From: HDHale@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:05:57 -0400
Subject: Re: IG FAQ, 10/14/96

Preface: I am not a lawyer, but I do know a fair amount about copyright law.

Joe Walsh writes:
>> Which means they can use any material I place on my web site WITHOUT
>> paying me?  I hope not.  Seriously though, am I right in my
>> interpretation of this writing?  Say I put a starship up on my page
>> (using T4 rules), and have the proper copyright information on it.
>> This means that IG can come along and use it for whatever they want,
>> because they own it?
>
>Not necessarily.  *FFE* could come along and use it.  You see, you are 
>building on AND REFERENCING a property of FarFuture Enterprises.  Without 
>FFE, you wouldn't HAVE a product/article/whatever. 

   Wrong.  Actually the correct interpretation goes something like this:  all
original work belongs to its creator, unless the creator gives up the rights
to it, in which case the rights (and thus the work) belong to the owner of
the rights.

   That is why if Imperium Games publishes your adventure in JTAS, they must
purchase it from you first, even though it is based upon Marc Miller's
copyrighted work.  If IG decided to go the route that Traveller Chronicle
went, the rights to the material are temporarily surrendered for the purposes
for publication.  After that, the copyright reverts back to the author. 

   If IG told you differently, they need to consult a copyright attorney.

>To get around this, you have to get a Letter of Permission from FFE, or 
>pay for a License.  

   This is true in cases where you are going to be using someone else's
copyrighted material on an ongoing basis, such as for a Web site, for a
magazine.

>Why?  Without enforcing those rules, FFE could LOSE it's Trademark and 
>Copyrights!  That's the way the law works.

   The law states that any *original* material you produce belongs to *you*
and that it is up to *you* to enforce the copyright.  THere have been cases
where the national government of a given country has helped copyright holders
in enforcing copyrights (such as the U.S. government's intervention on behalf
of software makers with the PRC regarding software piracy, but the government
(in the U.S. at least) is under no obligation to do so.

>Xerox has to VIROROUSLY pursue those who say their photocopiers
>"xerox."  Similar for Kimberly-Clark and their trademark "Kleenex."  

   Xerox won this case by the way, even though the word "xerox" has actually
come into common usage.

>Let's say FFE let people use the Traveller trademark, and produce 
>products (even not for sale) for free, and continue owning those 
>products.  Then let's say I come along and produce a product, say it is 
>for Traveller, and start selling it without paying FFE a license fee.  If 
>Marc hauled me into court over it, I could point to all the people he let 
>slide, and say that Traveller was no longer a Trademark, but rather it 
>was in the public domain - a generic name - because he let others use it 
>without paying a license fee.  I would almost certainly WIN, and be 
>allowed to sell my "Traveller" products without paying Marc.

   Actually it depends.  If the people using the Traveller name did so only
with permission, and then you did your bit without permission, he could still
sue you.

>In short, it doesn't mean IG and FFE/Marc Miller are jerks - they HAVE to 
>treat it that way if they want to retain their legal rights.

   Neither IG or FFE/Marc Miller has the right to claim any original work by
someone else, even if it is based on their copyrighted material, as their
own.  They *could* sue someone for using copyrighted material without
permission, but that is the extent to wish they can pursue it.

>Hope this clears it up.

   I'm afraid you may have instead created a firestorm.  Welcome to the wide,
wide world of Public Relations.  You may want to invest in a fireproof suit
in the near future....

>PS: I personally doubt it that FFE/IG would publish someone's work 
>without at least asking permission. (My personal opinion, mind you.)  But, 
>legally, yes, you are correct - anything with the Traveller name on it 
>is either MM's property, or he has licensed it to be made.  There  can 
>be no in-between, legally speaking.

   Not exactly.  Once again, Marc Miller retains the rights to the Traveller
name and any associated copyrighted material, *but* as stated previously, any
*original* work still belongs to the author, not to Marc Miller/FFE.  

   Of course to *publish* any work based on MM's copyrighted material
requires at least a letter of permission, something that this mail list has. 

------------------------------

From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:32:47 -0400
Subject: IG's Copyright Stance

Repeat after me..."IMPERIUM GAMES IS NOT TSR...IMPERIUM GAMES IS NOT TSR..."

