Jump to content

dresdinseven

Members
  • Content Count

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    dresdinseven reacted to ModernPaladin in Foundry   
    It looks like FFG has updated the Genesys Foundry Content Guidelines today. I don't have a copy of the original to compare it with. Did anyone catch the specifics? As of this time, there have been no changes to the contract on DTRPG (The changelog reads: "No changes yet") that you sign to add your content. This is where the problematic clauses are, and will probably take at least a few days for the changes to trickle down. Still, this is a good sign that FFG intends to bring the contract more in line with their talking points.
  2. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from Stacie_GmrGrl in Foundry   
    It's good to see Genesys finally getting the marketplace it needs to thrive as a product. However, this contract that's attached with it is a total no-go for me when it comes to my own custom settings. Since it's been only 24 hours I will give them the benefit of the doubt, although part of me is a bit indignant that this kind of error could happen, or worse, that they were honestly trying to pull this on us. Let's keep our pitchforks and torches handy, but unlit and stowed at the moment.
    Now that isn't to say this license isn't completely bad in every situation. This is the perfect license for publishing in a FFG Setting. The messy thing about publishing in someone else's setting is who owns what. You publish in Android/Terrinoth and introduce story elements, but if those rights aren't shared then everyone else is either barred from using your ideas (or anything even similar) or at worse has to actively write around them. This license allows everyone to write in a big shared setting and exchange ideas freely. Which is great, because before you simply could not 'legally' use any part of the IP in any way, shape, or form, at best you could dump something 'for free' on the internet and hope that the corporate overlords wouldn't slap you with a Cease and Desist.
    You loose nothing under this questionable license when publishing in FFG Settings because there was no way to capitalize on the 'original' bits you injected into the setting, due to not having the rights to the overall property. All the publishing and creation avenues mentioned in other posts were things you couldn't do anyways.  And it's a pretty even exchange, you get to use New Angeles and Jackson Howard, FFG and the community get to use what you bring to the table. The 'no attribution' clause is probably legalese to make sure someone can't raise a stink over some similarity between their idea and something FFG makes ("Well gee, they didn't attribute me, I said in my supplement there was an orange cat in the city, and look, here's an orange cat briefly mentioned in this book! Clearly my name needs to be in this product"). I would really, really hope that official releases have the courtesy to attribute people from who they directly pulled content from.
    It's also a pretty good license for people publishing setting agnostic "genre guides" or "rules supplements". These don't have characters, locations, ect, ect to worry about, except maybe some sample NPCs. Just don't give them names you plan on using for other projects, or just generic descriptors (like "The Investigator"). These products cannot exist outside of the Genesys frame work, so there is no application of their use outside of this marketplace. The legalese also is understandable here, preventing squabbles from happening if two people somehow put out something that overlaps or has similarities in terms of content.
    And this is all well and good, unless you want to do work in your own setting, in which case, there needs to be a second license available. The first one can stay for setting agnostic content and user made supplements for FFG settings, it's perfect for that! But there needs to be a comprehensive auxiliary license available to those who want to make custom setting content. There's no way you can expect people to sign away their darling settings under such an agreement.
    Also, less of a need and more of a "want that boarders on need", let us do kickstarters and promotional campaigns and give us options to print on demand. I can understand not wanting people to run a kickstarter of "My Original SotB Adventure" on kickstarter. But for my stuff? Artists and editors aren't free and I can't get a loan from my parents for several grand to 'make it happen'. But this gripe really only applies to the custom settings content.
    tl;dr This license is great for FFG/generic content. This license is terrible for user generated settings. Keep the discussion going, but keep your sanity.
    Also, I'm really excited to see what Android custom adventures come out of all this, I've seen a few on the Foundry! I've already purchased the Unarmed Fighter splat, and I'm thinking of picking up some of the other launch titles (which all look really exciting!)
  3. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from ModernPaladin in Foundry   
    @sfRattan I wish not to be too terse in this reply, as politeness should be answered with politeness. The answer to this situation is not to tell FFG that they get a pass, or even that they are making the right call, by saying that all of our content is going to be trash anyways, so we should be gracious we have any allowances at all. So what if it's trash, it's our trash. Some of it is trash that has had years of work put into it. Yes, they are very gracious to make this platform in the first place, but it's a two way street since we are generating the content. You make a good point about giving GMs the rules without being overburdened, but I actually like IP laden work (for example, Pugmire and Mau). But ultimately what you or I like in a book is irrelevant. A creator can, and should, put into their work what they feel the work needs. As far as updates and such, if the agreement was meant to cover file format or hostling updates, it wouldn't explicitly grab up "characters, locations, scenes, names," ect. 
