Adventures and Copyrights

[badphantom]

Hi there,

before getting into ( next ) Copyright trouble, i'd like to know, how far those usage restrictions concern Adventures.

Would it be legal to post an adventure for a Shadowrun game?
I expect it won't be legal, if it contains several logos of corps existing in the shadowrun universe.

Would also copyrights be broken, when providing a character in it, that has the universe specific abilities,data etc. ?

Thanks for your answer

P.S.: Sry, can't get used to write small letters all the way =)

[Ged]

I would say that the safest thing after asking the publisher is to look at the copyright statements in the Shadowrun source books. Almost certainly they have several trademarks protecting the property (such as the name of the system) and they don't give up any rights except the potential permission to photocopy the character sheet for personal use. Thus, distributing unauthorized Shadowrun content violates copyrights. :ogre:

Posting it here or elsewhere online is quite the same as publishing it as a book, even though it would be handed out for free. (It's easy to think, say, that publishing a Wheel of Time book and maybe telling about the world and/or characters of Wheel of Time would constitute a copyright breach, even if it wasn't directly from the published books.) For your own use, the situation is completely different and comparable to playing on a table - i.e. go ahead.

[DarkStar]

Then why there are portals such as RPG Archive (https://www.rpgarchive.com/), from where you can download free adventures, written by various people from all over the world? Why there are printed RPG magazines, to whom you can send your own adventure and if it's good, it will be printed? Why there are fan fiction websites, where people write their own (free) novels, using worlds created by famous writers (even the mentioned WoT)?

To me, it looks like you are over zealous about copyright. ;) I think that publishing a free FG module is nothing else than publishing an adventure on the forementioned RPGA and is fully legal. It's a MODULE, not a source book!

[Dedeko]

Then why there are portals such as RPG Archive (https://www.rpgarchive.com/), from where you can download free adventures, written by various people from all over the world? Why there are printed RPG magazines, to whom you can send your own adventure and if it's good, it will be printed? Why there are fan fiction websites, where people write their own (free) novels, using worlds created by famous writers (even the mentioned WoT)?

To me, it looks like you are over zealous about copyright. ;) I think that publishing a free FG module is nothing else than publishing an adventure on the forementioned RPGA and is fully legal. It's a MODULE, not a source book!
Sending to those sources, you effectively give up your right to be able to collect on your work, and pass it off onto the "magazine", that website is the same just if you put a work on there its assumed to be free.

To get back to the original poster, if you are publishing a symbol/picture used in a sourcebook for an adventure.

How will the publishers really come after you? You make $$$ of it and don't do the proper legal jumping through hoops for them to get a pinch.

[Sigurd]

I think that publishing a free FG module is nothing else than publishing an adventure on the forementioned RPGA and is fully legal. It's a MODULE, not a source book!

I don't know of any official statement even for publishing\sharing your own module in Fgrounds compatible format. That is your own Idea, your own artwork (or artwork you have rights from the author for) but put in a fgrounds compatible module.


I would be curious if there is one.

Has anyone heard such a statement? Or can they point to one in the docs?

[DarkStar]

Sending to those sources, you effectively give up your right to be able to collect on your work, and pass it off onto the "magazine", that website is the same just if you put a work on there its assumed to be free.

badphantom asked about posting a free adventure, so I answered with what I think is right. I am 99% sure that posting FG modules is legal. ;) It's just another way to present the same adventure. I see no reason why SmiteWorks would want to limit that possibility.

[kalmarjan]

Once again the copyright question rears it's ugly head.

This has been discussed ad nauseum before. If you perform a search on these boards, you will find a lot on the matter.

As for the copyright question on your own created adventures:

Basically once you create something, it is yours. If you choose to persue the copyright, it is up to you. You have the right to dictate how your material is distributed, used etc.

Now, if you are speaking of "Free" resources in places such as RPG Portal and others, understand that the creators of the resources may or may not have permission to use the material for their site. You have to understand that if they do not, perhaps the companies (like SJG) are not going after them because they are fine -- or they do not know of any infringement.

That being said, I understand where the developers in SW come from when they do not advocate copyright infringement. See, they do not want FG to be a vehicle for that. This would get the Developers in trouble with the companies regarding copyright, consequently FG would be in trouble.

Lastly, just because a module is a free resource, does not indicate it is free for distribution. The creator of that module (or the company that is holding the rights) still has the right to deny permission of use.

There is nothing wrong with converting something for your own use. (This is much like photocopying for your own use). You just cant post the protected content.

Hopefully that clears up the confusion. Please note that SW is not the only company with this policy. DM Genie, Dundjinni, Campagn Cartographer... all of those creators (Mad science labs, fluid etc) all have very strong statements on what can be posted regarding copyright. So please do not think that SW is alone in this.

