no expectation of privacy.

[Renegade Paladin]

Because they don't have a reason not to? What reason do they have to do it, if they don't really want to steal?

No, there's no expectation of privacy; that's why you're discussing the ideas in a public forum. But there is an expectation that you won't be robbed blind, or should be one. If someone invents something, talks about his invention with friends at the local coffeeshop, and is overheard by someone working for a company who then steals his invention, he has every right to sue them to kingdom come, and it is exactly the same on a public forum on the Internet, if the owners of that forum don't have a clause like this. I have a couple of class ideas posted on my own board, and if WotC (or White Wolf, or Mongoose, or any other company) stole them just because they could see it and made money off of it, I could and would sue for royalties, because their rules have nothing to do with my board and I hold the copyright to that work. (Incidentally, copyright isn't something you have to apply for; you have copyright on any written or drawn material you create by default unless you were under contract to someone else to create it.) For a glaring example, this very website hosts two popular webcomics; if someone were to steal them and publish and sell ripoff books using the material, do you think for one solitary second that "it's there on the Internet" would be a valid defense in court?

[Wender]

Because they don't have a reason not to? What reason do they have to do it, if they don't really want to steal?


Legal CYA. If they own the copyright on everything posted there, they can edit or delete posts at will without raising any IP issues.

It's definitely an unsubtle approach to the problem of moderating community-generated content, but not an uncommon one.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Because they don't have a reason not to? What reason do they have to do it, if they don't really want to steal?

No, there's no expectation of privacy; that's why you're discussing the ideas in a public forum. But there is an expectation that you won't be robbed blind, or should be one. If someone invents something, talks about his invention with friends at the local coffeeshop, and is overheard by someone working for a company who then steals his invention, he has every right to sue them to kingdom come, and it is exactly the same on a public forum on the Internet, if the owners of that forum don't have a clause like this. I have a couple of class ideas posted on my own board, and if WotC (or White Wolf, or Mongoose, or any other company) stole them just because they could see it and made money off of it, I could and would sue for royalties, because their rules have nothing to do with my board and I hold the copyright to that work. (Incidentally, copyright isn't something you have to apply for; you have copyright on any written or drawn material you create by default unless you were under contract to someone else to create it.) For a glaring example, this very website hosts two popular webcomics; if someone were to steal them and publish and sell ripoff books using the material, do you think for one solitary second that "it's there on the Internet" would be a valid defense in court?

Which is why you don't have to worry about it on THIS website. That's THEIR board with clear disclaimers that they can do that kind of thing.

Histrionics referring to having ideas you publish for free on the internet being used by others as being "Robbed Blind" aside, this is not a matter of spying, or being overheard, this is using their website, and accepted the consequences.

Robbery involves use of force or coercion to strip someone of rightful property: leaving a bag of money on the street, walking away, and finding it gone when you come back isn't robbery, it's just foolishness on your own part.

[Renegade Paladin]

Which is why I don't post my material on their site. That doesn't mean I think they're not scumbags for claiming copyright to other people's work. All that putting it openly in the TOS means is that they're not lying scumbags. They have no ethical right to take other people's work without paying them for it; they're just putting in the provision because they can. Legal does not equate to ethical or moral.

[Machete]

I think its fine that they are snagging people's ideas if they are agreeing to these terms.


Pirates of the Coast: At Fair Useage End

Homebrewer: "Your the worst Swashbuckler/Wizard gestalt character ever!"
Captain Mage Beach: "Ah, but you have heard of me."

[Iku Rex]

They won't "own the copyright". Legally transferring copyright requires a signed written contract. I doubt if any court would consider clicking "I Agree" on a Terms of Use statement for an account created under a pseudonym such.

That's why WotC included the weasel word "non-exclusive". Nonexclusive transfers do not require a written agreement .

From the US copyright office (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc):

Transfer of Copyright

Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.

A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request Circular 12Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Which is why I don't post my material on their site. That doesn't mean I think they're not scumbags for claiming copyright to other people's work. All that putting it openly in the TOS means is that they're not lying scumbags. They have no ethical right to take other people's work without paying them for it; they're just putting in the provision because they can. Legal does not equate to ethical or moral.
They're not the posters sole work: they're the poster's variations on WotC's overarching idea and intellectual property. They're not scumbags, they're people who are running an honest and normal business.

Immoral is trying to slander them for it. By posting something on the internet you are not only providing your ideas, you are willingly ceding your claim to sole possession of it; you are placing it in open domain for others to do with as they please.


Especially considering that the only reason most of these things end up in ToS agreements is as a failsafe against the inevitable situation in which they create something entirely on their own which bears significant similarity to something printed on a message board and having the author claim the idea was "stolen"

[Evil DM Mark3]

Glad I left those forums.

[Arlanthe]

That's the last straw. Talk about stifling creativity.

[Zincorium]

I'm gonna go with this :If you don't want to risk them taking an idea or concept that you uniquely came up with (unlikely) and making a product out of it when you signed up to message boards that they own and simply let you use...well, don't post them.

By the same token, you shouldn't write down your ideas on the sidewalk outside your house.

The fact that wizards is telling you that it could happen seems really nice of them, in my opinion. It would be so very easy to simply delete the entire thread and then claim any screen shots were photoshopped, then without any real ability to prove it was yours, make a product while you stare on in horror.

That's what a scumbag company would do.

And frankly, if you think that you're posting ideas that they'd just steal (rather than asking you to write for them), get over yourself. There are some people on the forum who actually do write stuff I'd pay for (vorpal tribble, for instance) but I think they're smart enough to stick to places where they can be sure their work is going to remain in their possession but free to use.

[Dausuul]

It's self-protection.

Generally speaking, professional, published writers don't take on editing work within the genre they write in, even though they could probably make good money doing so. Why? Because they don't want to risk getting sued when a client spots a vague similarity between something the writer published and what the client submitted for editing. Even if the lawsuit got thrown out of court, it would be more hassle than it was worth.

WotC is protecting itself against the same possibility. If people are posting homebrew stuff all over their forums, there's a very good chance that some of it will coincidentally resemble something WotC publishes, even if no one at WotC ever read the homebrew in question. And sooner or later there will be a poster with an overgrown sense of his own place in the universe who is just sure that evil, evil WotC STOLE HIS IDEAS!!! WotC would rather not have to spend time and money proving in court that they hadn't read/ripped off the material.

Now, if they're smart, they'll offer credit in some form any time they use somebody's homebrew ideas. That's just good public relations. But I completely understand why they aren't willing to make any kind of legal commitment to doing so.

[Kurald Galain]

Anyone who posts any original content, homebrew or otherwise, that honestly believes that their material is safe on the internet is a loony anyway.

That is absolutely false. Whatever you post is covered by copyright law - this is precisely why many published authors don't read their own fan forums, because if they use a plot element suggested in one of those, they leave themselves open to a copyright infringement suit.

If I write a feat or prestige class or whatnot, and you put it in a book and make money off it, you can get yourself sued easily.