    But the real rub is this. Sure, FFG is never going to take our crummy work and put to print. But the way the agreement is worded, neither can we. You can't toss up a map pack on your personal website or later publish a system agnostic setting guide. You can't even write a self publish a novel on Amazon. Because you don't own it any more, "everyone does", but only FFG really does, since they are the only ones who can use it outside of the Foundry. Does being relegated to a fanfic site to write in your own setting sound okay to you? It doesn't to me. Let me repeat, no one is worried FFG is going to 'steal' our stuff, what people are worried about is being locked out of our own IP.
    Now I know, FFG isn't going to do that, their designers and execs didn't intend this, and have said they intended for the exact opposite, I'm sure this is simply a legal goof with all the GenCon confusion going on. But.. But! Any change, even change that's wanted by those up top, often comes about only when the consumers push for it. And if it doesn't change, then status quo is what we will have to work with.
    And ultimately, no one is beholden to anyone else. FFG isn't entitled anyone's work until they click the button, and creators have no entitlement to use the Genesys system until they consent to click the button. Right now, I'm not clicking that button. I'm going to wait to see if the license gets updated, and if it doesn't, then I'll retool my work to be non-Genesys. But if it does get changed, I will pound the pavement like a madman to get something ready for this platform.
  4. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from drainsmith in Foundry   
    @sfRattan I wish not to be too terse in this reply, as politeness should be answered with politeness. The answer to this situation is not to tell FFG that they get a pass, or even that they are making the right call, by saying that all of our content is going to be trash anyways, so we should be gracious we have any allowances at all. So what if it's trash, it's our trash. Some of it is trash that has had years of work put into it. Yes, they are very gracious to make this platform in the first place, but it's a two way street since we are generating the content. You make a good point about giving GMs the rules without being overburdened, but I actually like IP laden work (for example, Pugmire and Mau). But ultimately what you or I like in a book is irrelevant. A creator can, and should, put into their work what they feel the work needs. As far as updates and such, if the agreement was meant to cover file format or hostling updates, it wouldn't explicitly grab up "characters, locations, scenes, names," ect. 
    But the real rub is this. Sure, FFG is never going to take our crummy work and put to print. But the way the agreement is worded, neither can we. You can't toss up a map pack on your personal website or later publish a system agnostic setting guide. You can't even write a self publish a novel on Amazon. Because you don't own it any more, "everyone does", but only FFG really does, since they are the only ones who can use it outside of the Foundry. Does being relegated to a fanfic site to write in your own setting sound okay to you? It doesn't to me. Let me repeat, no one is worried FFG is going to 'steal' our stuff, what people are worried about is being locked out of our own IP.
    Now I know, FFG isn't going to do that, their designers and execs didn't intend this, and have said they intended for the exact opposite, I'm sure this is simply a legal goof with all the GenCon confusion going on. But.. But! Any change, even change that's wanted by those up top, often comes about only when the consumers push for it. And if it doesn't change, then status quo is what we will have to work with.
    And ultimately, no one is beholden to anyone else. FFG isn't entitled anyone's work until they click the button, and creators have no entitlement to use the Genesys system until they consent to click the button. Right now, I'm not clicking that button. I'm going to wait to see if the license gets updated, and if it doesn't, then I'll retool my work to be non-Genesys. But if it does get changed, I will pound the pavement like a madman to get something ready for this platform.
  5. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from TheBoulder in Foundry   
    In terms of crowdfunding, DriveThruRPG already has an entire system in place for fulfilling Kickstarter/ect campaigns. I'm sure something could be worked out where they are still the exclusive distributor of the end product. The corporate 'cut' would be factored into the campaign (probably as 'licencing fees'), the 'at cost' price would be the creator setting their own cut to $0 for orders placed via crowdfunding. What about using Patreon to generate a general slush fund to pay editors/artists, but not explicitly for any particular project?
    Edit: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/crowdsource.php (service I mentioned)
  6. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from TheGMSource in Foundry   
    @sfRattan I wish not to be too terse in this reply, as politeness should be answered with politeness. The answer to this situation is not to tell FFG that they get a pass, or even that they are making the right call, by saying that all of our content is going to be trash anyways, so we should be gracious we have any allowances at all. So what if it's trash, it's our trash. Some of it is trash that has had years of work put into it. Yes, they are very gracious to make this platform in the first place, but it's a two way street since we are generating the content. You make a good point about giving GMs the rules without being overburdened, but I actually like IP laden work (for example, Pugmire and Mau). But ultimately what you or I like in a book is irrelevant. A creator can, and should, put into their work what they feel the work needs. As far as updates and such, if the agreement was meant to cover file format or hostling updates, it wouldn't explicitly grab up "characters, locations, scenes, names," ect. 
