Gleemax Terms of Service


4th Edition


Just ran into the Gleemax terms of service. Here are some highlights:

Gleemax Terms of Service wrote:
You agree to (i) provide accurate, current and complete information about you as may be prompted by any registration forms for the Service ("Registration Data"); (ii) maintain and promptly update the Registration Data, and any other account-related information you provide to Wizards, to keep it accurate, current and complete; and (iii) accept all risks of unauthorized access to the Registration Data and any other information you provide to Wizards.

If we want a bunch of your private marketing data, you have to give it to us. If our employees take your credit card information and go to Mexico, that's your problem.

Gleemax Terms of Service wrote:
Except with respect to User Content (defined below) relating to those non-Wizards games that have an official Gleemax.com webpage as set forth under Exception C under Section 3(b) of these Member Terms, if applicable, by posting or submitting any text, images, designs, video, sound, code, data, lists, or other materials or information (such User-submitted content, collectively, "User Content") to or through the Site, including without limitation on any User profile page, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards, its affiliates and sublicensees, a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sub-licensable license, to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content

Anything you post, we own.

Gleemax Terms of Service wrote:
Please choose carefully the User Content you post on the Site and that you provide to other Users. Your Wizards Member profile page and any User Content you post on the Site may not include the following items: telephone numbers, street addresses, last names,

Got an email that contains your last name? Can't use it on Gleemax.

Gleemax Terms of Service wrote:
Please choose carefully the User Content you post on the Site and that you provide to other Users. Your Wizards Member profile page and any User Content you post on the Site may not include the following items: telephone numbers, street addresses, last names,

Want to say that the WotC Game Table sucks and that someone might be better off looking at Klooge or FantasyGrounds? Sorry, can't do that. Someone asks for an adventure recommendation and you'd like to suggest Paizo? Sorry, only WotC products please.

Gleemax Terms of Service wrote:
Wizards reserves the right, without notice and in its sole discretion, to terminate your membership or these Member Terms (including any license use the Service), delete your Member profile and any User Content that you have posted on the Site, and to block or prevent your future access to and use of the Service.

You've been paying for the last year's worth of Dragon and Dungeon content? We can take it away at any time.


Nice catches (although I think you left out one of the clauses you meant to quote since you repeated one).

Since I'm not getting anywhere near Gleemax, this won't affect me - but thanks for the warnings!


And this is differnet from any other high profile corporate message board . . . how exactly?


And that ladies and gents is your standard Terms of Service. And by standard I mean pretty much universal. Um, good catch though.


yeah, only thing that varies is individual companies level of enforcement. some are lax, some are not. but it's THEIR choice on how relaxed to be on enforcement.

Dark Archive Contributor

DMFTodd wrote:
Anything you post, we own.

That's true on the Paizo messageboards as well. I imagine ENWorld also has a similar clause, as should most other messageboards of companies.

Liberty's Edge

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Give me back my soul!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

We call that boilerplate in the industry. There's really nothing special in the above.

There is also a difference between a license and ownership.

There are good business reasons for all of the provisions above. It's not just an attempt to steal stuff from you. They have maximum power and flexibility to deal with any situation. So, when you go and post links to nazi porn, they can take that down. When you post Heathannson's full name and address so we can all mail him tacos, they can take that down. When they need to change the terms of service, they can do so. If they come up with an idea similar to one that you posted and publish it in a book, you can't sue them for "stealing" it.

Not. A. Big. Deal.

Dark Archive

Heathansson wrote:
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Give me back my soul!

Hah! That's why they switched up the cosmology too. Now you aren't too sure how to navigate your way to the 9 hells to retreive it.

Brilliant!


Heathansson wrote:
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Give me back my soul!

Wouldn't that imply you had a soul to begin with?


William Pall wrote:
And this is differnet from any other high profile corporate message board . . . how exactly?

Well, I was going to show how it was different than Paizo's, but when you sign up for a Paizo account there are no terms of service and I can't seem to find them posted anywhere. But I doubt the Paizo TOS forbids us from using our last names or from posting mentions of competing products.

Anyhoo, I though it was interesting, not a big deal.

Dark Archive Contributor

DMFTodd wrote:
But I doubt the Paizo TOS forbids us from using our last names or from posting mentions of competing products.

No, it doesn't.

Sovereign Court

Mike McArtor wrote:
DMFTodd wrote:
Anything you post, we own.

That's true on the Paizo messageboards as well. I imagine ENWorld also has a similar clause, as should most other messageboards of companies.

Wait . . . I no longer own my Lidu Diaries?


