Quote from: Larsdangly;814916It is obvious there is a group of posters on this thread who are interested in the legal forms and details surrounding this subject. What do you folks make of the now common practice of publishing clones of other people's games? As far as I understand it, it is perfectly legal for me to re-write some edition of D&D, changing little or nothing of the substance of the game, and republish it for profit under some new name. Do you consider this ethical? If it is legal, should it be?

Personally, I consider it ethical to create a clone of a game that is well out of print - like Star Frontiers, Marvel Superheroes, James Bond 007, and so forth. This goes with my idea that there should be a fixed length for copyright such that a 33-year-old game like Star Frontiers ought to be in the public domain.

If you're creating a clone of a game that is recent and/or actively being developed (like D&D5), I think that ethically one should give credit and a portion of the profits back to the creator. However, that runs afoul of the out-of-control laws these days - where giving credit would be evidence against you in a lawsuit.

Quote from: Larsdangly;814925I'm not sure I understand why we do this to ourselves; as far as I can tell the only reason to put out retroclones with the serial numbers filed off is just to avoid the meddlesome hectoring from a few self-appointed guardians of legal correctness. Has anyone ever actually been sued for this stuff?

Definitely. The most high profile was probably Gary Gygax being sued for Dangerous Journeys, which completely shut down that game line. In 1992, Wizards of the Coast was nearly shut down by a lawsuit from Palladium over The Primal Order, because it included conversion stats for the Palladium system. There have been numerous cease-and-desists, several settlements, and a few court cases over tabletop RPGs.

If it is ethical to publish a clone of a long out of print game (a point I'ld agree on), why isn't it ethical to simply distribute a pdf of that game? This is the big divide in our community. I understand what the law says about the difference between these two cases, but not why there should be any ethical distinction. Perhaps I'm unusual, but if I were the author of a 30+year out of date game, I'ld rather it was just e-mailed around than bastardized and then e-mailed around.

It is interesting to hear the history of major cases. Has anyone ended up in court for things more in line with what the OSR does? I.e., small-time companies and individuals who basically pirate stuff, switch it around to satisfy their understanding of the letter of the law and then selling the product?

Quote from: Bren;814940If the exclusivity runs from the first book published rather than from the most recent, than 10 years seems too short.

Just picking an example off a long term series off the top of my head, Sue Grafton says she has an end in mine for her Kinsey Millhone series of detective novels ("A" is for Alibi, etc.) The series is planned to end with "Z" is for Zero in 2019. The first book, "A" is for Alibi was published in 1982. So that's 37 years from start to finish. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. She publishes a book every year or two so it's not like the IP is sitting idle.

This is exactly the logic used that keeps Mickey Mouse indefinitely under copyright. After all, the IP is still in use - so that means that it's still property and shouldn't be stolen from the creator and/or their heirs.

There are innumerable series that are published throughout the authors life and beyond.  For example, the Arthur Conan Doyle estate recently argued that Sherlock Holmes was still in copyright, because they have continued to publish Sherlock Holmes stories - including unpublished ones by the original author. Likewise, many series have indefinite life - like Nancy Drew, Superman, James Bond, etc.

Under a limited term copyright (like 10 years), there's nothing preventing an author from continuing a series. With the series being kept up, readers will be eager for the latest installment from the original author - and should have a huge leg up over imitators who are trying to branch off from 11-year-old material. Trademark and false advertising laws are sufficient so that readers know where to get the real thing. i.e. only the original author can publish "A Kinsey Milhone Mystery" (TM).

However, suppose the original author goes downhill - and another author starts writing a rival alternate history of Kinsey Milhone that readers like better. Then yes, that rival author would get their chance - just like authors now can make their own adaptations and variants of Sherlock Holmes and the Wizard of Oz.

