Which is mostly speculation based on a single letter by MZB. If anything it indicates that US copyright law is sufficently unclear that a speculative case is sufficent for a publisher to lose interest in a book.
>For more background, check out the following MSc dissertation on the
>subject of "The Internet and Electronic Copyright: Fanfiction and
>the unacknowledged use of copyright material":
>
>http://members.aol.com/olwynm/fanfic1.htm
>
>The author is not a lawyer and the copyright law he references is
>UK, not US, but it still gives some background on the sort of legal
>exposure Issaries could have if it did not promulgate an explicit
>fan materials policy.
Except that from the point of view of the fan writer it indicates that they would be better off *not* signing a licence. By doing so they are signing up to terms which could be used against them while gaining nothing that English law doesn't allow them already. That is assuming the author is accurate in their description of the law and of course it is probably different elsewhere. Furthermore from the point of view of anyone not resident in the US signing a licence agreement would probably bring them into the jurisdiction of the US courts whereas not signing it would mean Issaries having to deal with the courts in the fan writer's country.
Of course this is only the copyright angle, there's also the trademark side which has a different set of rules.
> Remember, even if Issaries would likely win a
>given legal dispute, the costs associated with protracted litigation
>means that Glorantha loses. Just keep that in mind.
Which means that only in the clearest cases does litigation make sense. It's the old story, if two parties fall out the only people to gain are the lawyers.
Note: I'm not suggesting fans should avoid licencing stuff they want to publish, just that those who don't *may* find themselves in a stronger legal position than those who do.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail