| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| swifty |
Posted - 19 Apr 2009 : 16:39:53
just wondering whats happened to the updates page as theres been nothing new since august.its just id rather get my info here than go onto wizards own site. |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Icelander |
Posted - 22 Apr 2009 : 00:19:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Considering the success of the RIAA in court, it's not difficult to "prove" you're losing money because of someone else's actions.
I can't speak for the US, but here, at least, companies have found it very hard going. There's no evidence that piracy reduces revenues and there is considerable evidence that it might actually serve as free advertising.
That's not to say that I support actions which are clearly infringements of copyrights or other IP, but I'm just pointing out that even in such clear-cut cases, showing actual damages is very hard.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And expanding on existing work is not the same as discussing how to use legally acquired copies. For example, one could use City of Splendors: Waterdeep to create an adventure involving the city's Hidden Lords. And you could then discuss this. That's fair use. Me presenting four articles on alternative Hidden Lords is a derivative work.
Work which serves to enhance the game play value of their works in a way that is substantially transformative. See Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
Aside from that, by their very nature, roleplaying games are a creative hobby. You posting details from your games (even if those games are theoretical) would be protected by the same principles that make it legal to post videos of playing through Mario Bros.
Waterdeep isn't a trademark to my knowledge. Neither are Lords. A creative work that mentions either one, is published free of charge and references legal copies of WotC works would seem to be the definition of fair use. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 Apr 2009 : 00:02:52
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Icelander, I will readily admit that I am not a lawyer, although I did grow up in an atmosphere permeated by them. But I don't believe your latter statement is correct.
Controlling a property is not simply about whether someone else might exploit it for their own profit. If someone else might exploit it, and *thereby* reduce the value of your property, without your permission, you have a right to compensation, at least under US law, as I understand it.
The obvious example being pirate sharers. Whether they make a profit is immaterial. The legal standard is whether they have impacted the worth of your product.
That's true, but the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the value of his IP is being reduced.
That's hard to do in piracy cases and it would be essentially impossible in cases where people are discussing how to best use legally acquired copies of your work. Such as on Candlekeep.
Considering the success of the RIAA in court, it's not difficult to "prove" you're losing money because of someone else's actions.
And expanding on existing work is not the same as discussing how to use legally acquired copies. For example, one could use City of Splendors: Waterdeep to create an adventure involving the city's Hidden Lords. And you could then discuss this. That's fair use. Me presenting four articles on alternative Hidden Lords is a derivative work. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 23:49:16
There might also be a problem if all those FR fans who defect from the 4E stuff and enter this board - i.e. people like me - want to publish/present 3,5E material on the Realms which consequently might be viewed as competition to the 4E FR material published by WotC. While they'd have no problem about already existing material on here and the use of FR trademarked stuff (like Candlekeep), having new material on here to draw gamers back to the pre-Spellplague Realms might be something different ... |
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 22:15:28
quote:
Originally posted by capnvan
Icelander, I will readily admit that I am not a lawyer, although I did grow up in an atmosphere permeated by them. But I don't believe your latter statement is correct.
Controlling a property is not simply about whether someone else might exploit it for their own profit. If someone else might exploit it, and *thereby* reduce the value of your property, without your permission, you have a right to compensation, at least under US law, as I understand it.
The obvious example being pirate sharers. Whether they make a profit is immaterial. The legal standard is whether they have impacted the worth of your product.
That's true, but the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the value of his IP is being reduced.
That's hard to do in piracy cases and it would be essentially impossible in cases where people are discussing how to best use legally acquired copies of your work. Such as on Candlekeep. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 21:18:17
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Considering that we've seen websites -- and not just D&D-related ones, either -- forced to take down fan content and/or go offline, then yes, WotC could shut us down entirely, in a heartbeat. And they could easily make a case for copyright infringement for the Compendium material.
I don't expect them to try anything like that, but considering what we've already seen happen in the US -- including things that could be argued as fair use being shuttered -- then I don't see that we have any built-in safety, from a purely legal standpoint.
Those websites elected to shut down. Mostly because they believed the owner of the IP in question when he made statements about the extents of those rights that weren't, strictly speaking, correct.
