Username Password
  or Create an Account
Welcome to... Canonfire! World of GreyhawK
Features
Greyhawk Wiki

#greytalk-discord
    JOIN THE CHAT
    Canonfire :: View topic - B2 Caves of Chaos Revisited
    Canonfire Forum Index -> Published Material Reviews & Discussion
    B2 Caves of Chaos Revisited
    Author Message
    Paladin

    Joined: Sep 07, 2011
    Posts: 831
    From: Houston Texas

    Send private message
    Fri Jul 19, 2013 7:26 am  
    B2 Caves of Chaos Revisited

    Ran across this while websearching for something else... Thought there may be those looking for something like this....
    Full Credits to Mike "Weem"
    Caves of Chaos
    Grandmaster Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 09, 2003
    Posts: 1239
    From: Clarksville, TN

    Send private message
    Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:33 pm  
    Re: B2 Caves of Chaos Revisited

    Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
    Ran across this while websearching for something else... Thought there may be those looking for something like this....
    Full Credits to Mike "Weem"
    Caves of Chaos


    -I love the look, but...

    <is it legal?> Shocked
    GreySage

    Joined: Jul 26, 2010
    Posts: 2494
    From: LG Dyvers

    Send private message
    Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:29 pm  

    I've seen those, and they do look very cool. Smile

    SirXaris
    _________________
    SirXaris' Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/SirXaris?ref=hl
    Paladin

    Joined: Sep 07, 2011
    Posts: 831
    From: Houston Texas

    Send private message
    Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:47 am  
    Re: B2 Caves of Chaos Revisited

    jamesdglick wrote:
    Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
    Ran across this while websearching for something else... Thought there may be those looking for something like this....
    Full Credits to Mike "Weem"
    Caves of Chaos


    -I love the look, but...
    <is it legal?> Shocked

    While I am certainly no authority on copyright law for IP..... I would say
      Its akin to Anna's "drawings" of Darlene Maps
      or
      When we "write" details on varied GH place, people, etc
      or
      other locales that deal with GH (enworld, Greyhawkery, etc)

    All give WOC credit as to the ownership of the IP (as M Weem also does) and none are creating a profit center on it. It is all "fandom" for lack of a better descriptor. I'm pretty sure WOC doesn't take issue with fan support until it impacts their profits.

    Another good (but unrelated) example would be EA software & the NCAA now parting ways..... The NCAA doesn't wish to get into the corner of paying college players for the use of their likeness, yet this does not deter fans from creating their own rosters and likenesses, thus releasing NCAA and EA from economics of liability.
    Black Hand of Oblivion

    Joined: Feb 16, 2003
    Posts: 3763
    From: So. Cal

    Send private message
    Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:10 am  

    Just like some little kid can draw a picture of Mickey Mouse and post it online, and not get sued by Disney, so can somebody redraw any map and post it. What they can't do is make money off of downloads or prints or it. Creating one-off, hand-done drawings of a map, and then selling each individual drawing as "original art", is perfectly legal.

    So, nice map, and download away.
    _________________
    - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 29, 2006
    Posts: 468
    From: Dantredun, MN

    Send private message
    Sat Aug 03, 2013 1:37 pm  

    Cebrion wrote:
    Just like some little kid can draw a picture of Mickey Mouse and post it online, and not get sued by Disney, so can somebody redraw any map and post it. What they can't do is make money off of downloads or prints or it. Creating one-off, hand-done drawings of a map, and then selling each individual drawing as "original art", is perfectly legal.


    No, it's not legal. Copyright holders reserve the exclusive right to create and distribute derivative works. Publishing drawings is no more legal than reproducing photocopies. Likewise, non-profit distribution does NOT exempt anyone from copyright law. It can combine with other factors (parody, educational, extremely small excerpt, etc.) to constitute "fair use", but there are no guarantees, especially against corporate lawyers.

    Fortunately, copyright holders rarely do anything unless profits are at stake and no one has cracked down on D&D fanon since the mid-nineties.
    Paladin

    Joined: Sep 07, 2011
    Posts: 831
    From: Houston Texas

    Send private message
    Mon Aug 05, 2013 6:40 am  

    vestcoat wrote:
    Cebrion wrote:
    Just like some little kid can draw a picture of Mickey Mouse and post it online, and not get sued by Disney, so can somebody redraw any map and post it. What they can't do is make money off of downloads or prints or it. Creating one-off, hand-done drawings of a map, and then selling each individual drawing as "original art", is perfectly legal.


