Forums » General
PCC and assignment of intellectual property
Sorry if general isn't the place to ask this, but it seemed like the best option.
I have some questions/concerns regarding the "ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" that is part of the PCC sign up process.
First, some background:
The post on Slashdot about the PCC around the 16th of October is the reason why I'm here. I don't recall hearing or seeing anything about VO up to that point, which is too bad, as I would have probably started playing VO back when E&B was canned by EA.
I've been debating back and forth about signing up for the PCC. I may be wrong, but I think I have some interesting ideas to contribute and would like to give some writing a try and see if I can add to the VO story. Reading through the "ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" has me thinking maybe I'll just play the game here and there and not bother.
As I understand it, if I sign my name in agreement, I'm giving up complete rights to any ideas that I come up with and submit, including the general logic design. I have no issue with the assignment of game related content, text, graphics, etc, but I worry, perhaps needlessly so, that I could find myself contributing to another unrelated game sometime in the future and wind up in a situation where something I'm doing has a vague resemblance to something contributed through the PCC and end up not being able to contribute, or worse, be subjected to litigation.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it even an issue, as generally ideas aren't subject to copyright? I've had to be a witness in an IP dispute before and it's quite high on my list of things I never want to be involved in ever again. :)
Anymore, anything I'm not specifically paid for I release under a BSD license, creative commons, or public domain just so I don't have to think about it.
-Asx
I have some questions/concerns regarding the "ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" that is part of the PCC sign up process.
First, some background:
The post on Slashdot about the PCC around the 16th of October is the reason why I'm here. I don't recall hearing or seeing anything about VO up to that point, which is too bad, as I would have probably started playing VO back when E&B was canned by EA.
I've been debating back and forth about signing up for the PCC. I may be wrong, but I think I have some interesting ideas to contribute and would like to give some writing a try and see if I can add to the VO story. Reading through the "ASSIGNMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" has me thinking maybe I'll just play the game here and there and not bother.
As I understand it, if I sign my name in agreement, I'm giving up complete rights to any ideas that I come up with and submit, including the general logic design. I have no issue with the assignment of game related content, text, graphics, etc, but I worry, perhaps needlessly so, that I could find myself contributing to another unrelated game sometime in the future and wind up in a situation where something I'm doing has a vague resemblance to something contributed through the PCC and end up not being able to contribute, or worse, be subjected to litigation.
Am I being too paranoid? Is it even an issue, as generally ideas aren't subject to copyright? I've had to be a witness in an IP dispute before and it's quite high on my list of things I never want to be involved in ever again. :)
Anymore, anything I'm not specifically paid for I release under a BSD license, creative commons, or public domain just so I don't have to think about it.
-Asx
First, there's been some related discussion here.
Basically, the assignment is there to protect us (Guild Software) against lawsuits from people claiming "I made cool missions for VO, and therefore I demand compensation/partial ownership". We try to frame the whole PCC construct in such a way that it's (hopefully) clear that there is no compensation.. it's just about the enjoyment derived from "making stuff" in and of itself (so, you could say, the enjoyment is the compensation).
Additionally, it makes it clear to prospective investors that yes, we own our own intellectual property. If you build a product around a lot of stuff you don't own, that can be rather scary to outside investors. Yes, there are cases where people do that (YouTube was cited in the link above), but as a tiny company without massive "buzz" or.. VC.. or whatever else, we have to stick to what we know and be fairly conservative about this for the moment.
If I could be sure that my company would survive, and that myself and all my guys would receive a steady and decent paycheck for the foreseeable future, I would probably BSD-license everything. But, I can't be sure of any of that, and as a result I have to hedge my bets.. as a CEO and a (reasonably) responsible leader. Future business models, like open source development paid for by public fund aggregation and so on, are very cool.. but until something like that is really proven, and works out for us, we have to do things the old-fashioned way.
Now, as far as "ownership" of ideas.. there are two standpoints here. The first is what we're reasonably likely to encounter in our situation, the second is what can theoretically be argued in court.
