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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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 ]

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

(The following is harsh and provocatory. Consider yourself warned.)

I must say this, sorry:
This thread is utterly worthless; it is full of drivel, misinformation and reactionary garbage. It seems like one, long meandering mental barf. And, frankly, worth about as much. There might be a few gems buried in the dross, but it's hard to pick them out and clean them up.

That statement may not make me a popular guy (is my CoR membership revoked? ), and it is harsh as heck, but it needs to be said before the crap gets any higher.

First and foremost, Jack's "cautionary tale" isn't. Sorry, Jack.

It's frightened bedwetting masked as sage advice (I warned you this was harsh); it's as bad as one of those spam-er-ific e-mails that well-meaning friends send you warning you not to do such-and-such because the friend of a friend of a neighbor of a cousin of a distant relative who knows some guy had some god-awfully uneblievable and terrible thing happen to him or her. It is exactly equal to one of those e-mails (Don't flash your brights! Gang-bangers will kill you!).

One of the simple facts of this case, if there were any need to get into the legality of it, is that Shane's work was documented on GO.
He banged it out, the (large) membership of the Outpost saw it, it's his, hands down. It doesn't matter if he lost money from it or not -- yes, I know that faceless-yet-well-known copyright lawyers say you have to make money at it or you can't defend your copyright, but when I hear it from one of these lawyers I'll believe it again. Particularly since these FYWK copyright lawyers wouldn't fall over themselves laughing about the "poor man's copyright"...considering it is a complete and total myth.

Mailing something to yourself does not copyright anything. Putting it down on paper does. That's all you have to do. No mailing something to yourself in an unopened envelope.
THIS POST is copyrighted RIGHT NOW. The minute I put the first word down, it was copyrighted.

No, you can't sue for damages if you aren't making money at it. However, you still get to nail someone's ass to the wall for using your material without your go-ahead, ESPECIALLY if they make money on it (at which point you ARE entitled to a cut of their profits).

If he were to want to take it to court -- IF -- that would be the largest point in his favor: documentation.

Imagine this: John Wick decides to write a game and posts his on-going design journal, including many of the mechanics and ideas, on a widely-read gaming forum. Suddenly, before John finishes, somebody else comes out with a game called Orcs!, including all of the stuff John has been talking about.

Eeeeek! So why did John put up design journals for Orkworld? Damnit, John, you should NEVER have done those game design journals! Someone might have STOLEN your ideas!

Bah and pish-posh.
He's smarter than falling for that, and so should the rest of us be.

Don't cross the street, you could be hit by a bus!
Don't sell your artwork, someone could steal it!
Don't publish anything on-line, because someone will take it!

This is inanity, terrified calls about how the sky is falling.

Please note, I was suckered in by this once, too, by a well-meaning, terrified artist friend who'd had work stolen and claimed that there was nothing he could do about it because copyright laws didn't protect him!!

Then a number of more reliable friends pointed out the realities of copyright law to me, and it isn't as horrible as what I'd been led to believe, or what's being stated or advised in this thread.

This is also why there is no redeeming value to Jack's tale: because it points out the obvious without providing valuable insight into the nature of the situation or a sensical fix.

It is crying out for people not to cross the street because buses are dangerous, and someone could get hit, hence breeding unecessary fear and failing to provide all but the harshest solution to the problem or reasonable debate on the topic.

It esentially warns us not to cross the street because we could get hit by a bus; it is a call for us to never cross the street; and that's just as foolish as what is being thought will be prevented by the solution.

We cross the street everday even though, yes, we could be hit by a bus. But we aren't.
Why? Not because it could *never* happen, not because we are lucky, but because we're smart enough to take the precaution to look both ways to avoid the bus before crossing (ok, maybe luck has a little bit to do with it, too).

Should we be afraid that someone is going to steal our material and sell it as their own? No. We should not worry about this. It happens, yes, but there are precautions.

If there weren't, you wouldn't see a damn thing of mine up on the 'Net -- cripes, look at my art gallery, folks!! Or my poetry collection!! Do you think ANY of that would be on-line if I paid attention to copyright-stealing boogeymen?

Further -- everyone take note -- NOTHING is protected by copyright except the particular expression of an idea. *Information* and ideas -- and this includes game mechanics -- are NOT protected by copyright.
Even if you came up with the idea, even if you've sold thousands of copies of something containing the idea, it doesn't matter...ONLY the *particular expression* of the material as penned or expressed by you is protected.

I could write the d20 system RIGHT NOW, with a different name, and as long as my expression of the system was different from WotC's, they would have no recourse. d20's for all tasks! Higher is better! Difficulty defaults to 15! Character classes! Spells! Dragons! Monsters! Treasure!