I found a very handy chart of copyright lengths here:

https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Maybe the most salient for discussion of 100+ years:

"70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"

These all seem quite long - a little excessive to me. However comparatively, I don't think its entirely unreasonable, given that it was Death of Author + 70 in Europe already when the Sonny Bono Act / Mickey Mouse Act was passed.

Grandchildren or great grandchildren could inherit and benefit from it, like other legacies.

As costs of production drop and manufacturing becomes even more mobile, IP is what is going to matter the most to Western economies. The greatest violators of IP will eventually be brought to heel through advances in technology.

Quote from: Larsdangly;814953If it is ethical to publish a clone of a long out of print game (a point I'ld agree on), why isn't it ethical to simply distribute a pdf of that game?

Because a "clone" can embody the mechanics or ideas of a game (which are not copyrightable), rather than the actual text of the game; whereas a PDF is effectively a "reprint" of the actual copyrighted work.

Quote from: Larsdangly;814953If it is ethical to publish a clone of a long out of print game (a point I'ld agree on), why isn't it ethical to simply distribute a pdf of that game?

Its the difference between writing your own novel about King Arthur or republishing TH White's Once and Future King.

Quote from: Lynn;814959These all seem quite long - a little excessive to me. However comparatively, I don't think its entirely unreasonable, given that it was Death of Author + 70 in Europe already when the Sonny Bono Act / Mickey Mouse Act was passed.

Grandchildren or great grandchildren could inherit and benefit from it, like other legacies.

The grandchildren of a brilliant inventor inherit the fame and fortune that were generated by the invention - not control of their inventions throughout the world. I consider that quite reasonable - especially because the patent offices generates patents for often ridiculously simple ideas, which reflect legal mastery of the patent system more than actual invention.

This is the same way that the grandchildren of a brilliant salesman inherit the money he made selling things.

I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to authors.

Quote from: Lynn;814959"70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first"

These all seem quite long - a little excessive to me. However comparatively, I don't think its entirely unreasonable, given that it was Death of Author + 70 in Europe already when the Sonny Bono Act / Mickey Mouse Act was passed.

Grandchildren or great grandchildren could inherit and benefit from it, like other legacies.

Grandchildren and great grandchildren will be around within 56 years of an adult creating something in their 20's for most families, which makes 70+ years after the authors death or 120 years from creation fucking ridiculous.

The limited duration is due to the majority of profit being made relatively close to the original publication date for most materials. Hell, the limited duration with a chance to renew was to avoid not so profitable works from being kept hidden through copyright.

In a perfect world works would go to the public domain within the lifetime of the people who are effectively granting the monopoly through copyright, and those that live 120 years are few and far between. 28 years for free with a chance to review was more than necessary to start with, just going back to that would solve a lot of the current problems we have with effectively perpetual copyright.

Quote from: TristramEvans;814963Its the difference between writing your own novel about King Arthur or republishing TH White's Once and Future King.

Surely more like writitng a shitty novel about king arthur that uses characters, scenes and narative structure lifted from the Once and Future King rather than just publishing the Once and Future King.  Which would you prefer to read?

Now of course sometimes the derivitive is much better than the original I mean look at Gnomio and Julliet or Warm Bodies...

Writing your own novel about King Arthur that is original is more like Writing the Mists of Avalon, or A Conneticut Yankee in the Court of King Arthur, or even writing The Once and Future King rather than just republishing Le Morte d'Arthur. This is like writing Runequest, Rolemaster or Gurps rather than just writing a D&D heartbreaker.

Quote from: Larsdangly;814916What do you folks make of the now common practice of publishing clones of other people's games?

This is largely possible because of:

(1) The Open Game License, which largely moves the issue out of copyright law entirely.

(2) The fact that D&D is so heavily based on generic fantasy concepts and mythology which is already in the public domain.

Change either one of those and the OSR clones would look very different (or not exist at all).