Sandeman

[kalmarjan]

Sending to those sources, you effectively give up your right to be able to collect on your work, and pass it off onto the "magazine", that website is the same just if you put a work on there its assumed to be free.

To get back to the original poster, if you are publishing a symbol/picture used in a sourcebook for an adventure.

How will the publishers really come after you? You make $$$ of it and don't do the proper legal jumping through hoops for them to get a pinch.

It is not about how they will come after you. Perhaps you will get a cease and desist letter. Pehaps not.

What will probably happen is the company will go after the makers of the application. (Since they are the ones providing the vehicle for the copyright infringement.) Case in point - the RIAA. They did go after a few copyright infringing users of Kazaa and Napster... In the end though, they concentrated on the makers of the apps.

Sandeman

[DarkStar]

Somebody should sue Arpanet creators and TCP inventors... *sigh*

[Snikle]

Case in point - the RIAA. They did go after a few copyright infringing users of Kazaa and Napster... In the end though, they concentrated on the makers of the apps.

That's just because they got tired of looking like fools for sueing 80 year old women that didnt even own a computer, or 7 year old kids, or people that had been dead for a couple years.

[badphantom]

Okay thanks a lot for your posts.

In this specific case i thought about posting a free module, for use with FG, which contains several ground maps ( Dundjinni (tm ) <-- HOT ), some Corps graphics ( FanPro <-- Critical ), and of course the descriptions i've created.

It would be load of work, just to make the adventure postable without infringements.

God bless UNIX ...

[kalmarjan]

That's just because they got tired of looking like fools for sueing 80 year old women that didnt even own a computer, or 7 year old kids, or people that had been dead for a couple years.

LOL. I think it had more to do with the 2.6 million people utilizing the program for copyright infringement. It is pretty hard to bring a class action suit against that many people, let alone sift through the rerouting of IP's etc. :)

That said, it did not stop the P2P sharing. This is still being done on a daily basis with each new app that comes out.

The point is, Kazaa, Edonkey2000, and others are no longer distributable programs to do this. That is EXACTLY what we want to aviod with FG. If that was to happen, the length of time 2.0 is taking to come out would be the least of our problems.

Cheers,

Sandeman

[Snikle]

Yeah, I agree with the idea that for future updates to the program, you download from their server after you enter the key (like they did for the beta setup).

[A Trackless Stranger]

never mind...not worth it

[Cavalieri]

After reading this thread I feel compelled to clear a few things up. All of this is based on US Intellectual Property laws... so YMMV if you are somewhere else. Further, I'm not a licensed attorney and this is not legal advice.

Copyright is different from Trademark. They differ in their purposes, their causes of action, their infringements, and the remedies available.

A Trademark is a "source identifying" mark -- the reason they are protected is for consumer protection (So that you don't have to worry that the Coke you're drinking was made by someone else in their bathtub) and to protect the good-will that a company has earned by virtue of their product (the makers of the Bathtub Coke would be cashing in on your opinion of the Real Coke and if BC tasted horrible, you'd likely have a lowered impression of Real Coke).

In the context of the current discussion, "Shadowrun" is a trademark that lets you know that things published under that name come from FanPro. If your adventure could be mistaken to be produced or endorsed by FanPro, they are giong to be unhappy with you. Also, In many countries, you can lose your trademark if you fail to protect it, so trademark owners often go so far as to go after little guys just to demonstrate that they are protecting their mark.

Copyright is a different beast... the purpose of copyright is to allow content creators a time-limited monopoly on their work. In the US (and many other countries) you don't have to apply for a copyright: you have rights to everything you create as soon as you "fix it in a medium" -- write it down, type it on the computer, record yourself saying it, draw it, whatever.

Companies are more loose about copyright (fanfiction, fan art, etc) because in most countries you cannot lose a copyright for failure to protect it. They tend to only get picky about copyrights when either 1) It costs them money in lost sales (distributing PDFs with copies of the d20 Player's Manual, for example), 2) You're selling something they're trying to give away for free, 3) You're selling a derivative work.

A "derivative work" is a complicated concept... but Wikipedia has a pretty good run-down of it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Basically, if you're using their copyrighted characters and putting them in new situations or changing them up a little bit, it's likely that you don't really own the copyright to the new thing you've created because it is considered a derivative work.

To be on the safe side: create all of your content from scratch. :) When you start using intellectual property that you don't have the rights to (Trademarks OR Copyrights) you can start running into trouble.

[joeru]

Basically, if you're using their copyrighted characters and putting them in new situations or changing them up a little bit, it's likely that you don't really own the copyright to the new thing you've created because it is considered a derivative work.

Actually, ones does own the copyright in what amounts to original work, even in a derivative work. Meaning, the copyright holders of the setting/book which your work is based upon can't publish the part of the work that is original to you, without your permission.