    But the real rub is this. Sure, FFG is never going to take our crummy work and put to print. But the way the agreement is worded, neither can we. You can't toss up a map pack on your personal website or later publish a system agnostic setting guide. You can't even write a self publish a novel on Amazon. Because you don't own it any more, "everyone does", but only FFG really does, since they are the only ones who can use it outside of the Foundry. Does being relegated to a fanfic site to write in your own setting sound okay to you? It doesn't to me. Let me repeat, no one is worried FFG is going to 'steal' our stuff, what people are worried about is being locked out of our own IP.
    Now I know, FFG isn't going to do that, their designers and execs didn't intend this, and have said they intended for the exact opposite, I'm sure this is simply a legal goof with all the GenCon confusion going on. But.. But! Any change, even change that's wanted by those up top, often comes about only when the consumers push for it. And if it doesn't change, then status quo is what we will have to work with.
    And ultimately, no one is beholden to anyone else. FFG isn't entitled anyone's work until they click the button, and creators have no entitlement to use the Genesys system until they consent to click the button. Right now, I'm not clicking that button. I'm going to wait to see if the license gets updated, and if it doesn't, then I'll retool my work to be non-Genesys. But if it does get changed, I will pound the pavement like a madman to get something ready for this platform.
  7. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from Cannibal Halfling in Foundry   
    @sfRattan I wish not to be too terse in this reply, as politeness should be answered with politeness. The answer to this situation is not to tell FFG that they get a pass, or even that they are making the right call, by saying that all of our content is going to be trash anyways, so we should be gracious we have any allowances at all. So what if it's trash, it's our trash. Some of it is trash that has had years of work put into it. Yes, they are very gracious to make this platform in the first place, but it's a two way street since we are generating the content. You make a good point about giving GMs the rules without being overburdened, but I actually like IP laden work (for example, Pugmire and Mau). But ultimately what you or I like in a book is irrelevant. A creator can, and should, put into their work what they feel the work needs. As far as updates and such, if the agreement was meant to cover file format or hostling updates, it wouldn't explicitly grab up "characters, locations, scenes, names," ect. 
    But the real rub is this. Sure, FFG is never going to take our crummy work and put to print. But the way the agreement is worded, neither can we. You can't toss up a map pack on your personal website or later publish a system agnostic setting guide. You can't even write a self publish a novel on Amazon. Because you don't own it any more, "everyone does", but only FFG really does, since they are the only ones who can use it outside of the Foundry. Does being relegated to a fanfic site to write in your own setting sound okay to you? It doesn't to me. Let me repeat, no one is worried FFG is going to 'steal' our stuff, what people are worried about is being locked out of our own IP.
    Now I know, FFG isn't going to do that, their designers and execs didn't intend this, and have said they intended for the exact opposite, I'm sure this is simply a legal goof with all the GenCon confusion going on. But.. But! Any change, even change that's wanted by those up top, often comes about only when the consumers push for it. And if it doesn't change, then status quo is what we will have to work with.
    And ultimately, no one is beholden to anyone else. FFG isn't entitled anyone's work until they click the button, and creators have no entitlement to use the Genesys system until they consent to click the button. Right now, I'm not clicking that button. I'm going to wait to see if the license gets updated, and if it doesn't, then I'll retool my work to be non-Genesys. But if it does get changed, I will pound the pavement like a madman to get something ready for this platform.
  8. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from Noahjam325 in Foundry   
    @sfRattan I wish not to be too terse in this reply, as politeness should be answered with politeness. The answer to this situation is not to tell FFG that they get a pass, or even that they are making the right call, by saying that all of our content is going to be trash anyways, so we should be gracious we have any allowances at all. So what if it's trash, it's our trash. Some of it is trash that has had years of work put into it. Yes, they are very gracious to make this platform in the first place, but it's a two way street since we are generating the content. You make a good point about giving GMs the rules without being overburdened, but I actually like IP laden work (for example, Pugmire and Mau). But ultimately what you or I like in a book is irrelevant. A creator can, and should, put into their work what they feel the work needs. As far as updates and such, if the agreement was meant to cover file format or hostling updates, it wouldn't explicitly grab up "characters, locations, scenes, names," ect. 
