A cautionary tale for the whole family.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Part of this story is true, part of it is based on a worse-case scenerio speculation.  Names are withheld, but I suspect a few Forge members know who I'm talking about.

A friend of mind had an idea for a game.  A fairly decent idea, too.  He posted a lot of his idea on a game design forum to show it to other people and so they could help him improve it.  ANd they did.

One day, someone representing a well-known game company approached him and offered to buy the name off of him since they had a similar game in development.  He accepted.

All seemed well until their game with his name came out.  Many of the rules were similar to his own.

He admits himself that he cannot prove that they stole his game or not.  It wasn't a very difficult idea to come up with in the first place, after all.  They coould've been developing their game simultaneously or some similar innocence on their part.

Then again, maybe by putting his game on the internet for free for all to see they simply took it, buying him off with a "we want your name" deal (and he still hasn't gotten full payment yet) to make it all nice and legal, as it were.

Well, someone probably knows the legality of this whole mess better than either of us, but the fact is, if you put your stuff up on the web, whether you put a "Copyright ©" on it or not, someone will probably come along and swipe it from you and figure out some way to weasel out of any lawsuits.  Especially if you're a private citizen and not a professional writer or designer.

Maybe I'm being overcautious but I'm taking down all of my stuff.  I already closed my publisher on GO (but you can't delete the publisher itself unless you quit GO, I guess and even then...maybe not) and will probably take my actual game text off of my website.

I'll figure out a different way to distribute any game material I could do while remaining free, as that's what I'm worth.

caveat emptor, or something similar.

[hardcoremoose]

Man, that's tough.  I can't help you with the legality issue, but I can talk about the website stuff...

I'm a big fan of the freebie game sites.  I love to visit people's sites, look at what they have in the works, and sometimes even play the games.  And, being a sucker for empty praise, I love having my own games up and available for all to see.

And sometimes that exposure actually pays dividends.  Back in the day, Sorcerer was a (more or less) free game available over the internet, and the recognition Jared's earned online has earned him a few greenbacks.  I'm pretty sure having WYRD online only helped its chances of getting published.

It's too bad you feel like you have to pull everything down, but I'm glad you're still intent on distributing your stuff in other ways.  I hate to hear stories like these.  

- Scott

[Ranko]

I don't get it.

First you say that the person sold his game to the publisher. He received a part of the money agreed on (pending full payment). OK, but how do you get from there to the He admits himself that he cannot prove that they stole his game or not. statement? If they bought it they can't steal it.

And could you clarify the problem a bit more? What is bothering you? The fact that they changed your friend's game? Usage of his name on the cover of the published work? Those things should have been agrred upon before he agreed to sell them his game, as should have been the right to list him as the author, or co-author. He could have conditioned that they add a notice/disclamer that the X Y's original work was used as an inspiration / basis / has been modified (as you can notice in many games, such as any newer WW storyteller game, VtES CCG, etc.).

R

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-12-03 07:08, Ranko wrote:
I don't get it.

First you say that the person sold his game to the publisher. He received a part of the money agreed on (pending full payment). OK, but how do you get from there to the He admits himself that he cannot prove that they stole his game or not. statement? If they bought it they can't steal it.

They didn't buy the game.  They bought the name.  But they put the name on a game very very similar to my friend's.

It's like this:
Take Ron's Elfs game, that's good for an example.
Say he gets approached by a game company who wants to buy the name off of him.  Not the game, just the name.  He needs the cash so he sells they the name thinking he could come up with a new name for his own game.  Since he merely sold the rights to the name, he gets no credit, no royalties, no nothin' and people who remember he had written a game called Elfs keep asking him if the published version is his, but it's not.

But the published game is very, very similar to his own game.  A game called "Elfs" could be many things.  The fact it was similar to his game is a little shady.

This is just a hypothetical and didn't really happen to Ron.

The lesson is did they essentially rip him off, or was he just naive?  Chances are good that it's a combination.  The higher-ups had no idea but the low-level toady stole the idea and presented it as his own and told his boss "we just need to buy the name off of this guy with a similar game."  But maybe the company did just completely rip him off.