This is an extremely bad idea from WOTC, reminscent of the days when T$R tried to forcefully terminate all their fansites on the then-nascent Web.

[Ranis]

Because they don't have a reason not to? What reason do they have to do it, if they don't really want to steal?

No, there's no expectation of privacy; that's why you're discussing the ideas in a public forum. But there is an expectation that you won't be robbed blind, or should be one. If someone invents something, talks about his invention with friends at the local coffeeshop, and is overheard by someone working for a company who then steals his invention, he has every right to sue them to kingdom come, and it is exactly the same on a public forum on the Internet, if the owners of that forum don't have a clause like this. I have a couple of class ideas posted on my own board, and if WotC (or White Wolf, or Mongoose, or any other company) stole them just because they could see it and made money off of it, I could and would sue for royalties, because their rules have nothing to do with my board and I hold the copyright to that work. (Incidentally, copyright isn't something you have to apply for; you have copyright on any written or drawn material you create by default unless you were under contract to someone else to create it.) For a glaring example, this very website hosts two popular webcomics; if someone were to steal them and publish and sell ripoff books using the material, do you think for one solitary second that "it's there on the Internet" would be a valid defense in court?

Okay RP, you got me. That is a really, really good point. I guess what I was trying to say is that I can take any of the material found in the homebrew section here and use it in my own games however I wish, and no one can really do anything about it. But the making money off of my work that I posted somewhere is a different matter entirely.

I also didn't know that you automatically own the copyright for anything you produce on your own, that's pretty awesome. I guess the US legal system has done something right now.

[Darrin]

Untrue. Copyright law still exists on the Internet, and unless there's a user agreement such as this one, then there's all kinds of things you can legally do to a company that steals your work.

Not exactly. Most of the meaningful stuff you can do, such as sue for damages, requires that you register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office.

The other problem is that if the material is based on someone else's intellectual property... such as a role-playing game... then there's a strong argument that it's a "derivative work", which is a bit of a legal grey area, but in that case most of the copyright protections would be enforceable by the original creator.

It's also important to note that copyright does not apply to "ideas", and in the context of an online post, would only apply to the written text as it appears on the screen. The examples about an inventor who shares his ideas with someone else and then tries to sue someone who "stole" his idea... that's actually patent law, and if he didn't register the patent with the U.S. Patent Office then he's thoroughly screwed. Copyright does not protect your idea about a new feat or prestige class, if someone else comes along with the same idea but uses completely different text to describe it, then it's not an issue of copyright infringement unless you can prove that the other guy's text is a "derived from" your work. "Intellectual property" in a case like that is an extremely murky area of the law, and in most cases the side who can afford the most expensive lawyer wins.

Can you sue a company for stealing the "idea" of something you wrote on the internet? Or an author who "appropriates" something a fan wrote on a fan forum? Yes, you can. Will you win? No, but it's much cheaper to put up a "usage agreement" or "terms of service" notice than pay for the legal costs associated with all the lawsuits from fans trying to claim copyright infringement. Refusing to use someone else's idea because it appears in a company-sponsored forum has more to do with minimizing "Bad PR" and preventing frivolous lawsuits than protecting the copyrights of people posting on public forums.

Note: I am not a lawyer and do not consider this to be legal advice.

[Iku Rex]

Not exactly. Most of the meaningful stuff you can do, such as sue for damages, requires that you register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. How "not exactly"? Everything Renegade Paladin said was correct. If you want to sue someone for using copyrighted material you can just register the work and then sue. If it's been more than three moths since publication you'll have less rights than if you registered in a "timely manner", but you can still sue for actual damages/profits. I also believe (??) you can demand to have the infringing material removed from stores and destroyed - a threat worth much in a settlement negotiation.

Advantages of registration: http://www.publaw.com/advantage.html

(I have issues with the [mis]use of "derivative work" with regards to copyright infringement and RPGs, but that's another topic.)


Note: I am not a lawyer and do not consider this to be legal advice.Ditto. IANAL.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Ok, this seriously ticks me off. I've said for years that much of Wizards stuff that has come out is almost word for word like stuff I have on my Creation Page on Wizards. Now I know it could honestly be.

Tell me, are they free to use it and not pay you or give you credit for the creation?

[PinkysBrain]

Kurald Gain, you can't protect a plot (element) by copyright. In theory you could protect it by patent ... but until plot patents are actually granted and litigated no one really knows (I might add that if someone at the USPTO decides to grant them he should be fired, out of a cannon).

[Reinboom]

Tell me, are they free to use it and not pay you or give you credit for the creation?

They already practically could:

Q: Does this mean that someone could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, and then put it in a product and sell that product to someone else?

A: Yes.

Q: To be clear: Does this mean that Wizards of the Coast could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, put it into a Dungeons & Dragons product and make money off it?

A: Yes.

Q: And they wouldn't have to ask my permission or pay me a royalty?

A: No, they would not.
(Yes, your homebrew uses stat blocks - it is OGL)

To 'scurry' around this, make sure you clearly define all your stuff as OGL, which you can do still.
Upon taking notice, any future releases of it must be clearly defined as OGL - or you have the ability to take legal action for their own license.
At least, if I am understanding this in full.

That's about the best you can do.
Oh, and terms of use doesn't normally retroactively apply unless the previous terms of use said it did (which it may have). Otherwise, you agreed to nothing.

Next, this is information posted (and thus, hosted) onto their site. They have no right to apply their terms to anything offsite. For example - if you link to your creations - you're fine.

Next: Don't define your creation's names or specific ability text as OGL. Fair use: yes. OGL: no. So they can't take that.

==
Personally, you can see good things in it as well if you are interested in working in a game design company.
Interviewer: "So, do you have any published work that is well known?"
Designer: "My work has had great reviews!"
Designers open to a random wizards splat book and points out to something
Interviewer: "I don't recall your name being on the designer list, or even co-designer, for this..."
Designer: "Well, I designed it before this was released word for word, and the reviews for this are outstanding."
Designer shows interviewer original work - clearly posted/made before the release date of the splat book

==
Aside:
Hmmn, until I see a decent statement on this from officials from wizards - I'll be wary.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

They already practically could:

(Yes, your homebrew uses stat blocks - it is OGL)

To 'scurry' around this, make sure you clearly define all your stuff as OGL, which you can do still.
Upon taking notice, any future releases of it must be clearly defined as OGL - or you have the ability to take legal action for their own license.
At least, if I am understanding this in full.
How does that work and how might it be phrased to keep Wizards from taking it? I'd like to do such.

[ALOR]

Regarding the new terms of usage agreement. Discussion already in progress...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=907547

Well we should all be understanding. They are going to need new ideas for 5e (coming fall of 2011, preorders being taken now!!!!) since they are spending all of this energy on 4e. :smallwink:

[Darrin]

How "not exactly"?