Heathansson wrote:
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Give me back my soul!

I'm safe. Microsoft already owns my soul, and I don't think WotC's lawyers have a chance against Microsoft!


Mike McArtor wrote:
DMFTodd wrote:
But I doubt the Paizo TOS forbids us from using our last names or from posting mentions of competing products.
No, it doesn't.

True, but from what I see of the Gleemax TOS it does not say that you cannot post mentions of competing products. Is that a tongue in cheek inference?

The reason I bring this to light is Gleemax is not just an outlet for WoTC; they are trying, as I understand, to be a place for all RPG companies to talk about thier products, and promote them even.

Liberty's Edge

Soul...soul--what is this 'soul' of which you speak?


The Last Rogue wrote:
True, but from what I see of the Gleemax TOS it does not say that you cannot post mentions of competing products. Is that a tongue in cheek inference?

Sorry, that's the paste I got wrong. The Gleemax, Code of Conduct says:

"Do not advertise. This includes: * Advertise or promote a business or commercial website outside of the designated areas"

Seems to say to me that you can't mention ("promote") other companies websites.

For those of you arguing that this is the same as any other company, take a link at Paizo's that Mike linked for us. Quite a difference.

Quote:
they are trying, as I understand, to be a place for all RPG companies to talk about thier products, and promote them even.
Quote:


The TOS let's a company have a Gleemax page, but that can't advertise outside of that "area".

Dark Archive

The "No mentioning other products" thing isn't anything new. That has been WotC's way on their message boards for a long time. Back when I actually used to go there I had several posts get deleted for mentioning other games.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:
When you post Heathannson's full name and address so we can all mail him tacos, they can take that down.

Damn!!! Foiled again!

Liberty's Edge

I'm....sooooooo....hon.greh.

Dark Archive Contributor

Guy Humual wrote:
Wait . . . I no longer own my Lidu Diaries?

By the letter of the rules, probably not (although the legal eagles will need to swoop in and clarify things), but I don't suspect that we're going to enforce that particular clause. As has been pointed out before, it's not there for us to steal ideas or people's campaign settings. It's there to protect us.


I'm sure the business about no last names and addresses also has to do with the fact that there will be minors on the boards and they don't want to be liable for some sicko arranging to run off with someone's 14 year-old son or daughter on the boards. Elfwood had a big incident of this nature several years back.


DMFTodd wrote:
The Last Rogue wrote:
True, but from what I see of the Gleemax TOS it does not say that you cannot post mentions of competing products. Is that a tongue in cheek inference?

Sorry, that's the paste I got wrong. The Gleemax, Code of Conduct says:

"Do not advertise. This includes: * Advertise or promote a business or commercial website outside of the designated areas"

Seems to say to me that you can't mention ("promote") other companies websites.

For those of you arguing that this is the same as any other company, take a link at Paizo's that Mike linked for us. Quite a difference.

Quote:
they are trying, as I understand, to be a place for all RPG companies to talk about thier products, and promote them even.
Quote:


The TOS let's a company have a Gleemax page, but that can't advertise outside of that "area".

As far as promoting businesses is, it's more advertising products like, "Earn $3,000-$5,000 doing data entry at home! Just visit www.payus49fornothing.com"

There's a ton of these network marketing things out there, and it would flood every board if not nipped in the bud...

Mentioning X-Box 360 and/or games in an off-topic thread is perfectly O.K. And mentioning a paizo product because you like it should be well within these guidelines as well.


DangerDwarf wrote:
The "No mentioning other products" thing isn't anything new. That has been WotC's way on their message boards for a long time. Back when I actually used to go there I had several posts get deleted for mentioning other games.

I stand corrected. What a bunch of bull honkey.

Dark Archive

TheDrone wrote:
DangerDwarf wrote:
The "No mentioning other products" thing isn't anything new. That has been WotC's way on their message boards for a long time. Back when I actually used to go there I had several posts get deleted for mentioning other games.
I stand corrected. What a bunch of bull honkey.

I will say that it was enforced sporadically, depending on which mod was look at a thread and some where quite liberal with their definition of advertising.

One post I remember getting deleted, and it was in the context of the discussion, I made mention that I felt that Necromancer Games did D&D better than WotC ever did.

I was "advertising" for NG so it got deleted.

So, yeah. It sucks big time. But its not a Gleemax thing, its not a 4e thing, it's something WotC has been doing for quite awhile.


TheDrone wrote:
DMFTodd wrote:
The Last Rogue wrote:
True, but from what I see of the Gleemax TOS it does not say that you cannot post mentions of competing products. Is that a tongue in cheek inference?