Regardless of what the length of copyright should be, it should be a rock-solid principle that it should never be increased for a work that has already been created*. The purpose of copyright (in the US) is to promote creative work, and giving someone an extra span of copyright for something created decades ago is not going to result in more things being created in that long-past decade. And a constant stream of increases is effectively a perpetual copyright.

Add on the difficulty in determining if things are out of copyright when there are multiple possible terms, and the result is that eventually all new art will be parody, just because it's the only non-infringing thing you can do.

*Not counting requesting an extension (the old 28 year term, renewable once) if the extension was the rule when the work was created. Just in case that wasn't clear.

Quote from: Windjammer;814878There's no question that this can be legally done. The issue seems rather that it's poorly received when no hard profit is involved. GMT and FFG are doing well as companies because they encourage fans to put up websites with 'help sheets' for their games. Such sheets are clearly in violation of IP, and they sometimes replicate game mechanics

FFG has tagged at least one summary because it was more like a rules  draft than a summary. So have others. Eventually though they took to posting the rules for their board games online and not really enforcing summaries anymore.

FFG though is a good example of my earlier point of " Just ask them!"
Couple of times now a fan made game based on their IP, but totally different has been hit with a C&D.
OMG! FFG IS TEH MONSTERS!
The designer just asked them what was needed to make it ok and they said do this. Which is usually just "Change the name".
One of the games was later picked up by Stronghold. Who promptly had the free PNP that had been supported yanked and tried to make everyone delete ALL their fan created work. This did not go over well with some. While others patted the designer and publisher on the back and cheered them on.

Quote from: Larsdangly;814953It is interesting to hear the history of major cases. Has anyone ended up in court for things more in line with what the OSR does? I.e., small-time companies and individuals who basically pirate stuff, switch it around to satisfy their understanding of the letter of the law and then selling the product?

Sidestepping the ethical questions at the heart of this, but I'm reminded of how Captain Marvel ended up with a cease & desist plus damages for infringing on Superman. Different "serial numbers," as it were, but similar enough from a judge's POV to get one character shut down. And that's with Fawcett arguing extremely passionately that there was no intent to pirate a protected property! Good thing explicit cloners have the OGL as a fig leaf of sorts.

Quote from: jhkim;814957This is exactly the logic used that keeps Mickey Mouse indefinitely under copyright.

Only if you think that Walt Disney is still alive and creating Mickey Mouse stories.

QuoteUnder a limited term copyright (like 10 years), there's nothing preventing an author from continuing a series. With the series being kept up, readers will be eager for the latest installment from the original author - and should have a huge leg up over imitators who are trying to branch off from 11-year-old material. Trademark and false advertising laws are sufficient so that readers know where to get the real thing. i.e. only the original author can publish "A Kinsey Milhone Mystery" (TM).

Nothing preventing the author other than the possible value destruction of the IP due to the decrease of interest in the series or character from over exposure, brand erosion, or customer fatigue.

QuoteHowever, suppose the original author goes downhill - and another author starts writing a rival alternate history of Kinsey Milhone that readers like better.

That hypothetical seems about as likely as the author being a target of murder to shorten the copyright protection.

Arthur Conan Doyle is long dead. Sue Grafton isn't. I'm not concerned with facilitating the ability of imitators to copy the works of living authors nor do I see that as particularly valuable to society. If the author is good enough to rival successful authors like Arthur Conan Doyle, then that author ought to be able to write something of their own invention during Doyle's lifetime withou the need to "borrow." If they can't do that than frankly I'm not too concerned with making life easier for them. There is already a plethora of mediocre fiction in the world without arranging copyright law to enable even more.

Quote from: jibbajibba;814976Surely more like writitng a shitty novel about king arthur that uses characters, scenes and narative structure lifted from the Once and Future King rather than just publishing the Once and Future King.  Which would you prefer to read?

That outcome would depend on the new author entirely. Not every retro- or pseudoclone is crappy in comparison to the original. In fact, I'd rather read DCC than the original AD&D books anyday.