In the end, we don't know if there was any wrong-doing on their part or not, and we will probably never know.  The point is, be careful who you show your game ideas to since someone with loose morals and better lawyers could slap their name on it and publish it as their own.

[Jared A. Sorensen]

P,

I know which game ye're speaking of. Heck, I played it...and if I was going to write that game, I'd do it pretty much the same. So I think it's more a case of simultaneous development (with your friend scooping them on the name) rather than IP theft.

I could be wrong...but hey, I haven't had any problems with my own stuff yet. There was that bit of weirdness with the "Cychosis" game (which went nowhere) being damn similar to the Ars Mechanica stuff I had posted on GO. But I have to chalk it up to synchronicity.

If I was that guy, I'd have him snuggle up to that game company (using the whole name thing as a foot in the door) and talk to them about projects I couldn't necessarily do on my own.

- J

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Clearly each of us is judging this scenario with only some of the necessary information.

Ranko raised exactly the right question - this guy was paid, his name is on the cover, and so what is he complaining about? Given Jack's clarification, and acknowledging my potential lack of relevant information, I will also say this:

Your friend indeed sold the rights to his game. I don't care if he thinks he only "sold the name." He sold the rights to the name, he got cover credit, and IN EFFECT that removed his ability to protect what remained to him. It doesn't matter whether he wanted to keep the game-part or not. Once he'd entered into that relationship, the power is all theirs. He had lowered himself into the position of "contributor," not of equal - and contributors, workers-for-hire, have NO recourse. No matter what he says about it, the company can show their clean hands and say, "We paid him. He's clearly a disgruntled kook."

The company's only reason to approach him was precisely for that reason, and your friend, country mouse that he is, walked straight into their trap. Thinking that he was being approached as an equal, for reasons of courtesy, proud of the respect his work/name was being given, he was willing to compromise - "Sure, you can use the name I came up with. We're all friends here."

People! THINK! Do you really imagine that this company would have troubled itself about permission for using the game title alone? Do you know how many game titles there are, kicking about the internet? Not one company out there would blink twice about using one of them, no matter how many "copyrights" are scribbled on the page. No, they were after the game, and they were able to get it by bamboozling the author.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - your only defense against IP-theft is commerce. Quote all the copyright legalism you want, and it amounts only, and ever, to the principle that if you sell it, then you own it.

People often claim that they cannot make their work available because someone will steal it. The sad truth of the matter is, in any verified case of IP infringement I am aware of, that the author helped to give it away.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

On 2001-12-03 12:00, Ron Edwards wrote:
Hello,

Clearly each of us is judging this scenario with only some of the necessary information.

Ranko raised exactly the right question - this guy was paid, his name is on the cover, and so what is he complaining about? Given Jack's clarification, and acknowledging my potential lack of relevant information, I will also say this:

Your friend indeed sold the rights to his game. I don't care if he thinks he only "sold the name." He sold the rights to the name, he got cover credit,

I don't think we're reading the same article or something. As I read  the original post the guy did *NOT* get "cover credit." He sold the NAME of his game and got no credit at all and the two games were *very* similar.

-Marco

[Ranko]

All seemed well until their game with his name came out.
The source of the credits due problem. Games have no names, they have titles (like books). It would have been avoided if you simply said things out loud, using the title of the game and company's name. (not an attack, just an opinion, and I sort of understaind why you chose to withold the information).

But the facts do not change that much. He should have read the contract and asked if he could add a few things (credits, etc.) The fact of the matter is that he should have used more common sense.

Ranko

[canisPRIME]

Well I may as well jump in and post since this is kinda already about me.

The whole thing really was quite simple, but seems to have become more twisted as it is passed along... such is the way of things I guess.  But I just want to set the record straight so it can be dropped, again.

First of all, and I want to make this REALLY clear, I don't consider the games company to be the bad guys, and I don't guy I was dealing with trying to trick me out of anything.  

Ages ago I was working on a game called Frag.  It was a a very fast and simplistic miniatures game based on the 1st person shooter genre.  I saw a post on the GO game design forum from someone asking why no one talks about anything other than rpgs on the boards there.  I responded and talked about the game I was working on.  It got quite a large response and I had fun talking to people about it, especially earning praise from some of the other game designers there who I admired.

