I guess it make sense. Still, it would be cool if those that were in favor of the commercial license could speak on that issue. They are the one most affected by this.
And what do you think about the campaign setting idea ?
I kinda thought that's what we were doing once you enlightened my mind that it was more than maps. Are we not making a campaign setting? I don't think you can do world building without automatically doing the other. Or are you looking for something more specific?
Yes that is the aim, it's the direction I want to go. And if the goal is to make a coherent campaign setting, is it possible to ask for the commercial rights in advance, only for this specific matter?
I'm not saying it will happen but it would be good to have that possibility.
Saying: I would like to publish a campaign setting maybe, eventually ... It's not very specific. If we would do it, we might need more information than that.
Last edited by Azélor; 09-07-2014 at 04:50 PM.
Ah I see what you are saying. Perhaps. Perhaps make a caveat that all materials is understood to be released for use in case we ever publish a comprehensive campaign setting. Also need to ensure that the proceeds will be divided equally among the contributors used in the package after costs are covered.
That's what I was thinking.
- the term copyright broad sound confusing: look more like a legislature since copyrights is not really what they are dealing with. We could name it assembly or council instead. Yea, supreme council.
- People outside of the board can decide on copyright issues if they are concerned. Board members only have a say if their work is involved?
- how it work: The first step is to submit the project to the community. Even if the person is publishing her own work, the community need to be informed. In that case, it's just a formality. When the project is bigger and include more than one author, a vote is usually required. After the project is submitted, the concerned authors will need to express their approval or disapproval of the project. There are no time limit for the authors the express themselves, refusal or simply a lack of answer means he can't publish it or need to publish only the content to which the authors agreed
Once something enters the project, either an image or a full-fledged idea, it become ( part of the campaign setting project). If the content is, for some reason rejected, it can't be used in the project or any derivative work on it without the consent of the author.
Definition loosely based on the Wikipedia page:
A campaign setting is a fictional world which serves as a setting for adventures to take place in role-playing game, or for story telling.
Usually a campaign setting is designed for a specific game or a specific genre of game (such as Medieval fantasy, or outer space/science fiction adventure).
Examples of campaign setting: List of campaign settings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We could make it mandatory to agree to a possible future campaign setting publication for every piece of art submitted. Everything submitted is subject to be part of it. I don't know if this will happen, it's hard to judge what I need to add on this. Royalties could go partially to the Guild and the rest, divided among contributors. According to their contribution or equally distributed? What about old members that are off the radar ? they also deserve some of it. It could be made their responsibility to at least keep some contact with the project.
One problem I see with the actual license we have now is that anyone can publish stuff under the NC license, and they don't even require permission do do so. They could publish the whole setting.
Maybe it should be made impossible to redistribute more than x of the project or make redistribution rights the privilege of the contributers? I mean, if they want to share their derivative works, they can but need the approval of the original author.
If they want to share it without asking the consent of the author they can simply join the project.
What about the privilege of the contributers? could they publish a work on which they don't have the rights even if it's NC without asking?
We aren't using NC or any other creative commons copyrights, we decided they didn't work for us way earlier in the thread. The CWBP 2 has fully control of the copyright with contributors having final say over their specific work if they want to prevent something they made from being published. We will need their assent to publish anything, if there is no response from them we must assume we don't have it and either not publish that work or remake it. All materials contributed to the project however are freely available to project members. Becoming a project member merely requires that one participate, by making something or contributing something. The CWBP 2 is collectively "owned" by its members.
If we publish we can work out the details then, but I think the proceeds should be distributed (after covering costs) equally to any of the contributes with finished material in the package. ie if you wrote and finished a story and it was included in the package, or you made a map, you'd receive a split of the profits. So this would exclude those who only made foundational material that other stuff is based on, but wasn't actually included in the package. So for instance if we (Azelor and myself) decided not to actually publish the world map and neither of us did anything else that was actually finished enough to make it in the product we would not be compensated despite the fact that other things that were included were based off of our world (assuming we weren't editing or doing some other contribution towards publication).
Last edited by Falconius; 09-10-2014 at 02:26 PM. Reason: Added a hell of a lot.
by using NC I mean: someone sharing a derivative work for free, obviously.
So, we do not allow derivative work for people outside the project.
And those inside the project can use the material as they like as long as it stays in the project otherwise they need the approval of the author(s) even if it's not to make money.
Is that better ?
They'd need the approval of the Supreme Council, as it is the CWBP 2 that owns the rights. We would likely not have to vote on such an issue unless someone objects though, so it would just be a formality.
Reply With Quote