For the first: we do this as a protective thing, to protect ourselves from outside attack, as well as protecting our potential for future investment. We aren't interested in suing anyone. The area where "ideas" become "intellectual property" is somewhat gray, in my experience, but I have no interest in going after anyone for "ideas". My game is built on "ideas" derived from elsewhere (Wing Commander, X-Wing, Tie-Fighter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Pirates!, and 9 billion other sources). However, despite the fact that I have no interest in going after anyone else, that doesn't mean that another, larger company couldn't purchase us and choose to pursue that sort of thing (a-la the whole SCO fiasco with suing everyone related to Linux). But, I think it's pretty improbable.. if you created a mission for us, and then went and made another identical mission somewhere else (same text, etc), that might be something that someone (again, another theoretical company that wasn't us) could go after. But making a "trade" mission here and then a "trade" mission somewhere else? I have a hard time seeing that as a problem.
For the second: I am not an attorney in any way. But as far as my opinion.. what can reasonably be pursued in court is really dependent on who has the most money and lawyers, and what legal justifications can be constructed by said lawyers. This is why things like the SCO issue mentioned above can happen. But even in that case, I believe real world source code was a big part of it. Again, one would expect that you would not make something for us, and then make something identical elsewhere.. "general concept" similarity I don't think is a real risk.
But, that's my opinion, your mileage may vary, etc etc.
Frankly, I hate all this legal crap, but it's a reality in my country, and part of my job and responsibility, so.. eh, I make the best choices I can based on the situations I face.
I hope that helps.
Basically, the assignment is there to protect us (Guild Software) against lawsuits from people claiming "I made cool missions for VO, and therefore I demand compensation/partial ownership". We try to frame the whole PCC construct in such a way that it's (hopefully) clear that there is no compensation.. it's just about the enjoyment derived from "making stuff" in and of itself (so, you could say, the enjoyment is the compensation).
Additionally, it makes it clear to prospective investors that yes, we own our own intellectual property. If you build a product around a lot of stuff you don't own, that can be rather scary to outside investors. Yes, there are cases where people do that (YouTube was cited in the link above), but as a tiny company without massive "buzz" or.. VC.. or whatever else, we have to stick to what we know and be fairly conservative about this for the moment.
If I could be sure that my company would survive, and that myself and all my guys would receive a steady and decent paycheck for the foreseeable future, I would probably BSD-license everything. But, I can't be sure of any of that, and as a result I have to hedge my bets.. as a CEO and a (reasonably) responsible leader. Future business models, like open source development paid for by public fund aggregation and so on, are very cool.. but until something like that is really proven, and works out for us, we have to do things the old-fashioned way.
Now, as far as "ownership" of ideas.. there are two standpoints here. The first is what we're reasonably likely to encounter in our situation, the second is what can theoretically be argued in court.
For the first: we do this as a protective thing, to protect ourselves from outside attack, as well as protecting our potential for future investment. We aren't interested in suing anyone. The area where "ideas" become "intellectual property" is somewhat gray, in my experience, but I have no interest in going after anyone for "ideas". My game is built on "ideas" derived from elsewhere (Wing Commander, X-Wing, Tie-Fighter, Star Wars, Star Trek, Pirates!, and 9 billion other sources). However, despite the fact that I have no interest in going after anyone else, that doesn't mean that another, larger company couldn't purchase us and choose to pursue that sort of thing (a-la the whole SCO fiasco with suing everyone related to Linux). But, I think it's pretty improbable.. if you created a mission for us, and then went and made another identical mission somewhere else (same text, etc), that might be something that someone (again, another theoretical company that wasn't us) could go after. But making a "trade" mission here and then a "trade" mission somewhere else? I have a hard time seeing that as a problem.