    No, it's not legal. Copyright holders reserve the exclusive right to create and distribute derivative works. Publishing drawings is no more legal than reproducing photocopies..

    Key words here being copyrighted and published.

    Though by no means am I a patent law / Copyright / IP attorney, I disagree Vescoat. By my interpretation of derivative-work liability, your statement is inaccurate. Derivative-work makes an allowance for variation under "fair use". Though depending on the verbage within the copyright (or IP) of the pre-existing work, that work (and ONLY that work) may be covered.


    vestcoat wrote:
    Likewise, non-profit distribution does NOT exempt anyone from copyright law. It can combine with other factors (parody, educational, extremely small excerpt, etc.) to constitute "fair use", but there are no guarantees, especially against corporate lawyers. .

    Hence my comments on derivative work, this, in most cases, allows for "fair use" IF different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

    Examples:
    BDKR1 Bandit Kingdoms Summary by Casey Brown (aka our own aurdraco) IS a published work based on the Bandit Kingdoms, thus making it a derivative work. (BDKR1 can be found HERE

    The maps created by Darlene in the 80s versus the maps now in creation by Anna.... The first (presently owned by WOC/ Hazbro now) cannot be reproduced (meaning copied in its PUBLISHED form) and distributed by any save WOC with out their consent. The Latter, (Annas rendition of those) may be sufficently original to warrant a derivative-work. There are certainly differences from the original, and the is certainly case law and presidence to support such a position.


    vestcoat wrote:
    Fortunately, copyright holders rarely do anything unless profits are at stake and no one has cracked down on D&D fanon since the mid-nineties.

    Also incorrect. The afore mentioned BDKR1 was initally opposed by WOC on May 1 2012 and then resolved on May 15 2012 when WOC withdrew their filing.

    So they (and Im sure others) watch their IP and copyright domains closely. The truth is that there is soooo much "grey area" in the use of IP and Copyright law as to cause all but the most astute lawyers to scratch their heads as to what can or cant be done. There is plenty of case law to support either position.

    Guess thats why I became an engineer... I hate grey....

    Though in fairness your statement on
    Quote:
    {what would}constitute "fair use", but there are no guarantees, especially against corporate lawyers
    Is unfortunately VERY accurate. As I have said elsewhere on "lawyering" its less to do with right and wrong than proof / no proof. Laughing Wink
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 29, 2006
    Posts: 468
    From: Dantredun, MN

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:44 pm  

    Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:

    Key words here being copyrighted and published.

    Yes, what's your point? Everything is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's put into a fixed form. No paperwork required, though filing does give the holder better legal footing. To "publish" is to make something available to the community at large. Infringement by an internet fan article may not be contested by the IP holder, but it is no more legal than printing a book and selling it for $19.95.

    Quote:
    Derivative-work makes an allowance for variation under "fair use". Though depending on the verbage within the copyright (or IP) of the pre-existing work, that work (and ONLY that work) may be covered.
    A monopoly on derivative works is a default right of all copyright holders. Can you find any D&D products that don't say "all rights reserved"?

    Quote:
    Hence my comments on derivative work, this, in most cases, allows for "fair use" IF different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable.

    You seem to be very confused about "fair use." Fair use was created to protect free speech. It's for education, news reporting, reviews, criticism, short quotations, excerpts, summary, parody, and the exchange of ideas. It doesn't not defeat the IP holder's monopoly on derivative works!

    The quantity of new material is meaningless. No matter how much we invent, none of us can write a sourcebook on the Bandit Kingdoms without risking litigation. Any professional publisher will ensure their works contain zero copyrighted material. FFE had to destroy entire print runs of 99.9% original, one-hundred-plus-page books for merely mentioning the names "Lolth" and "Gruumsh." Necromancer Games dropped Dreadmire like a dead rat when they heard it might contain GH references.

    Casey Brown got away with his book because it summarized the events of a game the same way a movie review might summarize the background and characters of a movie. He did not add anything new to the Bandit Kingdoms, thus avoiding the "derivative work" pitfall. He avoided reproduction and distribution infringement because he did not reprint the contents of the LG modules. Finally, he was wise to put "unofficial" in the title so fans wouldn't mistake it for a real GH product and WotC couldn't claim loss of profits.

    Quote:

    vestcoat wrote:
    Fortunately, copyright holders rarely do anything unless profits are at stake and no one has cracked down on D&D fanon since the mid-nineties.

    Also incorrect. The afore mentioned BDKR1 was initally opposed by WOC on May 1 2012 and then resolved on May 15 2012 when WOC withdrew their filing.