By "not exactly", I mean copyright generally applies only to the TEXT you actually write. If you're talking about a particular idea or concept, that concept in and of itself is not protected by copyright law. The exact TEXT I use to describe it is, but the idea itself... that may be protected by patent law or other areas of intellectual property law, but not necessarily copyright.

For example:

"This is a prestige class where a ranger gains adamantine claws and Fast Healing 5."

If I later see that exact phrase, word for word, in a book I didn't publish, then I've got a pretty strong case. If someone else comes along and writes:

"Taking levels in Forest Brawler gives you indestructable natural attacks and regenerative abilities."

Same concept, entirely different text. Copyright only applies to the TEXT (or some type of performance or artistic creation rendered in some kind of permanent media). You might have a case, but you'd need some rock-solid evidence and a really expensive lawyer to make it stick. Never mind that we're posting on a public forum, using terminology and concepts already owned and published by an established company, intended for use in a collaborative exercise.



(I have issues with the [mis]use of "derivative work" with regards to copyright infringement and RPGs, but that's another topic.)


Yeah, it's kind of a mess... on one hand, copyright only applies to the actual words you write. On the other hand, you can change 100% of the words and still be sued for infringement. The courts don't like making calls on what's considered a derivative work, and decisions usually boils down to whichever side has the most money to burn on the case. And on the gripping hand, never ever ever piss off Disney.

[Crow]

This is not an issue of whether they can or cannot do this. The issue is the juxtaposition between what they intend Gleemax to be used for and the way they are going about doing it.

[Reinboom]

How does that work and how might it be phrased to keep Wizards from taking it? I'd like to do such.

Post this link:
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf
or this mirror to the above:
http://pifro.com/dnd/OGLv1.0a.rtf

with something like:
All information below, excluding (what you wish to exclude) is OGC (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf).

Or, All information below in the stat block/table/whatever is OGC.
Or, All information below, excluding any information that is navy (#000080), is OGC.

[AKA_Bait]

Ok, this seriously ticks me off. I've said for years that much of Wizards stuff that has come out is almost word for word like stuff I have on my Creation Page on Wizards. Now I know it could honestly be.

Tell me, are they free to use it and not pay you or give you credit for the creation?

Honestly, Vorpal, I've noticed that myself with regard to some things I've seen you homebrew. I normally am not the type to be like 'theft!' but reading some of the more recent books and many, many of your creations I have to agree.

My advice would simply be to take your stuff off of the WotC forum. Move it elsewhere. Be that here or another forum without such language. At best, if you want to protect your ideas from this point forward you could insert language of the type suggested above, but if they take it and publish it then you will still need to take them to court over it and the legal issues will be much less clear if you posted it on their forum rather than another one. This language will protect them quite well, almost no matter what you later put into the post containing the material you want to protect. The user agreement probably functions like a contract agreed to by both parties. You can't sign a contract and then later say 'oh but this part isn't subject to it so I can sue you now.'

Sorry to be such a downer, but I've expected this sort of thing from WotC for years now, from shortly after they started being a company in fact. I am not in the least surprised. I don't and never have posted anything homebrew on their forums for exactly this reason.

--Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute official legal advice. I am not liable for any harm, damages or to provide indemnification for any actions arising out of the reading, copying or transmitting of the above post.

[Telonius]

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't have much of a problem with it. If I want Wizards to pay me for developing material for them, I'll fill out a job application. Anything I write on any message board is pro bono. Anybody, including the shareholders over at Wizards, can use it to enrich their gaming experience or their bank account if they want. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but they're free to not post their stuff if they don't want to.

[Amphimir Míriel]

First of all, lets not get too carried away.

Lets apply Hanlons Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_Razor) to this situation for a moment.

It seems to me that these terms are the product of an overzealous legal department, rather than a direct management decision. I have seen it happen in several places (including my current place of employment) where the Legal department, without asking anybody, goes ahead and establishes company policies that annoy customers/employees for no real reason.

If WotC really wants Gleemax to be "the home for gamers" and "the MySpace of the Gaming community", then we should let them know that their Terms of Usage are incompatible with that goal.

If they don't do anything about it, well... they can't really blame anybody but themselves if people continue using other forums or usenet to post their homebrews.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't have much of a problem with it. If I want Wizards to pay me for developing material for them, I'll fill out a job application. Anything I write on any message board is pro bono. Anybody, including the shareholders over at Wizards, can use it to enrich their gaming experience or their bank account if they want. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but they're free to not post their stuff if they don't want to.

Which is exactly why WotC has put this langauge in. As much as people on the wizards thread are all up in arms and threatening never to post another creation there again there are lots of folks who don't really care and are perfectly happy to share their ideas with Wizards without any compensation or acknowledgment. WotC will continue to get free material for later creations from the site for a long, long time.

Personally, I'm not with you. I wouldn't expect any monetary compensation for something I've homebrewed the same way I would be perfectly happy to give away a painting or a drawing I have made (especially since neither are very good). However, I would not be ok with the person I gave it to turning around and selling it as their own creation. The language allows WotC to do just that. I made it and I want my name associated with it. Anyone else who also does would be well advised to keep any intelectual property they wish to hold the rights to away from any website officially associated with WotC.


Lets apply Hanlons Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_Razor) to this situation for a moment.


I would love to be able to do this but to be honest, I have seen very, very little in the history of WotC to indicate that they are stupid. Don't forget that at the very start of the company they were sued for intelectual property infringments and settled for an undisclosed amount. They have been careful to purchase stuff they plan to use since then but have also made liberal use of their audience for game development, see some of the promotions they have done with Magic the Gathering. Feel free to read about them here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_of_the_Coast)

--Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute official legal advice. I am not liable for any harm, damages or to provide indemnification for any actions arising out of the reading, copying or transmitting of the above post.

[mudbunny]

Quick primer on Intellectual Property (IP) rights.

When you have IP rights to something, it is not a matter of giving you rights to do with your IP what you want. What copyright/TM/Patents and other forms of IP protection do is remove the right of everyone else in the world the right to do with your IP what they want.

When you agree to the Terms of Use, you are giving to WotC the right to use your information the way they want.

You still own the IP. It does not become the property of WotC.

And really, WotC has to do so. Otherwise, they could get into legal troubles for saving the data to a hard-drive/server. Printing it out to bring to meetings as to why a feat/class/whatever is broken and here is how to fix it. Backing it up or moving the posts to a new forum software.

This changes absolutely nothing for the overwhelming majority of people on the board. For those who think that they might want to try to get something published, well, posting it on a public board and giving it for free to a company that would otherwise pay for it is pretty stupid.

Again. WotC does not own your IP after you post it. You have just given them the right to use it.


Myspace has no such stipulation.

Ummm, yeah it does. As does FaceBook and every other social networking site out there.

Check the thread here, in Friendly Banter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51631&highlight=facebook).

[AKA_Bait]

Again. WotC does not own your IP after you post it. You have just given them the right to use it.


You are right that they don't own it, they simply have a indefinate irrevocable liscence to use it however they wish, including selling it and subliscening it.