For the second: I am not an attorney in any way. But as far as my opinion.. what can reasonably be pursued in court is really dependent on who has the most money and lawyers, and what legal justifications can be constructed by said lawyers. This is why things like the SCO issue mentioned above can happen. But even in that case, I believe real world source code was a big part of it. Again, one would expect that you would not make something for us, and then make something identical elsewhere.. "general concept" similarity I don't think is a real risk.
But, that's my opinion, your mileage may vary, etc etc.
Frankly, I hate all this legal crap, but it's a reality in my country, and part of my job and responsibility, so.. eh, I make the best choices I can based on the situations I face.
I hope that helps.
It does help, thanks. :)
I'm going to sleep on it, but I think I'm just being paranoid. The probability that I'd find myself contributing to another game is quite low, so I don't really think it will be an issue. I just can't help being cautious.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
-Asx
I'm going to sleep on it, but I think I'm just being paranoid. The probability that I'd find myself contributing to another game is quite low, so I don't really think it will be an issue. I just can't help being cautious.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
-Asx
On 'fun'... making missions is fun, but debugging, testing, polishing, tweaking, retesting, retweaking, retesting, testing again, testing with level 1 equipment, testing with level 8 equipment, testing in different systems, testing what happens if you die at each stage, or if you kill the wrong NPC at each stage..... playing the same 10 minute mission 100 times, fixing spelling errors, etc, is not exactly my idea of 'fun'. . . .
So.... forget 'retaining ownership'. What about just getting payed for some of the work that people give to VO? If someone makes a mission or whatever that is used by thousands of paying VO players, and VO happens to some day turn a profit, why not have a provision, whereby if there ever is, some day, a lot of money coming in to VO, that a tiny bit of it gets spread around to all the people that helped create it? It would incentivize people to make really good contributions, polish them, and spend more time on their work.
The hard part would be the details... would it be like residuals, in the film world? Very complicated to do the accounting on, but a fun way to make money. Or would it be more like periodic 'dividends' you get once or twice a year? Does everyone get the same payment, or is it divied up based on how much you contributed... or is it divied up based on how popular your contributions were? How do you deal with 'co-contributors', who help you test or give advice on a piece of work? How would you even measure this stuff? Or is it just a one-time payment up front, like people get for movie scripts?
Someone actually wrote an article comparing Writers Guild members getting residuals with software enigeneers getting stock options... (of course stock options only makes sense in a public company... but the theory and comments section seems interesting)
http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/11/06/why-do-writers-get-residuals-writers-guild-of-america-strike/
---
(also theres an article on /. today, highlight for me is that it mentioned that neverwinter nights had a similar problem)
---
.... on the other hand... none of this really seems very conservative.... but i think its fun to think about it.. .
So.... forget 'retaining ownership'. What about just getting payed for some of the work that people give to VO? If someone makes a mission or whatever that is used by thousands of paying VO players, and VO happens to some day turn a profit, why not have a provision, whereby if there ever is, some day, a lot of money coming in to VO, that a tiny bit of it gets spread around to all the people that helped create it? It would incentivize people to make really good contributions, polish them, and spend more time on their work.
The hard part would be the details... would it be like residuals, in the film world? Very complicated to do the accounting on, but a fun way to make money. Or would it be more like periodic 'dividends' you get once or twice a year? Does everyone get the same payment, or is it divied up based on how much you contributed... or is it divied up based on how popular your contributions were? How do you deal with 'co-contributors', who help you test or give advice on a piece of work? How would you even measure this stuff? Or is it just a one-time payment up front, like people get for movie scripts?
Someone actually wrote an article comparing Writers Guild members getting residuals with software enigeneers getting stock options... (of course stock options only makes sense in a public company... but the theory and comments section seems interesting)
http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/11/06/why-do-writers-get-residuals-writers-guild-of-america-strike/
---
(also theres an article on /. today, highlight for me is that it mentioned that neverwinter nights had a similar problem)
---
.... on the other hand... none of this really seems very conservative.... but i think its fun to think about it.. .