    But the real rub is this. Sure, FFG is never going to take our crummy work and put to print. But the way the agreement is worded, neither can we. You can't toss up a map pack on your personal website or later publish a system agnostic setting guide. You can't even write a self publish a novel on Amazon. Because you don't own it any more, "everyone does", but only FFG really does, since they are the only ones who can use it outside of the Foundry. Does being relegated to a fanfic site to write in your own setting sound okay to you? It doesn't to me. Let me repeat, no one is worried FFG is going to 'steal' our stuff, what people are worried about is being locked out of our own IP.
    Now I know, FFG isn't going to do that, their designers and execs didn't intend this, and have said they intended for the exact opposite, I'm sure this is simply a legal goof with all the GenCon confusion going on. But.. But! Any change, even change that's wanted by those up top, often comes about only when the consumers push for it. And if it doesn't change, then status quo is what we will have to work with.
    And ultimately, no one is beholden to anyone else. FFG isn't entitled anyone's work until they click the button, and creators have no entitlement to use the Genesys system until they consent to click the button. Right now, I'm not clicking that button. I'm going to wait to see if the license gets updated, and if it doesn't, then I'll retool my work to be non-Genesys. But if it does get changed, I will pound the pavement like a madman to get something ready for this platform.
  9. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from GnosisNoise in Foundry   
    It's good to see Genesys finally getting the marketplace it needs to thrive as a product. However, this contract that's attached with it is a total no-go for me when it comes to my own custom settings. Since it's been only 24 hours I will give them the benefit of the doubt, although part of me is a bit indignant that this kind of error could happen, or worse, that they were honestly trying to pull this on us. Let's keep our pitchforks and torches handy, but unlit and stowed at the moment.
    Now that isn't to say this license isn't completely bad in every situation. This is the perfect license for publishing in a FFG Setting. The messy thing about publishing in someone else's setting is who owns what. You publish in Android/Terrinoth and introduce story elements, but if those rights aren't shared then everyone else is either barred from using your ideas (or anything even similar) or at worse has to actively write around them. This license allows everyone to write in a big shared setting and exchange ideas freely. Which is great, because before you simply could not 'legally' use any part of the IP in any way, shape, or form, at best you could dump something 'for free' on the internet and hope that the corporate overlords wouldn't slap you with a Cease and Desist.
    You loose nothing under this questionable license when publishing in FFG Settings because there was no way to capitalize on the 'original' bits you injected into the setting, due to not having the rights to the overall property. All the publishing and creation avenues mentioned in other posts were things you couldn't do anyways.  And it's a pretty even exchange, you get to use New Angeles and Jackson Howard, FFG and the community get to use what you bring to the table. The 'no attribution' clause is probably legalese to make sure someone can't raise a stink over some similarity between their idea and something FFG makes ("Well gee, they didn't attribute me, I said in my supplement there was an orange cat in the city, and look, here's an orange cat briefly mentioned in this book! Clearly my name needs to be in this product"). I would really, really hope that official releases have the courtesy to attribute people from who they directly pulled content from.
    It's also a pretty good license for people publishing setting agnostic "genre guides" or "rules supplements". These don't have characters, locations, ect, ect to worry about, except maybe some sample NPCs. Just don't give them names you plan on using for other projects, or just generic descriptors (like "The Investigator"). These products cannot exist outside of the Genesys frame work, so there is no application of their use outside of this marketplace. The legalese also is understandable here, preventing squabbles from happening if two people somehow put out something that overlaps or has similarities in terms of content.
    And this is all well and good, unless you want to do work in your own setting, in which case, there needs to be a second license available. The first one can stay for setting agnostic content and user made supplements for FFG settings, it's perfect for that! But there needs to be a comprehensive auxiliary license available to those who want to make custom setting content. There's no way you can expect people to sign away their darling settings under such an agreement.
    Also, less of a need and more of a "want that boarders on need", let us do kickstarters and promotional campaigns and give us options to print on demand. I can understand not wanting people to run a kickstarter of "My Original SotB Adventure" on kickstarter. But for my stuff? Artists and editors aren't free and I can't get a loan from my parents for several grand to 'make it happen'. But this gripe really only applies to the custom settings content.
    tl;dr This license is great for FFG/generic content. This license is terrible for user generated settings. Keep the discussion going, but keep your sanity.
    Also, I'm really excited to see what Android custom adventures come out of all this, I've seen a few on the Foundry! I've already purchased the Unarmed Fighter splat, and I'm thinking of picking up some of the other launch titles (which all look really exciting!)
