Maybe, just maybe, I can see letting slide the review of the Rifts corebook and Rifts Japan, but I don't see how Kevin Siembieda can ignore the Rifts art contest.  My question for discussion: How long can we go without a Palladium-based installment of Legal Threats before we can all agree that Mr. Siembieda has no balls?

Every day without a report from SomethingAwful that Siembieda is all up in their grill is another day that adds to my suspicion that the Palladium policy vis-a-vis the internet is just a bunch of hot air.

Simbieda claims to own all fan-created Rifts material:

A related policy involves Palladium's use of works created by you using Palladium rules, characters, world settings, etc.

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, these are "Derivative Works" which, legally we have a right to prevent or to own (take a look at Section 106 of the Copyright Act). We are willing, however, to allow the creation of derivatives of our text strictly for limited personal use (though not for financial gain), subject to the following.

Any derivative works that you create are automatically owned by Palladium, under the terms of the U.S. Copyright Act.  

He appears to think a "Derivative Work" is "any work making use of the original work".  He does not appear to have read the much more limited definition of a derivative work in s 101 of the US Copyright Act:


A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

That's why I've been expecting him to flip out at SomethingAwful.  Where is the earth-shattering kaboom?  There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom.

He's kinda broke right now.

Maybe he's writing a new sourcebook even now that's simply going to use all that art. Since it all belongs to him anyway.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;332305He's kinda broke right now.

Too broke to send a letter?  Too broke to get the attorney that vetted his ridiculous net policy to send a letter?  That is pretty damn broke, especially since that crazy ass attorney probably accepts currency from Fredonia and Neverneverland.

When I first saw the Rifts articles on Something Awful, the first thing I thought was, "Wow. I'm surprised they haven't been hit with a cease & desist for using art from Palladium books.". I figure the only reason they haven't yet is that maybe Kevin Siembieda is unaware of it. I highly doubt that he'd sit on his hands if he knew about it.

Quote from: jrients;332307Too broke to send a letter?  Too broke to get the attorney that vetted his ridiculous net policy to send a letter?  That is pretty damn broke, especially since that crazy ass attorney probably accepts currency from Fredonia and Neverneverland.

If I were his attorney (and I teach IP law in the UK) I'd only be vetting his policy for liability issues - anything that could get Simbieda sued.  I couldn't care less whether his deranged view of Derivative Work was actually enforceable*.

*Short answer: "It's not".  Long answer:  "If you were Sylvester Stallone, and someone wrote an unauthorised Rocky sequel, and then tried to sue *you* Mr Stallone for infringing their copyright with your own sequel, then yes, you could sue them and win.  That actually happened.  However since you are not a major Hollywood celebrity, and no one is suing you for making Rifts stuff, you can forget it".

Quote from: KillingMachine;332311When I first saw the Rifts articles on Something Awful, the first thing I thought was, "Wow. I'm surprised they haven't been hit with a cease & desist for using art from Palladium books.". I figure the only reason they haven't yet is that maybe Kevin Siembieda is unaware of it. I highly doubt that he'd sit on his hands if he knew about it.

There are fair use/fair dealing exemptions from copyright for 'criticism & review'.  The US also has a parody exemption, I believe.

S'mon, since you actually have some expertise on this topic I wonder if you can clear up my puzzlement. You seem to be suggesting that a derivative such as an unauthorized sequel, or a module using distinctive characters or concepts derived from a game, wouldn't be a derivative work. Is that right?

Quote from: KillingMachine;332311When I first saw the Rifts articles on Something Awful, the first thing I thought was, "Wow. I'm surprised they haven't been hit with a cease & desist for using art from Palladium books.". I figure the only reason they haven't yet is that maybe Kevin Siembieda is unaware of it. I highly doubt that he'd sit on his hands if he knew about it.

I assumed enough overlap between SA forum goons and Palladium forum members that he would hear about it instantaneously.  Perhaps I'm wrong.

S'mon, are you saying you don't care whether the policy does what it claims to do so long as it doesn't draw litigation?  I think I would want my attorney to say "Hey, your ideas about derivate work is completely nutso."

Quote from: S'mon;332313There are fair use/fair dealing exemptions from copyright for 'criticism & review'.  The US also has a parody exemption, I believe.

Parody and educational exemptions got cut in the 2001 and/or 2004 changes... they still exist in precedent. So said my employing school district's lawyer.

With graphic art, there is another specific definition for derivatives which requires a certain amount of changes, expressed as percentages. Most of the fan art is recognizable as derivative, and in the case of a lot of Palladium stuff, it's fairly distinctive, so KS does have a leg to stand upon in suppressing it.

To be able to use a derivative, however, he needs a transfer of ownership... at least as I've been lead to understand both by IP lawyers and by reading the law itself... the derivative is copyright the deriving artist and the original artist... and he needs permission from the deriving artist to use same. If, however, the art is up on a site with the needed disclaimers to avoid a C&D letter from KS, then he's got a pretty good case for the implied transfer of the ownership right there.

Keep in mind: Licenses are agreements that grant some rights, but take a bunch more away.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;332317S'mon, since you actually have some expertise on this topic I wonder if you can clear up my puzzlement. You seem to be suggesting that a derivative such as an unauthorized sequel, or a module using distinctive characters or concepts derived from a game, wouldn't be a derivative work. Is that right?

The lawyerly answer is "It's a grey area".  If you are J K Rowling and someone writes an unauthorised Harry Potter, your very expensive lawyers will likely be able to get an interim injunction, forcing withdrawal of the book pending decision.  Publishers know that, so they don't try.  As to whether she'd win in court is harder to say.  Some US courts have stretched 'derivative work' beyond the statutory definition.

Contarily, the preliminary finding in The Wind Done Gone case strongly indicated that use of another's characters, setting & plot (Margaret Mitchell's) is not automatically copyright infringing, even without a parody defense.

The general rule for sequels:  Rowling or George Lucas may not have a cast iron case against you, but they can make your life sufficiently uncomfortable it's not worth the hassle.

Setting a story in the Star Wars universe, or a module in the Rifts universe, but not using signature characters & plot, is further away again from being a clear derivative work.  There is no finding that fictional worlds are protected, only the underlying literary/artistic work.  And rules as such are definitely not protected, indeed protecting game rules is effectively forbidden under the Berne copyright convention.

There's an additional Fair Use issue that creating adventures etc is necessary to the play of RPGs.  No publisher wants to see a court rule on that, because they could lose a large chunk of IP if it went against them.  So you'd have to be crazy to sue someone for eg posting a RIFTs adventure online.

Quote from: jrients;332323S'mon, are you saying you don't care whether the policy does what it claims to do so long as it doesn't draw litigation?  I think I would want my attorney to say "Hey, your ideas about derivate work is completely nutso."

If I'm his attorney, and he is asking me to clear his policy, I am not concerned with his PR.  I am concerned with his liability - whether he could get sued for this.  Also, is he giving away something - some IP rights - he didn't intend?  Lots of companies have unenforceable policies, they can be useful tools of intimidation.  In this case, I think the policy is stupid because it annoys his potential customers, but as his legal adviser that's not my concern.  It would be the same for T$R's lawyers.  Their IP policy was legally unenforceable, I think they knew it, but it had the effect Ms Williams wanted.

This may be wrong, but I would enjoy an exchange between Kevin©®™ and Leonard J. Crabs. Oh yes.