Legal Issues with Module Authoring [Archive] - Wizards Community

Legal Issues with Module Authoring [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TWG_Prometheus
01-14-08, 04:18 PM This might be one of the times where the campagin staff says, "Yeah, why did you think we're so stupid that you have to worry about this." but here goes anyway.

With Living Greyhawk, there are significant worries about how the campaign will wrap up given some of the legal riders that are on the modules regarding who can or cannot use them after they retire. Specifically, this appears to impact the ability of Wizards of the Coast to use those modules later on.

I don't want to see this happen again...at least, not without a really good reason for it. So, I hope that when similar language is gone over for Living Realms, that we'll at least have a clear resolution to the legal questions. Ideally it would be really clear just by looking at a module whether it was intended to be used for Forgotten Realms canon or not. (I don't expect all of them will be but we've heard that some will.)

Hopefully the campaign staff won't take this as a sign of bad faith. I trust that they'll be aware of the problem and seek as good a resolution as possible. Quite likely, they already have. The Living Greyhawk situation seems to be such a convoluted mess, however, that I at least thought I'd start a thread.
Sieylianna
01-14-08, 06:20 PM I don't want to see this happen again...at least, not without a really good reason for it. So, I hope that when similar language is gone over for Living Realms, that we'll at least have a clear resolution to the legal questions. Ideally it would be really clear just by looking at a module whether it was intended to be used for Forgotten Realms canon or not. (I don't expect all of them will be but we've heard that some will.)

Hopefully the campaign staff won't take this as a sign of bad faith. I trust that they'll be aware of the problem and seek as good a resolution as possible. Quite likely, they already have. The Living Greyhawk situation seems to be such a convoluted mess, however, that I at least thought I'd start a thread.

The issue isn't the contracts as much as paying for the modules. If the RPGA wants to maintain all rights to the module in perpetuity, they're going to have to pay for the privilege. For LG, the only modules which are purchased are the core and core special modules. If there are fewer modules in the LFR campaign, you may see them purchase more modules.

Ed
TheBlackFlail
01-15-08, 03:12 AM Why must the RPGA pay to gain the rights to the modules in perpetuity? I'm pretty sure that if I were to write a mod, I could give away the rights to it just as easily as selling it. In fact, I doubt many writers would have much trouble giving the mods to Wizards forever, since after the campaign ends they are nigh-unusable (by anyone other than the RPGA) anyways, since you have to strip out all of the copyrighted content.
pedr
01-15-08, 11:37 AM Well, there has to be some consideration for a transfer of property rights, even if it's just a proverbial peppercorn. I don't think that many jurisdictions would accept 'in consideration for being allowed to use WotC property in your creation', but they might - I'm not an IP lawyer in any jurisdiction!

The global nature of this campaign might cause WotC legal some headaches, of course: the extent to which IP rights can be transferred varies from country to country (see the legal wrangling over the German-made unauthorised Warhammer 40K film)
Sieylianna
01-15-08, 05:25 PM Well, there has to be some consideration for a transfer of property rights, even if it's just a proverbial peppercorn. I don't think that many jurisdictions would accept 'in consideration for being allowed to use WotC property in your creation', but they might - I'm not an IP lawyer in any jurisdiction!

The related issue is what if someone changes his mind, because he doesn't like the way the module is editied, or his RPGA reward cards get lost in the mail, and challenges the contract. IIRC, something like that happened in LG and a half-dozen modules were pulled. People may say they don't care about payment, but establishing consideration is an important part of WotC's legal defense.

Ed
pedr
01-16-08, 04:42 AM Indeed. Now consideration doesn't have to mean 'payment' (in the monetary sense) in most jurisdictions (and, I suppose, might not be necessary for the formation of irrevocable legal obligations in some). So: "In consideration for the right to distribute this material including the WotC IP free of charge on your own personal website in perpetuity from the 1st of January of the year after next, you (the author) agree to grant WotC the exclusive right to distribute this material in any way it sees fit until then, and the right to create, distribute, sell, create derivative works from and in all other ways make use of this material in perpetutity" might work. If, of course, WotC wants to give up that right. In the UK, consideration (I seem to recall) needs to be either a benefit to the recipient or a detriment to the giver of the consideration.

