Rights and Such

[MJD]

While I'm not going to discuss plans at this point (but yes, something is afoot), I do need to make a public statement of intent here.

I have maintained for some time that my Traveller work for QLI was on a first-rights basis. In fact, the rights issue was never discussed and no contract was signed transferring the rights, creating something of an open question. The default is that if no rights were transferred then they are still mine.

The payment received for my work was commensurate with first-rights, which further supports my assumption that I retained rights to my work. (This of course refers to work which was paid for. Anything that the client failed to pay for remains mine, obviously).

However, since I wanted to be absolutely clear on this matter, I have repeatedly asserted my position: that all of my work for QLI was on a first-rights basis. The first instance was in a joint email to Marc Miller of FFE and Hunter Gordon of QLI in early 2007. My assertion was not challenged. I have since made this asserition on other occasions, and it has never been challenged. Indeed, Marc Miller stated that he supported my position regarding my work.

This has now become relevant. With the sunset of the QLI license in August 2010, publishing rights to my work for QLI now revert to me. This does not affect any other licensee - T20 remains the preserve of QLI, whether it is available or not - and the OTU is the sole preserve of Mongoose Publishing. So quite obviously I cannot simply reprint the Gateway 993 books as is. They contain some parts not written by me; I am not claiming ownership of anything that I did not write and can therefore not use these books as is even if I were to somehow obtain a license to do so. Which isn't going to happen...

However, this does leave me with a large amount of text in the form of adventures, sourcebooks and parts of other books. I own the rights on this work and can do whatever I please with it. Rather obviously, I'm hinting here that I intend to republish some of it in a different form.

As I said a few lines ago, I am not at this time in a position to discuss my plans but what is likely is that some or most of this text may resurface in a new format, in a non-OTU background and devoid of any T20 content. What will not be happening is infringement of anyone else's license or rights.

The short version is: My contribution to Gateway 993 etc will not be lost when the QLI license sunsets... My adventures and other work will reappear in due course. Prepare to be impressed....

 

[Cryton]

Actually, your work allways impresses me MJD.

A word of warning, recently, I took a four day course in "Comic Book Law" at ComiCon International SanDiego and learned a few interesting things you should know.

Never put things that are not allready copywritten on any board or forum, use a link to your own website, thatway you get the copyright, otherwise, as in accordance with the standard terms of use that no one ever reads, it can and is considered Work For Hire, and property of the board or forum owners on whos board you post, and for which you will recieve no payment, for payment is considered use of said board or forum in total.
Thats how the courts will view and rule on it according to current US copyrite law.

Also, be careful of what you reprint from a work that you were involved in, as they will probably still hold copyright for 35 years even after a licencing sunset, and they will probably have an option to renew the copyright (depends on their licence agreement) before anything reverts to those who helped write it. Thats also in the US copywrite laws.

In any case, I strongly urge you to consult with a lawyer that specialises in coptyright laws before touching any of those works, just to be safe.

Just wanted you to know, as I love your work and want you to do more work and recieve the credits your due.

 

[Cryton]

just FYI the class was on Trademark, Copyright and Related Intellectual Property Issues for Creators and Buisnesses.

And it counted 12 credits towards what was needed for continuing ed reqs to keep ones bar.

And I got to attend for free as Im a ComiCon International staff member.

 

[MJD]

The work as published is copyright QLI, yes. But the text is mine to reuse after a suitable period of time in accordance with the usual first serial rights setup. I can prove that I am the original author, and no rights transfer was ever discussed or agreed.

In hindsight, that wasn'ty very smart but nobody could have predicted how things would turn out.

Comments about copyrighting under dodgy terms on boards are highly relevant though - more people need to know about that.

 

[DaveChase]

Also it depends on the forum/boards access by others. If it is a free board or does it require payment for membership. (or sections of it require paid membership).

Also, copyrights, IP and such is only as good as the owners willingness and ability to defend it. If the owner does not attempt to defend their ownership, they have little control.

But you both are correct in that most individuals have no idea about what is protected and what is not and what type of publishing (ie making anything public in any format) changes what is protected or how it is protected.

Dave Chase

 

[mcgurk]

Good news, glad to hear that you are going to bring your Gateway work back out sometime, it would have been a real waste if it had been lost for good.

 

[Icosahedron]

I would hope nothing will be lost for good as a result of this sunset situation. AFAIK, all the people involved are genuine Traveller enthusiasts who have a love of this game and hopefully have a sense that there is something greater than personal profit.

These are not shylocks who have bought up a copyright purely to make a profit and intend to hold the community to ransom, these are fellow Travellers, who believe that the continuity and continuance of the Traveller Universe is a worthy end in itself and will donate to the community any material from which they, unfortunately, can no longer profit.

Copyright should help authors, not profiteers, and it should never deprive fans.

I'm not sure what the situation is regarding copyright on this site, but the oddments of material I have placed here is given to everyone in the spirit of Creative Commons for the good of the Traveller community, and I would hope that if CC is not the current spirit of this site, then it soon will be.

