Is there such a thing as a Public Copyright?

[footsteps]

This should be interesting.

http://hyperallergic.com/314079/photographer-files-1-billion-suit-against-getty-for-licensing-her-public-domain-images/

 

[ZenRiver]

"made millions of dollars"

Jesus what was it ?

My lawyers told me years ago to let it go and not discuss it publicly any longer, or more specifically name names. Even though truth is not considered libel, rich people can still make life miserable. Not worth reopening that wound. The person who stole the work from me mysteriously disappeared a few years back, so hopefully he died a painful death for double crossing someone else. Knowing his personality I would not be at all surprised. People like that never stop their stealing ways, even long after they get rich.

Actually you and others would be surprised how much money some titles from the 1980's have made over time. There was a shortage of family games back then, and the market potential was just starting to be realized. Some of the most basic titles have sold millions of copies. Some wargames sold in the tens of thousands, and made a tidy sum for their creators. People like Frank Chadwick and Steve Jackson who did games largely for the love of it are more then financially comfortable because of their efforts I suspect.

I know of a few titles that would drastically surprise you with how much total revenue they have generated. Trivial Pursuit was probably the first to milk the publicity of their success to generate yet more income from well placed media PR. After that several lesser known games came out, that gamers in that day considered mundane by today's standard of Euro-games. Yet they made a fortune for their creators (or well made a fortune for the bigger games publishers that they went to to get it to market). I have seen a couple of successful kickstarters to even bring back some of these old titles, and the money pledges went WAY beyond what the authors expected. The Ogre game by Steve Jackson is just one of those examples, and that was a game played by a very small cadre of gamers compared to the other titles. There is a good reason why companies like Milton Bradley and Hasborg did such gains back in those days. They just did not need to brag about it.

Other companies like the Borg, TSR, and GW built their empires on the backs of good people, who never saw credit for what they built. Been there, done that, have a few t-shirts. I am sure Dave Arneson could speak to his own experiences if he was still with us. Unfortunately a lot of us old dinosaurs are now just lights in the sky, much like the rest of the AH community. A few on here probably qualify for that club.

There was a day however...........

 

[Honza]

The best protection that I got in this case is the fact that an Iwo Jima CG for ASL is of very little interest to anyone but a small number of hardcore ASL players.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

You would be better off to put "Do not copy without permission".

He is fine with people copying it just not making money from doing so, hence the creative commons being the path to take

 

[Srynerson]

It was a full patent registration. What was included was a release of intellectual property rights that was part of the document package. I received copies of the entire process settling my Father's estate two years ago.

None of which addresses the point I made that a simple registration had nothing to do with enforcement - and everything to do with a benefit for the IP rights holder. Quibbling over what specific classification an IP rights registration may be in US law is a bit pointless.

I would submit that it's not "quibbling" when the subject matter of the thread is how to protect one's intellectual property. It would be like mentioning the use of three-hole punch reinforcing stickers in response to a question about the relative advantages of RAACO vs. Plano.

 

[witchbottles]

I would submit that it's not "quibbling" when the subject matter of the thread is how to protect one's intellectual property. It would be like mentioning the use of three-hole punch reinforcing stickers in response to a question about the relative advantages of RAACO vs. Plano.

I understand your point. It does not address the counterpoint that both reinforcing stickers and RAACO/ Plano offer similar advantages in maintaining organization in a general sense, and both were created in the first place to allow small item organization to occur as efficiently as page organization in a folder (and vice versa). Certainly the improvements to both products stem from the advantages one has seen in each new generation - hence the upgrade from punched hole reinforcements to page protectors, and so on.

Pick any metaphor you prefer. The fact remains that for the creator, registration which is simple, efficient ( even more so now with the internet), and inexpensive offers advantages beyond simple enforcement rights for punitive monetary damages if one's pockets are large enough to afford the attorneys. It is precisely the advantages beyond punitive enforcement that have driven the fact that people still desire to register copyrights, trademarks, and patents in the first place.

Perhaps my poor choice of speaking without clearly investigating myself first in the records to use proper legal definitions led to such confusion - but quibbling ( and it is quibbling) - over whether one's specific product is a RAACO or a Plano or a page protector means naught in the reference that all three enhance the capability to organize otherwise loose objects efficiently ( and more efficiently than the old shop plastic drawer cabinets and punched hole reinforcements). Whether its a trademark , copyright or patent license, it matters not to the concept that the creator gains an advantage beyond punitive enforcement.

 

[rwpikul]

You should mark everything you do with Copyright warnings as a general rule, even if you are in countries like Canada where Copyright is assumed to belong to the creator of something the moment they create it.