Of course the 'doesn't like how it's edited' might cause problems in some jurisdictions. I believe some civil law jurisdictions are very concerned with moral rights: i.e. the right to be identified as the author of the material and it might be considered a breach of those to, for instance, publish and distribute a module which purports to have been written by Joe Bloggs when it was heavily edited by John Doe to such a degree that Joe Bloggs no longer wishes it to be distributed (or distributed with his name on it).
Newpaintbrush
01-16-08, 05:32 PM Well, there has to be some consideration for a transfer of property rights, even if it's just a proverbial peppercorn. I don't think that many jurisdictions would accept 'in consideration for being allowed to use WotC property in your creation', but they might - I'm not an IP lawyer in any jurisdiction!

The global nature of this campaign might cause WotC legal some headaches, of course: the extent to which IP rights can be transferred varies from country to country (see the legal wrangling over the German-made unauthorised Warhammer 40K film)

Oh, you'd THINK that people need to give consideration for transfer of property rights. But honestly - check out Games Workshop's intellectual property policy (see end). In short - whatever passes through GW at any point, they own, and you no longer have ANY kind of rights whatsoever to whatever you'd been working on. Seriously. It's like they're spitting in your face, lol. (But seriously.)

Hasbro/Wizards might not do things 100% as players would like them to, but I'd have to say I think they're, at least, reasonable. (I :love: the Wizards IP . . . :cheer: )

--

http://uk.games-workshop.com/legal/termsofuse/

SUBMISSIONS

Any notes, e-mails, online messages or bulletin board postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts, designs, or other material submitted to any physical GW company address or to any web site owned or controlled by GW and/or to any e-mail addresses contained in or on those web sites ("GW Web Sites") will become the property of GW throughout the world and GW shall be entitled to use the material for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit any material to any physical GW company address or any GW Web Sites, you agree, offer, warrant, and represent, both explicitly and tacitly (and GW accepts) that you are assigning all intellectual property rights in that material to GW and that GW has the right to use that material at any time entirely in its own discretion for whatsoever purpose including for commercial, promotional, and advertising purposes without any obligation (including any financial obligation) to you now or at any time in the future. You waive and relinquish any rights, including "moral rights," that may exist in any content to the furthest extent permissible by law and agree not to assert any rights over that content. We are afraid that in order to protect ourselves legally, this is the only way we can operate. If you are unhappy with this policy, then please do not post or send any material to GW.
trollbill
01-16-08, 08:27 PM Oh, you'd THINK that people need to give consideration for transfer of property rights. But honestly - check out Games Workshop's intellectual property policy (see end). In short - whatever passes through GW at any point, they own, and you no longer have ANY kind of rights whatsoever to whatever you'd been working on. Seriously. It's like they're spitting in your face, lol. (But seriously.)

Hasbro/Wizards might not do things 100% as players would like them to, but I'd have to say I think they're, at least, reasonable. (I :love: the Wizards IP . . . :cheer: )

--

http://uk.games-workshop.com/legal/termsofuse/

SUBMISSIONS

Any notes, e-mails, online messages or bulletin board postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts, designs, or other material submitted to any physical GW company address or to any web site owned or controlled by GW and/or to any e-mail addresses contained in or on those web sites ("GW Web Sites") will become the property of GW throughout the world and GW shall be entitled to use the material for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit any material to any physical GW company address or any GW Web Sites, you agree, offer, warrant, and represent, both explicitly and tacitly (and GW accepts) that you are assigning all intellectual property rights in that material to GW and that GW has the right to use that material at any time entirely in its own discretion for whatsoever purpose including for commercial, promotional, and advertising purposes without any obligation (including any financial obligation) to you now or at any time in the future. You waive and relinquish any rights, including "moral rights," that may exist in any content to the furthest extent permissible by law and agree not to assert any rights over that content. We are afraid that in order to protect ourselves legally, this is the only way we can operate. If you are unhappy with this policy, then please do not post or send any material to GW.

