Authorship, Intellectual Property and RPGSS

[CripDyke]

I have never submitted to RPGSS. I have published elsewhere on other topics. When I write creatively in an RPG setting, I have always done so merely for friends, as a GM or consulting with a GM. I discovered RPGSS sometime in 2014 and read a bit of the archives. I didn't particularly pay attention, though, to Paizo blogs, and randomly came here literally 20 minutes before the deadline for submitting a magic item. I didn't submit, but knowing that I might have made me curious. So I hung around and voted, and have had a good time reading others' creative output.

I had thought that I would participate in next years' RPGSS. As it stands, however, I certainly won't. There are two main issues. First is this section in the Official Rules:

Quote:

2. By entering this contest, the contestant authorizes the use, without additional compensation, of his or her name, likeness, voice, photograph, and municipality of residence for promotion and/or advertising purposes in any manner and in any medium (including, without limitation, radio broadcasts, newspapers, and other publications, and in television or film releases, slides, videotape, distribution over the internet and picture data storage) which Paizo may deem appropriate.

Like many women on the internet, I have experienced harassment and threats. I think that many of us are familiar with GamerGate. Whether one actually believes that the core issues of GamerGaters reduce merely to ethics in journalism, it is undeniable that women have been literally driven out of their homes by threats. Pseudonyms exist for a reason. I have used my own name to publish some of my material, but a pen name for others. I have used a consistent pseudonym on the internet for over 15 years. I’m not attempting to be fly-by-night or to make it difficult to attribute my work or solidify IP ownership or enforce contract. While Paizo may keep its community free of threats and harassment (and thank you!) I will not authorize Paizo to use my name, likeness, voice, photo, and municipality of residence at its sole discretion.

This could easily be rewritten that “By entering this contest, the contestant agrees that any use of a contestant’s name, likeness, voice, photograph, and municipality of residence for promotion and/or advertising purposes in any manner and in any medium (including, without limitation, radio broadcasts, newspapers, and other publications, and in television or film releases, slides, videotape, distribution over the internet and picture data storage) which Paizo may deem appropriate will occur without additional compensation.” This guarantees that the contestant cannot extort money from Paizo later without giving up control of one’s identity merely for entering the open call.

Giving up one’s control over one’s identity and safety merely to enter the open call is far too great a cost for me to pay. Frankly, I suspect that it’s far too great a cost to reasonably ask of many people, though most people without legal training will not appreciate the implications of this particular rule.

…
My second issue is with intellectual property ownership.

Quote:

6. Contestants must agree to the submission agreement found on the submission form during the entry period.

I don’t know what this submission agreement is.

As an initial concern, it is unfair to keep this concealed from people who in all earnestness seek work as freelancers. It likely doesn’t matter to most people who submit, but the people whom Paizo would most like to cultivate are the ones most adversely affected. This should be published in advance, not merely on the submission form.

My greater concern, however, was revealed by Christopher’s response to me in another thread, where he revealed that all IP related to the Hollowheart Conquest now belongs to Paizo. I certainly recognize that Paizo has an interest in the module pitches and other work produced during the contest. I recognize that as a finalist, Christopher’s work is likely being considered by Paizo for development. Paizo should be able to protect the interest it creates through the contest.

I further recognize that Christopher’s summary is not the same as the the actual content of the submission agreement.

However, if it does resemble the actual agreement - a simple, one-time transfer of all rights - I think this serves Paizo poorly by serving the contestants poorly.

Freelancers must recycle ideas to make a living. Travel writers will write about the same trip for different magazines, once focussing on hotels, another time focussing on restaurants, but sometimes the hotel restaurant will be part of both articles. This is a normal feature of writing, and encouraging freelancers should recognize it. Moreover, there will be plenty of content that is not up to Paizo’s standards. Paizo spends a great deal of energy providing constructive feedback. While useful to lurkers, there is no reason for Paizo to prevent a freelancer from taking a good idea with too many drawbacks and turning it into something more polished. If Paizo isn’t interested in that reworked content itself, it encourages the flourishing of healthy 3PP creativity to allow the freelancer to take it elsewhere.

Moreover, why should a dabbling writer be prevented from taking the best ideas from their marketable novel as inspiration for RPGSS? The market for games content and novels are separate but related, like travel magazines that focus on different aspects of the travel experience. It should be easy for writers to use core ideas in different contexts without running afoul of Paizo’s intellectual property interest in the contest itself.

