Steve Martin:
> From: ilium_at_juno.com (Stephen Martin)
> Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 18:25:47 EDT
> Subject: Legalese
>
> tickler_at_netcom.com (Brian Tickler)
> Fair use of RQ/Glorantha
>
> 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 Resolutions would seem to be a poor example of a product review, since previous incarnations are already in print, and because you are an "insider" at Chaosium. Please note that I'm not faulting you for this, merely pointing it out.
> 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.
Here's where part of the problem lies: since not even the #1 fanzine in the game is meeting this criteria all of the time, Chaosium is effectively reserving the right to quash anything, yet also "bending" to accommodate publications that are already established. If they do not similarly "bend" in the case of new publications (or, say, "bend" only for publications that meet with their subjective approval) would you consider that fair? Legal? Note that I am speaking hypothetically here; I'm not aware of any specific "quashing" going on yet, just pointing out that Chaosium seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it, too: "We reserve the right to sue the pants off anyone who violates our rules, but also reserve the right to allow anyone we like to break those rules if we see fit".
> >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.
I'm sure this is news to fanzines across the world in almost any genre; many if not a majority are most certainly published in an attempt to become profitable...
As for the implications about Chaosium's "absolute power" over Glorantha and any reference thereto, you seem to be implying that anyone who plays in Gloranthan games or creates any kind of Gloranthan material of any kind is only doing so by the Grace of Greg. This clearly does not hold up to scrutiny; the simple act of publishing a RPG using Glorantha already gives up much of the enforcable copyright by force. Where exactly would you be drawing the line between acceptable distribution of material (one player sharing his scenario with another from the same play group? a different play group? by hand? through the mail? in another country?) and unacceptable (the same player asking for $5 to recover copying costs? asking for $10? a sking 50 people who want the material for $2 each? asking for "editing fees" for otherwise free material? sharing material through a fanzine? a fanzine which comes out sporadically and contains only scenarios with no "articles"?).
> >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.
Lotus did not write and doesn't own the macros and Chaosium did not write and doesn't own the scenarios/material; exactly how is this misleading?
The comic book analogy doesn't stand up. Runequest is an interactive game that encourages its players to create material, not a body of fictional work. I would also point out here that there is a difference between Runequest and Glorantha, and, say, Rolemaster and Middle Earth. Rolemaster licensed a world that was created in a previously published body of copyrighted work. Glorantha does not enjoy this benefit; its works of fiction came out *after* the game had been in print for 15+ years. I would also point out that Glorantha and Runequest being published together is not quite the same as Rolemaster /w Middle Earth or Call of Cthulhu, games which licensed an existing fictional world with a significant body of work already in print. Gloranthan novels came after the game, not before (and were influenced by the RQ community, I might add; perhaps Greg should give copyright acknowledgements to some players).
> 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.
Explain exactly how it is that Chaosium "sold the rights" to previously published editions of RQ to Avalon Hill? Which "rights" are you referring to? Let me ask you this: if Parker Brothers sold Monopoly's "Community Chest" cards to Wizards of the Coast, could Wizards of the Coast summarily decree that all past, present, and future players of the game Monopoly could not use these cards?
> At the risk of offending Mister Tickler, I must say that some of his
> later points border on the ridiculous.
Since you haven't bothered to enumerate these points I guess I cannot defend myself here; but I do find it amusing that in much more recent posts you take other members of the digest to task for "offensive" remarks that are less direct than this one...
Shannon Appel:
> From: Shannon Appel <appel_at_erzo.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 18:35:25 -0700
> Subject: Re: Legalese
>
> >Well, although the word 'Glorantha' is owned, the rest of the *ideas* and
> >names AFAIK are not - Lunar, Jareel, Sartar, Harmast etc. As long as you
> >don't use the *word* Glorantha in you publication...
>
> Just from a legalistic point of view, that's not true in the
> least. Glorantha is a trademark. That means it can't be used without
> permission of the trademark holder in a way that might cause confusion
> to consumers (ie, on the cover of a product).
>
> Everything that makes up Glorantha is protected by Greg's
> copyright. And, part of copyright law is the fact that you can't
> produce deritivate works without the permission of the copyright
> holder. This is the same reason you couldn't write a book about Luke,
> Leia, and their Force powers and call it "Space Wars".
My point of view would be that the simple act of publishing a RPG is an implicit license to produce derivitive works, again, as long as they do not copy directly with the publisher's own products. I still feel that all the literary analogies cannot be used. Roleplaying games are different animal. Let me use a very tongue-in-cheek example: QUAKE.