That covers just about every nation on the planet. There are only 22 nations who do not have that simply as a requirement of Berne.

BTW most courts will not accept the old method of sending the original artwork or copies of the original works to yourself by registered mail. While the postal system is technically a legal notary, it is not accepted anymore in most courts I am aware of that deal with litigation. In small claims the judge may rule otherwise.

It's not accepted for the simple reason that it's too easy to send yourself an empty, unsealed, envelope.

Google the whole "Bang game copyright decision" and you will see what I mean. Bang was openly pirated by a Chinese company, and that Chinese company won the court case unfortunately, which effects future legal decisions on outright game theft. These are the new realities.

Game mechanics, (which was what was copied), are a way of doing things, not an expressive work. The decision was in line with long standing precedent.

Look at what happened with Monopoly and some games like that where the actual creator was screwed and left penniless. It happens.

You mean the actual creator, (who didn't have the game stolen from her, she sold her patent to Parker Brothers for cash and an agreement to publish three of her games), or the guy that copied a derivation of her game and used streets from Atlantic City?

 

[ZenRiver]

That covers just about every nation on the planet. There are only 22 nations who do not have that simply as a requirement of Berne.

And it is those few that don't that make it bad for everyone. No surprise.

It's not accepted for the simple reason that it's too easy to send yourself an empty, unsealed, envelope.

You are suppose to put a copy of the manuscript, rules, components and game in the envelope and leave it sealed. The reason why the practice fell out of favor with the courts was it was proven by "experts" that this could still be tampered with. At least that was what the judge told me. Not surprised if true, since there are criminals for everything now.

You mean the actual creator, (who didn't have the game stolen from her, she sold her patent to Parker Brothers for cash and an agreement to publish three of her games), or the guy that copied a derivation of her game and used streets from Atlantic City?

There are multiple wrong versions of that story out there. This is the correct version as far as I know of it. Darrow stole her idea and sold it and made the money, and she was screwed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/business/behind-monopoly-an-inventor-who-didnt-pass-go.html?_r=0

 

[Honza]

There is going to be a VASL version of this map. Do VASL maps have copyright written upon them too? It might be worth plonking my stamp on any VASL map just to be sure?

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Whether its a trademark , copyright or patent license, it matters not to the concept that the creator gains an advantage beyond punitive enforcement.

It matter hugely both in how they are obtainted locally and globally, and the quite different rights each gives the creator/owner.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

Wishing ill on others in that way does not become you.

 

[witchbottles]

There is going to be a VASL version of this map. Do VASL maps have copyright written upon them too? It might be worth plonking my stamp on any VASL map just to be sure?

VASSAL is under a creative commons license already. My limited understanding from Joel Uckleman ( who is VASSAL's spokesperson) is that once any item using VASSAL to distribute artwork through the VASL module means t he creator is automatically accepting the the creative commons terms as listed by VASSAL.

Joel is on the forums here ,you can PM him directly if you prefer, or email him from the VASSAL engine website directly. David Sullivan is also a good resource into the creative commons portions of VASSAL / VASL - and he is likewise on the forums here, where you can PM him directly.

So is Tom Repetti - diviner of the rgb color spectrum for VASL board art - if you desire to contact him directly about using standardized VASL colors for the board art.

Try discussing the VASL matter with any of them directly, and you will likely obtain useful answers.

 

[Honza]

Thanks Jon, you are an oasis of useful info.

 

[rwpikul]

And it is those few that don't that make it bad for everyone. No surprise.

Actually, the main problem countries are signatory, they just make it hard for foreign copyright holders to bring action.

The non-signatories are generally minor, (e.g. Vatican City), or isolated from trade, (e.g. Iran). With a couple that can't sign for other reasons, (e.g. Taiwan).

You are suppose to put a copy of the manuscript, rules, components and game in the envelope and leave it sealed. The reason why the practice fell out of favor with the courts was it was proven by "experts" that this could still be tampered with. At least that was what the judge told me. Not surprised if true, since there are criminals for everything now.

Yes, that is the idea behind the "poor man's copyright", the problem is that there is no way to prove that the items were in there when the mail was sent.

There are multiple wrong versions of that story out there. This is the correct version as far as I know of it. Darrow stole her idea and sold it and made the money, and she was screwed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/business/behind-monopoly-an-inventor-who-didnt-pass-go.html?_r=0

How Darrow got the game is a little more complex, (and less underhanded), than that. The $500 the story mentions is the cash portion of Parker Brothers' purchase of Elizabeth Magie's patent.