Quote from: JRT;739023If the work was written by an author and not a corporation, it's the author's life plus 70 years, giving his heirs exclusive rights for a few generations of his survivors.  

Corporations have rights for 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication, whichever comes sooner.

So, for the most part, unless your a fan of a very old author, you're not gonna get to play with their stuff--your grandkids will probably get to though.

Assuming that Disney doesn't buy off another crop of lawmakers to extend it when the mouse comes near public domain again.  And the Supreme Court as well.  Since, you know, it's still "limited" even if it's just a few thousand years...

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;739022From what I've heard, they're not exactly sitting on it by choice ... it's that MacKinnon left GoO's finances and contracts in such a tangled mess that no one is sure who can do anything with the material and under what conditions and obligations.

That is very likely. If this is the MacKinnon I think it is then the level of mishandling near the end of GOO was pretty bad.

I am told he then he had the gall to return a year or so ago with some sort of kickstarter and the the plea of "Ive changed! Trust me!" Havent found the article or KS yet to see for myself. Just the original blogs from a co-worker detailing his and other publishers stunts.

Quote from: JRT;739023If the work was written by an author and not a corporation, it's the author's life plus 70 years, giving his heirs exclusive rights for a few generations of his survivors.  

Corporations have rights for 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication, whichever comes sooner.

So, for the most part, unless your a fan of a very old author, you're not gonna get to play with their stuff--your grandkids will probably get to though.

How confident are you about that rule? Was it the case 30 years ago? I am sure I read that between something like ~'65 and ~'95 the law in the US was a 28 year window, which was then extended by another 20 years by a change of law that happened in the mid-90's. At least that is what the wikipedia page on copyright law seems to imply.

Quote from: Larsdangly;739040How confident are you about that rule? Was it the case 30 years ago? I am sure I read that between something like ~'65 and ~'95 the law in the US was a 28 year window, which was then extended by another 20 years by a change of law that happened in the mid-90's. At least that is what the wikipedia page on copyright law seems to imply.

There's a few exceptions if the work was published before 1978.  Here's the basics
http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Basically, bases on that chart, if you are talking about RPGs,  unless they had no copyright notice and was published before 1978, it's still going to be 95 years.  So if you wanted to reprint original D&D you can't do it until 2069.

Perhaps the law is clear on this for all the properties we can easily think of. Exceptions might include some of the games that came out from small presses (nearly like 'fanzines') right after D&D was published. En Guard is one like this that I recall, though I'm sure there were others. I'll bet it is possible some of these never sorted out their copyrights at the time.

Anyway, the copyright restrictions don't really limit access to most roleplaying games (yet...) because they remain in print and/or have someone out there willing to sell you a legal pdf or some kind of POD service. What worries me are the less popular games that were never printed after their first run, those copies are now disappearing or decaying to the point where there is a significant limitation on availability, and no one has stepped up to offer a legal electronic or physical reprint. Some of these games will just be gone in another 10 years or so.

The 'retroclone' approach is the current answer to this for a lot of games, and I understand lots of people are really into it (I've written several of these myself, and they were works of love). But I find it unsatisfying as a general solution for several reasons.

One is ethical, though it may sound strange to say it. if I were an author of one of these works I'ld rather people read my original words, stolen or paid for, than have them create a pastiche with the serial numbers filed off, as if I'ld never even existed. I know people feel like the law pushes them into this, but it feels wrong to me anyway. Yes, even though I've done it.

A second is I'm not convinced all of this is as cleanly legal as we tell ourselves. If you pulled the crap we pull with some property that was actually worth something, you would probably end up in court and you would probably lose. Try publishing a book called 'Blarry Blotter and the Blorcerer's Blone' and see what the courts think of it. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect our community has created a kind of gray zone of retroclone publishing that succeeds because little is at stake so no one cares enough to disagree with what we say the rules are.

A third reason is creative: I actually don't think retroclones have the creative spark of the original games they copy. It all just feels a bit limp compared to the originals.

No solution or positive message to end on here; I think the situation is just kind of a drag for some of these cool old abandoned games!

Quote from: Larsdangly;739051Perhaps the law is clear on this for all the properties we can easily think of. Exceptions might include some of the games that came out from small presses (nearly like 'fanzines') right after D&D was published. En Guard is one like this that I recall, though I'm sure there were others. I'll bet it is possible some of these never sorted out their copyrights at the time.

Anyway, the copyright restrictions don't really limit access to most roleplaying games (yet...) because they remain in print and/or have someone out there willing to sell you a legal pdf or some kind of POD service. What worries me are the less popular games that were never printed after their first run, those copies are now disappearing or decaying to the point where there is a significant limitation on availability, and no one has stepped up to offer a legal electronic or physical reprint. Some of these games will just be gone in another 10 years or so.

The 'retroclone' approach is the current answer to this for a lot of games, and I understand lots of people are really into it (I've written several of these myself, and they were works of love). But I find it unsatisfying as a general solution for several reasons.

One is ethical, though it may sound strange to say it. if I were an author of one of these works I'ld rather people read my original words, stolen or paid for, than have them create a pastiche with the serial numbers filed off, as if I'ld never even existed. I know people feel like the law pushes them into this, but it feels wrong to me anyway. Yes, even though I've done it.