  10. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from O the Owl in Foundry   
    @sfRattan I wish not to be too terse in this reply, as politeness should be answered with politeness. The answer to this situation is not to tell FFG that they get a pass, or even that they are making the right call, by saying that all of our content is going to be trash anyways, so we should be gracious we have any allowances at all. So what if it's trash, it's our trash. Some of it is trash that has had years of work put into it. Yes, they are very gracious to make this platform in the first place, but it's a two way street since we are generating the content. You make a good point about giving GMs the rules without being overburdened, but I actually like IP laden work (for example, Pugmire and Mau). But ultimately what you or I like in a book is irrelevant. A creator can, and should, put into their work what they feel the work needs. As far as updates and such, if the agreement was meant to cover file format or hostling updates, it wouldn't explicitly grab up "characters, locations, scenes, names," ect. 
    But the real rub is this. Sure, FFG is never going to take our crummy work and put to print. But the way the agreement is worded, neither can we. You can't toss up a map pack on your personal website or later publish a system agnostic setting guide. You can't even write a self publish a novel on Amazon. Because you don't own it any more, "everyone does", but only FFG really does, since they are the only ones who can use it outside of the Foundry. Does being relegated to a fanfic site to write in your own setting sound okay to you? It doesn't to me. Let me repeat, no one is worried FFG is going to 'steal' our stuff, what people are worried about is being locked out of our own IP.
    Now I know, FFG isn't going to do that, their designers and execs didn't intend this, and have said they intended for the exact opposite, I'm sure this is simply a legal goof with all the GenCon confusion going on. But.. But! Any change, even change that's wanted by those up top, often comes about only when the consumers push for it. And if it doesn't change, then status quo is what we will have to work with.
    And ultimately, no one is beholden to anyone else. FFG isn't entitled anyone's work until they click the button, and creators have no entitlement to use the Genesys system until they consent to click the button. Right now, I'm not clicking that button. I'm going to wait to see if the license gets updated, and if it doesn't, then I'll retool my work to be non-Genesys. But if it does get changed, I will pound the pavement like a madman to get something ready for this platform.
  11. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from O the Owl in Foundry   
    In terms of crowdfunding, DriveThruRPG already has an entire system in place for fulfilling Kickstarter/ect campaigns. I'm sure something could be worked out where they are still the exclusive distributor of the end product. The corporate 'cut' would be factored into the campaign (probably as 'licencing fees'), the 'at cost' price would be the creator setting their own cut to $0 for orders placed via crowdfunding. What about using Patreon to generate a general slush fund to pay editors/artists, but not explicitly for any particular project?
    Edit: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/crowdsource.php (service I mentioned)
  12. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from O the Owl in Foundry   
    It's good to see Genesys finally getting the marketplace it needs to thrive as a product. However, this contract that's attached with it is a total no-go for me when it comes to my own custom settings. Since it's been only 24 hours I will give them the benefit of the doubt, although part of me is a bit indignant that this kind of error could happen, or worse, that they were honestly trying to pull this on us. Let's keep our pitchforks and torches handy, but unlit and stowed at the moment.
    Now that isn't to say this license isn't completely bad in every situation. This is the perfect license for publishing in a FFG Setting. The messy thing about publishing in someone else's setting is who owns what. You publish in Android/Terrinoth and introduce story elements, but if those rights aren't shared then everyone else is either barred from using your ideas (or anything even similar) or at worse has to actively write around them. This license allows everyone to write in a big shared setting and exchange ideas freely. Which is great, because before you simply could not 'legally' use any part of the IP in any way, shape, or form, at best you could dump something 'for free' on the internet and hope that the corporate overlords wouldn't slap you with a Cease and Desist.
    You loose nothing under this questionable license when publishing in FFG Settings because there was no way to capitalize on the 'original' bits you injected into the setting, due to not having the rights to the overall property. All the publishing and creation avenues mentioned in other posts were things you couldn't do anyways.  And it's a pretty even exchange, you get to use New Angeles and Jackson Howard, FFG and the community get to use what you bring to the table. The 'no attribution' clause is probably legalese to make sure someone can't raise a stink over some similarity between their idea and something FFG makes ("Well gee, they didn't attribute me, I said in my supplement there was an orange cat in the city, and look, here's an orange cat briefly mentioned in this book! Clearly my name needs to be in this product"). I would really, really hope that official releases have the courtesy to attribute people from who they directly pulled content from.
