"Resurrecting a Ruleset?" Topic

There are a number of rulesets which are no longer available.

A few are out of copyright (published many years ago, such as Sham-Battle and Little Wars), so there is no problem to republish them or make them available online.

Some were previously online, available free to everyone, but the websites for whatever reason are no longer online. Some had copyright notices; others did not (but a copyright might still exist).

If you have downloaded a copy of such a ruleset, do you think it would be OK to make the ruleset available again from your blog? Even if you don't know how to contact the author? And in some cases, the author was anonymous.

If you can track down the ruleset using something like the Internet Wayback Machine (which archives old webpages), would there be any reason not to make the file available from your blog? Or would you only post a link to the archive?

I'm wondering whether I should make some of these 'lost' rulesets available on TMP or not.

I think that it is important to respect copyright, which in the UK lasts for 70 years from the death of the author, or for anonymous works for 70 years from publication.

If a copyright holder has put the material online fair enough, otherwise I don't think that it is right to put someone else's rules on a blog or to include a link an archive that has an illegal copy. And if someone did I don't think that it should be referred to on TMP – the following if from the TMP FAQ on Piracy

"… Can I use these forums to promote illegal copies of someone else's rulebooks or supplements? No. When you write your own rules, then you can give them away for free…"

I agree John

The default for most copyright laws is no.

That's why creative commons and other such licenses came about.

No. The Mickey Mouse Act pretty well ended public domain in the US and EU. If you can track down an author and get his permission, certainly.

Curse you, Disney!!

There are several ways in which I'd say yes.

1) The copyright naturally lapses. (75 years after the original author's death or whatever it is in your country)

2) The author's express permission for you to post.

3) The author simply releases the work into the public domain.

Otherwise, no.

Lord of the Rings, for example, is still under copyright of whomever owns the rights. Tolkien died in the early 1970s and was a UK citizen. So, all of his works will become public domain in the early 2140s.

Agreed with the previous posters.

I say yes, and if someone that has the rights to them contacts you and asks to have them removed then you remove them- this is called a "Takedown Notice". This is the state of the law currently in the US. This is how Youtube operates.

No.

I'm in a particular situation.

I worked on and ammended a set of unpublished rules written by someone else as a branch of a company.

The rules were published years ago, but what if I decided to publish them again ?

My name is on the original set, so I could republish or make it available for free, but what about the other people in the (now long defuct) company that published them. Do they have a say in this ?

Daler,240D, can a "Takedown Notice" be followed by an action for damages in the US?

Patrick R, if you hold the copyright, yes. If not, no. Just based on the information in your post, this sounds like a "work for hire", so the copyright would rest with the original publisher.

can a "Takedown Notice" be followed by an action for damages in the US?

At least in the US, you have to prove damages. Usually that involves a lawyer and some extra expense. The mounetary amount of perceived damages will be quite low and most people will not go through the trouble, time and expense to recover such a small sum.

Again though, if you know it is still under copyright, it is up to YOU to do your due everything you can to clear the item (get permission and so forth) before posting.

John got this right. If the original was available free online, I think you could make it available again, and just post a nice credit to the original author/site, etc.

But if there is a copyright putting it online without permission is illegal.

Just because the owner hosts something free online does not mean it can be redistributed by anyone else. I don't know the default but have seen owners put stuff free online with a note saying "the rights to redistribute this other than through this website are denied". (or something similar)

There's two questions here:

A: Do you have a legal right to? No, not at all. Ownership don't disappear just because it isn't being exercised at the moment.
Whether it was free or you paid for it is 100% irrelevant to the law.

B: Do you hurt anybody? Not particularly, but then, what if the rights holder decides to republish it?
In the big picture, you're probably fine.

C: Will you get sued for millions? Probably not.

Copyright in general is far too long, but given the short life span of our hobby (40'ish years commercially), any reduction would still be irrelevant to us.

Ahhh…..Free internet legal advice.
So far it seems like a 50-50 yes/no split.
Good luck with that.