Bear in mind that a LOT of 'official' company policies aren't necessarily legal no matter what the company says in writing. Many official policies (and I am not just talking gaming companies) don't hold up in court and often the company even knows they won't. The policy is simply an intimidation tactic.

Now I am not stating the above policy is such a case as I am not a legal authority. I am just saying that policies like this should be taken with a grain of salt and if you really have an issue with them, ask a lawyer.
Tabiani
01-21-08, 02:51 PM Oh, you'd THINK that people need to give consideration for transfer of property rights. But honestly - check out Games Workshop's intellectual property policy (see end). In short - whatever passes through GW at any point, they own, and you no longer have ANY kind of rights whatsoever to whatever you'd been working on. Seriously. It's like they're spitting in your face, lol. (But seriously.)

Hasbro/Wizards might not do things 100% as players would like them to, but I'd have to say I think they're, at least, reasonable. (I :love: the Wizards IP . . . :cheer: )

Is the Games Workshop policy really so different from the Wizards.com & Gleemax.com Website Terms of Use (http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice)?

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.
Vamroc
01-21-08, 03:56 PM Bear in mind that a LOT of 'official' company policies aren't necessarily legal no matter what the company says in writing. Many official policies (and I am not just talking gaming companies) don't hold up in court and often the company even knows they won't. The policy is simply an intimidation tactic.

Now I am not stating the above policy is such a case as I am not a legal authority. I am just saying that policies like this should be taken with a grain of salt and if you really have an issue with them, ask a lawyer.

