|
Hey guys - thought you might want to know, Pharyngula has used one of Paizo's images (the Battle Herald PrC to be specific) on one of their open threads. While the image was available on the blog, I don't see any of the appropriate community use policy verbiage and it is not attributed to the artist or Paizo. I thought you might want to know.
The specific article/commentary thread can be found here
Oh, the same issue I run into every day on DeviantART.
Just report the guy and wait till he does it again. That's how it usually goes.
Wow. Some random blogger did a Google image search for "Herald" and found that image to post in their open thread. The horror. While that may not technically be community use, I'd hope Paizo wouldn't have a problem with it.
I remember in the mid 90s TSR went lawyer happy with the "CEASE AND DESIST!" letters. Huge D&D fan that creates a webpage with some artwork from TSR? Get ready for the letter. Other game companies such as SJG and White Wolf had a PR field day at the expense of TSR. Since the Paizo higher ups were around then I'm sure TSRs absurdities were on their mind when they created such a broad community use policy. Heck, Wizards was probably partially thinking of TSR going after it's own players when they made the OGL (in addition to financial reasons).
My point in a nutshell is that Cease and Desist letters do not make you friends. Do you actually want Paizo to go after some random blogger here? They wouldn't be seen as the good guys in that situation, I guarantee you.
Least of all by some of use, their fans. If they really have a problem, they could maybe just send an email with words to the effect of "hey, we love that you like the image, can you please just add a citation for the image source."
|
Wow. Some random blogger did a Google image search for "Herald" and found that image to post in their open thread. The horror. While that may not technically be community use, I'd hope Paizo wouldn't have a problem with it.
I remember in the mid 90s TSR went lawyer happy with the "CEASE AND DESIST!" letters. Huge D&D fan that creates a webpage with some artwork from TSR? Get ready for the letter. Other game companies such as SJG and White Wolf had a PR field day at the expense of TSR. Since the Paizo higher ups were around then I'm sure TSRs absurdities were on their mind when they created such a broad community use policy. Heck, Wizards was probably partially thinking of TSR going after it's own players when they made the OGL (in addition to financial reasons).
My point in a nutshell is that Cease and Desist letters do not make you friends. Do you actually want Paizo to go after some random blogger here? They wouldn't be seen as the good guys in that situation, I guarantee you.
He's not necessarily a random blogger. According to the site he is an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. Though, this should make things easier: a polite note (or comment on his site) to ask him to include a community use citation - assuming that particular piece is available for community use - should be enough to do the trick.
|
To all saying "let it slide", there's a community use policy for a reason. If you're going to use Paizo images to which they've been kind enough to grant non-profit use to the public, the least you can do is follow the policy. If Paizo wants to hold their copyrights and trademarks, they have to defend them, that's the way it works.
Also, this is not some "random blogger," it's PZ Meyers, one of the most vocal atheists behind Dawkins. I'm an avid reader of the blog, so it's wasn't difficult to see.
Creative Director
|
TheBoldr is correct. If we don't defend our intellectual property in cases like this, it becomes increasingly difficult to defend them. It would be nice if we could "let it slide," but Paizo is a business, and our intellectual property is one of our most valuable properties.
So! Thanks for pointing this out... I'll make sure who needs to see it sees it.
|
TheBoldr is correct. If we don't defend our intellectual property in cases like this, it becomes increasingly difficult to defend them. It would be nice if we could "let it slide," but Paizo is a business, and our intellectual property is one of our most valuable properties.
So! Thanks for pointing this out... I'll make sure who needs to see it sees it.
Yup, in the US there's a general rule of legal protection of intellectual property that says if you don't proactively defend your property on a regular basis (say, by sending c&d's to some blogger), then it does not deserve protection before courts - imagine that you let cases such as this one "slide" for a couple of years, then one day a real big one happens (eg. somebody publishes a book that's made up of 100% ripoffs from your IP), you take that to a court, and the court asks what have you done to protect your IP in the recent years - and if your answers is "well, not much" you're pretty much lost there.
I know, it's kind of weird, but That's The Way Things Work.
A (maybe stupid) question: I recently used the Plumekith pic from Blood of Angels as an avatar pic for my character in an online game. If I put a disclaimer in the entry where it came from, is it okay to use it?
A (maybe stupid) question: I recently used the Plumekith pic from Blood of Angels as an avatar pic for my character in an online game. If I put a disclaimer in the entry where it came from, is it okay to use it?
The Community Use Policy describes what may be used and how it may be used. Images that have been used in Blogs on this site are included under that, if I recall correctly, but other artwork/images are not.