The complexity of intellectual property rights is a good reason to avoid the issue whenever possible and to keep things simple if you must deal with it. Work-for-hire arrangements, which usually give the creator zero rights to their work, is pretty common for creative types when first starting out and is about as simple as you can get: basically, everything you produce while working for me is mine. I'm not a lawyer but the agreement for the PCC looks pretty similar to a work-for-hire agreement except that no one gets paid so I'd say the agreement is on fairly solid legal ground.
As for liability for future work, I think Incarnate covered it well; you would be safe from litigation unless said future work was demonstrably similar both functionally and in form.
Anyway, I look at the work I do for the PCC as modding VO and accept that my rewards for that work mostly fall in the intangible category.
As for liability for future work, I think Incarnate covered it well; you would be safe from litigation unless said future work was demonstrably similar both functionally and in form.
Anyway, I look at the work I do for the PCC as modding VO and accept that my rewards for that work mostly fall in the intangible category.
"Fun / experience" is the only compensation for PCC participation, and people who don't find it fun.. don't participate. I do find creation of new content to be enjoyable, that's why I started a videogame company. I had kind of burned out on playing games, and making them was the next step in my interest. I don't expect my viewpoint to be common, so I think the active PCC people will always be a small minority of the userbase. But, I think for those who are like me, it is a fun and cool option.
"Fun" is such a personal thing, as evidenced by our gameplay debates. PvP fighters who don't want to trade, traders who don't want to PvP, miners who don't want either, PvE fighters who want more grouping options, and so on. Just because you've run out of money in the game, and are trading to increase your funds (which maybe you find less fun?), does that mean you should stop having to pay for the game? Or pay less? Or have the game pay you, since you're providing cannon fodder for pirates who are having fun? The same comparison can be made against creating vs testing new missions.. testing can be repetitive and less-fun sometimes, but to some it's a worthwhile tradeoff; not unlike trading to gain more PvP money.
The whole concept of user contribution to a persistent online universe is very murky. I mean, what about player-organized events? Those certainly contribute "content" to a degree. The whole situation becomes scary, and much like Daare says, the best choice for a small shop like us is simply to avoid the issue for the time being.
Yes, it might be interesting at some future point, to have some kind of business model that permits external content development with compensation for contributing individuals. Like I said in the other thread linked in my other post, there are startups out there who are attempting this exact thing. And I totally think that's great, and more power to them. But we're not going to do that, not now and not unless we become a hell of a lot more financially stable than we are at present. It simply isn't worth the risk, and nimble risk management is the only reason why we still exist.
I will take chances, like allowing user content development, as long as the risk to our company is within some reasonable ballpark. Trying to cook up any sort of financial compensation system is way too scary, way too complex, and has way too much potential for lawsuits. I'm not afraid of trying some bleeding-edge type stuff (evidenced by the fact that I made a space MMO with three friends, starting back in 98), but right now my core concern is just making the game better, and I do not believe the rewards of a compensation system (to the company / overall game) outweigh the serious risks at this time.
"Fun" is such a personal thing, as evidenced by our gameplay debates. PvP fighters who don't want to trade, traders who don't want to PvP, miners who don't want either, PvE fighters who want more grouping options, and so on. Just because you've run out of money in the game, and are trading to increase your funds (which maybe you find less fun?), does that mean you should stop having to pay for the game? Or pay less? Or have the game pay you, since you're providing cannon fodder for pirates who are having fun? The same comparison can be made against creating vs testing new missions.. testing can be repetitive and less-fun sometimes, but to some it's a worthwhile tradeoff; not unlike trading to gain more PvP money.
The whole concept of user contribution to a persistent online universe is very murky. I mean, what about player-organized events? Those certainly contribute "content" to a degree. The whole situation becomes scary, and much like Daare says, the best choice for a small shop like us is simply to avoid the issue for the time being.
Yes, it might be interesting at some future point, to have some kind of business model that permits external content development with compensation for contributing individuals. Like I said in the other thread linked in my other post, there are startups out there who are attempting this exact thing. And I totally think that's great, and more power to them. But we're not going to do that, not now and not unless we become a hell of a lot more financially stable than we are at present. It simply isn't worth the risk, and nimble risk management is the only reason why we still exist.