        Seriously, while IG I'm sure has no desire to make any of the fans
angry, they have to protect their copyrights. That is an unfortunate fact of
legal life. The disclaimer is a way to do that. While it TECHNICALLY means
that FFE owns anything we write that uses Traveller as it's basis (which is
fine with me, by the way), I'm sure they would not publish something without
at least giving credit. I don't write the stuff I've posted for money. If IG
likes my work and wants to ask me for something that they will pay me for,
that would be great, but that's not what I write the things I write for.
        If you really are concerned about making money from your Traveller
related materials, don't post them! IG isn't responsible for unsolicited
material. I thought (and I HOPE) that this forum and associated Web pages
are for the FREE discussion of Traveller and related subjects.
                                        Allen                               

------------------------------

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:49:10 PST
Subject: Re: IG FAQ, 10/14/96

> Imperium Games FAQ                                        October 14, 1996
> Q.  What is IG's copyright policy in regards to original works posted to 
> the Traveller Mailing List, WWW sites, and/or Usenet?
>
> A.  Just include "Traveller is a Registered Trademark of FarFuture 
> Enterprises.  Copyright (c) 1996" in the document, and IG will be fine 
> with it.  Be aware that this makes your work the property of FFE, though.

Not unless you put "FarFuture Enterprises" after the "Copyright 1996".

The usual intent of a notice like this is twofold. By acknowledging the
trademark, you help them protect it. The copyright notice (with *your*
name) just establishes that it's a copyrighted work, and that folks
need permission to re-publish it, *especially* if they are going to
*alter* it. That helps protect Far Future's rights also, because it
keeps people from thinking that they can lift details out for their own
use (if it wasn't copyrighted, they could!)

BTW, you either use "copyright <year>", "<copyright symbol> <year>" or
"copyright <copyright symbol> <year>" with the copyright owner's name
following. The third form is considered rather silly. The copyright
symbol *must* be a complete circle around the c to be legally valid. So
"(c)" is a waste of time.

So would you please check and see whether Far Future is requiring that
there simply be a copyright notice, or that the copyright actually be
assigned to them.

I'm willing to bet it's the former, not the latter.

------------------------------

From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 96 16:30:12 -0500
Subject: Re: IG Trademark Policy

On 10/15/96 at 08:15 AM,  Joe Walsh <ransom@connect.iconnect.net> said:
>Okay.  Let's not argue about it.  I'm just relaying what Ken Whitman said 
>to me.  I asked him what the official policy was regarding new rules, 
>equipment, deck plans, etc. for Traveller which were posted to UseNET, 
>TML, and/or a web site.  And he told me exactly what is in the FAQ.

I agree arguing won't do any good.  However, this is an important point
that should be cleared up.  A great deal of bad blood was brewed over the
actual and precieved polcies of TSR in this area.  I fully understand FFE
and IG's need to protect their rights, but there is a fine line to walk
here between protecting their rights and freezing out fan participation.
                                                       
YOU shouldn't try to state IG or FFE's policy in this area, because you
aren't offical.  Ken and Marc *need* to do it!

I *hope* their position will be somewhat more liberal and fan
friendly than certain other companies.  Either way, this is an issue that
won't go away, and will get ugly if it isn't dealt with.

------------------------------

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 17:52:10 PST
Subject: Re: IG FAQ, 10/14/96

> On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, The Golem wrote:
>> Which means they can use any material I place on my web site WITHOUT paying
>> me?  I hope not.  Seriously though, am I right in my interpretation of this
>> writing.  Say I put a starship up on my page (using T4 rules), and have the
>> proper copyright information on it.  This means that IG can come along and
>> use it for whatever they want, because they own it?
>
> Not necessarily.  *FFE* could come along and use it.  You see, you are 
> building on AND REFERENCING a property of FarFuture Enterprises.  Without 
> FFE, you wouldn't HAVE a product/article/whatever.  
>
> To get around this, you have to get a Letter of Permission from FFE, or 
> pay for a License.  
>
> Why?  Without enforcing those rules, FFE could LOSE it's Trademark and 
> Copyrights!  That's the way the law works.

Sorry, they can lose their trademarks. They *cannot* lose their
copyrights. The laws involved *quite* different.