1. User Content

By posting or submitting any text, images, designs, video, sound, code, data, lists, or other materials or information (such User-submitted content, collectively, "User Content") to or through a Site, including without limitation on any User profile page, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction..

Technically, they don't own it, but they might just as well. They can trademark it and patent it (like they did with ccg's).

And yes, now that this is up, it would indeed be foolish for anyone who wants to keep full rights to things they create to post them on a WotC forum or have them in any way associated with a WotC account.

--Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute official legal advice. I am not liable for any harm, damages or to provide indemnification for any actions arising out of the reading, copying or transmitting of the above post.

[mudbunny]

Technically, they don't own it, but they might just as well. They can trademark it and patent it (like they did with ccg's).

No. If you own the original property rights, be it copyright, patent rights or trademarks, you do not give them up simply by posting on the WotC boards.

If you own the TM, simply posting it on the boards gives them the right to use it. It does not give them ownership of the TM.

If it is something patentable, you still own the patent. Simply posting it on the boards does not transfer ownership of the patent to them. It simply gives them the right to use it.

I am not a lawyer, but I work in the IP industry, and I really wish that people would stop spreading FUD about stuff like this.

[AKA_Bait]

No. If you own the original property rights, be it copyright, patent rights or trademarks, you do not give them up simply by posting on the WotC boards.

If you own the TM, simply posting it on the boards gives them the right to use it. It does not give them ownership of the TM.

If it is something patentable, you still own the patent. Simply posting it on the boards does not transfer ownership of the patent to them. It simply gives them the right to use it.

I am not a lawyer, but I work in the IP industry, and I really wish that people would stop spreading FUD about stuff like this.

It gives them the right to use it, make money off it without paying a dime correct? It gives them this right in perpetuity, correct?

Technically, you are right, as I said, they do not gain ownership of it outright. They can't sue you if you decide to publish it also. But practically speaking they get the benifits of owning it without having their name on it in the patent office.

[mudbunny]

It gives them the right to use it, make money off it without paying a dime correct? It gives them this right in perpetuity, correct?

Technically, you are right, as I said, they do not gain ownership of it outright. They can't sue you if you decide to publish it also. But practically speaking they get the benifits of owning it without having their name on it.

Yes, but you don't lose *any* of your rights at all.

I understand the anger that people have over giving up their rights to what they post on the boards. But, realistically, what percentage of the home-brew stuff that is posted on the WotC boards (or any board with something like that in their ToU/ToS) is actually vendable.

[nagora]

They already practically could:

(Yes, your homebrew uses stat blocks - it is OGL)



I don't believe that stance is real law. A format for a layout can be patented but not, under US law copyrighted AFAIK. So just using stat blocks for your own designs is not OGL.

Generally speaking, the OGL claims a lot of things that I doubt very much would stand up in court as regards user-created content. There is no way, for example that simply saying "This class is like the regular paladin but they have d4 hit dice. Its called the Osteodin" comes under OGL.

If you don't quote text from anything covered by the OGL, and even then you're probably safe if you use very short pieces, you have nothing legal to fear. In reality, of course, you have to face the fact that Hasbro have very deep pockets and can effectively take your content and do what they like with it unless you can support years of litigation to stop them.

In regard to the specifics of the Gleemax thing, the license is flawed as it claims non-exclusive rights and then says that they can trademark the result.

Now, trademarking (or patenting which they also claim) is a lot more substantial than just a non-exclusive right. For one thing it is exclusive - you can't trademark something if Hasbro already has. Granting the trademark rights to someone else on a non-signed agreement is a very dubious legal position, IMHO.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this is a land grab with very little legal force in certain areas.

[zombie]

guys, i think this whole thread is a little bit out of reality. the whole point of publishing ideas over forums is to share them with other people. do you think that if you homebrew really cool new feat, and somebody else decides to use it in his games, he'll give you credit? unlikely... the reason why it bothers you is in fact delusion that wizards will earn your money or 'profit from your ideas'. no guys they won't, at least not more than they are doing it now. you buy their product, you advertise it for free amongst your friends ('hey guys lets play d&d on friday night, tis really cool'), and you already add your ideas to its potential - we rpg-ers by definition are little bit geeky therefore enhancing ones experience by browsing web resources is not unlikely. wizards won't get rich because they'll 'steal' your work. wizards are already making money and existence of a single feat, species or whatever won't change anything. except final quality of product. such complex systems like d20 are not made by single man, they need thinktanks to function, and i don't believe that every contributor to final product is listed in credits...

besides. re-read any of the threads regarding 4th ed. in every single one of them you'll find posts like 'omg i wish they did this or that this or that way'. i don't think majority of people would oppose seeing their ideas come to life.

[mudbunny]

guys, i think this whole thread is a little bit out of reality.

This thread is sane.

The thread the OP linked to, along with a couple of other threads in the same section, are so far beyond the line that divides sane from insane that the line is a dot.

[AKA_Bait]

Yes, but you don't lose *any* of your rights at all..

I don't think I ever said that you did. Perhaps I should have used the word 'exclusive' rather than 'full' to be more clear above. However, WotC now having the right to subliscence and publish your idea and enforce any proprietary rights on it without your express permission (outside of the document we have been discussing) or knowledge. That's pretty much as good as owning it. That's not 'FUD', whatever that is.


I understand the anger that people have over giving up their rights to what they post on the boards. But, realistically, what percentage of the home-brew stuff that is posted on the WotC boards (or any board with something like that in their ToU/ToS) is actually vendable.

I grant you, probably a very small percentage of the overall stuff posted. I'd be shocked if they wanted to use anything I made, for example. Some folks, I'm thinking of Fax Celestis and Vorpal Tribble among others, have a right to be concerned though and now that this language exists should probably take steps to ensure their exclusive use of their intellecutal property. I've seen several things they have created, among the tons of nifty stuff they have produced, that probably IS vendable or would be with very little revision.

The ToU/ToS is new over at the WotC boards. Now that people are aware of this language there probably will be a steep decline in the more prolific and talented homebrewers posting there. I just hope, in the case of younger players who homebrew, who may not have any concept of IP, that they don't get taken for a ride.


Do you think that if you homebrew really cool new feat, and somebody else decides to use it in his games, he'll give you credit? unlikely... the reason why it bothers you is in fact delusion that wizards will earn your money or 'profit from your ideas'. no guys they won't, at least not more than they are doing it now. you buy their product, you advertise it for free amongst your friends ('hey guys lets play d&d on friday night, tis really cool'), and you already add your ideas to its potential - we rpg-ers by definition are little bit geeky therefore enhancing ones experience by browsing web resources is not unlikely. wizards won't get rich because they'll 'steal' your work. wizards are already making money and existence of a single feat, species or whatever won't change anything. .

