Now I'm admining this list there's somethinG I have to clear up..
What was the exact decision regarding having representatives from GZG on this
list? Obviously, with all the extra rules, timelines etc that get posted
there's a possibility of someone taking out legal action if something similar
gets into a future GZG product.
I would like to avoid this if possible, and have my own opinions as to the
solution but I WOULD like to know what the consensus (if there was one)
was..
TTFN
Jon
> At 11:16 AM 1/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
> was..
I was under the impression that everything posted to this list became property
of GZG and could legally be used in future releases, with credit going to the
original author. This is from the original message you get when you first
subscribe:
Important note on use of the FTGZG-L@BOLTON.AC.UK Mailing List
This Mailing List is run for the benefit of Fans of Ground Zero Games and, to
a lesser extent, for Ground Zero Games themselves. Material appearing on this
list WILL be forwarded to Ground Zero Games and may be used in part or whole
as part of future rule books, supplements or other material. Any material used
in whole will be credited to the Author of the material and he still retains
copyright unless waived.
By subscribing to the list you agree to alow your copyrighted material to
appear in GZG products. If you do not agree with these conditions
UNSUBSCRIBE NOW! To do this send an E-mail to;
mxserver@bolton.ac.uk
The Subject can be left blank. The body of the message should read;
unsubscribe ftgzg-l
Do this NOW if you do not agree with the above conditions of use. If you wish
to participate on this list, but do not want a specific item copying, include
a notice to this effect in that message and your wishes will be respected.
Alternatively, you can Unsubscribe and use the Newsgroup:
"rec.games.miniatures.misc".
By receiving this message you have been made aware that your material may be
used by GZG and by not Unsubscribing you are giving your permission to do so.
Take care,
> I was under the impression that everything posted to this list became
<snip>
Ah..
I subscribed VERY early on to this mailing list, so I didn't get one of those.
Thanks for passing it on. Hmm. Maybe a revision is needed a little. If I do
make another one, I'll post in on.
> Take care,
TTFN
Jon
> At 11:16 AM 1/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
I don't think there was any kind of consensus. It was my wife's feeling (and
her boss') that you can't lose your copyright implicitly, just as you can't
implicitly lose any right codified in law. You can write something and say,
"Hey, anyone can use this, I'm putting this in the public domain." However,
you don't lose copyright to something you wrote even if it's posted to a
mailing list that says, "Everything you post here is property of GZG."
Hard copy publications always cover themselves with explicit instructions from
the author. For instance, I had a letter to the Canadian edition of TV
Guide published. Even though I sent a letter to them by e-mail, they
phoned me up asking for EXCPLICIT instructions allowing them to print the
letter.
The problem is that there is very little precedence for copyright and mailing
lists. All a mailing list does is redirect a message with no editorial content
added. This SEEMS to give it even less protection than a printed magazine or
book, neither of which can simply state, "We have the right to print anything
you might send us and you lose your copyright." It's also almost impossible to
argue in court. All the person holding the copyright has to do is say, "I
typed in the wrong nickname and sent it to the list. I didn't realize it went
to the list until I saw it in Jon Tuffley's supplement."
On the other hand, we could all send messages, or write sigs, that explicitly
gives Jon the right to copy anthing we post. But, what happens if someone
posts, "Jon can copy this message if he gives me proper credit," and the
proper credit isn't given (such as Jon maybe forgetting who came up with the
idea).
This is all a non-issue anyway, because you CAN'T COPYRIGHT GAME RULES!
You can copyright the specific expression of a rule, but you can't copyright a
rule itself. So, if I come up with a great new set of rules for cloaking
devices (which I DID when I first came on the list, by the way :-) )
and Jon uses it, as long as he rewords it, it isn't a violation of my
copyright. So, Jon can use our ideas all he wants, because you can't copyright
an idea, only the specific expression of that idea.
"Let me explain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up." None of us posting can
implicitly lose our copyright. That being said, you can't copyright a game
rule, just the way you explain that rule. Jon can freely use the ideas posted
in this forum, with or without an implicitly stated loss of rights.
This is true of Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and the other
nations that belong to the Berne Convention for copyright.
> At 03:29 PM 1/31/97 +0000, you wrote:
> those. Thanks for passing it on. Hmm. Maybe a revision is needed a
See my note on copyright. It really is a non-issue. However, the fact
that you never got that message means that there is a precident for someone
being on the list and not being aware of postings becoming the property of
GZG.
> What was the exact decision regarding having representatives from GZG
This is all covered in the auto message that gets sent to subscribers.
Basically anyone who subscribes agrees to let all posting be used by GZG.
> TTFN
regards gent
---
Slums may well be breeding-grounds of crime,
but middle-class suburbs are incubators of apathy and delirium.
****************************************
Allan,
Thanks for clarifying the position re copyright. Its your wife who's the
lawyer isn't it? Thanks to both of you. In fact, what you outlined in your
psot is exactly what Jon and I have been doing since the list started. Jon is
a great guy for picking up an idea, or even several ideas and turning it into
a rule (or set of rules) that fit in with the rest of the game. Its a matter
of principle with him that he'll never use a rule "as writ". Problem solved, I
think.
> At 06:28 PM 2/14/97 +0200, you wrote:
Litigation clerk, actually. And a commissioner for taking affidavits (similar
to an American notary public). Her boss is a Barrister and Soliciter (in
Canada, lawyers are usually both, while in the US the two terms aren't used).
> Its a
Problem
> solved, I think.
I agree!