An example: If I wrote a full-length book situated, in, say, George RR Martin's world presented in the "A Song of Ice and Fire," and the plot would be unique, but using characters already presented in the book, I'd have copyright to the story. Publishing it wouldn't be allowed without Mr. Martin's permission, but neither could Mr. Martin publish it without my permission.

[Cavalieri]

Actually, ones does own the copyright in what amounts to original work, even in a derivative work. Meaning, the copyright holders of the setting/book which your work is based upon can't publish the part of the work that is original to you, without your permission.

An example: If I wrote a full-length book situated, in, say, George RR Martin's world presented in the "A Song of Ice and Fire," and the plot would be unique, but using characters already presented in the book, I'd have copyright to the story. Publishing it wouldn't be allowed without Mr. Martin's permission, but neither could Mr. Martin publish it without my permission.

That may be the case in Finland, I couldn't say, but in the United States only the owner of a copyright has the right to create a derivative work (or allow someone else to) based on that copyright.

See "Who May Prepare A Derivative Work?": https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative/

[joeru]

That may be the case in Finland, I couldn't say, but in the United States only the owner of a copyright has the right to create a derivative work (or allow someone else to) based on that copyright.

See "Who May Prepare A Derivative Work?": https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative/

Not having the right to create a derivative work does not imply that the writer of the derivative work doesn't own the copyright to the original parts of the derivative work. It means (s)he hasn't the right to publish it without the original author's permission.

Someone who has a right to create a derivative work can not be sued for copyright infringement, and he owns the copyright to the original parts of the work.

Someone who does not have a right to create a derivative work can be sued for copyright infringement, but he owns the copyright to the original parts of the work.

[Cavalieri]

...Speaking strictly of US law here...


Not having the right to create a derivative work does not imply that the writer of the derivative work doesn't own the copyright to the original parts of the derivative work. It means (s)he hasn't the right to publish it without the original author's permission.

Someone who has a right to create a derivative work can not be sued for copyright infringement, and he owns the copyright to the original parts of the work.

Someone who does not have a right to create a derivative work can be sued for copyright infringement, but he owns the copyright to the original parts of the work.

To a certain extent you are correct. From the US Supreme Court in Stewart v. Abend:


Aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the preexisting work remains on grant from the owner of the preexisting work.

Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 209 (1990).

The problem, however, is determining what is "derived" and what is "added" -- this, in some cases is a simple proposition, but if, for example, a copyrighted character is used in a different story, huge portions of that story could be found to be "derivative" by virtue of the fact that they involve the copyrighted character in some way.

So my primary point is still that if you create a new adventure and use pieces and parts of another person's copyrighted work without their permission, your adventure (as a whole) is not copyrightable and what parts of it ARE copyrightable by you can be fuzzy and difficult to determine without litigation... and I highly doubt anyone in these forums wants to go to court over the use of some character in an adventure that they made for hobby.

Like I said... the area of derivative work is murky and is probably not worth the trouble of bothering with.

[joeru]

Like I said... the area of derivative work is murky and is probably not worth the trouble of bothering with.

Laws, in general, are quite clear - it's the damn lawyers who keep complicating things up all the time in court. :)

But, I think, your last post was a good summary on the subject.

-- joeru

PS. You forgot to mention how ideas fit in, though. ;)

[Cavalieri]

Laws, in general, are quite clear - it's the damn lawyers who keep complicating things up all the time in court. :)

...I used to think that too... then I went to law school and realized that, most of the time, the statutes are not half as clear as one might think.

...although I might just think that because my schooling is turning me into a lawyer.

Looks like I'm part of the problem! :eek:

[joeru]

...I used to think that too... then I went to law school and realized that, most of the time, the statutes are not half as clear as one might think.

The first sign of their success in brainwashing you. ;)

[DarkStar]

I just want to say that if there is a RPG system for which you are not allowed to create your own free adventures and publish them for free - it sucks and people should not buy it...

[Cavalieri]

That's not the issue... it would be (as far as I know) completely impossible for that to be the case (notable exceptions would be things like MMORPGs where you'd have to reverse engineer a copy-protection system to do it... not the case here).

HOWEVER, and this applies to all systems, if you use their trademarks or copyrighted materials without permission in a manner that infringes their rights, you can find yourself in a big mess... and the purpose of this thread was to try to make some sense out of what those rights are and how to avoid getting sued.

[Sigurd]

Thanks for the postings Cavalieri, they were as good a statement of the rules as I've heard.

If I may add my .03 (might even be a nickel :) ) In the realm of the more political and organizational..... This is not offered as a license to disregard the current system. These are thoughts for change not council to rebellion.