> Xerox has to VIROROUSLY pursue those who say their photocopiers
> "xerox."  Similar for Kimberly-Klark and their trademark "Kleenex."  In 
> private conversaton is one thing, but once it is public - ie, Puffs (TM) 
> calling their products "Kleenex" - there is a legal problem, whether the 
> TM owner wants to face it or not.

Aspirin was a trademark and is the classic example of losing one thru
failure to protect. And I thought that Kleenex had lost trademark
status long ago?

> Let's say FFE let people use the Traveller trademark, and produce 
> products (even not for sale) for free, and continue owning those 
> products.  Then let's say I come along and produce a product, say it is 
> for Traveller, and start selling it without paying FFE a license fee.  If 
> Marc hauled me into court over it, I could point to all the people he let 
> slide, and say that Traveller was no longer a Trademark, but rather it 
> was in the public domain - a generic name - because he let others use it 
> without paying a license fee.  I would almost certainly WIN, and be 
> allowed to sell my "Traveller" products without paying Marc.

As long as the people *referring to* the Traveller trademark include
mention that it *is* a trademark, the trademark status is not in
danger. It's allowing people to use your trademark as if it was a
generic term that can lose you the trademark.

And as far as copyright goes, you are free to let some people use your
copyrighted material for free and insist that others pay for it. That's
your option and has no effect on your copyright.

What you do have to worry about is people releasing *Public domain*
material that incoroprates your copyrighted work. That's why (for
example) Borland requires you to either put *your* copyright on
software produced with their compilers or include a notice indicating
that your program contains code copyrighted by them.

> In short, it doesn't mean IG and FFE/Marc Miller are jerks - they HAVE to 
> treat it that way if they want to retain their legal rights.

I suspect that the statement Joe made needs a bit of fine tuning. There
are things that FFE needs to do. But they cannot require us to assign
them rights in *our* creations. They can no more market something I
write that is based on the Traveller rules *without* my permission than
I can market it without *their* permission.

> PS: I personally doubt it that FFE/IG would publish someone's work 
> without at least asking permission. (My personal opinion, mind you.)  But, 
> legally, yes, you are correct - anything with the Traveller name on it 
> is either MM's property, or he has licensed it to be made.  There  can 
> be no in-between, legally speaking.

Sorry, there *is* a middle ground. They cannot stop me from writing
anything I please. They can stop me from publishing it, but even then,
if I have the money, I can take them to court claiming that my work is
not sufficiently derivative for them to claim that I'm infringing on
their copyright. The court decides.

And if they try to publish it without my permission, they *will* lose.
Because *I*, and *I* alone have copyright on the portions of the work
that are *not* taken from the rules & background. So unless they
acquire those rights from me, they are in trouble.

So the possibilities are:

1. exclusively their work
2. part theirs, part mine
3. exclusively mine

In case 2, I can license them to use my material, they can license me
to use theirs, or we can do some sort of joint venture. But for
*anyone* to publish the material *all* of the people with rights to it
have to be dealt with.

And if FFE or anybody else says I *must* assign my rights to them to
write anything usable with their game, *I* sure as hell won't write for
them. And it'll be because they'd be going *far* beyond what is
necessary to protect their rights.

------------------------------

From: Joe Walsh <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:56:01 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: More on the Copyright Issue.

I sent a letter to Marc Miller asking the following question:

[snip]
Are you, however, giving a blanket Letter of Permission to publish original 
Traveller works on the Internet, so long as the TM notice is included?  
That is, if a person publishes a derivative work on the Internet, 
receives no money for doing so, and has the TM notice in the document, is 
that document legally theirs?
[snip]

I'll let you know what his response is, as soon as I get it.

------------------------------

From: Joe Walsh <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 22:08:56 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: IG Copyright Issue

Hi folks,

What say we put the speculation on the back burner until Marc responds to 
my question?  

To re-iterate:  I reported exactly what Ken Whitman told me, including a 
fragment of the actual coversation, from my notes.  Subsequent 
speculation, by me as well as others, is just that: speculation.  Until 
we hear from Marc Miller, we don't really know what the policy is.

-Joe (who figures he won't need to turn on the furnace this winter, what 
with all the heat coming his way for free[G])