Sorry, that's the paste I got wrong. The Gleemax, Code of Conduct says:

"Do not advertise. This includes: * Advertise or promote a business or commercial website outside of the designated areas"

Seems to say to me that you can't mention ("promote") other companies websites.

For those of you arguing that this is the same as any other company, take a link at Paizo's that Mike linked for us. Quite a difference.

Quote:
they are trying, as I understand, to be a place for all RPG companies to talk about thier products, and promote them even.
Quote:


The TOS let's a company have a Gleemax page, but that can't advertise outside of that "area".

As far as promoting businesses is, it's more advertising products like, "Earn $3,000-$5,000 doing data entry at home! Just visit www.payus49fornothing.com"

There's a ton of these network marketing things out there, and it would flood every board if not nipped in the bud...

Mentioning X-Box 360 and/or games in an off-topic thread is perfectly O.K. And mentioning a paizo product because you like it should be well within these guidelines as well.

I am apt to believe that this is more in lines with what they are talking about. I have sung the praises of Paizo on the WoTC board with nary a comment by a WizO. Hell, even Mearls in his blog recommended people to get GameMastery goodies and linked it.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Mike McArtor wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Wait . . . I no longer own my Lidu Diaries?
By the letter of the rules, probably not (although the legal eagles will need to swoop in and clarify things), but I don't suspect that we're going to enforce that particular clause. As has been pointed out before, it's not there for us to steal ideas or people's campaign settings. It's there to protect us.

I could be wrong, but I think you only get a non-exclusive license. So, if paizo decided to publish the lidu diaries, they could do so. However, so could the original author. That's different from what most people consider to be "ownership" in that the author doesn't really lose any rights (except maybe the right to grant an exclusive license).

As I said, it's mostly there to protect paizo from frivilous suits because they publish an adventure with a character named yellowdingo. The waiver you sign when you submit an adventure proposal has similar language.

The Exchange

This sort of TOS is nothing new folks.

You have to realize that the US legal system has fostered a neccesity for this kind of legal mumbo jumbo. Due to frivilous claims on both the part of companies and regular everyday people, everyone has to look out for their own.

If you want to share your homebrew stuff with others, your best bet is probably to pay for a website and host it on there and just post links to it. Be sure you have designated what is OGC in your work and what is intellectual property. For a good example on this check out Rich Burlew's site www.giantitp.com. In all of his homebrew stuff he has property tag and OGC highlighting. Posting your intellectual property directly to the any companies boards is at best risky, at worst flat out foolish.

On that note, WotC is not out to get you. Why should they be? The success of their company and more importantly D&D itself is based on customers. If they don't continue to produce a high quality, entertaining product, that you and I want to buy, they don't continue at all. WotC has no interest in irking off customers, potential or otherwise.

In corporate terms WotC is still a small company. Do they have the market share and set the pace for the industry? Sure. Is it a monopoly? No. 3E was a huge risk for WotC. They needed to revamp a slowly fading game, and they needed to maintain brand and customer loyalty. They did a darn good job of it. 4E is the next step in that direction. They are taking the system that united a fragmented industry and improving upon it and setting a new pace for the future. In a massive step in the right direction they are bringing a large share of their content online, and they are also making their staff accessible. The Gleemax system and blogs that WotC employees are already faithfully posting to are giving us a direct link with the people who make the game we love. Recent iniatives like the limited public playtesting is a HUGE step towards making us, the consumer an integral part of the future of our beloved game. They read our posts on the forums, they read our emails and private messages and they respond to it.

WotC is not big brother. If anything right now they are one of the few leaders of their respective industry doing the right things.

Sovereign Court

Sebastian wrote:


I could be wrong, but I think you only get a non-exclusive license. So, if paizo decided to publish the lidu diaries, they could do so. However, so could the original author. That's different from what most people consider to be "ownership" in that the author doesn't really lose any rights (except maybe the right to grant an exclusive license).

As I said, it's mostly there to protect paizo from frivilous suits because they publish an adventure with a character named yellowdingo. The waiver you sign when you submit an adventure proposal has similar language.

That sounds a bit more reasonable.

Thanks Sebastian.

I really don't think I have to worry about my work getting published or anything, it's really not that good IMO, but thinking that I lost ownership of my work was a bit upsetting. I have no worries about granting Paizo rights to my work (for what that's worth), after all it's a campaign journal set in WotC's STAP, and I'm using characters and locals set within.

Sorry for the threadjack

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Gleemax Terms of Service All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition