Umm...

[ffutures]

For a VERY long time the first two lines of the Forgotten Futures rules have been:

This document is copyright, but you are encouraged to make copies and print-outs as needed. You may make modifications for your own use, but modified versions MUST NOT be distributed.

A little later the last paragraph of the introduction ends:

If you dislike this approach please feel free to amend the injury system, but please DO NOT distribute modified rules.

Is there anything in that which could in any way be interpreted as saying that it's OK to put a modified version of the rules on line? Before bothering to ask my permission??

Small clarification: The person concerned got round to asking me after doing it. Amongst other reasons to object, although he's linked to my original version the modified version omits my name and copyright information. The modifications seem to consist of changing the names of a couple of skills and adding a couple more, and are mostly cosmetic. I would not be objecting at all if he'd simply linked to my rules and posted a summary of the changes he was making for his campaign, but not an edited version of the whole bloody game.

I'll respond properly to comments this evening - right now I have to go shopping.

and another - I was wrong, my name and copyright info is still there, he's changed the layout a bit and I didn't notice.

Comments

[laney-1974.livejournal.com]

At first glance I would say no.

However, after rereading it, I notice that there is nothing there that says posting it online is prohibited. It all comes down to the definition of 'distribute'. Did you put a definition of what you consider to mean 'distribute'? Since your main method of distribution of this game is online, it should be obvious. But we all know that not everyone sees the obvious. To some, distribute may be emailing out copies of the modified rules but posting it on your blog or website might not be.

Did that make sense?

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

'Distribution' has a normal, everyday meaning, and it placing something freely available online falls squarely within it.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I think the key is in the word "distributed." If you put your head on one side, squint really hard and hold your breath, eventually you fall over, but in the few seconds just before that it can seem that "distributed" could mean "sold" or "made money from." And putting something online isn't making money from it, is it? So that's all right. Except it isn't, of course.

You need simpler language. "Given to anyone else not personally known to you and without this condition being imposed on them," maybe. You have to allow people to play with the modified rules, or else there's no point in allowing the mods, but mods have to stay inside the group that made them.

Does that make sense?

EDIT: oh. Snap.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

Distibute - spread it out, give it to other people. Distribute implies freely, like largesse to the crowd, or free newspapers. The word distribute in no way carries any sense of for profit in it. That would be 'sell' or 'distribute for profit'.

There is absolutely no excuse for assuming that 'distribute' does not include 'put it on line to be shared by lots of people' - a one word description of 'put it on line to be shared by lots of people' is 'distribute'.

I can see someone thinking that putting their 'group' modifications online where the group can access them being fine within the original instructions - but I would think this would only be acceptable if no-one else can access it. In LJ terms I would think a closed community where something is members only, and the only members are the players from that group would probably not seem to be 'distibuting' the changes made for that particular game. Sticking them on an open journal post would be a form of distribution.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's about what I was thinking when I wrote that; if you want to use a modified version of the game, you give it to the players individually, you don't put it on line. I'd accept a closed community too, if it was genunely closed.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

No. Basically. Shoot them.

[epocalypse.livejournal.com]

I'm not an expert but I've seen several such arguments before.

Such is copyright law as regards game rules that unless someone is either using your copyright (ie directly quoting your text or stating that these are XXX rules by ML Rowland) or impinging on your trademarks there is nothing to stop them putting up modified rules.

Game mechanics cannot be copyright.

On the other hand it is bad manners not to consult first.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know who you heard the arguments from, but that is not the case. Tweaking someone else's work and reproducing it is 'creating a derivative work' and that is clear copyright infringement. It's true that a fundamental game mechanic can't be copyrighted, as that is an idea and copyright protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. However, a set of game rules are the expression of an idea and would need to be very substantially transformed before they were so far from the original that there was no longer copyright protection.

(Disclosure: I have a degree in law, am studying for a postgraduate degree in intellectual property law, and have a particular interest in how IP law applies to gaming, fanfic and other such areas.)

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

He hasn't just copied the mechanics - he's changed a few words here and there, but it's about 95% or more my original text.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

1) This is clearly illegitimate - it is creation and distribution of an unauthorised derivative work, and is something you have expressly forbidden people to do.

2) As a first step, I'd recommend politely emailing the person in question, reminding them of the constraint, and asking them to take the material down right away.

3) If they don't comply, find out where it's being hosted. If it's in the USA or Europe, you should be able to make a takedown request to the relevant ISP.

[darransims.livejournal.com]

Yeah, start out nice and polite with them first. If that gets no results then take more drastic action. Make sure you follow it through.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Pretty much what I've done.

[epocalypse.livejournal.com]

All works are derivative per Nova vs. Mazooma 2006 (Chancery Courts and Courts of Appeal). Copyright is there to protect expression, not ideas. A derivative work is defined by the inclusion of previously copyrighted material.

It could be argued that Forgotten Futures is derivative of several works, TriStat (more likely derived from FF), GURPS, Space 1889. It is all a matter of what is being distributed. If they are saying "here are some alternative damage rules suitable for FF" then they are supplemental and not breaching copyright. See Allen vs. Academic Games USA 1996 and TSR vs Mayfair Games USA 1993.

For a British example you can look to the fact that the notoriously litigious Games Workshop have never sought to pursue the maker of a free SF/Horror adaption of their Warhammer FRP game despite having full knowledge of it.

Still, bad show not consulting first.

[epocalypse.livejournal.com]

Ooh I missed the clarification. Sounds like a clear copyright breach. Take 'em down.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

I've sent a basic "sorry, no" email, telling him to limit what he posts to the changes. If that doesn't produce results I'll give one more warning then contact the ISP.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Um - yes and no. Nova v Mazooma and the similar case of Navitaire v Easyjet centred on whether or not copyright was infringed by software that produced the same or similar effect as the original but without copying any of the source code. In game terms, I would argue that that would equate to coming up with a new set of rules that resulted in a game mechanic that felt very similar to the original, and I agree that this would be very unlikely to constitute infringement.

But here, as I understand it, Marcus is complaining that his rules have been reproduced but with amendments. If it is the case that someone has produced an addendum which provides alternative rules and distributed it alongside the original, then I agree that there is no infringement. But he says that the other party has "put a modified version of the rules on line" and I take that as meaning that a derivative work, not a supplement, has been created.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

It's at least 95% my original text, with little changes here and there.

What gets me about all this is that the much more radical rewrite of the game rules I've had to do for the Tooth and Claw RPG could be summarised fairly easily in say 10 pages - this guy's changes could fit on two. There is really no need to put an unauthorised version of the whole game on line.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

My experience has been that people are often unclear on the meaning of technical terms—and both "distribute" and "publish" are technical terms. In copyright law, making one copy and giving it to one other person counts as publishing—you are making it public—but many people hear "publish" and think that means being a publisher in the industrial sense, and then if they're only giving out a few copies, or not doing it for money, they think it doesn't apply to them. And "distribute" also has an agent noun, "distributor," which again refers to a business (which many people will read as "a large business"). This is sort of a prototype effect, where people relate a word to the prototype example of the concept and don't think about the borderline cases or where the exact boundary is.

In other words, I think that by the exact dictionary definition of the words, what you said was completely clear. But by the way people often use language, not so much. Writers and editors often use language much more precisely, and with more attention to full ranges of meaning, than other people do.

A "plain English" version would be "You can make changes for your own personal use, but don't give copies of the changed version to other people, or make it available for people to download." In other words, instead of an abstract verb that logically includes the actions you want to stop, name the actions you want to stop. Yes, it's paranoid, but this is why lawyers write documents with long lists of things you must do or may not do: to cover the client's ass.

You could add, "If you want your players to use a modified version, write up a summary of your modifications only and hand that out to them." Or something like that.

In other words, all the stuff you've explained to use about where you draw the line (which mostly is common sense, for us) could go into what you publish.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

It's going to be in there from now on - I'm in the process of adding it to the PDF for the next release now, and once I have this situation a bit more sorted I will be posting something to my web sites. Basically I'm not complaining if someone does it for their own use, or for a restricted group of players - I am complaining if it goes on line generally.