Danny Bourne
>> I'm not sure about the needing to ask permission thing, I felt it
prudent
>> (bearing in mind what happened to [yet another Dan] Prentice who was
>> threatened with legal action by Avalon Hill. (I hope you've got a lot
of
>> pipes, Alex ;) )
>Would you mind posting some details on this incident? I know several
>digest readers who have been waiting to see what kind of "boundaries" AH
>and
>Chaosium were going to try and set on future RQ/Glorantha publishing.
>Clearly their legal mumbo-jumbo implies they reserve the right to shut
>down any RQ/Glorantha intermingling, but the "periodicals" stuff implied
>that they might be "soft" on this issue. Certainly, Chaosium has to be
>soft on this issue to avoid alienating their customer base prior to the
>release of GtG, but AH looks like it has no reason not to play hardball.
While this was not addressed to me, I'm going to reply to it, because The Book of Drastic Resolutions is apparently the first product to be reviewed by Chaosium under their new policy.
Drastic, Volume Prax, includes a fair amount of RQ information -- creature stats, spells descriptions, cult write-ups, etc. Now, some of this material is arguably more Gloranthan than RQ -- Avalon Hill can't very well prohibit me from doing a Gloranthan cult write-up, even though it talks about spells in the RQ rules, because those spells are very arguably Gloranthan.
But, the final deal comes out something like this -- assuming the Gloranthan content of Drastic is approved, the RQ content is a non-issue for Chaosium. It is up to me to defend my product as a fanzine, and thus more or less immune to Jack Dott's control, if the subject comes up. This is pretty much how it should be -- it is none of Chaosium's business whether or not ANYBODY published anything for RuneQuest.
HOWEVER, there is one catch. Because Wizard's Attic is part of Chaosium, in some sense, they will not carry Drastic if contains RuneQuest material, without some sort of permission or release from Avalon Hill. Which makes sense: while they might not be going against the letter of their agreement with AH by doing this, they very well could be breaking at least the intent of it.
So, those of you looking to do Gloranthan publications -- avoid RQ if you can.
Note that a strict periodical, by Chaosium's definition, would not require their permission, though that means you need to publish twice yearly on a regular basis, something even Tales has not always managed.
Note also that I do NOT have an answer to the question of whether Wizard's Attic feels confident enough in their role to continue carrying PERIODICALS which contain RQ material. A subject for further thought on their part, I warrant.
>What seems strange to me is that there has been little discussion on
this
>issue. It is not at all clear legally whether AH or Chaosium has any
>right whatsoever to stop you from publishing RQ/Glorantha material as
>long as it is in a form established as being "fair use" of the game
(like
>a fanzine). Just because they say that they will take legal action does
>not mean they can win.
Well, Greg Stafford and/or Chaosiumunequivocably own Glorantha, and can force ANYONE to cease and desist (except a strict periodical) if they wanted to. Avalon Hill has similar power with regard to RuneQuest. I personally would suggest that anyone who seeks to circumvent or ignore either company's rights and authority in this matter, would be doing everyone a disfavor.
"Fair use" does not mean, and has never meant, publication for profit, in any industry. I assume this is why fanzines are exempt -- they are not for profit.
>7. Players of RQ3 have a right to share these materials with whomever
>they please as long as they give credits for copyrighted material and as
>long as they do not "copy" the original products (by releasing a "new"
>set of RQ3 rules for sale to the public, for example, or simply copying
a
>scenario, putting a new cover on it, and re-selling it). BTW, if you're
>having a tough time swallowing this one, consider Lotus who tried to
claim
>a while back that they "owned" all Lotus 1-2-3 macros ever written.
This
>claim failed, and Lotus users are free to write, distribute, and *sell*
any
>macros they write.
Avalon Hill apparently tried to do the same thing with Tales. But your example is misleading -- Lotus did not write the macros, so they don't own them. However, the actual word Glorantha and all of its component parts are owned by Greg or Chaosium. Just as you can't publish a comic book starring Captain America without Marvel Comics' permission, you can't use Glorantha without permission.
As for RQ2 being safe, that depends -- if the word RuneQuest and all rights to all editions were sold to Avalon Hill, then you can't publish using the older version of the rules. Even if they didn't, you would need Chaosium's permission. Either way, legally you _must_ get someone's permission to use the game rules in anything other than a not-for-profit fanzine.
At the risk of offending Mister Tickler, I must say that some of his later points border on the ridiculous.
Stephen Martin
ilium_at_juno.com
- -----------------------------------------------The Book of Drastic Resolutions
Powered by hypermail