Wee Warriors Question • Collecting General

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General - Non TSR

Wee Warriors Question
	Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2

Author

clangador
Prolific Collector

Posts: 238
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:04 pm

I've been looking for a copy of PotVQ, Dwarven Glory and Misty Isles for something like 14 or 15 years with no luck. I don't want a copy for my collection, I'm just interested in them as reference material. I have yet to see one pop up at a used book store, and I just can't afford to pay the prices they claim on eBay. Are the authors of these books still around? I haven't seen anything about them online. I want to contact them to see if they will sell me a photocopy (or PDF) of them.

~Clangador
---------------

Black Blade Publishing imprint of OSRIC is not only the most definitive printing of OSRIC to date, but also the single greatest resource for old school gamers since the three original hardbacks written by E. Gary Gygax.

clangador
Prolific Collector

Posts: 238
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:57 pm

clangador wrote:I've been looking for a copy of PotVQ, Dwarven Glory and Misty Isles for something like 14 or 15 years with no luck. I don't want a copy for my collection, I'm just interested in them as reference material. I have yet to see one pop up at a used book store, and I just can't afford to pay the prices they claim on eBay. Are the authors of these books still around? I haven't seen anything about them online. I want to contact them to see if they will sell me a photocopy (or PDF) of them.

What? No one known how to get a hold of the authors?

burntwire brothers
Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1269
Joined: Mar 08, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 19, 2024
Location: Close to GenCon

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:26 pm

I am sure if someone had contacted them the debate over which POTVQ is truly the 1st print would have been answered.

clangador
Prolific Collector

Posts: 238
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:25 am

burntwire wrote:I am sure if someone had contacted them the debate over which POTVQ is truly the 1st print would have been answered.

Ah, this leads to a question of mine. How long is something protected if the authors are just gone? I mean, if the authors have no interest in their work or are dead, what's to stop someone from reprinting their stuff? Or even making photocopies of it? I'm just looking for reading copies of the Wee Warriors modules, is it unethical of me to seek photocopies of them?

McDuff
Prolific Collector

Posts: 193
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Last Visit: Nov 17, 2023
Location: Charleston, SC

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:06 pm

clangador wrote:Ah, this leads to a question of mine. How long is something protected if the authors are just gone?

I tried to post info from my wife's website, but it was in a table format and because HTML is turned off on this board it appeared as a mess when I pasted it. Basicly if published 1964-1977 28 years +67 if renewed, if published 1978-present life of author +70 years. It is much more complex that that though. The entire article can be veiwed at: 404 Not Found

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:41 pm

McDuff wrote:
clangador wrote:Ah, this leads to a question of mine. How long is something protected if the authors are just gone?

I tried to post info from my wife's website, but it was in a table format and because HTML is turned off on this board it appeared as a mess when I pasted it. Basicly if published 1964-1977 28 years +67 if renewed, if published 1978-present life of author +70 years. It is much more complex that that though. The entire article can be veiwed at: 404 Not Found

This is true but the reality is "as soon as the copyright holder isn't interested in suing you for breach of copyright.". It's a fairly safe bet that you can get away with pirating VIC-20 software by now, without someone suing you. Then again, maybe not.

clangador
Prolific Collector

Posts: 238
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:30 am

deimos3428 wrote: This is true but the reality is "as soon as the copyright holder isn't interested in suing you for breach of copyright.".

Yes, but if the author has no further interest in the material, is it pirating?

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:08 am

clangador wrote:
deimos3428 wrote: This is true but the reality is "as soon as the copyright holder isn't interested in suing you for breach of copyright.".
Yes, but if the author has no further interest in the material, is it pirating?

Well, let me preface this by saying I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure what you mean by "has no further interest", because that's the sticky part. If they're dead, they aren't going to come back from the grave to sue, but the publisher may still exist, or someone else with a claim to the work. Author != copyright holder, necessarily.

Yes, it's still pirating, unless you have some sort of authorization to make a copy. Suppose someone assumed the PoVQ authors couldn't be reached and started printing thousands of copies and selling them. You can bet they'd surface in a hurry.

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:31 am

Here's a legal tidbit I found online to do with "archival purposes". (The emphasis is mine).
Entire article available at archivists.org/statements/stmt-copyrigh ... t-arch.asp

Section 108 of the 1976 Copyright Act sets the four factors for the courts to consider when determining whether reproduction or quotation from a copyrighted work constitutes "fair use."

These factors are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

On a little further searching, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) has implications upon Section 108 as well...

McDuff
Prolific Collector

Posts: 193
Joined: Nov 05, 2002
Last Visit: Nov 17, 2023
Location: Charleston, SC

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:03 pm

Reprinting the entire work will never fall under the "fair use" principle.

Deadlord
Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5784
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Apr 10, 2024
Location: Cow Hampshire, US

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:30 pm

And #4 is EXACTLY why PDF's are illegal. It devaluates the items we own. Personally, I would not photocopy anything for anyone, unless it was replacement pages for an original they owned.

