Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 02:02:45PM -0400, Rogers Cadenhead wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:19:08 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >So, again, I think it is not relevant that a corporate employee > >working under the auspices of the company did the release -- it > >matters what official privileges and discretion he had. > > Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but this scenario > happened with AOL's Nullsoft division. Nice point. Heh, and in many ways we're just recapitulating the /. discussion. Albeit more politely. The truth, for both this and the AOL case, is that the biggest lawyers probably prevail. -- Bryant Durrell [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell [] 9/11/2001 [] "'That's right,' he said. 'We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am.'" -- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 10:19:08 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >So, again, I think it is not relevant that a corporate employee >working under the auspices of the company did the release -- it >matters what official privileges and discretion he had. Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but this scenario happened with AOL's Nullsoft division. An employee put the personal file-swapping network software Waste on the Nullsoft Web site under the GPL. AOL followed with an order to pull it offline and claimed it was published by an employee who lacked the authority to offer it under an open source license, thus removing it from legal reuse. http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/31/1259206.shtml -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/15/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 11:25:30AM -0400, Steven Conan Trustrum wrote: > > >Now, the way I look at it, > > The rest of the comments in this argument aside, I'd just point out that > that how you, I, or anyone else looks at it is irrelevant. Get your > contract/IP lawyer to see how the LAW looks at it, because all other > opinions are just speculative interpretation. Amen. I'm not offering my questions as authoritative; all I'm doing is observing that the current line of argument doesn't convince me, for whatever that is worth. (And if it was coming from an IP lawyer, it probably would convince me.) -- Bryant Durrell [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell [] 9/11/2001 [] "'That's right,' he said. 'We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am.'" -- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
Now, the way I look at it, The rest of the comments in this argument aside, I'd just point out that that how you, I, or anyone else looks at it is irrelevant. Get your contract/IP lawyer to see how the LAW looks at it, because all other opinions are just speculative interpretation. Steven "Conan" Trustrum Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.trustrum.com "The only real people are the people that never existed" -- Oscar Wilde ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
In a message dated 6/15/03 9:43:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> Just because it's on the company website -- that's meaningless. If I worked for you, you might say: "Lee, strip out all our art, trademarks, and character names, and release everything else to the website as 100% OGC". You might not verify my work for 3 months, assuming that I competently carried out my duties. When you find an error, however, you would be well within your rights to claim that I was unauthorized to release a trademark which slipped through. You would be quite correct in your contention. So, again, I think it is not relevant that a corporate employee working under the auspices of the company did the release -- it matters what official privileges and discretion he had. You are assuming that everything the employee releases is automatically a corporate-approved release. That is a correct association _IF_ the employee had sufficient discretionary powers to make the release (including deciding whether or not to release trademarks). If, however, he had less authority than he chose to exercise then his release is not 100% the same as a corporate-approved release. < > Let's put the OGL aside. If an employee acts beyond his granted authority then he is not effectively the company. If I give you authority to license my copyrights but NOT my trademarks, then any contract you sign that licenses trademarks, then if we go to court I'll ask that all such trademark agreements be considered null and void. Why? Because the person signing the trademark agreements had no authority to sign them, rendering them non-binding. > The fact that the company has such powers is absolutely irrelevant. It has to do with the employee's discretionary powers. By your logic, Tim, the corporate cook could choose to he could sell away the entire company out from under the board of directors and CEO simply because he filed the right forms and put the sale on corporate stationery, and such a sale would be legally binding. Clearly it would not be. The person making the legal agreement must be authorized to make such an agreement or it is null and void. The question is what power was vested by the company into the hands of the employee. If they granted him sufficient discretion, then what he licensed stands. If he had insufficient discretion, then the licensed material is invalid, because the OGL requires sufficient powers over the material to make the OGC declaration. Tim, you act as if the case is 100% clear. It is not. I think that WotC had best come up with an official explanation pronto once it is brought to their attention or it will definitely be viewed as OGC. Re: WotC there is only one deciding question about the OGC status of "Dungeon Master": did the employee posting the SRD sections have sufficient discretionary power to include trademarked material as OGC? Or alternately, was he operating under the explicit instructions of someone who had such discretionary power? If he carried out what he was told to do, and had the authority to do what he was told, then he is acting as the company. If he blew his orders then he failed to have the necessary authority to contribute and the OGC declaration is invalid. If he did have the discretionary power, however, then as Bryant rightly pointed out, WotC has no recourse. The cure period cures contractual breaches, not buffoonery. --- Again, I think this entire thread re: WotC is borderline speculation at this point. What really matters is: what happens when somebody with authority DOES release a trademark as OGC? That's more likely to sting many of us who do not have 40 some odd employees to pass blame on to and point fingers and declaring "lack of authority to contribute". Lee
