Badmike wrote:I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive (and enjoyed same) totally unaware it is very much an illegal product, not imagining that TSR would not exercise due diligence in compensating copyright holders
Mars wrote:On the Mickey Mouse legislation, I don't have any problem with this at least in the Disney case. Why should a company who created the character, has used it for years, spent billions of dollars marketing it into one of the most recognizable characters in the world be forced to give it away for free so anyone can now use it to make money off it? I'd like to hear your reasoning for it.
Mars wrote:You'd really have to check all the dates on these events. I think the lawsuit happened before the product was released but TSR had spent enough to create the product and still wanted to release it so they paid for the rights in a settlement and then released it. The Dragon Magazine Archive is not an illegal product.
On the Mickey Mouse legislation, I don't have any problem with this at least in the Disney case. Why should a company who created the character, has used it for years, spent billions of dollars marketing it into one of the most recognizable characters in the world be forced to give it away for free so anyone can now use it to make money off it? I'd like to hear your reasoning for it.
mbassoc2003 wrote:In the UK, a character created by an author, remains copyrighted by that author for 70 yeards after the author's death. Then it becomes public domain property, as it is deemed to be part of the national heritage of our country. There is only a single exception to that rule (Peter Pan) and that took a single special act of parliament to gift the rights to a Charity for the life of that charity's existence.
It seems ludicrous that US history and national heritage of it's culture can be controlled by lobby groups and money men long after the creators and his heirs are dead. But then it does respect the national culture of money and greed, and if any country is going to change the law to make greed more important than anything in the country, it was gonna be the US.The problem with the US system is that the majority of people seem to neither agree nor support the laws of their country, but their parents and grandparents have already sold out the country they live in and removed their childrens rights to have a say in the way their country is run. I suspect Mike's opinion on the Copyright Extension Act is rep[resentative of the vast majority of US citizens.
Badmike wrote:Because that's the way it's ALWAYS been done until 1998?
Again as Ian said, I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive (and enjoyed same) totally unaware it is very much an illegal product, not imagining that TSR would not exercise due diligence in compensating copyright holders. If a digital or pdf or CD copy of TS became available, I would purchase same with the hope that by offering it for sale the publisher has done their job.
Mars wrote:The main difference here is that TSR did it without really knowing what they were doing was wrong - possibly only one previous similar case (National Geographic photographic images). With the TS! archive we now have the TSR example where they paid out the settlement and also White Dwarf, a UK example, where they felt they couldn't release their product because of the copyright issues. It seems here that individuals are trying to find workarounds in copyright law to dismiss these examples where the large companies themselves who have lawyers on staff probably specializing in this area couldn't. So, even if Ian created this product believing it to be okay, you have to know that it's most likely an illegal product. You can't just be naive and pass the buck off to Ian when you know of these other cases that exist.
mbassoc2003 wrote:That's not exactly true. It's perfectly possible in the UK to publish a product that is legal and yet infringes on someone's IP. It happens all the time. If a bunch of people all say 'yes' and get together to publish theiur works, and somone later on disputes their right to do so, or to have included an article, image or advert, that does not mean the product ever was illegal. It only means that the product has a disputed IP infringement, and could be found to have infringed on someone elses IP at some later date.Let's face it, base on that rationalle, every person on this forum has knowing bought and used illegal mobile phones. And everyone is willingly buying and supporting stolen software IP. We all know that every single mobile phone manufacturer, and every single OS publishers, has used, uses, and continues to use disputed IP from other companies.Are we not saying that morally we should not buy mobile phones or use computer operating systems? Or is it okay to trust that the companies concerned have paid due diligence to the IP owners' rights? And where is the difference if you aregue in favour of supporting one form of IP infringement but not another?
mbassoc2003 wrote:Let's face it, base on that rationalle, every person on this forum has knowing bought and used illegal mobile phones.
FormCritic wrote:To be clear: Every article and adventure submitted by freelancers and published by TSR was contract work for hire.TSR made clear to writers that they did this in order to protect their proprietary control of the game and avoid complications for re-prints. Their emphasis was on control of the game and use of material from any one publication in another publication. So, for instance, a monster, magic item, character or spell from a magazine article could be used by TSR in a book or another module. They paid a fairly generous per-word price for all submissions, and they offered flat rate terms for editing work.
Pulsipher wrote:I stopped writing for The Dragon when they insisted on buying all rights to articles. That is, they wanted to pay me once, and thereafter I would not own my work, they would. No self-respecting writer will do this; often material can be used again later, perhaps even make money again later ... "Real writers don't sell all rights." Instead, they sell first world serial rights, a one-time right to use the material.
I've decided to self-publish in electronic formats three (or more) books that are, for the most part, reprints of material I've written for magazines and the Web.One will be RPG material, including everything from Dragon and White Dwarf as well as other magazines (I always sold only First World Serial Rights back then; in fact, I stopped writing for Dragon when they required all rights). It will also include character classes I've used in my own First Edition AD&D campaigns since then. I'll have to decide whether to include the "D&D Army" rules that I devised and used, as well.