Two things:

1. I don't know about you, but if I use something from the homebrew forums, I typically DO give credit, at least verbally, to the person who made it. Typically, I use monsters people have created and after the game when my PC's ask "what the heck were those reflecting flower things?" I'll tell them "they were a homebrew from Fax Celestis I found on the OotS boards". I'm sure most people don't do that but they ought to.

2. Feats are not the thing that WotC is going to make money publishing and sublisceing. Monsters are. Character classes are. There are a number of monsters that are so D&D that they were not included in the SRD. Those single concepts DO make WotC money, just for the record.

[nagora]

Also remember that minors can't enter into binding contracts of any kind. Gleemax has to prove that you were an adult when you posted - even if you lied about your age.

[nagora]

Yes, but you don't lose *any* of your rights at all.


You do if they exercise the Trademark option.

[StickMan]

Oh I'm never buying anything from them again.

The point is that there is a small group of gamers who have a secret pipe dream to one day publish there work and not get sued by wizards because they happened to post one of there ideas on the wizards board, and wizards there for now owns it. I know I'll most likely ever have any of my work published but hey its pipe dream and I like to think I'll one day do it. I like having my work reviewed that is homebrew, and if ever did end up wanting to publish something I have built no one should be able to go no you posted in on my forum I own it. Even in theory this is unsettling for the pipe dreamers like me.

[AKA_Bait]

Also remember that minors can't enter into binding contracts of any kind. Gleemax has to prove that you were an adult when you posted - even if you lied about your age.

Although this is true, how many parents are realistically going to even go see a lawyer when their kid finds something in a Monster Manual and says "I came up with that first!"

Also, plenty of adults have no idea about their IP rights. When I said younger folks I meant around college age, 18 -22, people who are still in school and have time to devote to this sort of thing as well as being old enough to possibly write something vendable.

[AKA_Bait]

Oh I'm never buying anything from them again.

The point is that there is a small group of gamers who have a secret pipe dream to one day publish there work and not get sued by wizards because they happened to post one of there ideas on the wizards board, and wizards there for now owns it. I know I'll most likely ever have any of my work published but hey its pipe dream and I like to think I'll one day do it. I like having my work reviewed that is homebrew, and if ever did end up wanting to publish something I have built no one should be able to go no you posted in on my forum I own it. Even in theory this is unsettling for the pipe dreamers like me.

Well, stick man, you don't have to worry about that. You can still publish it and they couldn't stop you.

It's just that they might publish it first...

[mudbunny]

You do if they exercise the Trademark option.

No. If you own the IP, allowing someone else to use it, whether they pay you for the right or you, as you would on the Gleemax forums, allow them to use it for free, does not mean that they own the IP. It means that they are allowed to use it.

It seems like a minor difference, but it legally is huge. If you still own the IP, you are allowed to do with it what you want, and WotC cannot do anything to it. If you come up with a cool new feat, and WotC puts that feat in a book and sells it, you would have the legal right to then publish it as OGL content, and people would be able to use it for free in their systems, as long as the proper OGL attributions and notices are there.


I don't think I ever said that you did. Perhaps I should have used the word 'exclusive' rather than 'full' to be more clear above. However, WotC now having the right to subliscence and publish your idea and enforce any proprietary rights on it without your express permission (outside of the document we have been discussing) or knowledge. That's pretty much as good as owning it. That's not 'FUD', whatever that is.

Yes it is, but you also have the right, as I mentioned to nagora just above in this post, it doesn't remove any rights for what you want to do with it. If you own the IP (as in you created it, own the TM, patented it, own the copyright...), even if Wizards, due to you posting it on their boards, starts to use it commercially, you can still do what you will with it.

You want to post it for free on message boards, go for it. You want to publish it, go for it.

FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

There is not so much in this forum, but the thread(s) on the official forums are full of it.

[nagora]

No. If you own the IP, allowing someone else to use it, whether they pay you for the right or you, as you would on the Gleemax forums, allow them to use it for free, does not mean that they own the IP. It means that they are allowed to use it.

And if they trademark it - which the "agreement" allows - they can sue you if you use the same name. If they patent it - which the "agreement" allows - they can sue you if you even use it under a different name.

If you have already TMed or patented the work then you don't lose the TM or patent, certainly.

I just doubt that giving someone the right to TM or patent your work is something that can be done without a written contract with signatures under US or UK law.

[mudbunny]

Oh I'm never buying anything from them again.

The point is that there is a small group of gamers who have a secret pipe dream to one day publish there work and not get sued by wizards because they happened to post one of there ideas on the wizards board, and wizards there for now owns it. I know I'll most likely ever have any of my work published but hey its pipe dream and I like to think I'll one day do it. I like having my work reviewed that is homebrew, and if ever did end up wanting to publish something I have built no one should be able to go no you posted in on my forum I own it. Even in theory this is unsettling for the pipe dreamers like me.

Sigh.

WotC can't sue you.

If you came up with it, you own the copyright to it. They can't sue you for publishing something that you own the copyright to.

I highly recommend that people who are confused spend some time and energy on Google.

[AKA_Bait]

Sigh.

WotC can't sue you.

If you came up with it, you own the copyright to it. They can't sue you for publishing something that you own the copyright to.

I highly recommend that people who are confused spend some time and energy on Google.

QFT

The issue here is not that WotC could sue you if you do something with you own work. It is that they can use, change, and sell your work, without attribution or payment. If that doesn't bother you, you have nothing to worry about.

[Fax Celestis]

I knew there was a reason I never became a common poster over on the WotC Fora.

[mudbunny]

And if they trademark it - which the "agreement" allows - they can sue you if you use the same name. if they patent it - which the "agreement" allows - they can sue you if you even use it under a different name.

That is not exclusive to the WotC forums. That is a basic fact of most IP systems in the world.

If you go to a country where NIKE hasn't registered their various trademarks, you can register it before them, and there is not much they can do.

Most countries in the world, with the exception of the US, although they are expected to change format in the next couple of years, currently follow the First to File system for patents. In essence, it means that it does not matter who is the first to invent the item, it is the first person who applies for the patent who has priority.


If you have already TMed or patented the work then you don't lose the TM or patent, certainly.

I just doubt that giving someone the right to TM or patent your work is something that can be done without a written contract with signatures under US or UK law.

Under Canadian Patent Law, if someone other than the person applying for the patent has disclosed the information prior to date that the application for the patent was filed, the patent cannot be granted.

[nagora]

That is not exclusive to the WotC forums. That is a basic fact of most IP systems in the world.

If you go to a country where NIKE hasn't registered their various trademarks, you can register it before them, and there is not much they can do.

Start counting. Will you get to triple figures before the email from the WTO? Might makes right in the world of IP.


Most countries in the world, with the exception of the US, although they are expected to change format in the next couple of years, currently follow the First to File system for patents. In essence, it means that it does not matter who is the first to invent the item, it is the first person who applies for the patent who has priority.

However, even the utterly corrupt USPO frowns on patenting public knowledge. Prior art is still at least in theory a factor, and probably going to become moreso as companies like Microsoft get to be on the wrong end of submarine patents more and more often. Might makes right in the world of IP, and MS is very mighty indeed.