Encouraging this creativity and a large, talented 3PP base is part of the desired outcome for Paizo, and is certainly desirable for the talented but inexperienced would-be freelancers that Paizo is specifically encouraging to submit. Nonetheless, Paizo creates interest in people, creatures, plots, places, and things through its sponsorship of RPGSS.

A reasonable IP transfer would thus include good protection for Paizo with flexibility for freelancers to reuse good ideas so as to learn from their time participating in RPGSS. I see the best version of this containing several core ideas:

1. All names of persons, places, items, etc, whether unique or general, become property of Paizo as a one-time transfer.
2. All other intellectual property contained within an entry (what an item does, the plot of an encounter, etc.) transfers to Paizo for a period of 2 years from the end of that year’s RPGSS. At Paizo’s discretion, the intellectual property can be used by Paizo in a Paizo publication. If published within the 2 year period, rights remain with Paizo. If not published within that time, full rights revert to the author (remembering that this does not cover names).
3. For the first couple of years using this system, until Paizo is sure that 24 months is a sufficient time frame, add a clause that upon written notice the period in which other IP rights are conserved by Paizo is extended for an additional 12 months, with publication during that time also permanently reserving the rights for Paizo, as if published during the initial 24 months.
4. Rights to publish intellectual property from item 2 are not reserved to Paizo for purposes unrelated to the gaming industry. Paizo would have to decide if it means electronic gaming as well as paper & tabletop gaming.

As examples for the utility of the above, and further explanation of purpose:
The first allows someone to use a novel-in-progress or even completed as the basis for an adventure proposal. A global find-and-replace for names is easy enough with today’s tech and doesn’t limit freelancer’s creative reuse of core ideas. This rewards the creativity while preventing confusion created by a novel and a module both titled, “The Hollowheart Conquest,” with the novel unrelated to Paizo’s business (but possibly profiting off the association).

The second, the reversion clause, permits authors to reuse ideas that Paizo clearly doesn’t intend to publish. If the author can learn something in 24 months to make that idea better, it only benefits 3PP to have good IP in circulation instead of in the dustbin.

The third simply makes sure that the second is workable in practice during a time when you don’t have enough experience to know what the right cut-off is to balance keeping good IP in circulation and giving Paizo sufficient lead-time to publish.

The fourth allows an author to simultaneously work on the hypothetical novel instead of waiting 2 years to market it. Note, importantly, that only that in the RPGSS submission is covered by the agreement. If you actually choose to ask a finalist to write a module, the contract for that work can further restrict (or eliminate) the rights to use content elsewhere so that no novel can too-closely resemble the final plot. The problem is that the general outlines contained within proposals can fit a wide variety of final products, and a freelancer would currently have to steer quite wide of any content in the proposal even when adapting an idea to an entirely different context. Paizo can and should be more restricted when contracting a freelancer to develop an idea. Mere submission to RPGSS, however, should not be so restrictive.

========

I am not saying that my ideas have to be adopted specifically as I have proposed for me to participate. Nor am I saying that my participation alone is sufficient for Paizo’s concern. I hope I have articulated that there are reasonable bases for concern with Paizo’s current authorship, identity, and IP provisions and that my proposed fixes show that Paizo can profit from RPGSS directly, while better meeting its goals of encouraging flourishing 3PP and freelancer communities, and do so without too terribly much effort or cost.

I hope that Paizo seriously considers making the submission process safer for those concerned about threats, stalking, etc., and simultaneously better for the creative dabbler or new freelancer seriously interested in producing great ideas for the Pathfinder community.

[R Pickard]

Regarding privacy concerns -- the name they reveal is the name you have registered as your name for your mailing address in your Paizo store profile. You have to confirm this is not a misrepresentation of you, but you don't have to reveal your full name *cough*. However, I do believe they expect you to compete under at least a pen name and not your message board alias.

I accepted that I'd have to reveal my name/name I'd want to publish under and was willing to take that risk when I entered--after all, no one is going to take seriously a professionally published piece by "DeathQuaker." (I've also professionally published under my real name before so it's already out there.)

They asked us for hometown with the clear note of IF YOU WANT TO, and they said they would not use it if we wanted it to remain private. The same goes for photos, which the top 8 were asked for (but only the top 4 got posted)--we did not have to supply one if we didn't want to.

Due to a bad past situation of my own, I asked to keep certain information about me private, and Paizo fully honored that. They repeated to us several times that they were not going to reveal information we didn't want them to for privacy reasons.