It might be ok if it is a private game site. If it is open to the public, then that's a different issue, because that constitutes re-publishing it. I am sure someone from Paizo will be along to respond more definitely.
Hey guys was wondering something. is it legal for me to copy and paste my pdfs that i buy or get for free from paizo from my pc to my tablet..and also wanted to mention that i bought a new nexus 7..excellent...i highly recommend it..
Obviously, IP has to be protected. Paizo has a broad community use policy with a game system based on OGL rules. That's one of the major selling points for the company. Paizo has succeeded in a large part because a certain other company got too "lawyery". I'm just pointing out the other side of the equation.
TSR went crazy with it's lawyers before going bankrupt. Hasbro (they stopped being Wizards really after the buyout) tried to legal their way out of the OGL and lost their customer base to another company. Clearly that's not the reason those companies failed. It does show a certain attitude that is poisonous for a gaming company to adopt. The less the better.
Paizo's got to do what they have to do to protect their IP. Hopefully, whatever they send out in situations like the above is polite enough and not I WILL CRUSH YOU legalize. I do find trying to sic a corporation on bloggers extremely distasteful. I'd have a different attitude if there was any malice or attempt to profit off Paizo's work.
Hasbro (they stopped being Wizards really after the buyout) tried to legal their way out of the OGL and lost their customer base to another company.
I just want to point out that WotC has been owned by Hasbro since 1999. That means they were already owned by Hasbro when they released 3.0 and the original OGL.
Hasbro (they stopped being Wizards really after the buyout) tried to legal their way out of the OGL and lost their customer base to another company.I just want to point out that WotC has been owned by Hasbro since 1999. That means they were already owned by Hasbro when they released 3.0 and the original OGL.
Oops. I'm familiar with the time frames in the mid to late 90s since I worked for a RPG distributor. Things get murky after that since I changed jobs and gaming companies weren't a part of my typical day. I'd always blamed 4e on Hasbro not understanding why Wizards set up the OGL. I guess I'll have to revise that to Hasbro not understanding Hasbro's own business model that was set up just a few years prior.
Your original hypothesis might still be correct, if Hasbro originally allowed WotC to operate as they desired, but later took a more hands-on approach regarding their subsidiaries.
|
Hey guys was wondering something. is it legal for me to copy and paste my pdfs that i buy or get for free from paizo from my pc to my tablet..and also wanted to mention that i bought a new nexus 7..excellent...i highly recommend it..
This was answered for me in another thread about owning PDFs and right of first sale etc.
You can download as many copies of your PDF as you need. You cant however give them to anyone else. I'll try and track down a link for you.
Cheers
Uhm I've been playing Castle Age on the iPhone and it's chock full of Paizo Derivative artwork. Most of it just similar not an actual copy.
How does something like this get handled? I like the game but would rather not have Paizo getting screwed on the deal.
|
Uhm I've been playing Castle Age on the iPhone and it's chock full of Paizo Derivative artwork. Most of it just similar not an actual copy.
How does something like this get handled? I like the game but would rather not have Paizo getting screwed on the deal.
Castle Age uses some of the same artists, but I have not seen any copyrighted artwork in use there.... I havn't played for like 3 years though
Uhm I've been playing Castle Age on the iPhone and it's chock full of Paizo Derivative artwork. Most of it just similar not an actual copy.
How does something like this get handled? I like the game but would rather not have Paizo getting screwed on the deal.
Because artists don't usually work exclusively for one company, you will often see similar works in similar products. That's simply the nature of the industry: if you look back to early Pathfinder materials, before elements like tiefling and dragon appearance were formally defined, you'll see a lot of images that evoke WotC's visual definitions.
It's the same thing. As long as original works were commissioned for Castle Age, they're going to generally be alright. Paizo does not own the rights to the artists' styles, after all.
|
|
Oh, the same issue I run into every day on DeviantART.
Just report the guy and wait till he does it again. That's how it usually goes.
Also the artists themselves have limited rights to reproduce, as long as they have the copywrite tag with what permissions others have correct, and they are the original artist, its prolly ok
Also the artists themselves have limited rights to reproduce, as long as they have the copywrite tag with what permissions others have correct, and they are the original artist, its prolly okOh, the same issue I run into every day on DeviantART.
Just report the guy and wait till he does it again. That's how it usually goes.
This is not always true. If they did the work in a "Work for Hire" they have given away all their rights and have no other rights then that of any other user.
Vic has said that the artists have rights to at least sell prints...
Then that would be in thier agreement. All I was pointing out was that the agreement is what dictates their rights and I have written and exicuted some that are very strict and some that are very loose.
Either way, it is up to the two parties to agree to what rights they are selling/buying.