While much of the above statement is true the kicker is once you click "I agree to" blah blah blah of the agreement it becomes a binding legal contract. Even if it's illegal most courts will still side with company because the other party chose to willingly agree to the contract.
Puggle Halfwine
01-21-08, 08:14 PM While I technically agree with the above, to the best of my knowledge no EULA (which is basically what this is) has ever been actually tested in court.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TWG_Prometheus 01-14-08, 04:18 PM	This might be one of the times where the campagin staff says, "Yeah, why did you think we're so stupid that you have to worry about this." but here goes anyway. With Living Greyhawk, there are significant worries about how the campaign will wrap up given some of the legal riders that are on the modules regarding who can or cannot use them after they retire. Specifically, this appears to impact the ability of Wizards of the Coast to use those modules later on. I don't want to see this happen again...at least, not without a really good reason for it. So, I hope that when similar language is gone over for Living Realms, that we'll at least have a clear resolution to the legal questions. Ideally it would be really clear just by looking at a module whether it was intended to be used for Forgotten Realms canon or not. (I don't expect all of them will be but we've heard that some will.) Hopefully the campaign staff won't take this as a sign of bad faith. I trust that they'll be aware of the problem and seek as good a resolution as possible. Quite likely, they already have. The Living Greyhawk situation seems to be such a convoluted mess, however, that I at least thought I'd start a thread.
Sieylianna 01-14-08, 06:20 PM	I don't want to see this happen again...at least, not without a really good reason for it. So, I hope that when similar language is gone over for Living Realms, that we'll at least have a clear resolution to the legal questions. Ideally it would be really clear just by looking at a module whether it was intended to be used for Forgotten Realms canon or not. (I don't expect all of them will be but we've heard that some will.) Hopefully the campaign staff won't take this as a sign of bad faith. I trust that they'll be aware of the problem and seek as good a resolution as possible. Quite likely, they already have. The Living Greyhawk situation seems to be such a convoluted mess, however, that I at least thought I'd start a thread. The issue isn't the contracts as much as paying for the modules. If the RPGA wants to maintain all rights to the module in perpetuity, they're going to have to pay for the privilege. For LG, the only modules which are purchased are the core and core special modules. If there are fewer modules in the LFR campaign, you may see them purchase more modules. Ed
TheBlackFlail 01-15-08, 03:12 AM	Why must the RPGA pay to gain the rights to the modules in perpetuity? I'm pretty sure that if I were to write a mod, I could give away the rights to it just as easily as selling it. In fact, I doubt many writers would have much trouble giving the mods to Wizards forever, since after the campaign ends they are nigh-unusable (by anyone other than the RPGA) anyways, since you have to strip out all of the copyrighted content.
pedr 01-15-08, 11:37 AM	Well, there has to be some consideration for a transfer of property rights, even if it's just a proverbial peppercorn. I don't think that many jurisdictions would accept 'in consideration for being allowed to use WotC property in your creation', but they might - I'm not an IP lawyer in any jurisdiction! The global nature of this campaign might cause WotC legal some headaches, of course: the extent to which IP rights can be transferred varies from country to country (see the legal wrangling over the German-made unauthorised Warhammer 40K film)
Sieylianna 01-15-08, 05:25 PM	Well, there has to be some consideration for a transfer of property rights, even if it's just a proverbial peppercorn. I don't think that many jurisdictions would accept 'in consideration for being allowed to use WotC property in your creation', but they might - I'm not an IP lawyer in any jurisdiction! The related issue is what if someone changes his mind, because he doesn't like the way the module is editied, or his RPGA reward cards get lost in the mail, and challenges the contract. IIRC, something like that happened in LG and a half-dozen modules were pulled. People may say they don't care about payment, but establishing consideration is an important part of WotC's legal defense. Ed
pedr 01-16-08, 04:42 AM	Indeed. Now consideration doesn't have to mean 'payment' (in the monetary sense) in most jurisdictions (and, I suppose, might not be necessary for the formation of irrevocable legal obligations in some). So: "In consideration for the right to distribute this material including the WotC IP free of charge on your own personal website in perpetuity from the 1st of January of the year after next, you (the author) agree to grant WotC the exclusive right to distribute this material in any way it sees fit until then, and the right to create, distribute, sell, create derivative works from and in all other ways make use of this material in perpetutity" might work. If, of course, WotC wants to give up that right. In the UK, consideration (I seem to recall) needs to be either a benefit to the recipient or a detriment to the giver of the consideration. Of course the 'doesn't like how it's edited' might cause problems in some jurisdictions. I believe some civil law jurisdictions are very concerned with moral rights: i.e. the right to be identified as the author of the material and it might be considered a breach of those to, for instance, publish and distribute a module which purports to have been written by Joe Bloggs when it was heavily edited by John Doe to such a degree that Joe Bloggs no longer wishes it to be distributed (or distributed with his name on it).
