Restored: CGL Discussion THread Part 2 Options

[Stahlseele]

Ah, i see.
And the general tone of that posting wasn't too nice either.
By the way, sorry for helping to DDOS Dumpshock when this started ^^#

[Demonseed Elite]

Topps is the copyright owner. CGL is the licensee.

Topps didn't oversee my work, either. FASA did, and WizKids did. I signed no contract with any of them, nor with FanPro or CGL. The Court ruled that Topps "exercised control" through FASA and WizKids. Don't ask me how, since FASA was dead long before Topps bought WizKids...but that's the decision. By the same argument, Topps "exercises control" through CGL for both Battletech and Shadowrun.

Emphasis mine. There's the root of the problem. You signed no contract. You submitted work to them with no agreement as to compensation or exchange of copyright. So legally, you had much less of a leg to stand on from the start. And then by attempting to claim co-ownership of the entire intellectual property your work was part of, you were really stretching the legal concepts without much of a legal foundation. "On spec" lawsuits happen all the time in Hollywood, where people routinely submit screenplays to anyone who will read them and then might discover ten years later that a movie is coming out which sounds suspiciously like something they wrote. Sometimes a plaintiff will win one of these. Many times they will lose. You probably would have had more luck with your case had you argued for some sort of reasonable compensation for the work, and not co-ownership of the intellectual property. That's a real stretch.

The situation with the Shadowrun freelancers is different. They haven't done on-spec work. They have signed contracts with defined conditions, including the ability for the freelancers themselves to terminate the contracts (as some have done). If Topps or CGL attempts to claim ownership of material submitted after, and covered by, the contracts that CGL signed, I wish them luck. Most judges consider signed contracts binding.

Note that was the root of my falling out with CGL. In the case of the Manhattan e-book, the developer was expecting me to turn in drafts before I received my contract. I refused, because I did not want to end up in a situation like this.

[BTFreeLancer]

Note that was the root of my falling out with CGL. In the case of the Manhattan e-book, the developer was expecting me to turn in drafts before I received my contract. I refused, because I did not want to end up in a situation like this.

not to go into any specific detail, but isn't your ICA directly related to exactly how many words you submit? Ie, how can the contract be generated until a draft is submitted? I know I've been given provisional ICAs, only for the final draft to blow that out by 20-30% wordcount. Which then required another ICA, and made the original pointless. It just seems easier to base the ICA on the work actually submitted, rather than a runaround as the drafts are tweaked, edited, hacked and slashed. But maybe the SR side of the house does things differently <shrug>

products being published before receiving the ICA is another matter entirely though, and not going question any issue with that.

This post has been edited by BTFreeLancer: Mar 27 2010, 02:25 PM

[Patrick Goodman]

not to go into any specific detail, but isn't your ICA directly related to exactly how many words you submit? Ie, how can the contract be generated until a draft is submitted? I know I've been given provisional ICAs, only for the final draft to blow that out by 20-30% wordcount. Which then required another ICA, and made the original pointless. It just seems easier to base the ICA on the work actually submitted, rather than a runaround as the drafts are tweaked, edited, hacked and slashed. But maybe the SR side of the house does things differently <shrug>

products being published before receiving the ICA is another matter entirely though, and not going question any issue with that.

Well, I don't know how they hand out assignments over on the BT side of things, but I know when I was working with Mike M. at FASA on Target: Matrix, as a for-instance, he said (approximately; it's been a long time, and I don't remember the exact counts at the moment), "Hey, I like your Lone Star proposal, give me 4,000 words, and 2,000 for Azziewatch...love, love, love Azziewatch!" I was contracted for those 6,000 words for which I had been given an assignment.

This carried through to FanPro, when Rob told me for the original Running Wild (when it was still a 3rd edition book), "Say, Patrick, I like your approach to the Infected. Give me 8,000 words." I was working on those words, but hadn't received the contract because of the FanPro situation and the upcoming transition to 4th edition.