Under Canadian Patent Law, if someone other than the person applying for the patent has disclosed the information prior to date that the application for the patent was filed, the patent cannot be granted.

I think that's a more wildly spread nontion than Canada. In most countries it would be an issue. What would not be would be a case of someone who could show that they privately invented something before the filer but did not publish/publicise. In that case the first inventor would be screwed unless they showed industrial espionage.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Ok, this seriously ticks me off. I've said for years that much of Wizards stuff that has come out is almost word for word like stuff I have on my Creation Page on Wizards. Now I know it could honestly be.

Tell me, are they free to use it and not pay you or give you credit for the creation?Only if they're actually copying you;
It's hardly difficult to believe that a spell/monster/rule working in the single 3.5 ruleset could be produced independently by seperate people.

I'll tell you now; NO company worth it's salt won't take basic protections against near impossible to prove or disprove, whether firvolous or not, legal claims of plagirism.


Either way, they invented a product and even gave many options for users to customize it; they've been entirely clear about the copyright issues beyond it.


Also, in no way does this interfere with the mission statement of Gleemax:
Allowing gamers to come and discuss/homebrew/etc.; the only thing it means is that they don't own the legal rights to what they post on the site.

[AKA_Bait]

Only if they're actually copying you;
It's hardly difficult to believe that a spell/monster/rule working in the single 3.5 ruleset could be produced independently by seperate people.

For the more creative and original ones it strikes me as very, very unlikley that they would come up with something strikingly similar. I mean, who comes up with the idea of a Beholder out of the blue? Giant Eagle, sure.


I'll tell you now; NO company worth it's salt won't take basic protections against near impossible to prove or disprove, whether firvolous or not, legal claims of plagirism.

This is a little more than a basic protection imho.


Also, in no way does this interfere with the mission statement of Gleemax:
Allowing gamers to come and discuss/homebrew/etc.; the only thing it means is that they don't own the legal rights to what they post on the site.

Except it does. It will keep, if they have a sense of the value of their work, the better homebrewers off the boards there. Not that I have a problem with that. I've always preferred the OotS forum much more.

[Fax Celestis]

Except it does. It will keep, if they have a sense of the value of their work, the better homebrewers off the boards there. Not that I have a problem with that. I've always preferred the OotS forum much more.

And let's keep it that way. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54793)

[mudbunny]

That is not exclusive to the WotC forums. That is a basic fact of most IP systems in the world.

If you go to a country where NIKE hasn't registered their various trademarks, you can register it before them, and there is not much they can do.
Start counting. Will you get to triple figures before the email from the WTO? Might makes right in the world of IP.

It was one example in one of the training sessions I went through of why it is important to always keep your national IP Office informed of your address and to make sure that your maintenance fees are always paid.




However, even the utterly corrupt USPO frowns on patenting public knowledge. Prior art is still at least in theory a factor, and probably going to become moreso as companies like Microsoft get to be on the wrong end of submarine patents more and more often. Might makes right in the world of IP, and MS is very mighty indeed.

Prior art is very important. If you can *prove* that you disclosed it first (and there are various time frames which you must consider, but most of them are all around 1 year before the filing of the application) , it means that they cannot get the protection.

Of course, the US is changing the law on how patent infringement works, very much in the favor of companies who use the patents and against the companies who survive off of lawsuit patents. Now, the maximum damages that can be claimed will be based on the overall importance of the infringed IP on the item as a whole.

[Merlin the Tuna]

This thread is sane.

The thread the OP linked to, along with a couple of other threads in the same section, are so far beyond the line that divides sane from insane that the line is a dot.Heh. I actually thought the opposite. By the time Crow made the link and the explosion happened over here, the WotC thread had mostly settled down into "This is mostly protection for them, because not protecting their work would be dumb."

Of course, this discussion seems to have bled over into the WotC forums, but then, what can you do.

[mudbunny]

Of course, this discussion seems to have bled over into the WotC forums, but then, what can you do.

I had noticed that no-one had really given a decent explanation of the fact that IP rights are exclusive, rather than inclusive, so I gave one.

[horseboy]

Lets apply Hanlons Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_Razor) to this situation for a moment.

I never knew that somebody had summed up one of my personal philosophies so succinctly.


I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't have much of a problem with it. If I want Wizards to pay me for developing material for them, I'll fill out a job application. Anything I write on any message board is pro bono. Anybody, including the shareholders over at Wizards, can use it to enrich their gaming experience or their bank account if they want. I understand that not everybody feels that way, but they're free to not post their stuff if they don't want to.
Exactly. When I opened up the eldar codex and saw my idea for Doom listed right there, I was beaming with pride. Not just because my idea had seen print, but because I had helped make the game that much better.

[horseboy]

It was one example in one of the training sessions I went through of why it is important to always keep your national IP Office informed of your address and to make sure that your maintenance fees are always paid.

To back you up on this one, I'd like to point to the Korean Olympics. Nike was a big sponsor of the US team. When they went over there Nike got slapped with a law suit because someone in Korea had patented the "shoosh" mark Nike used. Nike then had to pay some schlub stupid amounts of money and the US team had to cover up their uniforms when on TV.

[mudbunny]

To back you up on this one, I'd like to point to the Korean Olympics. Nike was a big sponsor of the US team. When they went over there Nike got slapped with a law suit because someone in Korea had patented trademarked the "shoosh" mark Nike used. Nike then had to pay some schlub stupid amounts of money and the US team had to cover up their uniforms when on TV.

Sorry for nitpicking, but it's trademarked, not patented.

[ArmorArmadillo]

When I was, I don't know, about 11, I sent a letter to Nintendo Power magazine saying:
"Hey I think it'd be a great idea to put all the Nintendo characters in one big fighting game."

They sent back saying "It's a long and difficult process to create a game, and we can't accept unsolicited ideas like this.

While, anyways, some number of years later Super Smash Bros. came out.

Was it my idea? Pretty much exactly. Was it not their idea? Who knows. Did I see any royalties? I wish.

But all I could really be mad about was that they published my idea like I was asking for in the first place.


Or homebrewers homebrewing to establish an intellectual property, or are they doing it to expand the game?
I'm sorry if I rub any people the wrong way with this, but there are completely separate methods from message boards to establish ownership of your OGL ideas (Which are already WotC controlled); posting them online should be done in the service of the gaming community as a whole, and to share your ideas.

[Reinboom]

When I was, I don't know, about 11, I sent a letter to Nintendo Power magazine saying:
"Hey I think it'd be a great idea to put all the Nintendo characters in one big fighting game."

They sent back saying "It's a long and difficult process to create a game, and we can't accept unsolicited ideas like this.

While, anyways, some number of years later Super Smash Bros. came out.

Was it my idea? Pretty much exactly. Was it not their idea? Who knows. Did I see any royalties? I wish.

Different in two ways: 1) It was direct submitted to wizards - although in this case it is similar, however, this can be avoided simply but avoiding wizards. The issue with this is that wizards is trying to make "the myspace of the gaming community" - I believe the comments against this have also brought up why this move is .. slow in this respect.

2) You provided a basic path, not a fully design. The thing with homebrew is that it's not, usually, "I want a fascinatingly lucky scoundrel style character who's opponent's never seam to get so lucky." - instead - we have the entire fluff, class sheet, design and abilities of this (Fax's Luckthief). Similar to if you instead submitted the source code to everyone and then the next year it was released on the console with a 50$ sticker.



But all I could really be mad about was that they published my idea like I was asking for in the first place.


Or homebrewers homebrewing to establish an intellectual property, or are they doing it to expand the game?
I'm sorry if I rub any people the wrong way with this, but there are completely separate methods from message boards to establish ownership of your OGL ideas (Which are already WotC controlled); posting them online should be done in the service of the gaming community as a whole, and to share your ideas.

Uhm, I would say -both-.
Taking back to the game idea thing. If I was to release my game in full, then see it for sale a year later - without my name or credit at all, not even a thank you - I would be pissed. For one, as a game designer/programmer, that's now a piece of work that I just can't use anymore. I wasn't able to protect it, guard it, because I made a very unwise decision of agreeing to a broad terms of use such as this; I've more or less sunk my own idea. This applies the same way here, not only is homebrew a way to expand the game - but it's also a portfolio.

[AKA_Bait]

Or homebrewers homebrewing to establish an intellectual property, or are they doing it to expand the game?
I'm sorry if I rub any people the wrong way with this, but there are completely separate methods from message boards to establish ownership of your OGL ideas (Which are already WotC controlled); posting them online should be done in the service of the gaming community as a whole, and to share your ideas.

Is there some reason that it can't be both? I look at the language involved this way: I frequently use the monsters that are homebrewed in the homebrew forum. They are there for everyone and it is a service gladly provided by the talented people who frequently post there.

If there ever is a book published as a result of the MitPII project I'd be happy to buy it (even though there would be a free PDF version) and I'd rather see the money for it go to the people who put the serious hours in designing all the monsters (I'm not one of them by the way) than WotC (who I have already paid for the system itself).

The language we have been talking about would pretty much allow WotC to do what the MitP project is doing but without giving anything back to the folks who have done this service to the gaming community. Not even a nod and a pat on the head let alone any money. I'm not cool with that.

[Crow]

I just want to apologize for the original post. I was severely pressed for time, so rather than write a lengthy explanation, I linked to the original thread on the WotC forums.

Still, I don't see how Gleemax can accomplish it's intended goal with this language included in it's agreement. Over on the wizards boards, when the "company man" was trying to sell everybody on Gleemax, the guy specifically talked about using it to post your "cool homebrew ideas" and "share your campaign world and adventures". Now I am paraphrasing heavily, but I don't see how you can encourage people to come do these things, and then turn around and basically say "Do all that, but just so you know...yada yada yada."

As one of the previous posters was explaining, a lot of gamers have that great "pipe dream", and I think those that do would be the ones who are going to want to show their creation to other gamers and see what they think about them. I also think that these gamers are capable of creating some really incredible work, and a lot of people would really like to see it (Not me though, I could care less about somebody else's campaign world...but I'm just mean). The point is however, that these incredibly talented people, the ones who you would want coming and using your "social network", may see this issue in the ToS, and decide they would rather do their thing elsewhere.

As I said earlier. The legal mumbo jumbo isn't so important to me, but to state that you want to put together an ambitious (if overdone) project like Gleemax, and then include this in the agreement just seems counter-intuitive to me.

[mudbunny]

I just want to apologize for the original post. I was severely pressed for time, so rather than write a lengthy explanation, I linked to the original thread on the WotC forums.

Don't apologize. There has been some interesting discussion.


Still, I don't see how Gleemax can accomplish it's intended goal with this language included in it's agreement. Over on the wizards boards, when the "company man" was trying to sell everybody on Gleemax, the guy specifically talked about using it to post your "cool homebrew ideas" and "share your campaign world and adventures". Now I am paraphrasing heavily, but I don't see how you can encourage people to come do these things, and then turn around and basically say "Do all that, but just so you know...yada yada yada."

As one of the previous posters was explaining, a lot of gamers have that great "pipe dream", and I think those that do would be the ones who are going to want to show their creation to other gamers and see what they think about them. I also think that these gamers are capable of creating some really incredible work, and a lot of people would really like to see it (Not me though, I could care less about somebody else's campaign world...but I'm just mean). The point is however, that these incredibly talented people, the ones who you would want coming and using your "social network", may see this issue in the ToS, and decide they would rather do their thing elsewhere.

As I said earlier. The legal mumbo jumbo isn't so important to me, but to state that you want to put together an ambitious (if overdone) project like Gleemax, and then include this in the agreement just seems counter-intuitive to me.

It is something that any fan who produces fanart (be it stories, artwork, or homebrew) needs to seriously consider and keep in mind. It is also something that professionals at WotC need to keep in mind for their own protection. That clause in the Terms of Use means that if WotC puts out a splatbook with a feat, and someone on the Gleemax forums writes up a similar feat (independent of each other), WotC is protected from a lawsuit.

The D&D community is very lucky that the designers and developers of D&D are even allowed to look at the forums, to read fan submissions for classes/feats/monsters/races/spells/etc. Most authors will not even open fan mail that has submissions in it. There are authors (who I can't remember right now) who do not participate in their fan message boards, newsgroups or anything like that for fear of lawsuits (OMGWTFBBQ. I POSTED THAT IDEA LAST YEAR!!!) over it.

The clause is, IMO, something that both protects WotC from lawsuits, and benefits us as we can interact with devs and designers.

[Merlin the Tuna]

The clause is, IMO, something that both protects WotC from lawsuits, and benefits us as we can interact with devs and designers.I'd tend to agree -- I see this primarily as WotC covering their butts... but the point stands that it does allow WotC to potentially make a bajillion dollars off of things posted in the forum. The damning problem here, though, is that I can't think of a way to protect both the company and the community simultaneously; either way seems to leave one side open to frivolous lawsuits.

At the same time, though, if D&DI does work, it almost presents its own deterrent to doing so. After all, if a greater percentage of consumers become part of the online community, it follows that a greater percentage would realize when the Sublime Way Marshal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=752414) shows up in a book alongside the Society Mind (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=506284), creating a more severe backlash against the company.

It's a pretty sticky situation, really.

[mudbunny]

I'd tend to agree -- I see this primarily as WotC covering their butts... but the point stands that it does allow WotC to potentially make a bajillion dollars off of things posted in the forum. The damning problem here, though, is that I can't think of a way to protect both the company and the community simultaneously; either way seems to leave one side open to frivolous lawsuits.

