Guardians of the Faith, a PDF VTES Set by PCK

KevinM - I had no intention to obfuscate the issue, and apologize if that was the effect of my words. Rather, to ameliorate what is already an unfortunate situation that has resulted in bad blood and continues to garner negativity on and from all sides. If you honestly feel that my words misrepresented the situation or were truly that egregious, let me know and I will delete my previous posting.

Brettscho,
I accept your word that you didn't intend to suggest what your words stated.

But you must understand that there was nothing publicly stated about the PCK-related Design Team problems until they went public and initiated their schizm. The Design Team leader has said nothing publicly ever about this issue, even though people keep asking him to do so. On the one hand, I wish that he would, but on the other hand, it may just add more fuel to the fire.

I'm not suggesting that the Design Team leader and/or Johannes don't have some blame in this -- in fact, I've said the opposite. But if there's any "bad blood", it's clearly due to the continued ripping off of scabs on the part of PCK, don't you think?

fr.ex. What happens if a PDF or printed set is released and none of their cards are included, as appears to be suggested? What will be their reaction? More scab-ripping?

fr.ex. What happens if they choose to keep designing set after set after set, throwing their cards up here on the forum, continually asserting copyright, reminding us of this awful time in our game's history?

No one would have cared if they had posted their cards here and told the community and/or the VEKN they were giving the cards back to the community. Honestly, I think much could have been forgiven at that point, at least by me. But the egos involved demanded that they assign copyright to their work, ripping off scabs in the process.

Everything that the VEKN and the fans have done since CCCP dropped the game has been positive. Everything but this. I just wish this were all over and we could get back to having our dead game linger peacefully until it got picked up by a manufacturer again.

"slapping" a creative commons copyright on their documents should not be construed as an insult.

Any artist or writer is interested in sharing their work, at the same time they want (or need) to protect themselves from being exploited.

The purpose of a creative commons copyright is to say "it's ok to use and share this as long as you aren't making money or altering the content and passing it off as your own."

I'm sure if VEKN were interested in using their work, permission would be granted to alter the cards as necessary.

A problem could occur if PCK is using material that they were developing while working with the VEKN designated design group. Who owns the rights to the work they did while they were collaborating with a larger group?

Lets complicate this by the fact that a third party owns some or all of the intellectual property (such as the graphics and icons, clan names and sect names, etc.) Was there a contract (verbal or written) involving these volunteers? PCK has published their cards first, does this mean they have rights to the cardtext they published?

direwolf wrote:

"slapping" a creative commons copyright on their documents should not be construed as an insult.

Clearly, in this context, it absolutely is an insult, because a)it wasn't necessary, and b)it could have been left out.

Say to yourself out loud: "Why would PCK attach a copyright to their finished fan set?"

In context, there is only one possible answer to that question.

As an amateur game designer and someone who studied graphic design... When you publish something electronically it's a good idea to establish the rules for how your publication can be used. We live in an age where anything on the internet is fair game to be shared or altered.

Something that is physically published (I.E. a piece of writing, a picture or drawing, a music albumn) you can expect a certain amount of copyright protection from a copy of it being distributed on the internet.

In regards to something published on the internet, it has become common practice to establish copyright permissions. Just go to gamefaqs.com. Most FAQs listed on that sight have copyright disclaimers indicating who has permission to host the text, and disallowing it to be altered and distributed.

Look at flickr.com, a photo hosting/sharing website. Photos hosted on flickr include licensing information for every picture. Some photographers give more permissions for their pics than other.

a)it wasn't necessary, and b)it could have been left out.

I would like to point out that both of your points are redundant. By definition if it is unnecessary than it could have been left out.

In context, there is only one possible answer to that question.

I submit to you another possible answer to that question:
The reason PCK attached a copyright to their set is a reaction to the way they felt they were treated by VEKN. They don't want VEKN exploiting the work they volunteered for without getting due credit.

direwolf wrote:

I submit to you another possible answer to that question: The reason PCK attached a copyright to their set is a reaction to the way they felt they were treated by VEKN. They don't want VEKN exploiting the work they volunteered for without getting due credit.

I agree. Which is why it's a foolish supposition to grant PCK the benefit of kindness and generosity and to suggest that PCK would grant the very people that they stated were "dysfunctional" the rights to use their cards.

Which is why the copyright was an insult: Because there was no intention of granting such permission.

Certainly, someone from PCK can tell me that I'm wrong here, and that they are willing to allow the VEKN to use the PCK fan set in the manner that the VEKN wishes. I wish that they would, so we can end this madness! But I doubt that'll happen.