I have a feeling the item is, as you mention, probably more about the issue of COMPENSATION than privacy and it might be a good idea for them to clarify that. You're right the wording makes it more extreme and potentially loopholey in a bad way.

Your concerns here are absolutely valid, and I hope Paizo examines them. I hope I can at least be somewhat reassuring in that I can at least say in my experience the contest runners did make clear to us their intent to be reasonably protective of our privacy and were very respectful of it.

As for Paizo owning the IP-

This is stated in the first paragraph of the rules:

Quote:

All entries become the property of Paizo Inc.

In case anybody misses that when reading the rules, when you're about to submit an entry, you get the full submission agreement mentioned in the rules displayed to you, before you finalize your submission. This repeats that you're about to give up your rights to the IP amongst other specifications which are largely just repetitions of the rules as publicly published. The submission agreement is their way of going "Are you sure?" and making sure everybody knows all the rules clearly before they enter. We also get the submission agreement every round, just to double check every round we are still on board with what they are doing within the rules they set up.

The reason Paizo does the contest in this way is because they may publish ANYTHING submitted to the contest and want to be able to do so at any time. Look at the recently released "Daughters of Fury," by last year's Superstar Victoria Jackson. Several monsters and wondrous items from rounds 1 and 2 were published in that module. And they may decide to publish any entry down the line. My understanding if they DO publish your entry, you will get paid for it.

It may be strict, but I understand why they do it the way they do it and was willing to accept that when I entered not just this year but my two attempts prior. While some fiction publishers do allow an eventual IP release, these publishers have different publishing and sales models than Paizo specifically and game companies in general. Someone can explain it better than I can (and have done so in the past--there are discussions of it in prior years' forums), but it's basically for their protection. Since the rules clearly state this up front and repeat it before you finalize your submission, I don't feel like they're doing anything sneaky and underhanded--you personally may not have realized it before Christopher Wasko told you, but we were all well aware of it, and so should anyone be before they enter the contest (and now you are too). I can understand your discomfort with it, but Paizo isn't doing it just to be unfair. They make what was at least up until recently the best selling RPG in the world (I don't know how D&DNext's sales are doing/will do) and they need to protect themselves on a fairly high level.

If anything this is just a good reminder to everyone to read the fine print before jumping in.

BTW just as a reminder, when you post to the message board, you give Paizo the right to repost or use anything you post here in any way (although in this case they do not claim IP rights):

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Who owns my comments?

While Paizo Inc does not pre-screen message content, Paizo Inc does reserve the right to edit or remove submitted messages or material at any time. Paizo Inc is not responsible for the content of messages submitted by users of the site. Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Inc the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.

(Most corporate-owned message boards have the same stipulation.)

For something lower stakes, I would suggest checking out 3PP open calls (checking their fine print as well, of course). Wayfinder's a good place to start.

I truly hope you find a way to submit your ideas in a way where you feel safe and comfortable, as you've shown from your posts you are an intelligent, humorous, and incisive writer. I've enjoyed reading your posts and I hope wherever you may decide to publish or express yourself you'll let us know what you do. I also hope you'll keep sharing your concerns as these kind of conversations do need to happen, and repeatedly.

[Garrett Guillotte]

To add some receipts to DQ's post:

1. Paizo takes ownership to protect themselves from potential claims of IP theft from contestants should Paizo make something with the same name, mechanics, or flavor. (also 1, 2, 3, 4, and no, the mechanics of your non-Top 32 submission are not available under the OGL either)

2. Also, Paizo does not consider an open call submission's IP to be valuable enough to be worth opening Paizo to liability by leaving ownership with the author. (even blunter version)

3. Paizo needs blanket authorization for your name and likeness in order to run and promote the contest in public, and because they want to promote contestants—not just the winner—in order to sell products. (maximum SKR version)

Paizo hasn't changed after hearing these arguments in one form or another through eight RPG Superstar contests. Vic's posts on IP go back to 2007. I wouldn't expect much to change.

Also, it's worth noting that nothing prevents "a freelancer from taking a good idea (they submitted to RPGSS) with too many drawbacks and turning it into something more polished" to submit elsewhere. You grant ownership over the text of the submission, but not to the concept. Paizo sets this rule to avoid defending themselves against frivolous IP litigation that would be expensive to defend themselves against, not to instigate it. Taking something you submitted, improving and modifying it, and submitting it elsewhere is legal, allowed, and encouraged. Distributing or publishing your entry word-for-word is not.