When Running Wild finally came back around under CGL, Peter Taylor told me, "Hey, Patrick, we've revived this book and I'd like you to do the Infected this time around as well. Give me 10,000 words." I was contracted for those 10,000 words, and actually had sent in my contract when it finally arrived before my final drafts. I wasn't given a lot of wiggle room; I had 10K words, and when my initial draft blew past that by about 15%, I had to whittle it down.

Granted, my situation isn't typical, I'm sure, just because of the limited volume of my output, but my contracts with FASA, WizKids, and CGL have always come to me before the submission of my final drafts. And they've always been for a specific number of words...no more, no less.

[Jhaiisiin]

... my contracts with FASA, WizKids, and CGL have always come to me before the submission of my final drafts. And they've always been for a specific number of words...no more, no less.

Ah ha!! Now we find the reason for missing/extra word "typos"! (I kid!)

[Demonseed Elite]

Patrick pretty much summed it up. Our ICAs are for specific word counts and that's what we're paid for. If I hand in more words than that, I'm not expecting to be paid for them. In fact, usually the developer asks me to cut the extra word count before the final draft (and if I don't cut it, they will). None of that bothers me in the least, that's all part of the contract.

[LurkerOutThere]

The contracts sound cut and dry and equitable, of course that all implies that both sides hold up their end of the bargain which is the main problem in this instance.

[Patrick Goodman]

Ah ha!! Now we find the reason for missing/extra word "typos"! (I kid!)

I know you're kidding, but the truth is that this is quite often the case. Sometimes it's the author's fault (somewhere along the line in "The Infected" in Running Wild, for instance, I trimmed a couple of words about a vampire's allergy to sunlight that made a whole lot of difference in how some things could be interpreted), sometimes it's the developer's fault (a couple of things got changed around and cut in Azziewatch for Target: Matrix that were either Mike's or Rob's call, but weren't in the submitted final draft). Sometimes they're just typos, and sometimes they can have some pretty profound effects.

And it's all because there's only so many words you can fit into a given space, and the writers are only contracted for those finite number of words. It's a funky business, I'm telling you.

[Keats]

Jhaislin sent me a PM saying that the letter was only supposed to go to the freelancers. My friend who showed it to me isn't a freelancer, so I don't know.

[Dwight]

Jhaislin sent me a PM saying that the letter was only supposed to go to the freelancers. My friend who showed it to me isn't a freelancer, so I don't know.

If you tell even one person a secret then it isn't a secret anymore.

[Stahlseele]

Jhaislin sent me a PM saying that the letter was only supposed to go to the freelancers. My friend who showed it to me isn't a freelancer, so I don't know.

Ah, so it's only he said/he said 3rd hand rumors then.

[Keats]

Jason told me that the letter was only for freelancers. I think the letter is accurate but I won't talk about it.

[Method]

Jason or Jhaislin? Is that Jhaislin's real name or are you talking about Jason Hardy?

[Keats]

Jason or Jhaislin? Is that Jhaislin's real name or are you talking about Jason Hardy?

Jhaislin said it to me, then Jason Hardy sent me a PM.

[Jhaiisiin]

Here I was trying to be discreet and *not* let on that I knew something that wasn't supposed to be public knowledge and I get outed anyway.

Thanks a lot, Keats. Now I hope you haven't caused problems elsewhere.

Next time I try to be diplomatic about people giving out info they shouldn't, I'll keep my fucking trap shut.

EDIT: For clarification, I sent him a PM telling him the alleged letter was addressed to freelancers and thus not an "open letter." Jason Hardy may have similarly sent a pm, I wouldn't know.

[Stahlseele]

No two people can hold a secret.
If two people know, it's allready not a secret anymore.

[Synner]

Which, y'know, I sort of came up with from square one.

Well... I might have had a hand in moving you from the original template idea to the current format. But, yeah, you did the grunt work on PACKs.

[Jhaiisiin]

True. One has to choose to be dishonest at some point. I was trying to take the honest option. Apparently I should have also chosen the "don't get involved" option. Guess that's a lesson learned.

[Keats]

I did not mean to upset you Jhaislin. My apologies. The letter did not say to not distribute it, and was given to me by a friend. Jason Hardy told me that only the freelancers are to know.