Here is a revolutionary computer game that was released with a language built into the product to make it expandable by the players themselves. This remarkable capability makes the game Quake very similar to a RPG in that players are allowed to change or add to the game and are encouraged to do so. Now let's suppose for a moment that Id Software came out with a press release tomorrow that said: "All Quake owners are hereby ordered to cease and desist in using the Quake C language to add to or modify Quake". What do you think would happen? I'll tell you; class-action lawsuit for breach of contract. You cannot sell a product with features A, B, and C and then retroactively remove component C. Whether component C is copyrighted or not is completely immaterial in this case.
As incredible as it may seem, basically what I am saying is that Chaosium had no right to sell "Runequest" as a whole to Avalon Hill as a product separate from the world of Glorantha, because previous versions of the game combine these 2 components. This would be like an artist selling a bunch of prints of one of his paintings, then turning around and selling the original painting and trying to tell the owners of the prints that they now had to destroy their prints because he no longer owned the image.
> Rob Heinsoo published some clear guidelines on Glorantha publications
> back in March. Periodicals are OK (and that's not, BTW, because
> there's any legal requirement for this, just that Chaosium wants to
> make things simple). Individual books require permission from
> Chaosium. I'm sure Rob can repost the guidelines if there is some
> confusion.
The point I was originally trying to make was not that I wanted people to publish anything they feel like, but that I could not understand why Chaosium would even try to take a hard stance on this issue given the grey areas involved (and the fact that GtG has no chance of success if RQ does not carry the torch until new product is on the street).
The chilling little side note about the legal requirement to allow periodicals in a good example of this: surely you must realize that having allowed fanzines for almost 20 years any attempt to stop them now (especially in the RPG industry) is doomed to failure; Chaosium would have to rely on threat of legal complications and money expenditures alone to enforce this (blurring the lines of what constitutes a periodical, etc.), and I would sincerely hope that Chaosium and its employees are far above this type of heavy-handed mauling.
> And, just as a side note, this only has to do with the Glorantha
> world. The RuneQuest trademark totally belongs to Avalon Hill
> nowadays, and so they would need to be consulted as well for
> Gloranthan RQ things. It doesn't matter if you're talking RQ1, RQ2,
> RQ3, or RQ4.
Let me just point out again while I'm talking to Shannon that I'm not advocating any "rebellion" here, I'm merely trying to get a clearer picture of what Chaosium is really saying. Right now the message seems to be: "We want to encourage activity in the Glorantha community. Publish fanzines and web pages; just be aware that we are only allowing you to do this and we may terminate your right to do so whenever we please. We have some guidlelines for you to follow, but we reserve the right to apply none, some, or all of these guidelines to whomever we see fit."
I invite any representative of Chaosium to step out from behind the terse statements of the past 6 months and tell us what the bottom line is. Some people have hinted that any show of displeasure with Chaosium's current actions would be a disservice to the Glorantha community, but I feel that the impending doom implied by Chaosium's stance on publishing has its own negative effect, and I just sincerely wish that I understood that stance.
Alex Ferguson:
> From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_interzone.ucc.ie>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 20:33:40 +0100 (BST)
> Subject: (il)Legalisms.
> In fact, if (hypothetically) I were going to issue any (free, and
> almost axoimatically, worthless) advice about publishing Gloranthan
> material, it'd _perhaps_ be something on these lines.
>
> Do one of the following:-
>
> a) Follow the _letter_ of Chaosium's approval policy.
The "letter" of the policy right now consists of about 3 sentences, IIRC. Woefully inadequate. If I wanted to publish a "webzine", how often would I have to publish, and how much content does it take to constitute an "issue"?
> b) Seek clarification of what will slide by as a "periodical"
> _from Chaosium_ (as opposed to loudmouths like yours truly
> on the Digest).
What is not clear right now if whether Chaosium will apply this standard fairly across the board. Obviously Tales, Drastic Resolutions, and RQ Adventures are all shoo-ins are far as approval goes, but then what? Several people have already pointed out that many of the current "periodicals" might not meet Chaosium's criteria were it to be applied strictly. Let's say that after having started this debate and no doubt having "marked" myself with the Chaosium employees that read this digest, I decide to publish a fanzine; how can anyone ensure fairness in an approval process if the published criteria are not being used?
> c) Satisfy all these steps:
> i) Get watertight legal advice about would constitute
> "fair use" of Gloranthan material.
> ii) Ditto, that your work is not "derivative" of same.
> iii) Be prepared to piss off Greg (have you _read_ some
> of the curses on his manuscripts?).
> iv) Brace yourself for potential heaps of disapprobrium
> from the rest of the Gloranfanatic community.
I suspect you are right about point iv, but I wonder why it is so. All I have done so far is ask some pointed questions about vague areas. The general response to this by many (not just in the digest, BTW) has been to treat me as if I had committed sacrilege. I feel like I'm stuck in "The Emperor has no Clothes"... :)
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #14
Powered by hypermail