Submitting stuff from your own setting that you'd want to develop later is a bad idea in any case as it's likely to fall under the OGL, in part or in full, should you actually make the Top 32.

[R Pickard]

Thanks for linking to what I was too lazy to look up, Garrett. :)

I do think the wording of the "right to advertise" should be looked at--I get the intent, but I also understand why it might freak someone out.

[CripDyke]

Quote:

You grant ownership over the text of the submission, but not to the concept. Paizo sets this rule to avoid defending themselves against frivolous IP litigation that would be expensive to defend themselves against, not to instigate it.

Yes. I get that. However that's now setting up any participant to defend against frivolous IP litigation should Paizo change ownership.

It's not difficult to protect Paizo's interests while also giving some security to contestants.

When only one side pays the lawyer to write the agreement, all the rights go to that side. That's not any "safer" or "better". It's better for the party who paid the lawyer in terms of defending against litigation, but it creates uncertainty for freelancers. Your statement here:

Quote:

You grant ownership over the text of the submission, but not to the concept.

is just wrong. At least in many jurisdictions. Paizo really should specify a conflict of laws provision to negate jurisdictional conflicts. They're getting submissions from Finland, after all.

Paizo may only **want** ownership of the text of the submission, but that's not all that they are receiving.

Nor should that be all that they want if they are attempting to avoid defending themselves against lawsuits based on items that have similarities to something eventually published. That's not about ownership of the text. That's about ownership of other included IP. And they should get that, as I suggested. And they should also limit that as well.

They should take what they need. They shouldn't take everything. Taking everything is the lazy lawyer's way out.

Quote:

Taking something you submitted, improving and modifying it, and submitting it elsewhere is legal, allowed, and encouraged. Distributing or publishing your entry word-for-word is not.

Then write the agreement that way. The current agreement isn't written that way. I actually think that what I'm proposing is consonant with what Paizo wants. It's just different from what Paizo actually does.

==========

To be clear, though I'm addressing comments that responded to the IP issue, what would actually prevent me from participating is the first issue. The IP issue is of concern to me, but not enough to prevent my participation.

[Jessica Price]

Believe me, I get you on the GamerGate (and general Being A Woman On The Internet) fears. I think, right now, almost any woman who's both involved in game dev and active on social media understands those fears in a very visceral way, and I think it's perfectly valid to worry about those things.

That said, if you want to both write for Paizo and keep a fairly low profile -- which I think is a perfectly legitimate desire -- RPGSS is probably not the best path to doing that.

We have an open call for writing PFS scenarios. There are also other doors into freelancing; if you'd like advice on how to navigate them, feel free to ping me and I'd be happy to give you some advice. (For that matter, I did a blog post a while ago with a lot of that advice, and Wes followed it up with a post about other companies that might also be looking for freelancers.)

Most of the time -- for better or for worse -- our freelancers don't get the sort of attention drawn to them that comes of RPG Superstar. They're usually one name in a credits list (I'm not sure if we've ever had a freelancer request to be credited under a pen name, but someone else on staff might be able to answer that).

RPGSS is basically our version of American Idol. It's designed to draw attention to the finalists. It's not, however, the only route to writing for Paizo.

[Monica Marlowe]

Jessica Price wrote:

Believe me, I get you on the GamerGate (and general Being A Woman On The Internet) fears. I think, right now, almost any woman who's both involved in game dev and active on social media understands those fears in a very visceral way, and I think it's perfectly valid to worry about those things.

Since starting this journey, technically a year ago, I have become increasingly more concerned about the random happenstance of my genetic make-up and my presence in the gaming community. Who knew that trying to improve the female perspective would endanger females?

As for whether or not Chris could seek a 3PP to publish his pitch, if he and the 3PP were clever enough, they absolutely could publish his pitch. What they could not do is use any reference to Nar-Voth, derro, any RPG SS 2015 creations, or anything specifically owned by Paizo. He could use anything from the OGL, which is what all 3PP are allowed to use. The concept of "rallying the forces" is not owned by Paizo, just like all other tropes and at its core, that's what Chris' idea revolves around. There are laws regarding alterations of ideas that allow it to be far enough from original concepts that allow artists to continue in the same vein of creation without overlapping previously sold IP. They absolutely could not refer to this in any way as his Paizo RPG SS pitch, that would get them sued in a hot minute, or at least it would if I were the legal department of Paizo.