I am not aware of any court ruling that fan-made material on a fansite dedicated to an RPG or computer game are an infringment of the owners IP.*
*As long as the rights of the creators and owners are appropriately credited and the material is not published for profit or made in such a way as to deliberately make use of a trademark for advertising purposes. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 21:14:00
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And from what I've read, WotC could legally say that since our stuff is based on their property, then they own what we do. That's the thing that worries me the most.
THIS is what I am assuming will happen.
You know, I honestly don't mind if something I've created becomes canon... I've stated, more than once, that I'd like to see one of my Lords of Waterdeep (any of the four) become canon -- and even a passing reference in a web article would do that.
What worries me is the possibility that WotC decides to try claiming everything, re-publishes some of my stuff, and then either fails to offer any credit to me, or worse, assigns credit to one of their own folks.
Granted, I don't think this is a likely scenario... But then again, I didn't think that lying to us about the existence of 4E was likely, or that denying me the right to re-download files I've already legitimately paid for was likely, either. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 21:08:31
Considering that we've seen websites -- and not just D&D-related ones, either -- forced to take down fan content and/or go offline, then yes, WotC could shut us down entirely, in a heartbeat. And they could easily make a case for copyright infringement for the Compendium material.
I don't expect them to try anything like that, but considering what we've already seen happen in the US -- including things that could be argued as fair use being shuttered -- then I don't see that we have any built-in safety, from a purely legal standpoint. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 19:26:30
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
However, "Might makes right", and weather right or wrong, Hasbro can afford better lawyers then anyone else.
Better lawyers usully = win (and right & wrong have little to do with it).
Edit: That was aimed at Icelander - Kuje posted before I. 
As a lawyer, I'd have to disagree with the sentiment.
If the case has few merits, the best lawyer in the world can't win it.
I do agree, however, that if one side can't afford competent counsel at all, it's at a grave disadvantage. And that's what corporations trying to extend their IP rights further than they legally go trust in. That people will never dare go to trial, even if they're clearly in the right.
I detest such tactics and I note that the US legal system is excellently equipped to make it worthwhile for those in the right to make a counter-suit for damages and pay legal costs with those.
Edit: Note that I'm an Icelandic lawyer and not by any means a specialist in US intellectual property law. So nothing I say should be taken as legal advice, but instead only my personal opinions. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 19:13:28
However, "Might makes right", and weather right or wrong, Hasbro can afford better lawyers then anyone else.
Better lawyers usully = win (and right & wrong have little to do with it).
Edit: That was aimed at Icelander - Kuje posted before I. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 19:11:25
I'm not going to keep arguing this with you, Icelander. So we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
|
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 19:06:12
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Sorry guys but I'm going to have to disagree with most of you. Wizards owns FR and they could very well tell this site to cease and desist because of that IP and trademark and or copy right.
There are no legal limits as to when you can tell someone to cease and desist. If, however, you are forced to defend your claim in court, Wizards would be hard pressed to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
If Wizards doesn't defend their trademark, they could lose it. Fair use does come into play, of course, at least for copy right. However, a lot of the material we created for Candlekeep goes way out of bounds of fair use. We basically are publishing material, and yes, the courts of the US have said publishing material on the net is still publishing it and thus under copy right and trademark laws. So, basically we have been violating Wizard's IP for years. Will they do anything about shutting us down? I don't know. But do we really want to risk it? I, again, don't know. That is really Alaundo's decision. However, with the recent events that Wizards have been doing, I, if it was my site, would be really hesitant to post new material for a IP that Wizards never granted to the public.
With the exception of use of trademarks, nothing I've seen on Candlekeep has violated any IP rights.
Publishing a work on how to better enjoy or enhance gameplay of a work owned by someone else has been found to be fair use. See the appelate court decision cited above. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 18:58:50
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It could be said that us presenting free ways to enjoy WotC material is copyright infringement, since it gives people an alternative to giving WotC money.
That would be a bit of a stretch, though, and hard as hell for them to prove. It would probably be easier to prove that the fan-material being produced here 'enhances player enjoyment', and therefore contributes to their popularity and their profitability for WotC. We are basically 'working for them for free'.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And from what I've read, WotC could legally say that since our stuff is based on their property, then they own what we do. That's the thing that worries me the most.