Just take a look at Rifts and AD&D -- talk about a D&D clone...

Or instead I could use WhiteWolf's mechanics and make a game about Vampires (or some kind of monster), calling it "Undeath" or "The Undying Ones" or something similar. WhiteWolf would have no recourse of lawsuit, as long as the material *presentation* was substantially different than theirs. Their mechanical system IS NOT PROTECTED, nor is the concept of vampires, or of role-playing a vampire.

(Well, they could deluge me with letters and threats of legal action, but in the end, it would be a great deal of hot air).

So, Jack, take your stuff down. Once you DO publish it somewhere, you'll still have no recourse if someone "steals your ideas."

Writers: I long ago learned that ideas are created to be expressed, there's no other reason to vocalize (or otherwise make tangible) an idea. What's your reason for writing? If you desire to cling desperately to what's "yours", clutching it to your chest in the misguided hope that you can keep anyone else from ever discussing it or utilizing it, you need to find a different career.

So, Jack, why are you a game writer?
If you aren't in it for the writing, for the disemination of ideas, why are you writing? Ego? Money? Women?
Time to divest yourself (and quickly) of those notions.

In fifty years (or more, or less), you'll be dead, and your material will enter the public domain. You won't care who uses it then...because you're dead, right? Then it's ego driving you. And that's not a healthy thing...the power will go right to your head (want to bet? Yes. I've seen it...repeatedly.)

In closing, this thread is woefully inaccurate and wrong-headed; I'm ashamed it's even on the Forge, ashamed because the Forge should be presenting good, well-researched, intelligent discussion; not half-baked cries of misfortune (however well-meaning) nor misinformation about the legal system, because as far as I know, no one here is a copyright lawyer (and if someone is, they'd better speak up).

And that's my two cents.
As well, for those thinking it: I would have made this private, but there were too many participants involved to make that reasonable, and too much needed to be said publically about the issue(s).

I have a feeling I should go get my rubberized flame-suit, now. Should I?

Hi Raven,

I think you are being quick on the trigger. (Rude, too? Probably. But let's break it down and stick with the issues ...)

Reviewing my posts on this thread, at least, I still think my essential point is valid - that we should focus on the ability to protect IP (a very general thing) rather than on establishing copyright (a specific thing). Your point regarding "automatic copyright" SUPPORTS that position. In other words, how meaningful that copyright is, is determined by one's ability to defend it.

I agree with you about documentation as the fundamental form of defense. My claim is an extension of yours (not a counter-view), because commerce is an excellent form of documentation.

You may not be happy with my own non-documentation regarding lawyers and so on. That's fine. None of my points about them contradict any of yours - you are saying, "You don't need lawyers to establish copyright," and I am saying, "Copyright by itself is not always sufficient." These are compatible points.

I'm especially puzzled about your comments about the mail-to-yourself, because both of us are saying the same thing, that it's a delusion of protection.

I agree with you that Jack is over-reacting in taking down his material. However, that's his business, and the fact that I didn't call attention to his choice is important. We aren't talking about whether he's doing right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable.

No one really knows whether website-publishing does well to protect IP or not. These are new technologies and new laws. I think that, as with all new tech and new law, it's going to take a spectrum of court cases to establish precedent before we can be confident about how it all works.

If you'll permit a personal comment, Raven, you tend to get pretty fired-up on-line. I absolutely hate the whole, you-said-that-I-meant-when-I-said phenomenon. Please don't ride the wave-front on this one - we've both said our piece and let's try to make sense together, rather than butt heads, especially because I really don't see a point of contention about the issue between us.

Best,
Ron

I think you are being quick on the trigger. (Rude, too? Probably. But let's break it down and stick with the issues ...)

Reviewing my posts on this thread, at least, I still think my essential point is valid - that we should focus on the ability to protect IP (a very general thing) rather than on establishing copyright (a specific thing).

Your point regarding "automatic copyright" SUPPORTS that position. In other words, how meaningful that copyright is, is determined by one's ability to defend it.

I'm especially puzzled about your comments about the mail-to-yourself, because both of us are saying the same thing, that it's a delusion of protection.

I agree with you that Jack is over-reacting in taking down his material. However, that's his business, and the fact that I didn't call attention to his choice is important. We aren't talking about whether he's doing right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable.

If you'll permit a personal comment, Raven, you tend to get pretty fired-up on-line. I absolutely hate the whole, you-said-that-I-meant-when-I-said phenomenon. Please don't ride the wave-front on this one - we've both said our piece and let's try to make sense together, rather than butt heads, especially because I really don't see a point of contention about the issue between us.

To sum up, -as often said, "You should be flattered that anyone would consider your work worth the risk of stealing."

Listen to Ron.

