>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.
US copyright law seems clear enough to me that this fan probably didn't have a case. But if you're a publisher, which in MZB's case would be orchestrating a big publicity campaign, it would be real annoying to have a printed book it couldn't distribute while the legal wheels ground. They'd almost certainly prevail, but it would take time, meanwhile they'd have to inventory that large print run for which the printer's bill would come due.
Also, the law may be clear while the results of a trial aren't. Well, as Jeff said, one outcome of a trial is pretty clear: the lawyers get paid.
While I agree that site wasn't full of legal wisdom, it convinced me that some jerk can ruin everything, and that it's prudent to take steps to prevent this. I also see why a lawyer wouldn't be happy allowing as much as Issaries is.
>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.
I don't think it makes any difference. You can't create a work set in Glorantha without being aware of Glorantha. And any such work is a derivative work. Sure, if you don't license, you can't possibly violate a license. But you would be just as much in violation of copyright.
Anyway, I'm going to go interpret some Published/Official Sources (2.F) for tomorrow's game.
-- David Dunham Glorantha/HQ/RQ page: http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail