on 4/18/01 8:26 AM, Doug Meerschaert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you see a fan work that you really want, you can just contact that fan
> and make him an offer.
True. Assuming you CAN contact the writer. From experience, I've found
that tracking down rights-holders even in the case of professional works is
not always fast or easy.
> I'm sure most of us would be willing to sign a legal
> declaration that the work is our original and legal work for little or no
> compensation. (I know that *I* will warrant my original works as original
> if asked--and I'll point you to the questionable parts too.)
As has been pointed out, you implicitly warrant originality or rights
ownership by agreeing to the OGL. The problem is fans who don't understand
the OGL, or have an overly broad conception of originality.
(Mind you, there's a risk of plagiarism where professional writers are
concerned, too. When I was freelance editing for TSR, one project handed to
me for editing -- ostensibly written by a respected writer -- included
plagiarized material. I think it may have been the last project that writer
got with TSR, and they started including a form letter warning about
plagiarism in their contracts.)
Pros and publishers who don't understand the OGL or go overboard in what
they think is "fair use" borrowing are a problem too, of course. But fans
do get away with things that professionals and publishers do not. The legal
issues may technically be the same, but the practical reality is that
rights-holders go after people profiting from their property before they go
after presumably well-intentioned fans.
(I had an interesting conversation once with a licensing guy at Paramount
about those gay erotica Kirk-and-Spock stories. What stories? Nudge, wink.
Now, go and print up and sell an anthology of them with STAR TREK written
big on the cover, and see how long their feigned ignorance persists.)
on 4/18/01 2:37 PM, Faustus von Goethe at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What you seem to be saying (along with many others on the list) sounds like
> a very solid argument for a second, add-on licence for hobby users.
Well, I don't see it that way. I think a second license would needlessly
muddy the waters. People have enough trouble understanding and following
one license.
Fans are going to do fannish things, and will typically feel entitled to do
so, whether strictly legal or not. They will do things like put D20
adaptations of third party intellectual property on the web, and claim that
it's Open Game Content. Publishers just need to be careful in the face of
that reality.
> Should the Open Gaming Foundation be concerning itself with
> the "not-for-profit" community, or should it acknowledge that
> it only represents the needs of professional game designers?
Seems to me that it DOES, since I see no reason why the "not-for-profit"
community can't use the OGL as it stands.
------------------------------------------------------
John Nephew voice (651) 638-0077 fax (651) 638-0084
President, Atlas Games www.atlas-games.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