At the same time, though, if D&DI does work, it almost presents its own deterrent to doing so. After all, if a greater percentage of consumers become part of the online community, it follows that a greater percentage would realize when the Sublime Way Marshal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=752414) shows up in a book alongside the Society Mind (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=506284), creating a more severe backlash against the company.

It's a pretty sticky situation, really.

Very sticky. However, also keep in mind this. If they publish something that has already been posted on their forums, there is nothing preventing the person who originally posted it from making it OGL (or whatever the term is) and allowing everybody and their brother to post it wherever they want. It is in WotCs best interest to, if they see something interesting, contact the original developer and ask for permission to use it. The overwhelming majority of people will probably say "Yes, as long as my contribution is acknowledged, and could I also get an autographed copy."

[AKA_Bait]

It just seems odd to me that despite the fact that the Wizards forum had been around for many years it is only now, when they are deciding to make a big push to bring people into their online system, that language like this appears.

They were in equal danger of a lawsuit that entire time. It didn't stop them from putting out a wealth of supplements.

Besides, if they want to pretect the company from a lawsuit (btw is gleemax a separate corporation? I don't honestly know.) they could simply put up two diffrent homebrew forums. One that allows game designers to look at it and has this language and one that does not.

[Amphimir Míriel]

Very sticky. However, also keep in mind this. If they publish something that has already been posted on their forums, there is nothing preventing the person who originally posted it from making it OGL (or whatever the term is) and allowing everybody and their brother to post it wherever they want. It is in WotCs best interest to, if they see something interesting, contact the original developer and ask for permission to use it. The overwhelming majority of people will probably say "Yes, as long as my contribution is acknowledged, and could I also get an autographed copy."

Once again, you are right Mudbunny... A lot of times a company would do "the right thing" (or close enough), even if they can legally get away with anything. This promotes customer good faith and opens profit avenues closed to "evil" companies.

[Merlin the Tuna]

They were in equal danger of a lawsuit that entire time. It didn't stop them from putting out a wealth of supplements.I almost wonder if they're worried about it with 4e. I'm as sick of the "it's an evolution, not a revolution" line as much as anyone else, but if it's true, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people's "fixes" for various problems carried on -- if loosely -- to the upcoming core books.

[AKA_Bait]

I almost wonder if they're worried about it with 4e. I'm as sick of the "it's an evolution, not a revolution" line as much as anyone else, but if it's true, I wouldn't be surprised to see some people's "fixes" for various problems carried on -- if loosely -- to the upcoming core books.

It's a reasonable worry but if it's the case then they are probably already screwed. This language just appeard a week ago. All of those suggestions for fixes predated it.

[ArmorArmadillo]

It's a reasonable worry but if it's the case then they are probably already screwed. This language just appeard a week ago. All of those suggestions for fixes predated it.

But the language in the OGL mirroring this didn't.

I hope gamers would have more gumption than to claim fixes in the same vein as their own to be plagirism.

[Dausuul]

I hope gamers would have more gumption than to claim fixes in the same vein as their own to be plagirism.

In 95% of cases, your hope would be justified. But the 5% of cases where it wouldn't are enough to be a huge headache.

[Renegade Paladin]

Or homebrewers homebrewing to establish an intellectual property, or are they doing it to expand the game?
I'm sorry if I rub any people the wrong way with this, but there are completely separate methods from message boards to establish ownership of your OGL ideas (Which are already WotC controlled); posting them online should be done in the service of the gaming community as a whole, and to share your ideas.
Yes, it's done in service of the gaming community, not of WotC's bank account. If they think a homebrew idea is so nifty, they can good and well hire the homebrewer. :smallannoyed:

[Amphimir Míriel]

Has anybody seen an Airline's Contract of Carriage (http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/InfoCenter/ContractsofCarriage/tabid/74/Default.aspx)?

According to those documents, airlines can get away with a lot of things (for example, they can deny service to anyone, for any pretext, without compensating him beyond a simple refund).

However, in most cases, the companies policies take better care of their passengers than those contracts state. Why? airlines, like most businesses, depend on customer goodwill and loyalty.

Really, a loyal and happy customer base is so valuable, that I really doubt WotC would stoop so low as to grab a homebrewers work and publishing it without compensating him... If a homebrewer's work is so good that they want to include it in a book, it's much cheaper in the long run just to hire the guy and pay him for his contribution to said book, than to risk litigation or having a public relations disaster.

[Fhaolan]

But... this is just a rephrasing of the OGL, isn't it?

If you post anything homebrewed for D&D *anywhere* public (Gleemax, this forum, the bulletin board at the gaming store, etc.) you're doing so with the assumed permission of WotC under the OGL license. That was the reason for the OGL in the first place.

If you get pissy about WotC or any other company taking your OGL work and publishing it, they can get pissy right back and legally require you to remove your work from a public space, or label it expicitly as OGL. And once you label it as OGL, they can use it again because that's what the OGL is for.

The OGL is just like the Open Source movement in software. By making your work public you are implicitly stating that your work has no intrinsic value and that you do not require compensation for it. You are making it available for anyone to use, and republish, for free. And that anyone includes companies, big and small.

[RandomNPC]

there have been a few lawsuits where the terms of agreement are non-negotiable and the person who was forced to agree or walk away didn't read them, just agreed, and won when it came to the courts.

the judge said they were never given the option to negotiate terms and if they wanted the content they were forced to agree, and in being forced the contract was negated.

[Amphimir Míriel]

The OGL is just like the Open Source movement in software. By making your work public you are implicitly stating that your work has no intrinsic value and that you do not require compensation for it. You are making it available for anyone to use, and republish, for free. And that anyone includes companies, big and small.

I believe a key thing here is credit.

I for one, wouldn't mind seeing any of my homebrews (humble as they are) in a book by WotC or by anyone else, with no pay, as long as my name is in the credit page (a free copy of the resulting book would be nice, though :smallwink: ).

A lot of people in the Free/Open Source movement are the same. Not everyone can be a Linus Torvalds or a Guido Van Rossum (or a Monte Cook or a Kevin Siembieda) but a lot of people make small contributions and the only payment they receive is a small note of credit in the source code. This is fine, however, and to have your patch (however small) accepted into a popular Open Source proyect is considered a laudable achievement that grants significant bragging rights.

[ArmorArmadillo]

I believe a key thing here is credit.

I for one, wouldn't mind seeing any of my homebrews (humble as they are) in a book by WotC or by anyone else, with no pay, as long as my name is in the credit page (a free copy of the resulting book would be nice, though :smallwink: ).

A lot of people in the Free/Open Source movement are the same. Not everyone can be a Linus Torvalds or a Guido Van Rossum (or a Monte Cook or a Kevin Siembieda) but a lot of people make small contributions and the only payment they receive is a small note of credit in the source code. This is fine, however, and to have your patch (however small) accepted into a popular Open Source proyect is considered a laudable achievement that grants significant bragging rights.I think if that's what it came down to, the company would gladly credit the original author. (Why would they needlessly offend the customer base by refusing to provide a free credit?)