    So they (and Im sure others) watch their IP and copyright domains closely.

    Again, Casey Brown's work is summary, not fanon, and I was talking about the "T$R" message-board tyranny of the nineties before they relaxed their online policy. They still have an active legal department, but they've basically allowed us to do whatever we want on the internet as long as we're not pirating PDF's or profiting on fanon.
    Master Greytalker

    Joined: May 12, 2005
    Posts: 851
    From: Woonsocket, RI, USA

    Send private message
    Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:52 pm  

    vestcoat wrote:
    FFE had to destroy entire print runs of 99.9% original, one-hundred-plus-page books for merely mentioning the names "Lolth" and "Gruumsh."
    I don't have a horse in this race, but I do want to correct this statement. Use of the names "Lolth" and "Gruumsh" has nothing to do with copyright law and everything to do with the terms of the OGL. I can write and legally publish a book about my cats named Lolth and Gruumsh, using those names hundreds of times in the book. I could even write that I named them after the D&D characters (though I'd be wise to note that "D&D" is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast). I can't, however, make use of the OGL to reference Open Content unless I agree to the terms of use, which include voluntarily waiving my free-use right to use words WOTC has designated as Product Identity. In this case, the terms of my contract with WOTC supersede my rights under copyright law.

    (Mandatory disclaimer: I am not an attorney, but I have been involved in the publication of several products under the terms of the OGL.)
    Paladin

    Joined: Sep 07, 2011
    Posts: 831
    From: Houston Texas

    Send private message
    Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:02 am  

    DMPrata hits EXACTLY on my point... No offense, I think your the "confused" one Vestcoat.
    IP does not great Exclusivity for new thought, application or use. IT could protect the implied use as defined in their publication based on the published work and the creation of derivitaves based on those original works.

    I can utilize dragon, dungeon and EVEN Dungeons and Dragons combined with in a story line with WOC having nothing to say about it. I could create a story about people whom play dungeons and dragons and go too far with thier fantasy, and WOC / Hazbro could say nothing, though I am certain the B rate Movie produced resembling that gendre might(though that would depend how closely my story resembled thiers)

    As to a monoply on derivative works, that depends on how that work is defined under fair use and OGL... the Monopoly is NOT inclusive as you suggest.

    As this is not the point of this thread, I would happly discuss this further on IM before the purple clouds build..... though it seems you are set in your "opinion" and less that supportive of facts.
    Adept Greytalker

    Joined: Jul 29, 2006
    Posts: 468
    From: Dantredun, MN

    Send private message
    Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:14 am  

    Thanks Prata for your clarification about Fast Forward Entertainment.

    Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
    DMPrata hits EXACTLY on my point...

    Prata was talking about licensing. Your last post had nothing to do with licensing. Neither of us have brought up licensing until now.

    Quote:

    As to a monoply on derivative works, that depends on how that work is defined under fair use and OGL... the Monopoly is NOT inclusive as you suggest.

    Let's stick to copyright, fair use, and derivative works, not OGL. If Wizards chooses to license parts of their property, they're obviously relinquishing some of their monopoly.

    The way you use "fair use" in the sentence above and elsewhere sounds like you don't know what it is. Fair Use is a collection of guidelines and court precedents that all boil down to the old "reasonable person" test. Computer chips and Broadway musicals have different precedents for how much "fair use" one can get away with, but individual works are not "defined under fair use."

    There are the five rights granted to copyright holders in the U.S.:

    *the right to reproduce the copyrighted work;
    *the right to prepare derivative works based upon the work;
    *the right to distribute copies of the work to the public;
    *the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and
    *the right to display the copyrighted work publicly.

    These rights are exclusive, AKA, a monopoly. These rights are also universal regardless of format - property owners don't have to pick and choose or draft special Fair Use exemptions specific to their individual work. If someone doesn't want all of their privileges, they'll explicitly say so or use Creative Commons or Copyleft.

    EDIT:
    Here's the Fair Use section of the copyright law:

    Quote:
    § 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit 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; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fan-drawn B2 map is certainly not criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Wizards would probably be successful in arguing that it's a substantial portion of their work and it infringes upon their potential market.
    Display posts from previous:   
       Canonfire Forum Index -> Published Material Reviews & Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
    Page 1 of 1

    Jump to:  

    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Forums ©


    Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises

    Contact the Webmaster.  Long Live Spidasa!


    Greyhawk Gothic Font by Darlene Pekul is used under the Creative Commons License.

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.
    Page Generation: 0.29 Seconds