| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Randal_Dundragon |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 06:07:49
Kinda miss the Candlekeep compendium, does anyone know if their going to be doing another one? the last one was in 2007 so im just wondering. |
| 22 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Quale |
Posted - 26 Aug 2009 : 12:02:16
I intended to ask the customer service, but from that other thread it seemed that the matter required more discussion and the approval from who's in charge here.
Personally I think wotc wouldn't do anything if you continue to release the compendiums and that you're being too careful. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 15:22:08
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
You know, all this mucking about isn't helping Wizards any. The more they throw junk into the gears the more old timers will turn away.
This ain't 4e bashing, merely stating the obvious. It's sad when you think about it. Plus, the way they are doing their thing with the internet-rules etc. it's very unlikely someone like Brian James will be discovered again.
Considering the way they've been operating of late, and the way they've stated certain things (like no criticism on fan sites, anything you put on their forums is theirs, the GSL that gave all benefits to them, etc), I'm actually a little surprised at his success. I think that if they'd found him now instead of a couple years ago, there's every possibility they would have simply taken his work without any compensation. |
| freyar |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 13:33:13
You know, given the first 9 Compendium volumes, I doubt the 10th could really make much of a difference in Candlekeep's legal position. On the other hand, I definitely understand the urge to be cautious.
I do find it hard to believe that WotC would want to shut Candlekeep down, as it takes quotes from Candlekeep to use as "mini-reviews" on the backs of Realms novels! Still, WotC does strange things sometimes. |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 11:43:18
You know, all this mucking about isn't helping Wizards any. The more they throw junk into the gears the more old timers will turn away.
This ain't 4e bashing, merely stating the obvious. It's sad when you think about it. Plus, the way they are doing their thing with the internet-rules etc. it's very unlikely someone like Brian James will be discovered again. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 08:02:24
Indeed. Interpreting law is always a difficult process. Unless it's specifically spelled out, about what can and cannot be done, it's dangerous to assume anything. |
| xaviera |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 06:41:35
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
If their policy is unclear, why not go ahead anyway? The worst you would have to do is remove stuff later.
You see, it really does depend on the exact wording of the Fan Site policy. After all, it might eventually contain provisions for retroactive clauses, for example.
I had that in the back of my mind while I was writing, hoping that such would not be the case. But we ~are~ talking about lawyers here, after all...  Oh, well. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 06:19:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wenin
I'm confused on how websites and publications like Kobold Quarterly are out there publishing material.... but Candlekeep is being extra cautious.
While the Compendium is produced by members of a fan site, it doesn't make the fan site. Wouldn't it fall under the existing 3.5 OGL and the 4.0 GSL?
Ashe has the right of it.. Basically, the main component of content here at Candlekeep is based on the FORGOTTEN REALMS intellectual property.
quote:
Now Candlekeep itself not having been updated for a year now, is understandably related to a Fan Site Policy from WoTC.
Most of the "Updates" on the main site don't specifically fall under the purview of the Fan Site policy, because they're mostly about products and/or novels released. As well as details about FR content uploaded to the FR website at WotC. Those updates are only lacking because Alaundo hasn't had the time to upload them to the site.
It's only when actual FR content is used as part of something here at Candlekeep, that the potential conflicts with the Fan Site policy could occur. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 04:09:18
It comes down to us using items in the Forgotten Realms IP, which is NOT on the 3.0/3.5 OGL or the 4.0 GSL. |
| Wenin |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 03:51:06
I'm confused on how websites and publications like Kobold Quarterly are out there publishing material.... but Candlekeep is being extra cautious.
While the Compendium is produced by members of a fan site, it doesn't make the fan site. Wouldn't it fall under the existing 3.5 OGL and the 4.0 GSL?
Now Candlekeep itself not having been updated for a year now, is understandably related to a Fan Site Policy from WoTC.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 01:33:24
quote:
Originally posted by Randal_Dundragon
Huh, interesting... Well thats nice to know i guess, and a little irritating at the same time. Guess ill just have to wait i suppose, and sage, good luck on the letter.