If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:06 pm

Deadlord36 wrote:And #4 is EXACTLY why PDF's are illegal. It devaluates the items we own. Personally, I would not photocopy anything for anyone, unless it was replacement pages for an original they owned.

Oh, I agree completely...which brings up a question that's been keeping me up at nights: Is it illegal to possess said copies, or just to create them?

I made a ridiculously hopeful purchase recently (I thought it might have been some kind of ultra-rare early editor's copy, but no such luck) that turned out to be a photocopy of a 1st printing set.

Should I be shredding it?

FoulFoot
Site Admin

Posts: 2257
Joined: Oct 19, 2002
Last Visit: Apr 19, 2024
Location: Honolulu, HI

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:23 pm

Technically, it is not illegal to possess copies of copyrighted works. They are not contraband, which by definition are things illegal to possess (narcotics, counterfeit money, etc).

However, it *is* illegal to make, sell, trade, or obtain said copies. Therefore, you could be sued for your use of file-trading software, or for participating in an auction, where you knew that you were obtaining a copy. Furthermore, the courts usually define intent as what a "reasonable person" would be expected to know, so you can't necessarily hide behind ignorance.

The issue of making a photocopy of a rare module is much the same as downloading an .mp3 file. Will you be caught? Probably not. But your legal recourse is just about zero, when a subpoena arrives in the mail. "Fair use" was designed to protect people from taking excerpts of published works to be used in a non-profit manner (research papers, etc). Not from taking the whole published work for their own personal enjoyment.

Additionally, the person making the photocopy of that rare module might inadvertently be helping someone create a believable fake -- or at the very least, devaluing their own item.

Foul

deimos3428
Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3066
Joined: Jul 09, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 30, 2015

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:42 pm

Foulfoot,

Thanks for your great insight into this matter (as usual!). I was rather dismayed that it didn't have the words "Gary's Personal Copy" written in light pencil on the interior. (It does have some lovely coloring of the illustrations in magic marker, especially the Baldog on page 13 of Volume II.)

Ideally, I'd like to purchase a 1st printing/pre-pub set, to check if there are any discrepancies with what I have before destroying it...but I definitely can't afford to do so at the current market value and scarcity of this item. There might be some researchable information here, if anyone is willing to collaborate with me. How many people own originals?

FoulFoot
Site Admin

Posts: 2257
Joined: Oct 19, 2002
Last Visit: Apr 19, 2024
Location: Honolulu, HI

Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:17 am

I certainly wouldn't destroy it. For an item like that, there's practically zero chance you could deceive someone that it was an actual first print. I wouldn't make any *more* copies of it, but for research purposes, it'd be nice to have around.

The legality of obtaining such a copy all revolves around the "intent" issue. As you didn't intend -- didn't know -- that it was a photocopy of a published work (you thought it might be some sort of editorial copy), you're basically in the clear -- especially since a "reasonable person" would probably make the same error. The seller, especially if he/she was the one who made the copy, might be in hotter water.

Ultimately, though, is that copying *any* published work -- in any medium, whether print or electronic -- is unlikely to incur any legal action, *unless* the transaction involves money. In which case, the risk of legal action is in direct proportion to how aggressively the copyright holder wishes to defend his copyright. The exception to this, of course, is all the lawsuits the RIAA is bringing against mp3 file sharers -- but it's clear that file sharing is having a severe effect on their bottom line.

Foul

clangador
Prolific Collector

Posts: 238
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:07 am

This still begs the question who owns the copyright for the material and if it is an orphaned work. I just heard that is was reprinted for a convention last year, so I assume it was an authorized copy.

Kingofpain89
Long-Winded Collector

Posts: 4753
Joined: Oct 31, 2004
Last Visit: Feb 16, 2024
Location: Caddo Mills, TX

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:35 am

clangador wrote:This still begs the question who owns the copyright for the material and if it is an orphaned work. I just heard that is was reprinted for a convention last year, so I assume it was an authorized copy.

I assume Pete Kerestan still owns the copyright to the Wee Warriors material. At least for PotVQ and Dwarven Glory and I would assume the rest of the catalog as well. The PotVQ reprint done last year for NTRPGCon was done with permission from Pete (says so on the title page), as was the reprint of Dwarven Glory. I dont know what the specifics were of the arrangement between Doug and Pete though.

You don't like your job, you don't strike. You go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way. - Homer Simpson

clangador
Prolific Collector

Posts: 238
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
Last Visit: Apr 08, 2017
Location: Tacoma, WA

Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:38 pm

Kingofpain89 wrote:
I assume Pete Kerestan still owns the copyright to the Wee Warriors material. At least for PotVQ and Dwarven Glory and I would assume the rest of the catalog as well. The PotVQ reprint done last year for NTRPGCon was done with permission from Pete (says so on the title page), as was the reprint of Dwarven Glory. I dont know what the specifics were of the arrangement between Doug and Pete though.

It makes me wonder why this guy doesn't just republish it.

The Acaeum Forums • Collecting General - Non TSR

Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2