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 09:30:42PM -0700, Lizard wrote: > At 08:43 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote: > > > >As a non-lawyer, it's not entirely clear to me that the intent not to > >make a mistake completely protects one if one does make a mistake. I > >mean, maybe it does -- but I'd sort of like to see more to the argument > >than that. > > Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to contribute", > *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it takes quite a bit to claim > something was added accidentally which cannot be de-added. Right. But if the person with authority to contribute makes a mistake, it's not at all clear to me that there's any way to undo the error. The license doesn't say anything about having a 30 day period to change your mind. You have 30 days to cure the breach, and that's a useful grace period if someone didn't have the authority to contribute Dungeon Master. Note also 1.a: "Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; 1.h: "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement. And 5: Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License. "You," in clause 5, is WotC. Not the guy who did the edits on the SRD. The copyright on the SRD belongs to WotC. WotC certainly has sufficient rights to place Dungeon Master under the OGL. -- Bryant Durrell [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell [] 9/11/2001 [] "'That's right,' he said. 'We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am.'" -- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On 15 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario: > What matters is whether the person (or persons) making the release had > the authority (if they so desired) to release "Dungeon Master" as OGC > (while still maintaining its trademarked status). Ahh!! That is the whole point. Did the individual release it, or did the company? The company posted it on their website, the company is the one who actually released it, and they most certainly had the authority. The individual worked for the company, and was acting on behalf of the company in releasing sections of the SRD. Therefore, in this capacity, he effectively was the company. Now if the employee released it on a separate website, or published it on his own, that would be different, and they could claim that he did not have the authority. But it was released by the company, on their corporate website. Therefore, since they have the authority to release any of their IP, TM, etc, it is a legal release, and the term is now OGC. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
In a message dated 6/15/03 9:22:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hehe! They should have done this prior to getting into using the OGL and OGC as part of their business model. If they haven't, then that is their fault and potential problems. I think, in part, people can protect themselves through blanket statements like "All trademarks of WotC listed in this document are to be considered Product Identity." If this were followed by a list of trademarks, then if they slipped up and left off a trademark then they'd be guilty of unclearly designating their PI (for which there is a cure), rather than accidentally releasing something they have the authority to release (for which there may not be a cure in some circumstances). Lee
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On 15 Jun 2003 DarkTouch scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario: > In a community, if you're going to take a stance like this then what > is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to hold > Wizards to such strict standards then you better be ready to hold > Necromancer, Feiry Dragon, Malhavok Press, Green Ronin, Mongoose, AEG, > Natural 20 Press, Mystic Eye Games, Bastion Press, and the whole host > of others to the same stringent standards. > Yes. For the OGL to work, all who participate in it must be held to the same standard. If any of those companies released some of *their* PI as OGC, they would be expected to just have to deal with the consequences of it. The same applies for WOTC as well, which is what this whole discussion is about. If one of the companies listed released something that they have no authority to release (like the trademarks or PI of another company, then there is breach and the cure period is in effect. But, if the company accidently releases something that it owns, that is entirely different. If they own it, then they DO have the authority to release it. Stated intentions have no impact on whether or not the company does release something. Only the fact that they released it, and they had the authority (as a company) to do so. > Then give them the time to do the cost analysis to see if the money > they save in rpg development by using the OGL is worth the money > they'll loose should they a peice of their IP accidentally slip into a > section of OGC Hehe! They should have done this prior to getting into using the OGL and OGC as part of their business model. If they haven't, then that is their fault and potential problems. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
In a message dated 6/15/03 4:50:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then give them the time to do the cost analysis to see if the money they save in rpg development by using the OGL is worth the money they'll loose should they a peice of their IP accidentally slip into a section of OGC. The problem with this notion, as I've been hinting at, is that if the only thing protecting WotC is the fact that an individual was unauthorized to release something as OGC and did anyway, then the smaller companies (particularly solo publishers) will not have the freedom to contend that there was an unauthorized release, and they _will_ be responsible for their mistakes while other larger companies will not. Lee