J

I must admit - this is all a bit depressing. Now, I'm under no illusions that there are hundreds of people out there ripping articles of FLN and selling them to scifi magazines - but I conscious of the fact some of them are of saleable quality (I know, I've done it).

So, keeping in mind I'm not sitting here as a paranoid freak, and just want some general info should I branch into more worthy attemps at writing, how would one document a works existence (beyond commerce) to defend copyright/IP?

Also we only seem to hear of copyright here in the UK, I hear less about IP?

You have articles or stories, assume for a minute they are worth something, how would one document the fact they existed and you wrote them on a specific date?

_________________
Ian O'Rourke
www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-14 18:27 ]

Ian,

You're looking for documentation aside from commerce, right?

Well, then it's a matter of distribution. For instance, in the 80s, I wrote a hell of a lot of material for a Champions APA, over about four years. (For the youngsters, this was a kind of very slow internet forum, involving stamps and photocopies. It gave us something to do between bear hunts and digging middens in our caves.)

Well, if it so happens that I find a whole slew of paragraphs lifted directly out of one of those essays, as part of some Champions supplement or magazine article or something, I can dig up those issues of The Clobberin' Times, musty and dusty as they are. I could even probably contact a few of the old members to produce their musty & dusty copies, or provide statements of reference. Hell, even my old notebooks with draft copies are kickin' around (I'm a pack-rat when it comes to written stuff, hate to throw out old address books, etc.)

Of course, I still have to lay a suit on the perp's ass. I still have to pay a lawyer, and it still has to go to court, if the guy doesn't accept a "cease and desist."

Note too, that if the fellow simply paraphrased me, changing words enough in the time-hallowed manner of a college freshman in an English 103 class, then I'm pretty hosed. I have no way of showing that he did anything but think along the same lines I did, and said court will say, "If you thought of it first, well, he thought of it too and had the gumption to publish it while you let it languish in your closet."

But that's an aside, and I'll return to my point. Best would be if I'd published those articles in some magazine or other (they were, needless to say, entirely unsuited for the simulationist juggernaut represented by Hero/ICE following 1985 or so). As is, it helps that the ol' CT was indeed an entity in which written work appeared, that got distributed to others. It helps that it was in a print format. It's no guarantee, but it would help.

I suggest getting your written work into something similar, whether it be a club newsletter, a photocopy for a writing group, or any damn thing that can be thought of as "made available to a bunch of people as Ian's work." Print is better than electronic/internet, mainly because (as I've said before) precedents are rare and iffy in the case of the latter.

And one last thing. A lot of people use the phrase "protected by copyright," which is the stupidest damn phrase I can think of. Nothing protects your IP. Let me say that again: NOTHING PROTECTS YOUR IP FROM BEING USED BY ANOTHER, AND NOTHING EVER WILL. Copyright is about retaliation and recompense for theft, not about prevention of theft.

When recent law changes produced "automatic copyright," they essentially were saying, "no copyright." This is important. It means that protection is not the issue. It means that deterrence is the issue. The best deterrence, beyond commerce, is evidence that a lot of people have seen it and own it.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-12-14 18:24, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
So, keeping in mind I'm not sitting here as a paranoid freak, and just want some general info should I branch into more worthy attemps at writing, how would one document a works existence (beyond commerce) to defend copyright/IP?

Also we only seem to hear of copyright here in the UK, I hear less about IP?

All very interesting thanks. Yeah I'm aware of the issue that people can pretty much write the same thing, as long as they don't copy it word for word. I just find the whole topic interesting. How do some authors successfully challenge others? As an example, I realise JK Rowling won her case with regards to the Harry Potter books (but you here of situations in which challengers win), but surely the books where not written word for word anyway?

Also, what about the old myth of stuffing your writings somewhere that date stamps their entry. I realise this is a variation on the mail it to yourself argument. If you do mail something to yourself, or shove it in a 'secure box' that date stamps every entry surely that proves you at least had that article at that time.

Just curious now, as I say, it's not overly something I worry about, and I agree with Ron in some respects, if your bothered about it that much, and the articles are that good, then get the bastards published in something worthwhile :smile:

Funnily enough the UK Government sites mentioned above actually recommend the registered mailing option. They say it does not prove it is your original work (obviously) but it does provide some security against a copier coming after you later.
_________________
Ian O'Rourke
www.fandomlife.net
The e-zine of SciFi media and Fandom Culture.

[ This Message was edited by: Ian O'Rourke on 2001-12-15 04:29 ]

On 2001-12-14 19:17, Ron Edwards wrote:

I suggest getting your written work into something similar, whether it be a club newsletter, a photocopy for a writing group, or any damn thing that can be thought of as "made available to a bunch of people as Ian's work." Print is better than electronic/internet, mainly because (as I've said before) precedents are rare and iffy in the case of the latter.