    It's also a pretty good license for people publishing setting agnostic "genre guides" or "rules supplements". These don't have characters, locations, ect, ect to worry about, except maybe some sample NPCs. Just don't give them names you plan on using for other projects, or just generic descriptors (like "The Investigator"). These products cannot exist outside of the Genesys frame work, so there is no application of their use outside of this marketplace. The legalese also is understandable here, preventing squabbles from happening if two people somehow put out something that overlaps or has similarities in terms of content.
    And this is all well and good, unless you want to do work in your own setting, in which case, there needs to be a second license available. The first one can stay for setting agnostic content and user made supplements for FFG settings, it's perfect for that! But there needs to be a comprehensive auxiliary license available to those who want to make custom setting content. There's no way you can expect people to sign away their darling settings under such an agreement.
    Also, less of a need and more of a "want that boarders on need", let us do kickstarters and promotional campaigns and give us options to print on demand. I can understand not wanting people to run a kickstarter of "My Original SotB Adventure" on kickstarter. But for my stuff? Artists and editors aren't free and I can't get a loan from my parents for several grand to 'make it happen'. But this gripe really only applies to the custom settings content.
    tl;dr This license is great for FFG/generic content. This license is terrible for user generated settings. Keep the discussion going, but keep your sanity.
    Also, I'm really excited to see what Android custom adventures come out of all this, I've seen a few on the Foundry! I've already purchased the Unarmed Fighter splat, and I'm thinking of picking up some of the other launch titles (which all look really exciting!)
  13. Like
    dresdinseven reacted to Nytwyng in Foundry   
    Thanks again, @dresdinseven. Not having participated in such endeavors before, I wasn’t aware of those logistics. (And, being at work as these thoughts occur, my posting time is limited and research time non-existent. 😏)
    Patreon is a good question, and a thought that would probably have occurred to me sooner or later. My Star Wars GM has floated the idea of setting up a campaign specifically to film and webcast, with a Patreon likely attached. With the announcement of Foundry (prior to this deeper dive into the terms), it’s been suggested to make that instead a custom Genesys setting in order to offer the setting materials for sale. Would such a Patreon account violate the crowdfunding conditions? (And if DriveThru already has mechanisms in place for Kickstarter campaigns, why not allow us to take advantage of them?)
    I’d say that @Cannibal Halfling might be onto something regarding hasty assembly of the terms to meet a Gen Con launch, but there’s been enough lead time that some of the better-known members of the fan and freelancer community with existing relationships to FFG were able to have content available for the launch, not to mention a podcast interview/announcement ready to go on day one. So these must be aspects that have been discussed...just with answers that aren’t ideal for the community.
  14. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from Nytwyng in Foundry   
    In terms of crowdfunding, DriveThruRPG already has an entire system in place for fulfilling Kickstarter/ect campaigns. I'm sure something could be worked out where they are still the exclusive distributor of the end product. The corporate 'cut' would be factored into the campaign (probably as 'licencing fees'), the 'at cost' price would be the creator setting their own cut to $0 for orders placed via crowdfunding. What about using Patreon to generate a general slush fund to pay editors/artists, but not explicitly for any particular project?
    Edit: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/crowdsource.php (service I mentioned)
  15. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from Noahjam325 in Foundry   
    It's good to see Genesys finally getting the marketplace it needs to thrive as a product. However, this contract that's attached with it is a total no-go for me when it comes to my own custom settings. Since it's been only 24 hours I will give them the benefit of the doubt, although part of me is a bit indignant that this kind of error could happen, or worse, that they were honestly trying to pull this on us. Let's keep our pitchforks and torches handy, but unlit and stowed at the moment.
    Now that isn't to say this license isn't completely bad in every situation. This is the perfect license for publishing in a FFG Setting. The messy thing about publishing in someone else's setting is who owns what. You publish in Android/Terrinoth and introduce story elements, but if those rights aren't shared then everyone else is either barred from using your ideas (or anything even similar) or at worse has to actively write around them. This license allows everyone to write in a big shared setting and exchange ideas freely. Which is great, because before you simply could not 'legally' use any part of the IP in any way, shape, or form, at best you could dump something 'for free' on the internet and hope that the corporate overlords wouldn't slap you with a Cease and Desist.
    You loose nothing under this questionable license when publishing in FFG Settings because there was no way to capitalize on the 'original' bits you injected into the setting, due to not having the rights to the overall property. All the publishing and creation avenues mentioned in other posts were things you couldn't do anyways.  And it's a pretty even exchange, you get to use New Angeles and Jackson Howard, FFG and the community get to use what you bring to the table. The 'no attribution' clause is probably legalese to make sure someone can't raise a stink over some similarity between their idea and something FFG makes ("Well gee, they didn't attribute me, I said in my supplement there was an orange cat in the city, and look, here's an orange cat briefly mentioned in this book! Clearly my name needs to be in this product"). I would really, really hope that official releases have the courtesy to attribute people from who they directly pulled content from.