I continued to discuss the game through email with various parties.. and had a website up with the game rules and plugins (other bits and peices) I was developing for it.

About 4-5 months pass and i was contacted by Steve Jackson Games who were also developing a 1st person shooter game.  They wanted to name their game Frag, but were told that a guy on GO already had a game of that name.  

They made me an offer for the name and I excepted.  They didn't muscle me, they didn't trick me.  I knew once I excepted, they could do with it what they wished.

The rest is pretty much history, as the game is released now and anyone can pick it up and see the result.  I do have credit inside the book... (which was nice of them as they really didn't have to do that) a quick nod in my direction saying.. thanks to Shane Williamson for being such a sport about the name.

Now this is where it gets all twisted... the whole.. bitter thing.  I will be the first to admit I was a little bitter about the whole thing for a while... but I tried to keep a cool head about the whole thing.  

When the game came out I got alot of email with people congratulating me on 'my' game being released.. and when I explained it wasn't.. the continued with the whole.. oh.. well it sure looks like your game.   It really started bugging me.. but I never felt I could prove it either way and chalked it up as.. a shitty coincidence.  Sure I still get bitter about it occasionally, but not at SJGs.  It's more a case of... "Gee, that COULD have been my game selling out there.  Stupid me for thinking of it as just a silly lil game."  

Then I think about it, and remember what went through my head when I decided to sell the title to them in the first place...  I had never really intended to sell the game.  Sure I occasionally thought about it, but it wasn't something I was willing to put the time and effort into doing.  So it was more a case of, "well I am not doing anything with it, so you guys may as well."  I sold them the title and changed my games title to Respawn.

If I was that bitter and twisted about it I would have given up working on Golem altogether, but i'm not.  If anything, my experience with Frag and SJGs has taught me not to undervalue my own ideas, and has encouraged me to get Golem finished.

Yay, don't ya just love happy endings.

Anyway, I have only just got to work and my daily 'sneak-a-look-at-the-forge' has gone on much too long.

Thanks,
Shane Williamson

ps - forgive the sloppy writing.. it's too early for clear thought



[ This Message was edited by: canisPRIME on 2001-12-03 15:09 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Whoops! You're right, Marco - my intent was to write something about EVEN IF he'd received cover credit or acknowledgments ... typed too damn fast.

But it really doesn't matter. Remove that detail from my post and my point still stands, in its entirety. The author signed away far more than the use of his game title with that deal - he signed away the ability to protect anything that he'd created.

The one ray of hope in all of this is that the company did feel the need to approach him at all - in other words, they were hesitant merely to rip off the whole thing outright. That implies that MAYBE free-RPG stuff on the internet isn't regarded as a smorgasbord, and the authors do have some clout to say no.

And that's my point on the matter. Such people have much less ability to harm you if you do not comply with them.

Here's another point. Jack referred to "needing money" as justification for selling the use of one's title or whatever. Frankly, I cannot take this seriously. A person who really needs money has bigger concerns than whether or not to sell a measly RPG property. He needs to work - I don't care at what, flippin' burgers at Wendy's, whatever. (Please note that this is not some raving uber-statement; I am talking about the middle-class aspirant RPG publisher community, not all and sundry.)

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Jee, Shane.  I wanted to keep it annonymous so that we're not talking about just what happened to you, but the bigger picture as Ron grasped, but whatever.

It's a matter of caution, folks.  About giving away what you've worked on for free, and maybe allowing someone to make money off of your work while you don't get a dime.

Most of us don't have to worry about it.  Many, many free internet RPGs are just D&D knockoffs in the worst sense.  Others are either just bad games or game no one or few are interested in.  (Personally, I'm not at all worried anyone will steal Odd Sock from me.  Those of you who'd visited the GO gaming library might know)

SOme once told me that putting something up on a web page is like putting something in your front yard where everyone can see.

Well, it's not quite like that.  It's like you put a lawn ornament or a nice set of lawn chairs in your front yard and then a neighbor decides they like 'em and just takes 'em rather than ask you where you got yours, you see.

It's just wrong IMO no matter how you slice it or how Shane feels about his experience.