I will take chances, like allowing user content development, as long as the risk to our company is within some reasonable ballpark. Trying to cook up any sort of financial compensation system is way too scary, way too complex, and has way too much potential for lawsuits. I'm not afraid of trying some bleeding-edge type stuff (evidenced by the fact that I made a space MMO with three friends, starting back in 98), but right now my core concern is just making the game better, and I do not believe the rewards of a compensation system (to the company / overall game) outweigh the serious risks at this time.
I've enjoyed PCC so far.
yea the PCC is great, i wish i could get more credit for the skins i make but meh... its just for fun.
Weren't you talking about making official VO skins before? What happened to that? :P
I'm publishing a coffee-table book of lesser-known trolls.
probably weren't going to be implemented...
for now im just going to work on existing projects.
for now im just going to work on existing projects.
For me PCC is just fun and actually awesome. I am currently developing an idea of a new mission that I hope to be working on.
I guess the thing I like most of all about this game is that Players are allowed to create content. So many games I have played in the past did not allow players to create content that it still blows my mind when I think about VO.
One final thing I want to say, is that I really appreciate the fact that you do actually see the developers in-game. You can talk to them on Chat Channels, and they seem interested to hear what your problems are and they work to fix them. I truly love a non-static game.
I guess the thing I like most of all about this game is that Players are allowed to create content. So many games I have played in the past did not allow players to create content that it still blows my mind when I think about VO.
One final thing I want to say, is that I really appreciate the fact that you do actually see the developers in-game. You can talk to them on Chat Channels, and they seem interested to hear what your problems are and they work to fix them. I truly love a non-static game.
So far for me being in the PCC has provided more negative than positive qualities. Also player-organized events is not PCC unless I misread something again.
best case scenario incarnate could possibly offer a free month of gametime to the voted for best pcc mission of that year/trimester/semester/whatever as soon as the financial stability of the game is rock solid. (anyway my opinion, not a statement from the devs...).
blacknet: geeze, moda, sorry to hear that.
And no, player-organized events are not "PCC", but that has nothing to do with lawsuits regarding compensation, which was the topic. The point was that it's a slippery slope.. once you start providing "compensation" for one type of contribution, it opens up a lot of scary stuff, and things become even more murky. If no one has any compensation, the situation is simpler and there is less risk to us as a company.
And no, player-organized events are not "PCC", but that has nothing to do with lawsuits regarding compensation, which was the topic. The point was that it's a slippery slope.. once you start providing "compensation" for one type of contribution, it opens up a lot of scary stuff, and things become even more murky. If no one has any compensation, the situation is simpler and there is less risk to us as a company.
Suppose I should have clarified that negative qualities. It's not PCC specific but more other related things.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/19832#248081
Many people do not realize how long it takes to make a mission, test it or make a concept for the interface then develop the layout and functionality then debug it.
Mostly it's just the nitpicking from a few users that generates all the negative aspects. I love working with code, fixing issues and making things better overall.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/19832#248081
Many people do not realize how long it takes to make a mission, test it or make a concept for the interface then develop the layout and functionality then debug it.
Mostly it's just the nitpicking from a few users that generates all the negative aspects. I love working with code, fixing issues and making things better overall.
Genka was just joking around as usual, chill out. ;)
Polishing missions is just as important as creating them imo. Sure, it may not be as 'fun' but it's an important step toward the ultimate goal: a published mission in game which is enjoyed thousands of times by others.
If you are doing this for money, then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
As far as intellectual property goes, consider what most beta testers have to sign these days... an NDA. I find guild's approach to be rather liberal by comparison.
If you are doing this for money, then you're in it for the wrong reasons.
As far as intellectual property goes, consider what most beta testers have to sign these days... an NDA. I find guild's approach to be rather liberal by comparison.