    It's also a pretty good license for people publishing setting agnostic "genre guides" or "rules supplements". These don't have characters, locations, ect, ect to worry about, except maybe some sample NPCs. Just don't give them names you plan on using for other projects, or just generic descriptors (like "The Investigator"). These products cannot exist outside of the Genesys frame work, so there is no application of their use outside of this marketplace. The legalese also is understandable here, preventing squabbles from happening if two people somehow put out something that overlaps or has similarities in terms of content.
    And this is all well and good, unless you want to do work in your own setting, in which case, there needs to be a second license available. The first one can stay for setting agnostic content and user made supplements for FFG settings, it's perfect for that! But there needs to be a comprehensive auxiliary license available to those who want to make custom setting content. There's no way you can expect people to sign away their darling settings under such an agreement.
    Also, less of a need and more of a "want that boarders on need", let us do kickstarters and promotional campaigns and give us options to print on demand. I can understand not wanting people to run a kickstarter of "My Original SotB Adventure" on kickstarter. But for my stuff? Artists and editors aren't free and I can't get a loan from my parents for several grand to 'make it happen'. But this gripe really only applies to the custom settings content.
    tl;dr This license is great for FFG/generic content. This license is terrible for user generated settings. Keep the discussion going, but keep your sanity.
    Also, I'm really excited to see what Android custom adventures come out of all this, I've seen a few on the Foundry! I've already purchased the Unarmed Fighter splat, and I'm thinking of picking up some of the other launch titles (which all look really exciting!)
  16. Like
    dresdinseven reacted to ModernPaladin in Foundry   
    True. I really, really hope they revise their community agreement (contract) to reflect his statements. As it is written it looks like you forfeit all rights to your IP by publishing through this agreement.
    All quotes below are from the Community Content Agreement on DTRPG:
    I'm no lawyer, but part 2C reads to me that anyone has free reign to use your IP in their own products without compensating you.
    I read this as "once you publish, you can't revoke rights for anyone else to make anything based on your IP."
  17. Like
    dresdinseven reacted to Cannibal Halfling in Foundry   
    I think the charitable explanation - and the one I’m choosing to believe until proven wrong - is that this is the result of rushing the paperwork to get the announcement out in time for GenCon so it could drive sales there. That’s kind of embarrassing, but not malicious, and they’d hardly be the first ones to make a gaffe while scrambling during con season.
    I’m optimistically looking forward to seeing them straighten this out, and really hope that optimism is rewarded.
  18. Like
    dresdinseven reacted to Nytwyng in Foundry   
    You make some great points, @dresdinseven, and I wonder if that’s where the disconnect stems from: the written contract worded to account for playing with FFG’s toys but not being worded properly to accommodate the intended spirit of letting us own our personally-created settings.
  19. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from Cannibal Halfling in Foundry   
    It's good to see Genesys finally getting the marketplace it needs to thrive as a product. However, this contract that's attached with it is a total no-go for me when it comes to my own custom settings. Since it's been only 24 hours I will give them the benefit of the doubt, although part of me is a bit indignant that this kind of error could happen, or worse, that they were honestly trying to pull this on us. Let's keep our pitchforks and torches handy, but unlit and stowed at the moment.
    Now that isn't to say this license isn't completely bad in every situation. This is the perfect license for publishing in a FFG Setting. The messy thing about publishing in someone else's setting is who owns what. You publish in Android/Terrinoth and introduce story elements, but if those rights aren't shared then everyone else is either barred from using your ideas (or anything even similar) or at worse has to actively write around them. This license allows everyone to write in a big shared setting and exchange ideas freely. Which is great, because before you simply could not 'legally' use any part of the IP in any way, shape, or form, at best you could dump something 'for free' on the internet and hope that the corporate overlords wouldn't slap you with a Cease and Desist.
    You loose nothing under this questionable license when publishing in FFG Settings because there was no way to capitalize on the 'original' bits you injected into the setting, due to not having the rights to the overall property. All the publishing and creation avenues mentioned in other posts were things you couldn't do anyways.  And it's a pretty even exchange, you get to use New Angeles and Jackson Howard, FFG and the community get to use what you bring to the table. The 'no attribution' clause is probably legalese to make sure someone can't raise a stink over some similarity between their idea and something FFG makes ("Well gee, they didn't attribute me, I said in my supplement there was an orange cat in the city, and look, here's an orange cat briefly mentioned in this book! Clearly my name needs to be in this product"). I would really, really hope that official releases have the courtesy to attribute people from who they directly pulled content from.