THIS is what I am assuming will happen.
That is probably why they want to limit all discussion and purchases to their own site as of right now - their own TOC specifically states that they own ALL content posted on their forums.
Which is why many artists have taken their stuff down from the site, and several fan-projects (like the Elven Netbook) were moved off-site. The probably want their TOC (including their 'morality clauses') to apply to ALL fan-sites, and I'd be willing to bet thats what it will be (if we ever even see one - after all, they should have started 5e by now...) |
| Kuje |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 18:58:25
Sorry guys but I'm going to have to disagree with most of you. Wizards owns FR and they could very well tell this site to cease and desist because of that IP and trademark and or copyright.
If Wizards doesn't defend their trademark, they could lose it. Fair use does come into play, of course, at least for copyright. However, a lot of the material we created for Candlekeep goes way out of bounds of fair use.
We basically are publishing material, and yes, the courts of the US have said publishing material on the net is still publishing it and thus under copyright and trademark laws. So, basically we have been violating Wizard's IP for years.
Will they do anything about shutting us down? I don't know. But do we really want to risk it? I, again, don't know. That's really Alaundo's decision. However, with the recent events that Wizards have been doing, I, if it was my site, would be really hesitant to post new material for a IP that Wizards never granted to the public.
FR material was never included in the OGL and it's not included, I don't think, in the GSL.
As for the fan policy, it has been mentioned only a few months ago, so yes, Wizards has mentioned it and it wasn't over a year ago. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 18:58:22
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but fair use is usually commentary, scholarship, or research. Those things -- which are generally what happens on the forums -- are okay. But in the Compendium, we're building our own stuff upon someone else's copyrighted material. It could be said that us presenting free ways to enjoy WotC material is copyright infringement, since it gives people an alternative to giving WotC money.
And from what I've read, WotC could legally say that since our stuff is based on their property, then they own what we do. That's the thing that worries me the most.
They could say it. That wouldn't convince a judge, though.
There's a growing trend where owners of IP make all sorts of absurd claims about the extent of their rights. Mostly, they're lying and hoping that the fans will be too scared and too ill-funded to challenge their lies.
I suggest that you read the appelate court case I mentioned. Providing a new way to enjoy a given copyrighted work, even if that could theoretically mean that buyers of that work use it for longer and therefore do not buy the newest works, does not constitute infringement of any copyrights.
To put it simply, once WotC publishes a Realms work, they have no legal way to control what people do with it. If people would like to add their own stuff to it, people can. Obviously, people can't reprint substantial sections of WotC copyrighted material, but saying that: "In the town of X in the Forgotten Realms the following NPCs could be found" isn't something that they have any control over.
That doesn't mean that they won't try to intimidate people by lying to them. Sadly, that seems to be common for large corporations that own IPs. But it's our responsibility to see through it when they claim rights they don't have. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 18:49:33
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Owning intellectual property doesn't mean that you get to control who says what about it. It means you can control who is allowed to publish it for profit.
No, but it does allow you to go after those who create derivative works -- even if no money ever changes hands.
Only in very limited ways and pretty much everything Candlekeep publishes is the definition of fair use.
Remember Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. vs Nintendo of America, Inc. An unlicensed third-party software device that could be used to alter gameplay in Nintendo games was found to add functionality for consumers and therefore constitute more than just a deriative work. Doctrine of transformativeness. The appelate court asserted that: "a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed."
I think that there is a substantial amount of similarity here. Whether an actual piece of software is used, the function of Candlekeep is clearly to allow individual consumers of the Realms to enhance their gameplay in them (or other enjoyment).
Essentially, that means that WotC has no right to ban people from adding features to the Realm, sharing stories which happen there or doing anything else that Candlekeep does.
Yeah, but fair use is usually commentary, scholarship, or research. Those things -- which are generally what happens on the forums -- are okay. But in the Compendium, we're building our own stuff upon someone else's copyrighted material. It could be said that us presenting free ways to enjoy WotC material is copyright infringement, since it gives people an alternative to giving WotC money.
