Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 varka Aug 29, 2009 3:21:29	I was pretty excited about the new group functionality and started looking this evening at how we could use it supplement our normal gaming activites. I stopped looking after the very first section of the TOU: 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. Did wizards ever intend to have gaming groups use this space in such a fashion (about their own game)? And is it intentional or an oversight that the TOU means we give all of our IP to wizards? That would be all of our plots, IC postings, maps, hand-outs, custom monsters etc (ie. our entire worlds) if we should happen to post them up to a group wiki. For now we will most definitely be staying away from here using our trusty 10' pole, and continuing to use the external tools that have served us well so far. I really hope that wizards re-considers (presuming I'm correct above) the current policy and makes this an area that encourages creativity for it own sake, rather then to pilfer it. I know that site owners use similar TOU (but not quite as broad as this) for the purpose of protecting themselves against players requesting take-downs in a hissy fit on content they posted themselves. These terms however go far beyond that. I'm still excitied about groups and group wikis and can see the value of them when integrated with DDI subs (hopefully, in the future), but the terms of use right now aren't encouraging.
#2 pluisjen Aug 31, 2009 15:43:52	As far as I know those are for all the forums as well, or they were at the previous forums anyway.   Check the generic TOU: ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc... Same clause, so it counts for everything you post here.
#3 yessod Sep 01, 2009 12:11:26	I was pretty excited about the new group functionality and started looking this evening at how we could use it supplement our normal gaming activites. I stopped looking after the very first section of the TOU I have much the same issue.  I have been looking to create a wiki for campaigns I run and play in, as well as ideas I'm working on fleshing out.  I was initially excited to see that there was a wiki option for this community, but when I saw the terms of use I was immediately deterred.  While realistically, I don't plan to publish my ideas, signing all of my work over to a corporation for free is a "dealbreaker" to me. If the Terms of Use are amended, I'm much more likely to use the features of this community.
#4 madscientistlabrat Sep 16, 2009 12:47:51	One of the first things to remember is that the license granted to WotC and affiliates is non-exclusive. What that means is that WotC cannot "seize" an idea you post, such as a campaign setting, and then make you cease and desist your own continued posting. They can't keep you from turning it into a series of fiction books, selling the movie rights, or publishing your campaign through another company (unless what you write violates other copyright laws or terms of use such as including stat blocks for creatures from the MM). Yes, the new rules do allow them to take your idea and publish it without paying you a dime, but if you think about it they are pretty unlikely to do that. Swiping an idea without permission or pay would almost certainly result in backlash that would impact sales. The bigger the idea the larger the probable impact so stealing an idea to save some money is pretty much an exercise in futility. Besides, if the idea really is that good why alienate such a good designer. Much better to hire them and not only get the idea but also future ideas they may have. So why have such a clause in the terms of use? For the same reason that if you go up to a video game designer and say "I've got a great idea for a game" they will run away shouting "I'm not listening to you! LALALALA!". To protect themselves. Basically it boils down to a pretty simple problem; being "given" an idea you already happen to be working on. As a fictitious example lets assume you have a campaign setting you create in which you decide to rename goblins as "groblins" and give them a more organized hierarchy with a warlike nation ruled by the High Groblin King" and you post the idea here. At the same time one of the designers is working on an adventure arc that culminates in a battle with the "High Goblin King". He was working on this well in advance of your post but since nothing had been published WotC is now left in a bit of a sticky scenario. Backlash-wise they probably don't have to worry too much. If they publish most players will probably recognize it as a hardly surprising coincidence. The real problem for them is if you decide to sue them for stealing your idea. You probably have strong enough grounds to avoid having the case thrown out as being without merit. Now WotC needs to either deploy lawyers or else pay you off. Since you probably don't live near WotC headquarters and you filed in a local venue any legal expenses they spend has to include travel and there is always the possibility that they will lose. Paying you off, however, might generate a backlash since it can be perceived as an admission that they actually did steal the idea. So when you publish your campaign idea WotC is suddenly left with a bit of a dilemma. Do they risk you going to court, throw out (or modify) the idea, or do they make an effort to "purchase" the idea from you? Well, we already saw option one as not being particularly attractive. It has the potential to get expensive very quickly and generate bad publicity. So option three is the best way to go, right? Not necessarily, because what if you want an unreasonable amount of money? (You can have my idea of a High Groblin King for $100,000). By establishing contact with you and attempting, unsuccessfully, to purchase your idea they have just strengthened the notion that the idea came from you and that rather than purchase it they opted to steal it. So that leaves option two; either throw out all the work that's been done or else spend time modifying it. In the case of the High Groblin King modifying it probably isn't that hard but what if what was being worked on was a whole new sourcebook for goblins? All of a sudden the entire section that talks about DMs creating goblin nations for their campaigns is problematic. And of course all of this assumes that people who know about the proposed adventure/sourcebook even know about the post. With hundreds of posts a day it is quite likely that the post about someone's campaign idea featuring a groblin nation will get overlooked. In the end their best option is to just put in a CYA clause that says "even if we do steal your ideas we have a right to" not because they want to steal ideas but because they don't want to be sued for stealing ideas they already have just because someone throws up a similar idea in the forums. If it helps think of it in these terms: often when you go shopping there will be signs in the parking lot stating that the owners of the shops are not responsible for damage to your vehicle. Does this keep you from parking there because you think that roaming gangs of shopowners are going to come and smash your windshield?
#5 ogrehooper Sep 16, 2009 18:01:52	Its just a safety feature on their end.  However, those who are wishing to create campaigns can instead do it at D&Dwiki which is under GNUFDL licensing like most sites now a days.  Either way, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a non-laughable company with an online community that doesn't have the same or similar legal statements.