As an example, I realise JK Rowling won her case with regards to the Harry Potter books (but you here of situations in which challengers win), but surely the books where not written word for word anyway?

Of course, this relies on the others keeping copies of your work, and being able to find them. Not especially reliable but better than an internet forum or something similar.

And good luck getting them to appear in court for you.

Copyright is only as good as your defence. JK ROwling has quite a pile of money now so she can defned her copyright against all (most) challengers. Not so the average person who can't raise the capitol to defned their material, usually.

But the studio had accepted the other person's script and had to pay them.

I'm fuzzy on the details of this, and it's probably so much urban legend, but this is kinda how it works.

You put your material up on a web page or discuss your ideas in a public forum and you'r opening yoursself up to problems,

Maybe I'm spreading paranoia. But I'd hope I'm just telling it like it is

I don't know how much the fellow in question got paid (nor am I soliciting a figure) but it seem to me (a as nascent d20 publisher with some experience) that the best thing the publisher could do in the first place is pay the guy 4 cents a word (or what even he's comfortable with)for the material he has free on the web, have him jerk his material from the web and then just rewrite whatever is necessary.

Of course, SJG may well have already paid someone to write the game so that might not look to be a good solution if they had been developing a very similary property internally (i.e. would have paid twice for the writing). However, it 1) saves the company the appearance of impropriety (of course, maybe they don't care about that. I would.) and 2) eliminates competition with their product created by material available for free of the web.

Frankly, if they expect(ed) to sell alot of the games this option would be perfectly reasonable.

Ryan

Interesting comment, Ryan. Reminded me of Monopoly.

The board game, as anyone with such useless trivia as I have on instant recall would know, was originally a game called The Landlord Game. The names of the pronciples escape me, but the fellow credited with the invention of Monopoly actualy made a knock-off of the Landlord Game and managed to sell it to Parker Bros.

The difference here is Parker Bros. bought both games, they only produced Monopoly. I suspect all the major game companies have a vault filled with unproduced games for this reason.

Now, I could say that this is what SJG should've done, but the reality is they should have done something that both parties would be happy with. Shane doesn't have any complaints save that he wished he had believed in his own idea enough to market it, so I guess it worked out alright.

True enough P. If he is ok with it and they are willing to have virtually the same thing on the web (albeit obscurely), then all is well in gaming land. I would have paid the guy or hired him just to eliminate the competition. If this thing is selling (I've seen it at the local game store but they are all about LoTR right now so I havevn't heard anything about it.), Shane would do well apply that creative talent of his and make the sequel. I'm sure when he comes calling to sell it to SJG (for a Larger ammount no doubt) it will help that they have heard of him before. Just get some advice about what is a fair price for your work.

On the other account, I see no wrong (not that you were implying one)in buying things you never intend to publish if they are direct conflicts with your own material. Moreover, (and Ironically) the good material that competes with is more important to perma-shelve than the crap. I know some might think that is immoral but its business. I would never directly tell someone I intended to publish their material and then not though.

One serious problem in the d20 market is that there is virtually no horizontal consolidation of competition. Primarily because everyone is so darn shoestring they can't afford it. Moreover, while cash flow problems make it difficult to make money (i.e. grow) doing d20, it also means that many companies suffer a lingering death and never openly get out of the market. There are many website out there for companies that created one product (or less) and have essentially exited the industry but have "left the lights on" hoping they might get a break down the line. Eric Noah has now even reached the point of making companies renew there link on a regular basis to help eliminate some of the "noise" for the active companies.

I'm sorry I just totally derailed this string.
opps

just my 2p

Ryan

Well, this is all interesting.

I have no intentions of pulling anything off the net and no fears of theft. I believe that showing my work to as many people as possilbe only strengthens the fact that I did indeed create it and makes any would-be thieves less likely to pilfer.

Imagine me publishing a game about demon-summoning. Called "Sorcerous". Its story-driven, narrativist, and has a really neato method for creating demons. Ron Edwards can't do jack about it even though I essentially paraphrase his entire game. Ok, maybe he gets pissed enough to take me to court. But I didn't steal anything but an idea.

However, I'm now the laughing stalk of the net. THe most hated man on all rpg forums in existance. The flack alone could ensure a quick and painful death for my sales.

I know very little of legalities, but I know a lot about the integrity issue. I won't buy something from someone I KNOW is a thief. End of story.

That being said, its wise to share your work in a sesible, practical manner.

ENDNOTE: I have no experience with lawyers or copyright problems. I've self-pubbed comics for years and distributed 99% of them for free or trade. Shit happens, but if I was afraid of dying I'd never leave the house.

James V. West
http://www.geocities.com/randomordercreations/index.html