And from what I've read, WotC could legally say that since our stuff is based on their property, then they own what we do. That's the thing that worries me the most. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 17:38:50
Which is when you start recommending 'Pepsi'.
If and when the Fan Site Policy ever sees the light of day, it will be very interesting to see what CandleKeep does... or doesn't... do with it. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 17:35:40
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Owning intellectual property doesn't mean that you get to control who says what about it. It means you can control who is allowed to publish it for profit.
No, but it does allow you to go after those who create derivative works -- even if no money ever changes hands.
Only in very limited ways and pretty much everything Candlekeep publishes is the definition of fair use.
Remember Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. vs Nintendo of America, Inc. An unlicensed third-party software device that could be used to alter gameplay in Nintendo games was found to add functionality for consumers and therefore constitute more than just a deriative work. Doctrine of transformativeness. The appelate court asserted that: "a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed."
I think that there is a substantial amount of similarity here. Whether an actual piece of software is used, the function of Candlekeep is clearly to allow individual consumers of the Realms to enhance their gameplay in them (or other enjoyment).
Essentially, that means that WotC has no right to ban people from adding features to the Realm, sharing stories which happen there or doing anything else that Candlekeep does. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 17:28:39
quote:
Originally posted by freyar
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is like this: Stuff is generally copyrighted, and it's completely fair use to discuss that material as long as the site isn't reproducing big chunks of it. The problem is that some names ("Forgotten Realms" as a big example) are also trademarks. The use of trademarks is more controlled, and WotC has to "defend" their trademarks from unauthorized use or else lose the trademark. (This seems to be behind the recent cease-and-desist letters, AFAICT.) So if a professional-looking PDF that Candlekeep hosts used a trademarked term, that would be a target for WotC to go after. OTOH, a clear fan site policy might delineate what WotC would allow fan sites to do with trademarks, providing some kind of legal harbor for both sides. I think.
There's no need for Candlekeep to slam the Forgotten Realms trademark [formatted identically to official WotC works] on anything it does. Mentioning, however, that a certain free product is meant to enhance enjoyment of a work marketed under a trademark does not constitute infringment of that trademark.
I'm not infringing on the trademarks of the Coca-Cola Company when I post my preferred recipie for a Cuba Libre, stating that for optimum enjoyment, you should use Coke and no substitutes. If the Coca-Cola Company ever tried to maintain in court that I was, they'd be laughed out of court and ordered to pay costs. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 15:28:11
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
Owning intellectual property doesn't mean that you get to control who says what about it. It means you can control who is allowed to publish it for profit.
No, but it does allow you to go after those who create derivative works -- even if no money ever changes hands. |
| freyar |
Posted - 21 Apr 2009 : 14:56:13
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
What confuses me is why there has to be any sort of official 'fan site policy'.
As a general rule, fans of anything can be fans, discuss the things they are fans of and how to best use it for fun and games, etc., all without getting the explicit permission of the publisher. To put it simply, non-commercial use of any published material, whether for literary criticism, reading circles, fan fiction or just admiring the pictures, is not controlled by the owner of the IP.
Owning intellectual property doesn't mean that you get to control who says what about it. It means you can control who is allowed to publish it for profit.
While there may be specific cases where an IP owner argues that certain uses of IP are outside the boundaries of fair use (Disney porn and so on), those are exceptions and should be strictly interpreted. Generally, the publisher has no legal, moral or ethical right to control discussion of his works.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is like this: Stuff is generally copyrighted, and it's completely fair use to discuss that material as long as the site isn't reproducing big chunks of it. The problem is that some names ("Forgotten Realms" as a big example) are also trademarks. The use of trademarks is more controlled, and WotC has to "defend" their trademarks from unauthorized use or else lose the trademark. (This seems to be behind the recent cease-and-desist letters, AFAICT.) So if a professional-looking PDF that Candlekeep hosts used a trademarked term, that would be a target for WotC to go after. OTOH, a clear fan site policy might delineate what WotC would allow fan sites to do with trademarks, providing some kind of legal harbor for both sides. I think. |
| Icelander |
Posted - 20 Apr 2009 : 16:48:15
quote:
Originally posted by freyar
I worry sometimes that waiting for the fan site policy is like waiting for Godot, given WotC's record with the GSL (first 4e would be OGL, then it would be GSL but released to 3rd party publishers early, then it was months late, then it was too restrictive, then it was being revised "soon" at GenCon last year, then it finally got revised 6 months later). As far as I can recall, WotC hasn't even mentioned that they're working on a fan site policy for about a year.
