Roger Sanger's (DGP's) Copyright Policies

[Vladika]

That's 3 votes for a moratorium. Case closed.

I don't think three votes is "case closed". I've said several times that I started this thread simply to have "someone in the know" to answer the pertinent question.

It's a shame that those who know little, or less, about it have chimed in. Particularly as they feel compelled to trash a guy when to little is known.

I'm content with DonM's take on the situation and am happy he is working on it. If aramis is correct, and he often is, the "problem" may resolve itself.

From the looks of things, if Roger Sanger hadn't paid for the stuff, it would have been tossed out and that might have been that.

As it is, there are compelling financial reasons for both Sanger and Marc to be "a bit stubborn". Marc has T5 to sell, and Sanger want's to get his best offer. None of us know either what Marc may, or may not, have offered, or the same from Sanger.

DonM claims he's working on it and that should be good enough for all of us. DonM is pretty straightforward and I think we all trust him when he "speaks".

Let's not trash Sanger, but let's not have any more censorship either. Let's ALL try being rational adults.

 

[aramis]

IP is a nasty bit of legal complexity.

Note that the DGP materials aren't just locked by Marc's Trademarks - they're also locked by Marc's Copyright, since they are based upon and include use of materials covered under copyright.

This is a common problem for musicians - B can cover A's song, but if C tries to use B's arrangement in a film, they still have to have permission from both A and B... Which lead to the creation of clearinghouses like ASCAP. When you join ASCAP, you essentially open fee-based license your music - not for free, unlike the current software and gaming use of the term. Anyone who pays the fee can use it. I was a music major for 3.5 years, and still write music.

 

[savage]

...but let's not have any more censorship either. Let's ALL try being rational adults.

No one has mentioned censorship Vladika. Or even thread hijacking/replication of another thread. Or responding to offensive comments. :rofl:

Just search first.

There is a recent thread with details per the moderators.
There is also a thread on copyright questions only a couple months old too.

 

[DonM]

IP is a nasty bit of legal complexity.

Note that the DGP materials aren't just locked by Marc's Trademarks - they're also locked by Marc's Copyright, since they are based upon and include use of materials covered under copyright.

This is a common problem for musicians - B can cover A's song, but if C tries to use B's arrangement in a film, they still have to have permission from both A and B... Which lead to the creation of clearinghouses like ASCAP. When you join ASCAP, you essentially open fee-based license your music - not for free, unlike the current software and gaming use of the term. Anyone who pays the fee can use it. I was a music major for 3.5 years, and still write music.

And I'll point out that I'm aware of at least two sets of permission from Rodge to use his IPs. Marc has a big general one, and I have a smaller one. So we can use those IPs within Marc's copyright and be quite fine legally.

 

[Blue Ghost]

And I'll point out that I'm aware of at least two sets of permission from Rodge to use his IPs. Marc has a big general one, and I have a smaller one. So we can use those IPs within Marc's copyright and be quite fine legally.

If that's the case, then what's the big hold up of just putting together a CD and throwing it up on FFE?

 

[Vladika]

No one has mentioned censorship Vladika. Or even thread hijacking/replication of another thread. Or responding to offensive comments. :rofl:

I'm pretty lost then. My question was simple, basic, and not insulting to anyone. Just a serious desire to get an answer from those who knew.

Just search first.

There is a recent thread with details per the moderators.
There is also a thread on copyright questions only a couple months old too.

You, and others, might find that passingly easy. Not so for me. I'm blind in one eye and going blind in the other. It's a major ordeal to read though long, and mostly irrelevant posts, looking for what "might" be there. This is even if I can find them.

Linking those threads might have proved just a bit more helpful.

From what I did read elsewhere, I didn't find my original question answered. Those in the know didn't seem to mind the question, and were helpful in their answers.

I'm reasonably sure there is a thread, somewhere, on much of what we discuss here on CotI. That doesn't stop it from coming up again in new, or even the same forms.

Until I do finish going blind, I'm going to feel free to start any thread, or ask any question. I'm sure I've managed to piss of enough moderators that if they felt this thread, or question, were inappropriate, they'd have already called me for it. Instead, they've been quit helpful.

BTW, I DO think a "moratorium", three votes or not, is in fact a call for censorship. I don't believe I've trashed anyone in this thread, Roger Sanger included, but I MUCH prefer self control over forced censorship. (Or "you can say this but not that", etc. whatever other word, other than censorship, someone cares to use, it's still censorship.)

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, I'm still at a major loss here. If the man has given his consent for it to be published, then what is the hold up?

I've heard log jam. I've heard the parties involved are talking...or not talking. I've heard tensions. I shrug my shoulders at it, but there seems to be a lot of interest in this stuff that it's got my curiosity piqued.

What is the key thing, the one sentence, clause, phrase, whatever....that keeps me, you, Straybow, Vladika, aramis, DonM or anyone else for the matter from not just scanning what they have, putting it on CD or PDF, and saying "Come get it, boys! $5 a copy!"?