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
In a message dated 6/15/03 2:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> This is not necessarily the case. If Joe Smith is the duly appointed representative, but he is given instructions: "release everything as OGC except our art, our characters, and our trademarks", then the fact that he is the duly appointed representative is irrelevant -- he failed to follow orders and he released things he was not authorized to release. If, however, Joe Smith is empowered to decide what should and should not be released as OGC, provided that the legal team approves of his decisions, then Joe's decisions would equate to company decisions. < > It would not invalidate them. It would raise questions about their validity. As noted above, if his discretion were not absolute, but limited, then 99% of what he releases may be valid with 1% of his decisions being erroneous. However, once the validity of his releases is called into question, then it raises the concern of Joe having distributed potentially tainted OGC files, portions of which might be recalled at any time. Lee
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
In a message dated 6/14/03 11:47:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> I agree. Past intent not to do something is only vaguely relevant. What matters is whether the person (or persons) making the release had the authority (if they so desired) to release "Dungeon Master" as OGC (while still maintaining its trademarked status). Past intent seems hardly relevant at all. If the person had no authority to make the release of "Dungeon Master", then even if there is no audit trail then Dungeon Master would not be lawfully released OGC. If I have a company and my janitor gets his hands on my pre-release version of a product and releases it and declares OGC as he sees fit, then unless I designated him to release things, then the fact that he is a company employee is irrelevant -- he doesn't have the authority to make OGC contribution decisions unless I gave it to him. If, however, I have a legal team and editorial staff and I say: "you guys have full authority to release whatever you see fit as OGC" then they can contribute anything they want as OGC. Whether there's a track record about saying that "Dungeon Master" is never to be released as OGC is irrelevant except for one purpose: to persuade others that the employees in question did not have the right to make the release. However, whether the employees did have such rights is a factual question separate from past policy declarations. And again, I think the question of WotC's actions is less interesting than what would happen in a different scenario where a solo publisher who has the authority to make a release: a) accidentally releases a TM as OGC b) purposefully releases a TM as OGC Lee
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
I would also like to add that something like this is an obvious mistake. There is such a thing as "Oh Crap" as well as being generous and allowing for a mistake to be revoked. Mostly because I'm a nice guy, but also because I believe in another little thing called "good relations".DarkTouch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just remember Tim,In a community, if you're going to take a stance like this then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to hold Wizards to such strict standards then you better be ready to hold Necromancer, Feiry Dragon, Malhavok Press, Green Ronin, Mongoose, AEG, Natural 20 Press, Mystic Eye Games, Bastion Press, and the whole host of others to the same stringent standards.Then give them the time to do the cost analysis to see if the money they save in rpg development by using the OGL is worth the money they'll loose should they a peice of their IP accidentally slip into a section of OGC.Tim Dugger wrote: On 14 Jun 2003 Lizard scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario: Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to contribute", *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it takes quite a bit to claim something was added accidentally which cannot be de-added. Ok, from the OGL: 5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License. To me this says that the authority to contribute is relegated to the individual/corporation/company making the contribution. Now, the way I look at it, some nameless individual employee did NOT release "Dungeon Master" as open content, WOTC released it. Why? Because WOTC, as a company, is the one releasing the SRD as OGC, not that employee. "Joe Smith" the employee may have been the one working on the material, but he was doing so at the behest of the company, using a process (as it has been mentioned before) that gets it reviewed, apparently, by several portions of the company. Since WOTC, as a company, is releasing the SRD, then WOTC has the authority to release a trademarked term into OGC. Since WOTC, the company, has the authority, then the release of that term into OGC cannot be considered as a breach, thus no cure period is called for. It may have been a mistake, but "Joe Smith", as the duly appointed representative of WOTC to release material into OGC, was acting for and as the company in this case. Thus he did have the authority. If you try to say that he did not have the authority, then you are invalidating every single file that "Joe Smith" prepared and released, which I am guessing would be quite a few. To recap, employee "Joe Smith" did not release anything into OGC, WOTC released it, and since WOTC (as a company) DOES have the authority to release "Dungeon Master" as open game content, then there is no breach, and thus no "cure period" in which they can remove it. For those who want to start arguing that "Joe Smith" did not have the authority, do not forget that he was not the only one to review the material released (so we have been told - that being the reason for it taking so long to release those sections). TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