Chris is a clever man though and even it he has to put this idea aside, I have every confidence in his ability to come up with another equally interesting adventure pitch. Paizo isn't looking for one trick ponies, they're looking for designers and sometimes as a designer you have to be willing to give away a really good idea for the sake of getting further. While I would have personally been disappointed for my own pitch not to go on, I would have come up with something else, because that is what I would have to do if I wanted to continue along this path.

[Scott LaBarge]

Derro aren't fair game? I thought they had a previous existence outside of RPGs that made them open season.
Or maybe you meant duergar? But I thought they were available too. Not like I'm checking the list, though....o.O

[R Pickard]

Scott LaBarge wrote:

Derro aren't fair game? I thought they had a previous existence outside of RPGs that made them open season.

Or maybe you meant duergar? But I thought they were available too. Not like I'm checking the list, though....o.O

Derro are derived very loosely from a creature called IIRC dero or something, but the derro as they are particularly characterized and written by Paizo (live off cytillesh, are insane slavers, etc. etc.) are pretty specifically according to their IP and you'd have to be careful of not being to derivative of that specifically.

Likewise, duergar is just another word in another language for "dwarf" and go way back in mythology (and are thus open domain), and you could write about a race called the duergar that are short and live underground and make stuff.

But you can't write about "the duergar of Nar-Voth who worship the god of labor who refused to leave with the other dwarves during the Quest for Sky" because that's Paizo's IP.

If your adventure relies upon things that are obviously derivative from Golarion-specific details of these races, that's where I would be careful.

ETA: I'm sorry for all the "derived/derivatives" but I'm too tired to change it.

[Monica Marlowe]

Scott LaBarge wrote:

Derro aren't fair game? I thought they had a previous existence outside of RPGs that made them open season.

Or maybe you meant duergar? But I thought they were available too. Not like I'm checking the list, though....o.O

I'm not as familiar with the IP as others, my point was that you have to be careful about what you can and cannot use. Just as you could use "goblins" but if you use goblins that like to kill dogs and sing silly songs, you're treading into Paizo's territory.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Jessica Price wrote:

(I'm not sure if we've ever had a freelancer request to be credited under a pen name, but someone else on staff might be able to answer that).

Yep, frex, Anson Caralya is a pen name.

[Anthony Adam]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

(I'm not sure if we've ever had a freelancer request to be credited under a pen name, but someone else on staff might be able to answer that).

Yep, frex, Anson Caralya is a pen name.

I have also given serious consideration to having my work labelled as Template Fu, simply because that name will have so much more traction and recognisability than my own real name would due to being a part of this competition and community for so long.

The main reason for this would be the potential for increased sales that it might bring, and as an aspiring game designer, I will admit openly that I will do whatever it takes to become a valuable games design resource to all the companies out there, and part of that is building a widly recognisable name.

I would certainly consider requesting it, but it would be totally up to the publisher if they were happy to do so.

[Russ Morrissey]

R Pickard wrote:

My understanding if they DO publish your entry, you will get paid for it.

This is correct. Per Erik Mona, "If we publish it, we pay for it. Period."

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?413765-What-s-a-Freelance-RPG-W riter-Worth

[Garrett Guillotte]

CripDyke wrote:

Then write the agreement that way. The current agreement isn't written that way.

Do you have a copy of the submission agreement? I still can't find one.

[CripDyke]

The current agreement isn't written that way according to 2 sources + my inferences from what Chris said (though that isn't as reliable since I don't know Chris even casually, and I didn't ask a specific question).

I don't have a copy...and of course I could be wrong. It's just that the subjective, "This is what Paizo intends to use this agreement to accomplish," statements above do not reflect what I was told.

I have no reason to believe that Paizo is anything other than honorable. And control over my identity was my main issue, but I do believe it's possible to write an agreement that's better than "Paizo gets it all ... but seriously, we're the good ones, so you can trust us." Paizo can be bought, after all.

I'm perfectly competent to do a first pass analysis/casual critique of the IP rights agreement, though I've got no training in IP law in the USA. (my law school is canadian) But without an actual copy of the agreement, I cannot do even that much reliably.

[R Pickard]

The agreement IIRC is largely just a repetition of the rules already posted (the relevant parts of which have been posted here).

I'm sure Paizo would post a copy, or you could email customer service or [e-mail] for it.

[CripDyke]

Thanks, DQ.