You may well take that view Your Honour but a lad on the internet told me… Yeah worth every penny you paid for it.

Yeah worth every penny you paid for it.

If they are wrong, do I get my money back?

If it was free once, it's free forever. You can't put the genie back in the bottle after its out in the wild

Nice idea, but the legalities could get TMP shut down at least temporarily, and possibly for good. I wouldn't like that. Suggested compromise: if folks respond to your post granting permission, Spread the Word! And keep a copy of the permission-granting post.

There is often less need to resurrect a rule set. Mainly because newer sets often use the main ideas from older sets and then make them more suited to the trends or tastes of the present. Are there any sets that pre-date a current set by ten years or more that are preferable? I say ten years because there is often a few copycat sets released just after a new innovative rule set is released.
Just thoughts.

martin

I think older rule sets have historical interest in and of themselves. I am not necessarily interested in them because I want to adopt them as my active rulesets.

What the owner does to distribute his work has no bearing on what you do with his work.
Giving you something for free does not give you the right to make copies and distribute them. That is what "copyright" means. The right to copy. You do not have that right.

Good call from Martin, though I wonder if there's anything that's actually truly lost.
Often, there's a newer game that's at least heavily influenced (Warzone – Void, Laserburn – Inquisitor etc.)

I agree with Daler that historical interest is a good reason, but it would need to be pursued in some manner that was mutually agreeable.

Of course, if the game was a commercial success, the rights may lie in murky waters.

In the USA, Copyright attaches the moment the work is created -- it does not happen when the object is registered with the Library of Congress, it begins the moment the work is created. The owner of the copyright can share his work for a limited time, for free, then terminate the agreement. They can also sell any right they choose: first publishing rights in a given city/state/etc.; first publishing rights for a T-Shirt, in whatever locale they choose; and the list goes on…

There are books on the topic, in your local library. There are also classes available on the topic, typically in colleges, and possibly Community Education programs. Barring that, Bill, you need to spend some money on professional advice, or risk losing everything. Cheers!

For people interested in older rules, the history of war gaming project has republished dozens. With all the appropriate legalities sorted.

My name is on the original set, so I could republish or make it available for free, but what about the other people in the (now long defuct) company that published them. Do they have a say in this ?

Call a lawyer. The answer depends on who owns the company now. If it is truly dissolved (legally) and there was no formal distribution of the assets upon dissolution, there are (jurisdictional) default ownerships as well as time limits and processes for individuals to claim assets like the IP for a product.

can a "Takedown Notice" be followed by an action for damages in the US?

Actually, it can be preceded by legal action. A "takedown notice" is an owner taking proactive "good faith" legal steps. As described above, most of the time in the Internet world this falls in the "I can't even recover my legal fees from suing you" / "You can't afford to go to court over this at all" category.

Specific sites on the Internet have their own policies about notification and posting in the TOS. Altruistically, we like to think that this is because the site owners like to have a well-defined relationship with an informed clientele. Cynically, in the rare cases something like this goes to court, it is the site's ejector seat from the litigation.

Pony Wars needs to be reprinted judging from constant inquiries.

Pony Wars needs to be reprinted judging from constant inquiries.

Possibly, but only by the party who has the right to do so.
Far too many people on TMP think that "But I WANT IT! Waaaah!" is sufficient.

I'm wondering whether I should make some of these 'lost' rulesets available on TMP or not.

To answer your question directly, Bill, Little Wars and Sham Battle are probably public domain so feel free to add those sorts of rules. I think Little Wars can be had from archive.org. There is at least one audio book of Little Wars as well.

Others that are out of print but not necessarily out of copyright you should steer clear of unless you have express permission from the copyright holder. It is the right thing to do.

A failure to respect intellectual property rights is the fastest route to the loss of new intellectual property being created. Either respect the rights or be prepared for the results. And in our hobby almost all items created fall under some sort of intellectual property right – or something similar.