1. Terms of Copyright - while it is true, as set out in the American Constitution, that copyrights should be a temporary monopoly the Corporate lobbiests have convinced the US government to extend the duration of copyright protection a number of times. Most of what would have ceased to be copyrighted in my lifetime has been re protected 3 times. For my lifetime - copyright will effectively be unending for everything published since I was born -- and many years before.

2. There has been no review of copyright terms in a digital society. I think even many publishers would prefer wider respect for the law and a shorter duration. I imagine most computer game publishers would make far more money in 10 years of respect than the 70+ years of resentment.

3. I think the perception that you cannot publish your adventures on the web could really hurt Smyteworks. Every game full of players is a game full of licenses. I will never buy Dunjinni because I perceive their copyright stance as too strict. A lot more people would buy the program if finding a dungeon to run was as simple as paying a few bucks or downloading one for free.
I have asked in this thread if there are constructive simple guidelines for publishing in the Fgrounds format? May a user publish modules without license or fees to Smyteworks? I'm asking, assuming all the artwork is your own and the plot etc....
Have they established how the D20 or OGL license governs Fgrounds formatted modules? Can they get out of the middle in all this??? I don't think I've seen a statement - if I'm wrong please direct me.

4. Remember this is not just an US vs THEM issue. There is less difference between a profit or 'not for profit' publication than most people like to think.

"For profit" businesses can pay a share of the proceeds to licence holders - that can smooth the way - but it is still an expensive shackle on module production. (If you begrudge a small publishing house $5 for doing all the work for you, you obviously haven't seen how much work it is or how little they might possibly make.)

In a clearly defined publishing environment not for profit publication is attractive largely because you can limit your losses. I can almost gaurrantee that if you are only ever going to publish one module you will have more fun, less headaches, and probably loose less money if you give it away.

IMHO amateur and not for profit publications are less likely to be sued because they are often worthless targets for litigation. Don't be fooled into thinking that there is no infringement there. You might be sued for far more than the profits on your publication -- court damages awarded for infringing a copyright holder's rights or reputation can be huge. If you have reduced the value of the copyright for all time it makes no difference that you only made a quarter doing it. The fine will be based on the damage not the profit.

Remember it is the copyright holder's decision if respect and a wider audience is payment enough. Without that decision in writing you don't know where you stand -- that's what has been so successful about the GPL the OGL & the D20 license. It would be welcome here as well.

Generally "Fan Stuff" is tolerated where it furthers sales but the rules of copyright defence make it manditory that at some stage copying most be opposed for the holder to defend his\her ideas. If anyone can use your material why should someone pay for it?

It is in the copyright holder's best interest* to have clear guidlines for use and sometimes that includes permission for non profit use. It doesn't have to but it often does. Dont assume*.

*I am not a Lawyer do not use anything I say for your legal guidance.


I recommend anyone interested in this issue read the details here:

https://www.dreslough.com/main/important.htm
or
https://www.chillingeffects.org/


Most people quietly remove any offending material because its not worth it to them to fight in court (or they simply cannot afford it). Dreslough deserves high praise for exposing it for us to see.

I find all of this so sad because it hurts creativity and the public's thurst for art\entertainment.

[Cavalieri]

I have asked in this thread if there are constructive simple guidelines for publishing in the Fgrounds format? May a user publish modules without license or fees to Smyteworks? I'm asking, assuming all the artwork is your own and the plot etc....
Have they established how the D20 or OGL license governs Fgrounds formatted modules? Can they get out of the middle in all this??? I don't think I've seen a statement - if I'm wrong please direct me.

I am not a SW employee or in any way affiliated with them (short of owning a license for FG) but...

I simply cannot imagine SW having a cause of action against you if you create your own adventure (FG module, I'd suppose). If you own a legal copy of FG, create a module out of all of your own content, and want to distribute it (free or for-profit) I simply don't know what sort of rights they would try to exert to stop you (if they even wanted to, which I doubt also).

The only option might be an EULA, but I don't remember seeing one when I installed FG.

I think the main concern when creating adventures isn't that SW is going to be upset, but that it could possibly infringe on IP rights of other companies. I'm sure SW could clear this up... (a quick email to them would probably do the trick)

[Griogre]

My recollection is that FG's d20 stuff is all OGL. So if you conform to the OGL when you create your module you can make d20 modules and own the content as long as you follow the OGL requirments. That's what the original modules for sale for FG on RPGNow do.

That was the whole point of the d20 OGL - to allow outside developers to make modules, settings and characters with out infringing on anything. Five years ago this was a massive change in doing business.

Most other rpg game companies have not followed down this path. For those companies using their stuff without premission is an infringment which they might send you a cease and disist or sue you over. They are far more likely to sue you if they think you are hurting their property or using their stuff for profit.