Indeed. I've received some pertinent input from a number of legal aficionados, so I'm hopeful that I've got my point across in the letter.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Aug 2009 : 01:13:16
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The problem is that we already exist at WotC's sufferance. If we do something they decide violates their IP, then they could shut us down. They've already shut down a couple of sites for doing that. So we need to tread carefully until we know exactly what we can and can't do.
They already closed down some sites? Which ones?
*shrugs* I can't name them off the top of my head; I wasn't familiar with them. As I understand it, one had something that was pretty much a direct copy of their action cards for 4E, and another was a character sheet site that was asking for money. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 23:15:24
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The problem is that we already exist at WotC's sufferance. If we do something they decide violates their IP, then they could shut us down. They've already shut down a couple of sites for doing that. So we need to tread carefully until we know exactly what we can and can't do.
They already closed down some sites? Which ones? |
| Randal_Dundragon |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 18:27:27
Huh, interesting... Well thats nice to know i guess, and a little irritating at the same time. Guess ill just have to wait i suppose, and sage, good luck on the letter. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 17:05:04
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Why not simply ask them? I know it sounds silly, but if you could contact WOTC and present the project, they would be able to answer directly, and the case would be closed (and candlekeep still open), for better or for worse, no?
I've actually been in the process of writing up a lengthy letter for Wizards which would address this matter directly. I'm just waiting on some particulars from other private channels.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 17:04:15
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
If their policy is unclear, why not go ahead anyway? The worst you would have to do is remove stuff later. Include more now and remove that which is not permitted at a future date, rather than waiting for that unspecified future date to publish that lesser amount anyway.
Yes. But the problem with that is, even if we removed the information later, it could still cause legal problems for Candlekeep.
You see, it really does depend on the exact wording of the Fan Site policy. After all, it might eventually contain provisions for retroactive clauses, for example. And that could potentially affect the function of the site based on whatever parts of Wizards IP we may have featured here -- regardless of whether we've removed it or not. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 15:10:02
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Why not simply ask them? I know it sounds silly, but if you could contact WOTC and present the project, they would be able to answer directly, and the case would be closed (and candlekeep still open), for better or for worse, no?
We've had a couple of people say they were going to do that, but either they've not done so, or they've yet to receive a response. |
| Kilvan |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 14:47:31
Why not simply ask them? I know it sounds silly, but if you could contact WOTC and present the project, they would be able to answer directly, and the case would be closed (and candlekeep still open), for better or for worse, no? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 14:33:36
quote:
Originally posted by xaviera
If their policy is unclear, why not go ahead anyway? The worst you would have to do is remove stuff later. Include more now and remove that which is not permitted at a future date, rather than waiting for that unspecified future date to publish that lesser amount anyway.
The problem is that we already exist at WotC's sufferance. If we do something they decide violates their IP, then they could shut us down. They've already shut down a couple of sites for doing that. So we need to tread carefully until we know exactly what we can and can't do. |
| xaviera |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 13:57:41
If their policy is unclear, why not go ahead anyway? The worst you would have to do is remove stuff later. Include more now and remove that which is not permitted at a future date, rather than waiting for that unspecified future date to publish that lesser amount anyway. |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 13:17:36
Of course, WoTC's policy of deliberate ambiguity is working well at creating a chilling effect, meaning that things like the Compendium don't get released. I don't think WoTC will clear up that ambiguity anytime soon either. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 10:04:42
Indeed. It's all still kind of a "gray area" in terms of the legalities surrounding what we can and cannot include in the Compendium. Until we know for sure, it's probably best to hold back any future releases.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Aug 2009 : 07:13:33
We're waiting to find out if we can do one. We were waiting on the Fan Site Policy, but that answered absolutely zero questions about whether or not we'd be allowed to keep doing them.  |
