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
I would also like to add that something like thisis 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
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 9:43:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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
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