And maybe I should've said "could use the money" or "decided to take the money"  eh, Ron?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Couple last thoughts about this one ...

1) Jack, that's a fair restatement of the money issue. I stand by my comments regarding the original statement ("needed the money"), which I have indeed heard from others.

2) Staying with the big picture, I want to clarify that I do not think that putting up a free RPG is wrongheaded or foolish. At present, it seems as if companies are cautious about swiping it openly and at least venture to co-opt rather than simply to loot. Of course, if you want to be SURE, then spiff up the game and start selling it for $2 or $5 or something. (I think a voluntary Paypal button is a very fine compromise, offering the best of both worlds.)

3) Shane, your comments have muddied things rather than clarified them, at least for me.

My question, which I do NOT request that you answer, is this: Did or did not the eventual publication of Frag, in terms of any mechanics or other content, bear too close a resemblance to YOUR Frag? If not, then you sold a name, and Ranko's original comment stands (ie, no big deal). If so, then my comments stand.

This may be too sensitive an issue for you to answer publicly or at all, and that's OK. I'm really asking it so that OTHERS will ask it of themselves and perhaps develop a better understanding of how they may control what they create.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-12-03 18:27, Ron Edwards wrote:

This may be too sensitive an issue for you to answer publicly or at all, and that's OK. I'm really asking it so that OTHERS will ask it of themselves and perhaps develop a better understanding of how they may control what they create.

That's the whole point of this.  Thanks, Ron.

Frag is a non-issue as Shane doesn't seem to have that much of a problem with it and all but it does make you think, as it should.

[Marco]

Ron,

While I don't disagree with your intent, I *have* to take issue with a few things I've read you as saying.

1. I read your post to indicate that somehow selling the name gave them rights to the game (legal and moral).

2. You know bloody well that charging or not charging has no effect on IP. Why suggest that one "protect oneself" by using pay-pal?

3. You state that in every case you're aware of the author helped give away his work. I don't understand that. IP law exists to protect creators. In lots of cases where a creator gets screwed they get paid (Ellison got paid off by Cameron for Terminator, for example).

4. Your dismissial of anyone 'needing the money' ... sits badly with me. You *sell* Sorceror so you obviously value the money you get from it (or is it sold at a loss?).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco,

All of these points are examples of two people looking at the same thing from different angles of attack.

First of all, I have not said a word about "rights" and most especially nothing about justification. And similarly, I have not stated a thing about the legalities of the matter. On paper, it is illegal for Joe Bob to take (say) a short story I have posted on the internet and publish it under his own name. In court, I am going to have a really horrible time suing Joe Bob for it, even armed with my precious copyright, if I have no actual commercial history with the story (which is the best documentation).

I consider this behavior of Joe Bob's morally reprehensible, and I acknowledge that it is, in fact, illegal. I also - cruel as it sounds - deserve to be slapped for mistaking legal frippery ("Copyright is automatic") for power of law.

Second, I stand by my claim that an IP is only as good as the clout backing it up. An RPG designer (read: hobbyist) is not Harlan Ellison. I don't question the validity of the IP at all, just the ability of a given person to enforce it.

Third, let's look at that Ellison example a little more closely. Note that he DID in fact have a commercial history with the story "Demon with a Glass Hand," which supports my point. If he'd had the story simply stuffed in his desk in manuscript form, or distributed it as a pamphlet at an SF convention, or posted it on the internet (OK, I know, this was all before the popularized internet, bear with me), then his case would have been ... well, it would have been a different situation.

This is why "poor man's copyright," the much-touted mail to yourself tactic, makes lawyers fall all over themselves laughing. No one CARES if you wrote or created it - you can only protect its potential to make money for you if you are making (or have made) money from it.

Fourth, regarding "needing money," I am referring to one, specific act - that of signing away power over one's created work. I am referring to the often-stated claim by hobbyist game designers and comics creators that they WOULD self-publish IF they didn't need money as much as they do. My answer: "If you needed money that badly, you would be busting butt to make it in a more reliable way."

Reading any of my statements in the ways that you have implied in your posts is to take them well out of context, and to miss their points. It is difficult to do, but my posts require reading ONLY what they say, no more and no less.

Best,
Ron