A second is I'm not convinced all of this is as cleanly legal as we tell ourselves. If you pulled the crap we pull with some property that was actually worth something, you would probably end up in court and you would probably lose. Try publishing a book called 'Blarry Blotter and the Blorcerer's Blone' and see what the courts think of it. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect our community has created a kind of gray zone of retroclone publishing that succeeds because little is at stake so no one cares enough to disagree with what we say the rules are.

A third reason is creative: I actually don't think retroclones have the creative spark of the original games they copy. It all just feels a bit limp compared to the originals.

No solution or positive message to end on here; I think the situation is just kind of a drag for some of these cool old abandoned games!

Well on the point of if this were another industry things would be different I disagree.   This is games and games have that odd rule that you can't copyright the mechanics.  This does happen in big money industry.  It happens all the time in software games.  Think scrabble vs words with friends or it prior name scrabbulous.    Hell Zynga gets tarred with the whole copied all but the name all the time.  And thats video games which is pretty much as big money as you can get.  Bigger than movies. Bigger than books.   You couldn't do the example you gave because thats a novel but in games well its a lot more wild west.

Quote from: Larsdangly;739021So, in a case like this, when the original copyright is more than 30 years old and the original holder didn't renew it and doesn't seem to want to use or defend the property, when does it become legal for someone else to do anything with it? In the US at least, there used to be a 28 year period to an original copyright.

Alright.  First off, folks, never mind the Wikipedia article.  Copyright law is a tangled, convoluted mess, over which lawyers make oodles of money happily arguing the merits of both sides.  There's no real international harmonization, and the goalposts keep changing.  Any assertion any of you make -- and I seriously doubt there's a copyright attorney among you -- will almost certainly be wrong in one element or another, and if not now, just wait five years.

Secondly, the gaming industry complicates matters because most such items are works for hire.  I own the rights to nothing I've written for GURPS, MERP, DC Heroes, TFT or Gamelords -- all those were works for hire, for which my lump sum checks were the sole total of my compensation. Whether the various time frames involving authors kicks in for my lifespan, I have no idea, because those books have MY name on them, not a corporation's name.

Thirdly, the companies don't have to "defend" copyright.  No one has to "defend" copyright ... you're confusing that with trademarks/servicemarks, Larsdangly, which do need to be defended in certain ways and within certain time frames.

Lastly, I mentioned Disney uptopic, and that's still a telling factor. Disney doesn't have to hold a legal copyright.  Tt can just intimidate any game company in the industry with the possible exception of WotC, and the degree to which Hasbro would want a pissing match with the Mouse, with a tenth Disney's revenue, you folks can guess as well as I can.

That is a very helpful post, mostly because it gives an insider's view of the muddled ambiguity I always suspected was hiding behind the rigid rules some people quote on this subject.

So, what happens when a copyright to some game is held by a company that dissolves? If none of the individual authors hold the rights to a game (or module or whatever), and the company that does hold them evaporated decades ago, who would you even pay if you wanted to buy the rights?

Quote from: Larsdangly;739139That is a very helpful post, mostly because it gives an insider's view of the muddled ambiguity I always suspected was hiding behind the rigid rules some people quote on this subject.

The only ambiguity I saw from that post is whether an individual person or a corporation holds the copyright.  The law references I gave are pretty solid on when a copyright expires.  

As far as a corporation that is dissolved, assets are not suddenly freed, so if the product is worth pursuing or publishing, you need to contact the people involved and find out how the assets were transferred.  If the company publishes IP and shut down, there is either a paper trail with the owners agreements, or a creditor trail of who gained the assets in the case of a bankruptcy.

The point being, what you should NEVER do is assume it's okay to just publish somebody else's work without getting a clear license or valid legal agreement to do so, unless you absolutely know that the copyrights for those works have expired.

This conversation is making copyright sound way more complicated than the reality is for our hobby and industry.

The law in the United States is that the person making a creative work has the exclusive right to sell and make derived works from it. The person has the right to sell or transfer his copyright to another party.  People have the right to hire other people to create and own the copyright as a work for hire.

Copyright don't protect ideas. Anybody can make a roleplaying game about dungeons, monsters, with characters that level. Something that Ken St. Andre did right off the bat with Tunnels & Trolls when he felt that D&D was stupid after reading it.

Later a group of people involved in the Society of Creative Anachronism created Runequest. They felt D&D did not reflect their experiences sword fighting in medieval reenactments.  This was combined with Stafford's Glorantha setting.

The only time any of this is a problem is when somebody doesn't want to do original work and use somebody else creative works without permission or condition.

Complexity arises in copyright situation is because what permissions were given is not clear. If you want to avoid copyright complexity the use material where the permission for use is clearly stated.

For example,I personally own the copyright in Blackmarsh by virtue of having created it. Certainly anybody is free to create their own castle town in a monster infested swamp created by a asteroid strike. But if they want to use the specifics of what I created then they need my permission.

For Blackmarsh I gave two sets of permissions. On using a Open Game License telling you which parts are open content which are product identity. The other a creative commons licence, (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). Both are prominently attached to my text.