    It's also a pretty good license for people publishing setting agnostic "genre guides" or "rules supplements". These don't have characters, locations, ect, ect to worry about, except maybe some sample NPCs. Just don't give them names you plan on using for other projects, or just generic descriptors (like "The Investigator"). These products cannot exist outside of the Genesys frame work, so there is no application of their use outside of this marketplace. The legalese also is understandable here, preventing squabbles from happening if two people somehow put out something that overlaps or has similarities in terms of content.
    And this is all well and good, unless you want to do work in your own setting, in which case, there needs to be a second license available. The first one can stay for setting agnostic content and user made supplements for FFG settings, it's perfect for that! But there needs to be a comprehensive auxiliary license available to those who want to make custom setting content. There's no way you can expect people to sign away their darling settings under such an agreement.
    Also, less of a need and more of a "want that boarders on need", let us do kickstarters and promotional campaigns and give us options to print on demand. I can understand not wanting people to run a kickstarter of "My Original SotB Adventure" on kickstarter. But for my stuff? Artists and editors aren't free and I can't get a loan from my parents for several grand to 'make it happen'. But this gripe really only applies to the custom settings content.
    tl;dr This license is great for FFG/generic content. This license is terrible for user generated settings. Keep the discussion going, but keep your sanity.
    Also, I'm really excited to see what Android custom adventures come out of all this, I've seen a few on the Foundry! I've already purchased the Unarmed Fighter splat, and I'm thinking of picking up some of the other launch titles (which all look really exciting!)
  20. Thanks
    dresdinseven reacted to Imbasel in Foundry   
    What Sam Gregor-Stewart said doesn't matter. He's not a lawyer and people who sign the Licensing Agreement are bound to the terms of the current contract. The Licensing Agreement is what is going to be held and enforced. If they decide to change it moving forward than that's great. If not the current agreement is going to be what is held. 
    It will be interesting to see what will happen to the Licensing Agreement and what will happen for people who already published.
  21. Thanks
    dresdinseven reacted to O the Owl in Foundry   
    I watched the video, and it makes some bold statements about the Liscencing agreement that directly contradict what Sam Gregor-Stewart said in his interview on The Forge Podcast that aired earlier today. He specifically said that one would retain rights to independently created IP. Two examples he gave were publishing the setting with different game mechanics, and writing a novel in the setting.
    It would be nice to have some clarity on this.
  22. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from elvenrose in Genesys OGL   
    There's rumors and talk and "maybe, maybe not" from the company from time to time. But as of the moment, nothing really.  Which is a shame.  My 100% spitball prediction is that if it were to come it wouldn't be until after they get a few settings books out, probably one for each of the settings described in the book.
    I've complained (pretty loudly) in the past about not having an OGL day 1, but I can see the wisdom of it.  The first thing people were going to do with Genesys was make a 'not-DnD' clone, 'not-Netrunner' clone, and a 'not-TwilightImperium' clone.  This allows FFG to make official settings books for their own IP without having to compete with or muddy the market with knock-offs.  This may be for the best, as it makes people develop innovative products that can answer the question of "why don't I just play RoT instead?"
    I hope we eventually get an OGL, this community has made some absolutely fantastic content so far, I'm really interested to see what they could make with an actual budget and return on investment.
  23. Like
    dresdinseven got a reaction from SavageBob in Genesys Talents Expanded   
    @TheSapient Thank you so much for this resource! It has proven invaluable time and time again during my campaign, and I'm sure many others would say the same thing.
  24. Thanks
    dresdinseven got a reaction from TheSapient in Genesys Talents Expanded   
    @TheSapient Thank you so much for this resource! It has proven invaluable time and time again during my campaign, and I'm sure many others would say the same thing.
  25. Thanks
    dresdinseven reacted to TheSapient in Genesys Talents Expanded   
    GENESYS TALENTS EXPANDED Version 5.0 IS NOW ABAILABLE
    changes include talents from Knights of Fate, Ciphers and Masks, and Shadow of the Beanstalk
    As always, thank you to ESP77, Swordbreaker, Richardbuxton, who put a lot of time and effort into evaluating the Star Wars talents.
     
    Genesys Talents Expanded VERSION 5.0 (pdf)
    Word File for your editing pleasure
    Excel file for developing your own lists.
    Changelog
    Drainsmith's beautiful take on Version 4.2 is still available here.
×
×
  • Create New...