[OneTrikPony]

I did not mean to upset you Jhaislin. My apologies. The letter did not say to not distribute it, and was given to me by a friend. Jason Hardy told me that only the freelancers are to know.

HAhA! guess were all freelancers now. Sweet! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

These two, Keats and Jhaiisiin, are either running a well played game or we now have confirmation that the "Colemans" did take the money. This is fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[KnightRunner]

Loosely related comments, conjecture, a quite possible ramblings.

1. Consider it good advise in life to do your best to protect yourself legally in any situation. This applies doubly to those situations when you think it is not necessary.

(I currently own my house, do to my insisting on a signed contract for a lease-to-own agreement. Even though the owner was an old family friend. 4 years later the owner tried to sell the house, heck he did sell it, signed a contract and everything. Fortunately for us we had our signed documents and were able to keep the house and retain our option to buy at the original contract price. Paid $20 dollars for that contract at a Staples. Best $20 I ever spent.)

So while it seems like the poster probably should have been treated more fairly, I have a hard time mustering sympathy. A contract would have saved him a lot of grief.

2. As for the current situation with CGL and its owners. I respect peoples right to keep their mouths shut. I am certain there are people on this forum who know more than they are saying. I just happen to understand that what they know may not be their information to give. Although I admit to a hefty amount of curiosity. My guess is, assuming a certain amount of truth in the rumors, is that the situation will be made clearer in legal documents that come out of future legal action.

3. I have never been at ease with the current status of the Shadowrun (and Battletech) IP's. The IP's are too small in value for me to trust that Topps will keep them around. Not that I am accosting Topps. I am just pointing out the reality that it would be too easy for them to sit on the IP's and do nothing. Much like I tend to accumulate junk in my shop. My hope is that they continue licensing out the IP's, but I can only imagine that a rabid and overly litigious fanbase who not be an incentive for them to do so.

[BishopMcQ]

I can confirm that yes, there are several peopl on the boards who have a much better understanding of the facts. My primary motivation for not posting recently as much as I have in the past is to stay out of lines of fire. This is Shadowrun, take cover and eliminate targets of opportunity rather than expose yourself to cross-fire.

Yes, Randall Bills sent a letter to all of the freelancers through the line developers. If a freelancer was under NDA and told that the contents of the letter were confidential, then it could be viewed as willful violation of the NDA to share that information. If there is no NDA on file for the freelancer, that argument would be moot. Without knowing which freelancers did or did not share the letter, I cannot state if it was a violation of the NDA.

-Stephen

[emouse]

Wow! Just when you think this thread is petering out, BAM! One-two!

It's at least reassuring to hear that CGL is in touch with the freelancers and sounds like they're being up-front with them.

I have never been at ease with the current status of the Shadowrun (and Battletech) IP's. The IP's are too small in value for me to trust that Topps will keep them around.

Battletech and Shadowrun = free money. No publicly owned corp is going to give up free money. How much effort does Topps have to put into it? Take the checks to the bank and sign them? The licenses were originally part of the 'WizKids package' until Topps realized that Catalyst's business plan essentially revolves around them paying a cash sum to Topps every three years indefinitely. Maybe, if Catalyst goes away, Topps will sit on them until someone else comes along and waves some money in their face. The question then will just be 'license or buy?' The sad thing is that the hope was Catalyst might be able to make a pitch to buy one or both licenses from Topps, but that seems a lot less likely now.

[emouse]

If there is no NDA on file for the freelancer, that argument would be moot. Without knowing which freelancers did or did not share the letter, I cannot state if it was a violation of the NDA.

I've been under NDA with a game company, not Catalyst. I knew that anything I learned about the company from any source other than "it's on the web site" was probably under the NDA, unless it said to let the public know.

Still have some cool pics and stuff I can never show anyone. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleepy.gif)

So yeah, depends on what kind of NDA was in effect, if any.

Doesn't mean it's still not murky though. At one point I was privvy to information that was very definitely under NDA. About a month later at a gaming convention, the company rep casually talks about the same stuff with volunteers who are definitely not NDA. The info wasn't really particularly sensitive at that point I guess, but that rep also was not connected to that particular product line for much longer.

[Tycho]

just upload them at wikileaks (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)