Just remember Tim, In a community, if you're going to take a stance like this then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to hold Wizards to such strict standards then you better be ready to hold Necromancer, Feiry Dragon, Malhavok Press, Green Ronin, Mongoose, AEG, Natural 20 Press, Mystic Eye Games, Bastion Press, and the whole host of others to the same stringent standards. Then give them the time to do the cost analysis to see if the money they save in rpg development by using the OGL is worth the money they'll loose should they a peice of their IP accidentally slip into a section of OGC. Tim Dugger wrote: On 14 Jun 2003 Lizard scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario: Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to contribute", *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it takes quite a bit to claim something was added accidentally which cannot be de-added. Ok, from the OGL: 5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License. To me this says that the authority to contribute is relegated to the individual/corporation/company making the contribution. Now, the way I look at it, some nameless individual employee did NOT release "Dungeon Master" as open content, WOTC released it. Why? Because WOTC, as a company, is the one releasing the SRD as OGC, not that employee. "Joe Smith" the employee may have been the one working on the material, but he was doing so at the behest of the company, using a process (as it has been mentioned before) that gets it reviewed, apparently, by several portions of the company. Since WOTC, as a company, is releasing the SRD, then WOTC has the authority to release a trademarked term into OGC. Since WOTC, the company, has the authority, then the release of that term into OGC cannot be considered as a breach, thus no cure period is called for. It may have been a mistake, but "Joe Smith", as the duly appointed representative of WOTC to release material into OGC, was acting for and as the company in this case. Thus he did have the authority. If you try to say that he did not have the authority, then you are invalidating every single file that "Joe Smith" prepared and released, which I am guessing would be quite a few. To recap, employee "Joe Smith" did not release anything into OGC, WOTC released it, and since WOTC (as a company) DOES have the authority to release "Dungeon Master" as open game content, then there is no breach, and thus no "cure period" in which they can remove it. For those who want to start arguing that "Joe Smith" did not have the authority, do not forget that he was not the only one to review the material released (so we have been told - that being the reason for it taking so long to release those sections). TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On 14 Jun 2003 Lizard scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario: > Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to > contribute", *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it takes > quite a bit to claim something was added accidentally which cannot be > de-added. Ok, from the OGL: 5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License. To me this says that the authority to contribute is relegated to the individual/corporation/company making the contribution. Now, the way I look at it, some nameless individual employee did NOT release "Dungeon Master" as open content, WOTC released it. Why? Because WOTC, as a company, is the one releasing the SRD as OGC, not that employee. "Joe Smith" the employee may have been the one working on the material, but he was doing so at the behest of the company, using a process (as it has been mentioned before) that gets it reviewed, apparently, by several portions of the company. Since WOTC, as a company, is releasing the SRD, then WOTC has the authority to release a trademarked term into OGC. Since WOTC, the company, has the authority, then the release of that term into OGC cannot be considered as a breach, thus no cure period is called for. It may have been a mistake, but "Joe Smith", as the duly appointed representative of WOTC to release material into OGC, was acting for and as the company in this case. Thus he did have the authority. If you try to say that he did not have the authority, then you are invalidating every single file that "Joe Smith" prepared and released, which I am guessing would be quite a few. To recap, employee "Joe Smith" did not release anything into OGC, WOTC released it, and since WOTC (as a company) DOES have the authority to release "Dungeon Master" as open game content, then there is no breach, and thus no "cure period" in which they can remove it. For those who want to start arguing that "Joe Smith" did not have the authority, do not forget that he was not the only one to review the material released (so we have been told - that being the reason for it taking so long to release those sections). TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
At 08:43 PM 6/14/2003, you wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 07:40:54PM -0700, Lizard wrote: > > Well, let's see. Is there an extensive public record of Lime Samurai > announcing their intent to make nearly all the content closed? Does this > follow the pattern of their previous books? Have they spoken at length > about how "It's all closed but the spam golem"? > > WOTC has a pretty extensive record of public comments prior to the release > of the SRD that "Dungeon Master" is not OGC. > > If this went before a jury, it would be pretty open-and-shut. As a non-lawyer, it's not entirely clear to me that the intent not to make a mistake completely protects one if one does make a mistake. I mean, maybe it does -- but I'd sort of like to see more to the argument than that. Well, when the terms of the contract include "authority to contribute", *and* include a period for cure of a breach, it takes quite a bit to claim something was added accidentally which cannot be de-added. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 07:40:54PM -0700, Lizard wrote: > > Well, let's see. Is there an extensive public record of Lime Samurai > announcing their intent to make nearly all the content closed? Does this > follow the pattern of their previous books? Have they spoken at length > about how "It's all closed but the spam golem"? > > WOTC has a pretty extensive record of public comments prior to the release > of the SRD that "Dungeon Master" is not OGC. > > If this went before a jury, it would be pretty open-and-shut. As a non-lawyer, it's not entirely clear to me that the intent not to make a mistake completely protects one if one does make a mistake. I mean, maybe it does -- but I'd sort of like to see more to the argument than that. -- Bryant Durrell [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell [] 9/11/2001 [] "'That's right,' he said. 'We're philosophers. We think, therefore we am.'" -- Terry Pratchett, _Small Gods_ ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
