 February 10, 2014 - 8:40pm | "Thank you for contacting Hasbro regarding the usage of Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property and for your patience while the appropriate teams reviewed your request. My name is Sam. I am the customer-facing representative that works with those teams, and I have been directed to provide you with their answer. While we all appreciate your enthusiasm for Star Frontiers, Wizards is unable to grant you permission to use our intellectual property in the manner you have requested. Thanks again for caring enough to ask first! Sam Team Lead Customer Service and Game Support Wizards of the Coast" I've made a couple of requests to WotC over the years for the permission to translate my old game books into an interactive website for fans. Each time, denied. :-( |
September 25, 2014 - 5:34am | Replace their copyrighted artwork with fanbase artwork and resubmit it. If it was part of a web-game version of SF, wouldn't new original art be considered copyright-derivative work too? Just like new stories in fan-made modules? |
 September 25, 2014 - 8:56am | I'm no copyright attorney, but I can say this much. WOTC has copyright protection on the various TSR logos. They have copyright protection on all of the TSR published content including artwork that appears in their books. Reprinting/redistributing that stuff is copyright protected. They may or may not have copyright protection for Dralasites, Vrusks, and Yazirians...but they definitely do not have it for dwarves, elves, and dragons. They do NOT have copyright protection on pictures of humans, let alone humans wielding lazer gunz. They do NOT have copyright protection of the English alphabet or any arrangement of those letters. For example, google "UPF" and the first hit relates to Ultraviolet Protection Factor. Scroll down and you'll also see a French anagram of those letters, University Press of Florida, Universal Peace Federation, etc etc etc. As long as those outfits aren't arranging those letters with the stylized shield seen on the cover of the KH Tactical Operations Manual (same logo used in the background of the proof), WOTC can do nothing about the use of those three letters arranged in that order. But I can say this much with authority: they no doubt saw all their copyright protected artwork and logos on that proof and that is certainly a contributing factor toward their resounding no. |
 September 25, 2014 - 12:06pm | I had more college classes on copyright than I care for. They definitely have copyright protection on the races. The description and image enforces copyright. They also use them for Spelljammer, which is still an active WOTC property, which itself is a contributing factor to the rejection. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
 September 25, 2014 - 1:28pm | OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and other so-called retro-clones can do what they do because Wizards of the Coast published the Open Game License. The retro-clones modify the rules presented in the OGL as provided for in that document, and do so to make them look and work as much like an old game as possible while not violating the license. You wouldn't be able to do that with Star Frontiers. The rules have no basis in the OGL, and there is no license to use Star Frontiers or any similar rules to publish your own game. You can't publish adventures with Yazirians and Dralasites and so on because those are identifyable bits of intellectual property owned by Hasbro. Fortunately, due to a quirk, we have legal, free downloads of everything Star Frontiers, so it's not actually very important. The first retro-clone, OSRIC, which mimics the first edition of AD&D, wasn't intended to be played as such; it was meant as a reference document. You'd write adventures or supplements for OSRIC, and everyone would understand that you were writing new materials for AD&D without saying so or breaking the law. But then people wanted to have OSRIC in a nice, shiny package, and then people started making other retro-clones of other editions, but now the point was to PLAY these games instead of the originals they were mimicking. If you wanted to legally publish new materials for Star Frontiers, you'd have to rename Yazirians, Vrusk, Dralasites, Sathar, and so on, e.g., Monkey-Men, Insect-Men, Blobs, Snake-Men, and not reproduce any text from Star Frontiers. You could say a character has a Computer skill of 2, but you couldn't reproduce a list of all the skills in the game. All this assumes you're trying to publish something that will attract the notice of Hasbro et al. If you just publish original fan stuff to a website, they probably won't notice or take action. If your site becomes the most popular on the Web, or if you try to sell your stuff, they'll notice and send a cease and desist letter. |