Sermon over.

 

[Starviking]

The problem I have with sunset clauses is that they seem to lock PDF sunset products away from all but those who were lucky to get them before expiration. I can pick up second-hand Traveller paper products if I want - but PDFs seem to be verboten, which is a bugger.

 

[HG_B]

I can pick up second-hand Traveller paper products if I want - but PDFs seem to be verboten, which is a bugger.

Hmm, I wonder if a friend no longer wanted the PDFs and sold them to you whilst deleting his copies...

 

[CosmicGamer]

Hmm, I wonder if a friend no longer wanted the PDFs and sold them to you whilst deleting his copies...

Sold!? You need new friends.

 

[far-trader]

I'm pretty sure, like most digital media, you don't actually own the PDFs you paid for. In plain language what you actually bought are the rights to maintain for personal use a single (usually) active copy of the media at a time, and a limited (usually) number of backups. You have no rights to share, give, resell, or in any way pass the media to another person. At least as I understood it, some time back, though I doubt it's much changed.

 

[Icosahedron]

The problem I have with sunset clauses is that they seem to lock PDF sunset products away from all but those who were lucky to get them before expiration. I can pick up second-hand Traveller paper products if I want - but PDFs seem to be verboten, which is a bugger.

Precisely - and it's not always easy (or cheap) to get the paper stuff. Look at the profiteers demanding 100Cr+ for some of the books.

I'd like to see a 'publish or perish' clause written into copyright law, so that if a product has been out of print (for whatever reason) for X amount of time, it becomes public domain.

Still allows starving artists to sell their work, allows plenty of time to restart a business, even allows a window for money-makers to sell to the impatient. You could even avoid the clause altogether by going print on demand, (not for sunsets) thereby maintaining a trickle of income for the artists.

But nothing is lost forever.

 

[HG_B]

I'm pretty sure, like most digital media, you don't actually own the PDFs you paid for. In plain language what you actually bought are the rights to maintain for personal use a single (usually) active copy of the media at a time, and a limited (usually) number of backups. You have no rights to share, give, resell, or in any way pass the media to another person. At least as I understood it, some time back, though I doubt it's much changed.

In the US the first-sale doctrine protects that right. There is no case law that has reversed that...

 

[atpollard]

In the US the first-sale doctrine protects that right. There is no case law that has reversed that...

Please clarify "that right".
Are you agreeing that only the first sale is legal, or are you saying that the buyer may have a right to resell it (in the US)?

[edit] bless wikipedia (BUT USE WITH CAUTION):

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

 

[aramis]

In the US the first-sale doctrine protects that right. There is no case law that has reversed that...

Yes, there is... in re software, yes, there is, that is. If the conditions of sale on software include a restriction on resale, that restriction may prevent resale. That happened while I was in college; it was mentioned in SysopNews. I don't know if it was appealed, however... That would have been early 1990's.

The question is if it applies to PDFs...
And based upon the agreement I accepted in joining DTRPG, I buy a non-transferable license to download and use.

Whether that will hold up,....

And the argument can be made, reasonably, that a PDF is in fact software, not just images. PDF's are, at their core, PostScript files. PostScript is a graphical rendering command language, but it can be used to run non-graphical programs, even calculations, so long as it is non-interactive. PDF is an encrytion system atop PS, and adds additional features, including potential interactivity with users. And they all function by including executing code which renders the text in the desired format.

 

[HG_B]

Yes, there is... in re software, yes, there is, that is. If the conditions of sale on software include a restriction on resale, that restriction may prevent resale.

Please list the precedence setting ruling that overturns the ruling and subsequent US code I mentioned...

Hint, it hasn't happened yet.

 

[aramis]

Please list the precedence setting ruling that overturns the ruling and subsequent US code I mentioned...

Hint, it hasn't happened yet.

Wrong.
Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co. (9th Cir. 1995).
MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer (9th Cir. 1993).

 

[HG_B]

Wrong.

No, right. That isn't precedent setting for the whole U.S. ...

 

[aramis]

No, right. That isn't precedent setting for the whole U.S. ...

Unless and until a higher court overturns, yes, it is. It's just not BINDING precedent. All the circuit courts are supposed to consider other prior federal court decisions. (So said Thurgood Marshal, of the USSC.) There is a difference.

Especially since MAI case was refused appeal by the USSC as sufficient on its face.

It will be interesting, however, to see if the USSC resolves current cases from other courts in conflict.

 

[HG_B]

Unless and until a higher court overturns, yes, it is. It's just not BINDING precedent. All the circuit courts are supposed to consider other prior federal court decisions. (So said Thurgood Marshal, of the USSC.) There is a difference.

Especially since MAI case was refused appeal by the USSC as sufficient on its face.

It will be interesting, however, to see if the USSC resolves current cases from other courts in conflict.

Right, it isn't considered "law" outside the 9th. Hence, not binding. SCotUS will probably have to soon hear this as an East Coast company is selling "used" MP3s since prior statute allows it...