> If this went before a jury, it would be pretty open-and-shut. In my experience, NOTHING is open-and-shut when it comes to a jury. All depends on the jury selection. Andrew McDougall a.k.a. Tir Gwaith ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
At 06:40 AM 6/14/2003, you wrote: I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario. Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only written documentation of this intent is the book itself. One month later, an animation company offers to option the characters in the book for development as a TV series. Lime-Green Ronin announces on its Web site that an employee mistakenly put the "100 percent open text" declaration in Mercenaries of Seaport. The company only intended to open Appendix III, paragraph 5 and the stat block and combat description of the spam golem. How would third-party reusers be safe from this situation? It's not like most companies are chatty enough to clarify their intent for any of their work. - Well, let's see. Is there an extensive public record of Lime Samurai announcing their intent to make nearly all the content closed? Does this follow the pattern of their previous books? Have they spoken at length about how "It's all closed but the spam golem"? WOTC has a pretty extensive record of public comments prior to the release of the SRD that "Dungeon Master" is not OGC. If this went before a jury, it would be pretty open-and-shut. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
> Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as > 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only > written documentation of this intent is the book itself. I think they're probably unlikely to be able to make a compelling case that the material was released in an unauthorized fashion - although it would be unlikely, in today's environment, for a product to be released sans advertising, and "100% Open Game Content" has become a popular advertising angle for small publishers making it very, very hard to claim an error post-publication anyway. To be crystal clear: This is not an analogy to the situation WotC finds themselves in at present. Factors bearing on the WotC situation: 1) Public comments >specifically< about the material that was mistakenly released as OGC predating the release of that material indicating that they did not intend to make that material OGC. 2) The material in question has been obviously removed from thousands of passages of text where it otherwise appears in the primary source material, clearly indicating intent on the part of WotC to remove that content universally. 3) WotC is not dealing with a significant amount of content, not even so much as a paragraph of material - in fact, it is dealing with >two words<. 4) Those two words have been registered as a trademark and vigorously defended by WotC and its predecessors for nearly 25 years as the exclusive property of the owner of D&D, and nothing in WotC's public or private correspondance or commentary indicates any interest whatsoever in changing that stance. This is, in fact, a very unusual situation, and not one that I suspect will be oft repeated due to the unique nature of the prior commentary and long history of defense of exclusivity of the content in question. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
The situation you describe is possible, although not very likely. During the Discovery phase of the pre-trial preparations, Third Party Games would request copies of all Lime-Green Ronin materials related to the product. It's certainly possible that they wouldn't find any `incriminating' evidence, and/or that LGR employees would perjure themselves, but this is the price that you pay for the benefit of the cure period. `Normal' US Trademark and Copyright law provides for nothing like the cure period; in fact, it provides for retroactive damages and seizure of profits since the infringement (not just since the notification). Yet another excellent reason to request permission from your OGL sources, I'd say... chad (Not a Lawyer) On Saturday, Jun 14, 2003, at 09:40 US/Eastern, Rogers Cadenhead wrote: I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario. Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only written documentation of this intent is the book itself. One month later, an animation company offers to option the characters in the book for development as a TV series. Lime-Green Ronin announces on its Web site that an employee mistakenly put the "100 percent open text" declaration in Mercenaries of Seaport. The company only intended to open Appendix III, paragraph 5 and the stat block and combat description of the spam golem. How would third-party reusers be safe from this situation? It's not like most companies are chatty enough to clarify their intent for any of their work. -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/14/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
I'm trying to understand this employee mistake scenario. Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only written documentation of this intent is the book itself. One month later, an animation company offers to option the characters in the book for development as a TV series. Lime-Green Ronin announces on its Web site that an employee mistakenly put the "100 percent open text" declaration in Mercenaries of Seaport. The company only intended to open Appendix III, paragraph 5 and the stat block and combat description of the spam golem. How would third-party reusers be safe from this situation? It's not like most companies are chatty enough to clarify their intent for any of their work. -- Rogers Cadenhead, [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 06/14/2003 Weblog: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