 September 25, 2014 - 2:04pm | Stormcrow's and Ascent's comments basically nail it. As long as you're doing it for free and it's a "fan site" you'll probably be fine. They even have fan site rules for D&D and Magic and told us to work off the D&D one for the Frontier Explorer. We even got permission to use the original artwork as part of the site and magazine (for D&D and Magic they have art packs that you are limited to). I can send you the links if you want. Spoiler alert: I've got a somewhat major announcement related to SF coming out in the next week or two that a few people involved know about. Unfortunately I'm not announcing that I secured permission to publish (for profit) SF material. However, I am about to start another round of talks with WotC to try to get a crack in their policy which will hopefully culminate in a face to face meeting (I'll be in Seattle in January) to find out/discuss more. I'm hopeful but not optimistic that anything will change. In any case, I think you can build the site Animux, and just sell it as a fan site that provides an interactive Star Frontiers experience, free of charge. (Of course if you don't want it to be free of charge, you're going to hit a brick wall). However, their fan site rules do allow advertising (which we don't do with the FE) and a "Tip Jar" or donations (which we do have). As long as it is completely optional you can collect income that way. It won't be a lot but it is an option. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
September 25, 2014 - 7:18pm | I understand the material is copyrighted. That's why I've been asking WoTC for permission in the first place. It was suggested earlier in the thread that -- considering there are other fan sites with the original game materials -- perhaps the reason for the denial is the request for permission to publish fan fiction and new modules. I've only thought of this as a great hobby project and NOT for profit. It's intended to be free for anyone who is interested in SF. No ad schemes or donations. Just a simple website run out of pocket by fans of the game for other fans (old and new) because it's been out of print for so long and the community of SF gamers (niche that it is) gathers online these days. I never sent in a copy of the web proof. That's not a finished product to be placed online. It's more like a sketch to help visualize what the website might look like. Any of the source art pictured there is cropped and reduced in size. The proof, as a stand-alone artifact, is an example of 'fair use' under copyright law. To actually make the website I need permission from the copyright owner and so far WoTC has denied my requests. |
September 25, 2014 - 7:34pm | My personal suggestion is to provide them with a fait acocmpli. If you want to build it, do so. You'll learn lots of stuff along the way and probably have fun (and frustrations) pulling it off. The worst they will do is just tell you to shut it down but you'll still have gotten something out of it. And most likely since it's a free fan site, they won't have an issue with it. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
September 25, 2014 - 8:03pm | My personal suggestion is to provide them with a fait acocmpli. I'm not so certain doing that would be clear of legal consequences. Particularly considering WotC has already told me not to build it in response to my requests. |
September 26, 2014 - 4:35am | Fair enough. And looking at the fan site rules it does say this: Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish,
distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications
for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons &
Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of
these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use
is subject to the Game System License
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome. For questions
concerning digital rights for all other Wizards brands, please visit
www.wizards.com/customerservice. Which is probably what you're running up against. That's what I get for making comments without rereading the source material.  BTW the full policy can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/fankit/fantoolkitdnd.html Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
September 26, 2014 - 4:45am | Also of maybe relevant interest: http://d7.pipemaze.com/blog/2009/08/07/wizards-fan-site-kit-is-not-a-fan-site-policy/ It's old, from when the fan site "policy" came out but I think it's still relevant. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
September 26, 2014 - 6:59pm | Ugh... http://d7.pipemaze.com/tsr-vs-the-internet/ |
 March 3, 2016 - 11:14am | My personal suggestion is to provide them with a fait acocmpli. If you want to build it, do so. You'll learn lots of stuff along the way and probably have fun (and frustrations) pulling it off. The worst they will do is just tell you to shut it down but you'll still have gotten something out of it. And most likely since it's a free fan site, they won't have an issue with it. I know this is over a year old and thus isn't up on current events, but anyone who is thinking about this should ask Alec Peters/Ares Studios about going for fait acocompli. As to the question asked all the way back on page 1 as to why corporations act this way about "dead" properties it's a symptom of modern management theory: whatever hurts (or at least doesn't help) my competition regardless of it's effect on me is good. That's why Marvel is stiffing the Fantastic Four and replacing mutants in it's mainline comics with Inhumans - to hurt (or at least not help) Fox Studios, who owns the movie rights to both. |
