>Not actually. My Webpage is Runequest-related, but has nothing to do with
>Glorantha at all. So I'm most probably not affected in the first place
>(only in some secondary way, by all the pricks going D20) But that's not
>the point.
RuneQuest is also an Issaries Registered Trademark, presumably in the US but maybe elsewhere as well.
> "Anything that is slanderous, libelous, pornographic, or otherwise
> defaming to the reputation of the trademark."
>
>I don't see how "pornographic" fits in? So you want to make it
>impossible for someone to write gloranthan pornography without
>your formal approval? That is, frankly, weird.
It's saying that they consider pornographic material damages their trademark and they will probably refuse permission to publish it. What isn't clear is what pornography is in this context.
>But anyway:
>
> "Maps derived from Issaries maps."
>
>Derived? Hello? If I redraw a gloranthan map myself, you most probably
>have not rights on it at all. So even then I would need no formal or
>informal license.
This is a problem of international copyright law, different countries have different rules on derived works and Issaries are basing the fan policy on Californian law which is where they are registered.
>And further:
>
>"Article Gathering Prohibited
> Issaries, Inc. specifically prohibits the gathering together and
> mirroring of third party Original Material on any Online Fan Source,
> even if the site owner obtains permission from the copyright holder
> and their agreement to the "Concept Use" statement. If an article,
> write-up, or other material is available on the third party owner's
> own (or authorized) web site, any other Online Fan Source must link
> to it rather than mirroring and hosting the file as well."
>
>Bummer, with that you're trying to violate any ones copyright on
>their own material.
>
>And of course this continues for submitted material:
>
> "All Original Material submitted to the Issaries, Inc. web site by
> fans is copyright by the fan who wrote and submitted it."
>
>Certainly it is, you only get a _license_ from the author to
>republish it. But:
>
>"You agree that the material will not be posted on any other web
> site, including your own personal site."
>"You agree that you will not authorize any translation of the
> material into any other language for a third party web site."
>
>I have the copyright and you are going to tell me how I use
>it? Nice.
>
>Besides, who is going to let himself cheated from his rights like that?
>I don't have any agreement with you, so why should I let you take
>away my rights with agreeing to your "informal license"?
I can't find any mention of the Issaries web site in the fan publication policy. This seems to be their web site submissions policy - if you have it published there they want it to be exclusive. It's your choice - your web site or theirs.
>Something else: What happens if the said material underlies already
>the OP/L, this one: http://seegras.discordia.ch/About/opl.phtml
>The author could of course change it on HIS copy, but everyone else
>who already had a copy would have one underlying the OP/L...
It's a fan *publication* policy, it only applies to a copy that's published.
>You are on a very dangerous path here, and I don't think it will help
>anyone. Not you, not your fans. Not me who thinks there is already too
>much D20 out there. It most probably will bring people to abolish
>glorantha in the first place, and look for other, more free, worlds.
>As happens right now with operating systems, where people are fed up
>with windows and look for free, open source, alternatives like linux.
>
>The policy sounds like its written by some freaked out trademark-
>lawyer without the least bit of knowledge on how economy works
>(and not too much knowledge about copyright, either). So if you want
>to do Glorantha and its community some good, fire your lawyer and
>start looking at some more progressive licensing-models, like the
>ones on http://creativecommons.org/
It's written by a Californian lawyer for the purpose of protecting Issaries IP under Californian law. I agree it confuses the issues by trying to cover both trademark and copyright in the same document but the practice of writing legal documents in a way to give their client the strongest postion is typical of lawyers around the world.
The other issue is jurisdiction - Issaries are assuming that people outside the US are willing to accept Californian courts as arbiters when other courts may be much more favourable and almost certainly less expensive. From your email address it appears you are resident in Switzerland so you need to consider what Swiss law says on these issues and how the Swiss courts are likely to treat a dispute of jurisdiction with the US.
I can't help feeling that someone will decide to ignore the issue, forcing Issaries to take legal action where the only winners will be lawyers. And if the person is outside the US the result is going to be uncertain. So I suspect they would have been better off just taking action against the few people who clearly break the law but their Californian lawyers have advised otherwise.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/ ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail