White Wolf Applying License to Indie Games

Enigma23 writes "White Wolf, Inc. has decided to enforce a licensing system upon those who run their games in their World of Darkness. Here is the full text of the license. The Licensing process will force those who have not already joined the Camarilla, White Wolf's official fan club, to pay a yearly $20 fee. They're not going to go after games that don't charge money for the event, but the wording is such that they can legally sue those who don't comply even if they only charge enough money to cover costs. The practical upshot is that technically the WW Stormtroopers could raid your house merely if everyone chips in a few quid for pizza. This is evidently doubly so if anyone in your gaming group is under the age of 18, which is against the membership policy of The Camarilla. There is a further discussion on RPG.net about the various issues involved." The BoingBoing discussion is interesting, as well.

Comments

Re:First Sale Doctrine

[cpt kangarooski]

Kudos for referencing Bobbs-Merrill. But that's not what it says.

The Court said that copyright holders can't impose arbitrary restrictions on distribution (in the case it was a requirement that used copies be sold for a high minimum price) by virtue of their copyright.

However, the Court did leave open the possibility that there could be a contract to that effect, and numerous courts have later found that EULAs and other licenses are perfectly enforceable.

No-one told me ...

[NewStarRising]

Is this licence going to be printed in the front of each rule book/suppliemnt?
If I buy a rulebook without this licence in it, and they come after me for fees, where do I stand?
Can a company distribute a product with no restrictions noted in it, and then come after me for not abiding by a licence I never agreed to, never saw and was not even aware of?

Re:Cross posting:

[Godeke]

I think we are more in agreement than I initially thought, although my expression of some of the concepts isn't up to par with someone who plies the trade, so to speak.

In regard to EULAs (as someone who has one on the install screens of his own software) I wouldn't want to base my business on the enforcement of one. There have been cases of enforcement, but more because (at least in the cases I have seen) the EULA wasn't the critical aspect of enforcement of rights: copyright law as a whole was the key. In my case, since my software is custom written, the EULA merely reiterates the existing written and signed contract with the client... that I'm willing to base my business on.

I do still see the fact that used and rental software are available as a red flag that EULAs are not the silver bullet that the large software companies want them to be.

There has been a continuum of results here: console game makers have lost every important battle when they try to prevent resale or rental. Ironically, the biggest hurdle they faced in these cases was the copy protection they used was actually effective, which meant that the "people will illegally copy it" argument which *was* successfully used by the personal computer software companies against rentals didn't fly. However even that argument seems to have lost its luster as I see all the major game stores carry used PC games alongside the used console games, and two of the local used book stores (one a huge chain that exists state wide... not operating under the radar) also sells used application software. All that renting and resale are typically prohibited by the EULA, but the big companies somehow seem to be unable to enforce those clauses.

Turning this back to White Wolf's "license" (which they really seem to be proposing as some "after the fact, retrofitted to books you already own EULA" on their own website, which is just odd), as you pointed out my level of paranoia about trademark use isn't necessary (although considering how sue happy companies have become over pretty imaginary infringement, I'm not all that sure it isn't prudent). That really does leave them with copyright law as the leg they are trying to stand on. White Wolf tried to sue Sony regarding the movie Underworld (which in all honesty couldn't have been *more* of a thematic ripoff) and they lost. It turns out that the theme wasn't protected by copyright. Most of what White Wolf provides is two things: rule sets and theme. Yes, there are characters described and places and events, but in most games these things are the creations of the group. Each player creates a character, the game master creates the scenarios, the world at large, etc. Reading directly from the book would be considered poor form, to say the least and I doubt it happens.

Note that this would be untrue of many of the modules produced by Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons and Dragons line. That product line is played at a table and often a poorer quality game master *will* read verbatim passages. Since there are multiple players present (as many as 8 or 9) I guess it could be considered a "performance" of the work, but here is where another anomaly appears... it is the entire *point* behind producing the modules that this performance be done. Yes, nowhere have I ever seen permission granted to do so. Curious as what you think of this, as your comments have been very thought provoking for me.

Re:Cross posting:

[Godeke]

I think that brings me up to speed on the issue. As a last question: this change has been published on a website. Owners of the books who don't frequent the web would seem to be enjoying the original rights (the implied right to actually play the game as published, even if no actual license was included in the book). Since the books are sold at retail, it would appear that "the cat is out of the bag" as far as attempting to append a license to the product.

They can wrap future books in packaging that requires accepting a physical EULA to use the materials (although it would also seem off-putting to future sales to do so), but the existing users --- since the books were published at retail, how would they go about applying the licensing to those who are not part of the debate and are unaware of such changes? (There is nothing in the books such as "see our website for licensing information, you must accept any changed licenses, etc.")

I don't mean that they couldn't just sue a group, but since they have not communicated the changes (at it would be nearly impossible to do so in a meaningful way... anyone could claim not to have see the website) it appears that the first recourse would be a requirement of offer the license. Since they ofter it for $20 per "user" with minimal restrictions, it would seem that such a suit would net... $20 per user? I find it hard to believe that a judge would impose anything more onerous upon a group considering the circumstances of this change (i.e., lack of notification, no other such licenses in the entire industry, license granted indiscriminately to all based on a minimal fee.) It would appear the the "harm" such a group presents is merely an unpaid license fee, not the usual infringement penalties.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to answer my inane questions. I didn't think this issue was quite this deep.

(And on the topic of software rental: no... not used PC software for rental, but it is ubiquitously available for purchase in large bookstore chains I mentioned. Not just games, but applications, graphics suites, etc. I have always avoided it, but mostly because the upgrade path becomes questionable for anything I would want.)