March 3, 2016 - 12:34pm | Fox will lose their rights to the Fantastic Four anyways, that last movie had a gross profit of something like $5. To date the Ghost Rider sequel was the worst super hero movie ever made, and while I've yet to see the new FF reboot the trailer really does nothing to influence me into seeing it. Obviously it failed to get folks into the theater as well. Acquiring that property won't be difficult as a Fox sequel would be suicide. The "Inhumans" were a group of silver age (1960's) FF villains. They were billed as aliens in that original text. Time will tell if the movie follows that premise. Also noteworthy, Disney/Marvel was able to utilize Quicksilver (and Scarlet Witch) despite his presence in the recent Sony/Fox X-Men franchise by avoiding the word "mutant" or any reference to such. What Marvel/Disney is doing is gravitating their films toward the Infinity Gauntlet storyline. The main characters in that were Thanos and Adam Warlock, both of which have had cameo appearances in the various films (the former via several post-credits scenes and the latter was seen in the Collector's cases in a cocoon). Supporting characters hailed from the Avengers and Fantastic Four books along with Spiderman. Disney/Marvel has already acquired Spiderman in a deal with Fox, and he will have a cameo in the upcoming Captain America flick. FF will be their final hurdle for that story, and it shouldn't be a difficult one. The big question will be if Chris Evans portrays both Captain America and the Human Torch.  |
March 3, 2016 - 1:08pm | You didn't hear then, Shadow? Quicksilver and Wanda are now officially no longer mutants. Not even in the comics. The F4 reboot was tolerable (I got it free by borrowing from library), but it wasn't as good as the Story F4s (which got the team just right, IMO). Ghost Rider flopped simply because he isn't an interesting property at this time (if he ever was previously, I can't say). I liked GR2 better than GR1, for what it's worth. |
March 3, 2016 - 5:05pm | I haven't picked up a new comic since 2004 so I missed that. I do have a healthy silver age collection though and as such I tend to be a grognard when it comes to the movies. As campy as they were, I too enjoyed the first FF and Rise of Silver Surfer flicks. I've seen both flicks several times each. Not bad, not great, but entertaining. The first Ghost Rider was -meh- but I watched it for Peter Fonda & the cloned Easyriders/Captain America bike (Grace), and the tricked out Buells he rode as pre-GR stuntman Johnny Blaze. I really dug the way his crash landing was perfectly emulated to Evel Knievel's Caesars Palace Fountains crash. But in the end the film proved that all of the other franchises were wise to turn down Cage for every prior super hero role. The Spirit of Vengeance sequel simply made the first flick Oscar worthy...although it may be given accolades as the first and only superhero NOTaction movie ever made. I hate to say it, but Halle Berry's Catwoman was better. Not by much, mind you...it simply sucked a little less. The FF reboot trailer simply reminded me too much of GR-SoV, by all appearances it looked like it would be another superhero NOTaction film. Never mind the politically correct/diversity Johnny & Franklin Storm (and subsequent rewrite of the relation to white Sue Storm), I was worried it would be another lengthy "exposition of absolutely nothing remarkable" much like GR-SoV was. If I ever see it, I won't be paying for it. I'll have to see if our library has a copy. ;) |
 March 5, 2016 - 10:24am | This kind of crap was never intended in copyright laws in this country. Originally it was something like 14 years and the owner had to renew the copyright for another 14 and after that it was fair game for derivative work. Forever copyrights stifle innovation. Actually the copyrights are for 28 years, they have that to make as much money of the copyright as they can, after that it becomes public domain. But you have companies rushing to extend the copyright. With Disney leading that charge. If not for that, Star Wars and Star Trek should be public domain right now. But greedy corporations just keep extending the copyright. It's worse if they make it a trademark because trademarks do not expire. I know this because that is the legal dirt the anime series Macross has found itself in. All designs are property of Studio Nue, a court settled that. But then Harmoy Gold pulls the ultimate dick move and trademarks Macross in North America and Europe, blocking Studio Nue from ever releaseing Macross outside of Japan. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
March 5, 2016 - 10:56am | Actually it's even more complicated than than. While it was original 14 years with a 14 year renewal, it was changed to life of the author plus fifty years (or 95 years for a corparate produced work) in the middle of the 20th century. Then in 1978 we got the current life of the author plus 70 years (120 years for a corporate work). And while Disney was a driving factor behind getting the law passed. The exact values were set to bring us in line with an international copyright agreement that had been in effect for decades and which the US was not part of. And as such US works were not being granted copyright protections in other countries because we weren't part of the treaty. In order to join we had to have the life of the author + 70 years time frame as part of our laws. So while I don't like it the current limits and some of the problems it produces, and would love to go back to the 14+14 periods of the 18th century, I can undersand why it is the way it is. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