For Dungeons & Dragons, WoTC released a large subset of the rules as the d20 System Reference Document. The text was made open content under the terms of the open game license.

For the average gamers it clear that both Blackmarsh and the d20 SRD are free to use for whatever purpose they want to use them for as long as they adhere to the OGL.

What if I am a big fan of AD&D 2nd edition planescape? Well looking through the books there is no place where either TSR or later Wizard gave permission to use its content. However big of a fan, however good of an idea your derived idea is. It is clear that you don't have permission. If you make anything you write based on Planescape public you are utterly dependent on the wishes of Wizards. They could sue you, they could even give you permission, more likely they will tell you to take it down with a warning.

What about that cool Judges Guild product? Or that old classic Traveller products? The complexity comes from the fact that not all products were made under a work for hire agreement with the owner of the rule system. They were made under some type of license. Permission from the publisher to write the work and publish it but with the author retaining some rights to the work.

That where things complex. But for third parties the situation is still the same. Unless you have the correct permission you are unable to use the work in question either directly or prepared derivative works from it.

So what about derivative works? Isn't that a mess?

Yes and no. Again copyright doesn't protect ideas, it protects and expression of an idea. And the expression of a idea particularly for a game, can involved terms, presentation of tables, and packaging. So while anybody can make a game involving dungeon mazes, and character levels, if you want to be safe come up with different terms and a different presentation than Dungeon & Dragons. Note that it doesn't have to be dramatically different. What the law is ulimately wants is for people not confuse your work with the original work. So if you look at the two, read the two, and it is clear that your work is something different then you done enough.

But they are meanies and will sue me anyway!

There are three common reasons why a lawsuit will happen anyway.

1) You are really trying to make a derivative work and didn't go far enough in making it original.
2) Somebody personally dislike you in the company that sued you. This is unlikely the case for most of us but it what happened to Gygax.
3) There is enough money involved to make even a marginal lawsuit worthwhile. Again something not likely in the tabletop RPG industry.

In recent years, most people who got in trouble because of #1. They were either careless, blind, or trying to rip the other company off.

Finally nobody has to take my word for it. Just download the various documents I talked about and read it for yourself.

Game designer rights, or more aptly lack thereof, are worse than a convoluted mess because some factions of would-be-thieves want to claim that the designer has no rights. Which is false. And the publishers want to claim the designer has few to no rights, which is wrong, and the designer would just like to get their game out without having it instantly snatched and copied endlessly with a name change or other alteration. The other problem is that often the game designer is a step in a process. And they may be a small step in some cases.

We see this even in the comic book biz and other realms.

Untangling the mess is nigh impossible because the rules change from country to country.  Germany and Russia are two recent examples that come up. Germany most recently last year regarding the changes in rights for game designers.

Quote from: Omega;739159Game designer rights, or more aptly lack thereof, are worse than a convoluted mess because some factions of would-be-thieves want to claim that the designer has no rights. Which is false.

In the United States if the designer created the work as a work for hire then he has no rights. And there is nothing wrong with this. I have the right to hire anybody I want to write for me with the result in my sole ownership of the copyrights in the work. Just as an author I have the right say no to a publisher when they want hire me under a work for hire agreement.


However it he instead licensed the work to the publisher under say a royalty agreement. Then under United States law he or heirs have a window several decades later to recover control of the copyright. This provision was added in recognition of the fact that many creative people starting have little leverage over their publisher.

For me personally, when I am not working on other people's material, then I opt for royalty agreement with me retaining my rights. If it is somebody else stuff, like Judges Guild Wilderlands, then I have no problem with a work for hire agreement.

Sometimes I will split the difference like I did with the Majestic Wilderlands. The original material I create is still under my copyright. However Judges Guild is free to use or publish the work I created. And I am free to use my material as long I remove any Judges Guild reference.

The moral of the story is "Be Smart, and learn about your trade before entering into agreements".

The only part of this that I find difficult is that a large fraction of the intellectual property from the first decade or so of gaming is simply abandoned. In some cases it might be a 'dog in the manger' situation, though I'll bet most cases are just disinterest (encouraged by the fact that only a couple of dozen people in the world really care about the property in question).

I understand that doesn't give anyone legal rights to do anything with that property, but it does mean the law is standing in the way of something good. The kinds of reproduction and distribution of old games that happens in our community is most similar to friends swapping mixed tapes of music they like (back when that was a thing!). No money is changing hands. No one is being hurt. Barely anyone is actually even involved. I'm sure it is illegal. But I also believe it is ethical.

Quote from: Larsdangly;739168The only part of this that I find difficult is that a large fraction of the intellectual property from the first decade or so of gaming is simply abandoned. In some cases it might be a 'dog in the manger' situation, though I'll bet most cases are just disinterest (encouraged by the fact that only a couple of dozen people in the world really care about the property in question).

Orphaned works are a serious cultural problem right now. Especially for those work that are on perishable medium like film and recordings. We already have lost stuff from the 20s and 30s due to people unable to clear the rights to reproduce them.

I feel that 28 years + 28 years with active renewal more than sufficient as copyright term length.