What confuses me is why there has to be any sort of official 'fan site policy'.
As a general rule, fans of anything can be fans, discuss the things they are fans of and how to best use it for fun and games, etc., all without getting the explicit permission of the publisher. To put it simply, non-commercial use of any published material, whether for literary criticism, reading circles, fan fiction or just admiring the pictures, is not controlled by the owner of the IP.
Owning intellectual property doesn't mean that you get to control who says what about it. It means you can control who is allowed to publish it for profit.
While there may be specific cases where an IP owner argues that certain uses of IP are outside the boundaries of fair use (Disney porn and so on), those are exceptions and should be strictly interpreted. Generally, the publisher has no legal, moral or ethical right to control discussion of his works. |
| freyar |
Posted - 20 Apr 2009 : 15:26:33
I worry sometimes that waiting for the fan site policy is like waiting for Godot, given WotC's record with the GSL (first 4e would be OGL, then it would be GSL but released to 3rd party publishers early, then it was months late, then it was too restrictive, then it was being revised "soon" at GenCon last year, then it finally got revised 6 months later). As far as I can recall, WotC hasn't even mentioned that they're working on a fan site policy for about a year. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 20 Apr 2009 : 01:49:17
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
So Sage,
Have there been any leaks about what the fan site police...I mean policy would include?
I got something to share, and if it can't be opened here I would start email copies to
interested parties.
What Kuje said.
If there are any new developments, he'll likely be the one to pick up on them first.
Cause I'm just..... obsessive like that.    |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Apr 2009 : 01:14:44
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
So Sage,
Have there been any leaks about what the fan site police...I mean policy would include?
I got something to share, and if it can't be opened here I would start email copies to
interested parties.
What Kuje said.
If there are any new developments, he'll likely be the one to pick up on them first.
|
| althen artren |
Posted - 19 Apr 2009 : 22:10:57
Hmmmm,
Well I must get some reviews from my peers, I've waited soooo long.
If anybody reading this would like to view a copy of my giude to
Myth Drannor, a 92 page essay on Myth Drannor which included direct
quotation from published sources, my own writings, and comparisons between
650/714 DR, 1356 DR, and 1375 DR, please PM me with you email account and I'll
send it to you. (Word Document, not illustrated or anything, but highly informative and all
the info is in 1 place :))
I want feedback, suggestions for improvement, stuff you would like to see, stuff to take
out, anything. Just let me know. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 19 Apr 2009 : 20:25:12
quote:
Originally posted by althen artren
So Sage,
Have there been any leaks about what the fan site police...I mean policy would include?
I got something to share, and if it can't be opened here I would start email copies to
interested parties.
Not that I've seen and I check ENworld, and other places, every day or every other day, hopeing that the policy will be released. :) |
| althen artren |
Posted - 19 Apr 2009 : 19:39:40
So Sage,
Have there been any leaks about what the fan site police...I mean policy would include?
I got something to share, and if it can't be opened here I would start email copies to
interested parties. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Apr 2009 : 17:38:27
Well, Ashe is kinda on the mark, though not entirely. The dictates of the Fan Site Policy would only really apply to specific fan-derived FR content stored here at Candlekeep. But the Site Updates themselves also include other info as well, like details about upcoming novels, or links to new FR articles at WotC for example. And they're still okay to include as part of the Site Updates and, thus, really shouldn't be affected by the Fan Site Policy.
As for the lack of updates however, bear in mind that Alaundo has been quite busy with other non Candlekeep-related stuff. He'll get back to them eventually.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 19 Apr 2009 : 16:47:08
Alas, we are waiting on the Fan Site Policy from Wotc since we don't want to do anything that may get us shut down. |
|
|