Anyone?

 

[savage]

You, and others, might find that passingly easy. Not so for me. I'm blind in one eye and going blind in the other.

Welcome to the club.

Linking those threads might have proved just a bit more helpful.

The one you really need is linked.

 

[DonM]

Well, I'm still at a major loss here. If the man has given his consent for it to be published, then what is the hold up?

I've heard log jam. I've heard the parties involved are talking...or not talking. I've heard tensions. I shrug my shoulders at it, but there seems to be a lot of interest in this stuff that it's got my curiosity piqued.

What is the key thing, the one sentence, clause, phrase, whatever....that keeps me, you, Straybow, Vladika, aramis, DonM or anyone else for the matter from not just scanning what they have, putting it on CD or PDF, and saying "Come get it, boys! $5 a copy!"?

Anyone?

Because he hasn't consented to having it published. Marc and I can use the ideas. But we cannot just reprint WBH or any other DGP books. You've misunderstood the permissions that Marc and I have.

 

[DonM]

If that's the case, then what's the big hold up of just putting together a CD and throwing it up on FFE?

There's a massive difference between having permission to use his IP, and having the rights to reprint a book.

And sadly, there are people in the US who make their living off of knowing the difference and punishing those who don't.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Well, what good is being allowed "to use" the property if you can't publish it?

Either you can take elements of it and create a new book or some other publication, or you're just allowed to think about it and reference it in various coffee house discussions and BBSes like here.

Why not cajole the guy to write a new permission slip? Why not say to him, "Hey, these guys really would like to see all that material again. Can you sport us a permission slip so we can throw up some PDFs on Drivethru?"

See, I don't get why that isn't happening. Heck, I don't even know why I'm posting here. I owned much of it, but "gave it away" years back.

I guess I like exercising my writing ability where I can.

 

[Carlobrand]

US Copyright Law itself includes a reversion clause for transferred copyrights.

It's 35 or more years, but I suspect it has the usual legal landmines and traps and exceptions that only a lawyer knows.

http://dearauthor.com/features/reclaiming-your-copyright-after-thirty-five-years/

 

[DonM]

So, if Joe Fugate sold them in 1995 to Roger, he can work on reclaiming them in 2030...

 

[Timerover51]

So, if Joe Fugate sold them in 1995 to Roger, he can work on reclaiming them in 2030...

Depends on whether or not there was a reversionary clause for not being in print for a specified number of years. In other worlds, if the material has been out of print for a specified number of years, the copyright reverts to the original author. Five or ten years is common in the contracts that I have seen.

 

[DonM]

Depends on whether or not there was a reversionary clause for not being in print for a specified number of years. In other worlds, if the material has been out of print for a specified number of years, the copyright reverts to the original author. Five or ten years is common in the contracts that I have seen.

But there was NO such clause in the DGP contract. Please don't infer from contracts you have seen. We know there was no reversionary clause in the sales contract.

 

[Hyphen]

Well, what good is being allowed "to use" the property if you can't publish it?

My understanding is that you can't publish an exact copy of the material, but can use the elements. Kinda like Marc allowing us to use the term "air/raft" and maybe even pics, and put it into Freelance Traveller or some such publication.

Why not cajole the guy to write a new permission slip?

That's exactly what Don has been gently trying to do for the past N* years.

And we've been gently encouraging him. And continue to do so.

(*) N = some random number bigger than a breadbox but smaller than a Greyhound bus...

 

[Patron Zero]

I'll bite on what I see as an obvious question to pose concerning this conflict.

Could there be a way for the materials to be reformatted or revised into a new book-supplement that could skirt the stalled 'access' to the DGP books ?

 

[tjoneslo]

I'll bite on what I see as an obvious question to pose concerning this conflict.

Could there be a way for the materials to be reformatted or revised into a new book-supplement that could skirt the stalled 'access' to the DGP books?

This is "rewrite all of the DGP Books" option. It can be done, but is a lot of work. Several people have done parts of this (See for example, the GURPS Traveller books). So we're trapped between people who want the ideas and the people who want the originals.

 

[rancke]

Could there be a way for the materials to be reformatted or revised into a new book-supplement that could skirt the stalled 'access' to the DGP books ?

Isn't that what GT did and MgT is doing?


Hans

 

[Blue Ghost]

My understanding is that you can't publish an exact copy of the material, but can use the elements. Kinda like Marc allowing us to use the term "air/raft" and maybe even pics, and put it into Freelance Traveller or some such publication.



That's exactly what Don has been gently trying to do for the past N* years.

And we've been gently encouraging him. And continue to do so.

(*) N = some random number bigger than a breadbox but smaller than a Greyhound bus...

Well, I was going to include a vehicle or two from the 101 MT Vehicle guide in a couple adventures I was writing, but it's like I don't know what I can and can't use. So I commissioned someone to create something for me (which is a story in itself). I can't use of the things mentioned there unless they were mentioned before.

Big deal.