Newpaintbrush 01-16-08, 05:32 PM	Well, there has to be some consideration for a transfer of property rights, even if it's just a proverbial peppercorn. I don't think that many jurisdictions would accept 'in consideration for being allowed to use WotC property in your creation', but they might - I'm not an IP lawyer in any jurisdiction! The global nature of this campaign might cause WotC legal some headaches, of course: the extent to which IP rights can be transferred varies from country to country (see the legal wrangling over the German-made unauthorised Warhammer 40K film) Oh, you'd THINK that people need to give consideration for transfer of property rights. But honestly - check out Games Workshop's intellectual property policy (see end). In short - whatever passes through GW at any point, they own, and you no longer have ANY kind of rights whatsoever to whatever you'd been working on. Seriously. It's like they're spitting in your face, lol. (But seriously.) Hasbro/Wizards might not do things 100% as players would like them to, but I'd have to say I think they're, at least, reasonable. (I :love: the Wizards IP . . . :cheer: ) -- http://uk.games-workshop.com/legal/termsofuse/ SUBMISSIONS Any notes, e-mails, online messages or bulletin board postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts, designs, or other material submitted to any physical GW company address or to any web site owned or controlled by GW and/or to any e-mail addresses contained in or on those web sites ("GW Web Sites") will become the property of GW throughout the world and GW shall be entitled to use the material for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit any material to any physical GW company address or any GW Web Sites, you agree, offer, warrant, and represent, both explicitly and tacitly (and GW accepts) that you are assigning all intellectual property rights in that material to GW and that GW has the right to use that material at any time entirely in its own discretion for whatsoever purpose including for commercial, promotional, and advertising purposes without any obligation (including any financial obligation) to you now or at any time in the future. You waive and relinquish any rights, including "moral rights," that may exist in any content to the furthest extent permissible by law and agree not to assert any rights over that content. We are afraid that in order to protect ourselves legally, this is the only way we can operate. If you are unhappy with this policy, then please do not post or send any material to GW.
trollbill 01-16-08, 08:27 PM	Oh, you'd THINK that people need to give consideration for transfer of property rights. But honestly - check out Games Workshop's intellectual property policy (see end). In short - whatever passes through GW at any point, they own, and you no longer have ANY kind of rights whatsoever to whatever you'd been working on. Seriously. It's like they're spitting in your face, lol. (But seriously.) Hasbro/Wizards might not do things 100% as players would like them to, but I'd have to say I think they're, at least, reasonable. (I :love: the Wizards IP . . . :cheer: ) -- http://uk.games-workshop.com/legal/termsofuse/ SUBMISSIONS Any notes, e-mails, online messages or bulletin board postings, ideas, suggestions, concepts, designs, or other material submitted to any physical GW company address or to any web site owned or controlled by GW and/or to any e-mail addresses contained in or on those web sites ("GW Web Sites") will become the property of GW throughout the world and GW shall be entitled to use the material for any type of use forever, including in any media whether now known or hereafter devised. When you submit any material to any physical GW company address or any GW Web Sites, you agree, offer, warrant, and represent, both explicitly and tacitly (and GW accepts) that you are assigning all intellectual property rights in that material to GW and that GW has the right to use that material at any time entirely in its own discretion for whatsoever purpose including for commercial, promotional, and advertising purposes without any obligation (including any financial obligation) to you now or at any time in the future. You waive and relinquish any rights, including "moral rights," that may exist in any content to the furthest extent permissible by law and agree not to assert any rights over that content. We are afraid that in order to protect ourselves legally, this is the only way we can operate. If you are unhappy with this policy, then please do not post or send any material to GW. Bear in mind that a LOT of 'official' company policies aren't necessarily legal no matter what the company says in writing. Many official policies (and I am not just talking gaming companies) don't hold up in court and often the company even knows they won't. The policy is simply an intimidation tactic. Now I am not stating the above policy is such a case as I am not a legal authority. I am just saying that policies like this should be taken with a grain of salt and if you really have an issue with them, ask a lawyer.
Tabiani 01-21-08, 02:51 PM	Oh, you'd THINK that people need to give consideration for transfer of property rights. But honestly - check out Games Workshop's intellectual property policy (see end). In short - whatever passes through GW at any point, they own, and you no longer have ANY kind of rights whatsoever to whatever you'd been working on. Seriously. It's like they're spitting in your face, lol. (But seriously.) Hasbro/Wizards might not do things 100% as players would like them to, but I'd have to say I think they're, at least, reasonable. (I :love: the Wizards IP . . . :cheer: ) Is the Games Workshop policy really so different from the Wizards.com & Gleemax.com Website Terms of Use (http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice)? 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.
Vamroc 01-21-08, 03:56 PM	Bear in mind that a LOT of 'official' company policies aren't necessarily legal no matter what the company says in writing. Many official policies (and I am not just talking gaming companies) don't hold up in court and often the company even knows they won't. The policy is simply an intimidation tactic. Now I am not stating the above policy is such a case as I am not a legal authority. I am just saying that policies like this should be taken with a grain of salt and if you really have an issue with them, ask a lawyer. While much of the above statement is true the kicker is once you click "I agree to" blah blah blah of the agreement it becomes a binding legal contract. Even if it's illegal most courts will still side with company because the other party chose to willingly agree to the contract.
Puggle Halfwine 01-21-08, 08:14 PM	While I technically agree with the above, to the best of my knowledge no EULA (which is basically what this is) has ever been actually tested in court.