Mars wrote:I don't see any reason why a company or family that created icons such as Mickey Mouse and that are actively using them should not continue to be the ones to control the direction that the character takes.
Mars wrote:This is a bit of strange opinion. The arguments so far for PDFing everything etc is to update laws from the past to deal with modern society. Now you are arguing to keep things as they were. The same goes for copyright extension on characters like Mickey Mouse. In the course of our history there has never been a character with such worldwide appeal, still actively being used, that others would benefit millions from at the expense of the creating company.
Personally, what I would like to see is a distinction between companies actively using their IP and those that don't and lower the time period to which it gets released if you are not "active". I don't see any reason why a company or family that created icons such as Mickey Mouse and that are actively using them should not continue to be the ones to control the direction that the character takes. Disney has the best intentions of keeping Mickey Mouse pure as a family character because to them it means money. What happens if Mickey is release to the public domain? You get Mickey porn, you'll have decals with Mickey Mouse peeing on a Ford or Dodge or Chevy logo for the back window of your truck (like Calvin & Hobbes characters now). The innocence of the character is destroyed because people who want a free ride to make some money will be allowed to do it. The "American dream" used to be to start from scratch, work hard and make a good living to support your family. Now it seems like more people would prefer someone else to do all the dirty work and then make money on the backs of others.
Again as Ian said, I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive (and enjoyed same) totally unaware it is very much an illegal product, not imagining that TSR would not exercise due diligence in compensating copyright holders. If a digital or pdf or CD copy of TS became available, I would purchase same with the hope that by offering it for sale the publisher has done their job.The main difference here is that TSR did it without really knowing what they were doing was wrong - possibly only one previous similar case (National Geographic photographic images). With the TS! archive we now have the TSR example where they paid out the settlement and also White Dwarf, a UK example, where they felt they couldn't release their product because of the copyright issues. It seems here that individuals are trying to find workarounds in copyright law to dismiss these examples where the large companies themselves who have lawyers on staff probably specializing in this area couldn't. So, even if Ian created this product believing it to be okay, you have to know that it's most likely an illegal product. You can't just be naive and pass the buck off to Ian when you know of these other cases that exist.
Versimilitude wrote:Hi,I do know my friends in the UK RPG publishing industry were extremely unhappy with what Ian was doing.But then, they dont make a huge amount of money, and any "potential stealing" of future revenue would make them unhappy.Cheers,KAL
Badmike wrote:You're still making an exception for Mickey Mouse and just Mickey Mouse, based on how Disney's lawyer's paid off politicians. Why then not make exceptions for similarly beloved characters like Tom Sawyer, Sherlock Holmes, Luke Skywalker, James Bond, Bugs Bunny, you could go on and on. As Sauro says, where then does it stop? Pretty soon copyright IP would simply overwhelm to the extent that nothing would be "original" anymore, based on who can pony up the most cash.
Badmike wrote:Ten generations later companies that had no connection to the original creator would continue making money based on their own idea of the "best interest". So much for Freedom of Speech at that point.
Badmike wrote:First, let me point out the Calvin and Hobbes logos are illegal...they have never been authorized in any way
Badmike wrote:And besides, who says the company that ends up owning the character has the character's best interest at heart?
Badmike wrote:Did Conde Nast have the character's best intentions at heart when they refused to sell rights to Doc (and The Shadow, for that matter) for almost two decades because no one wanted to pay a million dollars for the rights? Luckily, both characters (as well as other pulp characters like The Spider) have fallen into public domain and now, finally, another generation can actually purchase reprints of the original pulps.
Mars wrote:and lower the time period to which it gets released if you are not "active" (in using the copyright character).
BadMike wrote:You are giving TSR (who had access, presumably, to superior legal advice and knowledge than Ian) the benefit of the doubt, but if Ian publishes anything it must be illegal.
BadMike wrote:I purchased the Dragon Magazine Archive totally unaware it is very much an illegal product
BadMike wrote:I think that's just your opinion (and you are welcome to it) not backed up with any sort of solid legal expertise, but I find your stand on most of these issues is purely speculation and supposition. I really don't think your examples or positions are convincing and I disagree with them wholeheartedly in most cases.
BadMike wrote:I think the best thing would be if you didn't purchase any product that Ian puts out.
BadMike wrote:nor any NTRPG con related merchandise just in case we missed something here
BadMike wrote:let those of us who want to purchase or publish this product go ahead and do so, and unless you have some kind of solid evidence this is illegal and can get the project shut down, you should be more discerning about who you call despicable and dishonest.
Badmike wrote: I will support Ian's project and any similar reprinting projects 100% unless proven otherwise they are totally illegal, and I don't apologize for this stand.
Mars wrote:1) Did all of the authors/artists die over 75 years ago? NO 2) Did Ian get the permission from all the authors/artists involved to use their work? NO 3) Can Beast Entz produce the contracts that show they have permission to use the works of others? NO 4) Did Ian get permission from the authors/artists to change the format of their work from print to electronic? NO
if, Basil confirmed his rights to the works.
nn wrote:Any sane person would