|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Do you get to call yourself a TV developer before you develop anything for TV? Obviously, they're currently developing. Once they get something on TV they get to call themselves a TV producer.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Meanwhile, Blades in the Dark is ALSO being developed for TV. https://twitter.com/john_harper/status/1432791792684920832
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Meanwhile, Blades in the Dark is ALSO being developed for TV. I guess it's going around. At least Blades seems far easier to do, and possibly do well, even on a relatively small budget.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:I guess it's going around. At least Blades seems far easier to do, and possibly do well, even on a relatively small budget. Maybe a show will finally make the setting make sense for me. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:Obviously, they're currently developing. Once they get something on TV they get to call themselves a TV producer. I thought developing in the TV world was just the idea-guy phase of tv production
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
That Old Tree posted:I guess it's going around. At least Blades seems far easier to do, and possibly do well, even on a relatively small budget. I'm guessing it's because tv executives have clued into the success of Critical Role and other actual plays/rpg-adjacent projects and have decided they need to take advantage of that cash cow! We'll probably get some decent shows out of this, alongside some hilariously poorly-conceived failures!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:There's an accepted definition of "IP squatting" and it's the precise opposite of what's being discussed: Someone who owns an IP to extract value from it, but doesn't create content for it themselves. The current thread title is a reference to an IP squatting fiasco! Buying into this idea does harm to creators because it means they put energy into going out on a limb - a limb which can be hacked away by the IP owner at any time, causing them to plummet. It does harm to the creative field in question because it encourages people to just invest more and more in the same limited set of brands rather than creating original material - thus giving those brands even more of a stranglehold on the field. It does harm to fans because it further fosters parasocial relationships at a time when we all perhaps should be weaning ourself off that particular addictive habit, or at least addressing our relationship with it. Maybe we should shift to the idea that making any significant amount of money off fan works is like winning the lottery - great if it happens to you, but not something you should really plan on happening and certainly not worth prioritising over more stable sources of income. (Making money off fan works is somewhat more surer than a lottery win, mind... but once you've won the lottery, someone else can't come along and take all the money you ever made off the lottery, whereas an IP infringement case can absolutely end with you having to hand over all the profit you ever made on a work to an IP owner.) Then again, I'm also the guy who thinks that pretending that "professional RPG designer" is a valid career choice perpetuates a system of harmful exploitation and the professionalised industry should die back in favour of DIY producers because then less people would be hornswoggled into writing for a field which pays less per word than any other field on the planet. (Caveat: obviously above considerations are ashes in the wind if there are massive changes to the IP system. But encouraging someone to act like the revolution has already happened is, well, a good way to make a martyr for the revolution but not a good way to be a friend.) Warthur fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Aug 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Maybe we should shift to the idea that making any significant amount of money off fan works is like winning the lottery - great if it happens to you, but not something you should really plan on happening and certainly not worth prioritising over more stable sources of income. (Making money off fan works is somewhat more surer than a lottery win, mind... but once you've won the lottery, someone else can't come along and take all the money you ever made off the lottery, whereas an IP infringement case can absolutely end with you having to hand over all the profit you ever made on a work to an IP owner.) How is this different to what we have now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Warthur posted:I have huge reservations about promoting the idea that people should be able to make a living selling fan works. I understand why you think it's important for people not to invest too much into doing works that can be entirely taken away from them, but I'm not sure why your solution is DIY and don't bother commercializing. In video or board games, the starting point can be creating fan work, and then the next step isn't "pray the IP owner doesn't come down on you" (although some people insist on doing that for some reason), it's "let's extract the unique parts of this and remove the parts that are claimed by that IP" or "let's get a license from the IP owners to do this commercially" or "let's use the experience to start over with our own thing."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
It is bad to encourage this sort of thing as a career, but for plenty of fan content people this is something that started out as fun that happened to take off and was significantly better money than anything they had a better shot at. I don't think there is anyone in this thread or really the forums at large that thinks it's a good idea to plan for a living off fanfic/summary videos. It's just crab bucket about a youtubesman escaping from retail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
I think that fair use carveouts exist because the law was made to recognize that there's value in parody, education, critique, etc. that trumps the value of enabling people to profit from their creative works. I would like to live in a world where we could encourage people to do parody, educational content, etc. including for profit, based on others works - but if you asked me, today, if anyone should encourage e.g. a Youtuber to do that, I'd say "no, Youtube will gently caress you over as soon as you get a takedown request, which Youtube has made it extremely easy for rightsholders to give them, your work will forever be under that sword of damocles, don't do it" and that's a shame, but it's probably sage advice. "Fan works" encompasses much more than just fair use, though. Perhaps it would be fruitful if we carefully drew a distinction when discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:How is this different to what we have now? Right now people like the TTS guy seem to have been building their sandcastles on pretty shaky ground, is the thing, I think a better general appreciation of how shaky the ground actually is might have put them in a better position. (For instance, I imagine one of the big problems with the "just don't use GW's own art" angle is that whilst that would indeed be fine for new episodes, there's an asston of old videos which would still be an infringement risk unless they were replaced. Had they been using original art from the start, they'd be in a much better place to tell GW to gently caress off if they got a C&D; in fact, the odds of getting a C&D would go drastically down, because basically that sort of legal department is going to go for the lowest hanging fruit which is making the bosses the most unhappy before they devote resources to shakier cases.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I understand why you think it's important for people not to invest too much into doing works that can be entirely taken away from them, but I'm not sure why your solution is DIY and don't bother commercializing. In video or board games, the starting point can be creating fan work, and then the next step isn't "pray the IP owner doesn't come down on you" (although some people insist on doing that for some reason), it's "let's extract the unique parts of this and remove the parts that are claimed by that IP" or "let's get a license from the IP owners to do this commercially" or "let's use the experience to start over with our own thing." It is almost certainly just my subjective experience but it really feels like there's more creators out there who seem to have been told by someone* at some point that "monetise fanwork and pray the IP owner doesn't come down on you" is a legit strategy, and not cutting the switch for your own back and holding it aloft for the IP owner to pick it up at the moment of their choice. Which is a cruel angle to work. * (I'm using "told by someone" as shorthand for "maybe picked up the idea from particular individuals/communities/institutions, maybe has spontaneously developed this error from misinterpretation of unwritten social rules, maybe is being influenced by something in the current broader zeitgeists. I'm not sure what is causing this to be a thing, or whether it even is a thing or whether I'm just noticing more people fall into this particular trap for whatever reason.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
The TTS guy was making parodies, and his use of GW art is in my opinion completely legal in that pursuit, under fair use laws. However, TTS guy was 100% right in worrying that a GW staffer or lawyer could literally click some buttons in the Youtube UI and his stuff would be shitcanned and he could get black marks from Youtube as well, with the potential of losing his account, too. Games Workshop should promise not to use their power of IP protection to hurt people who are exercising their fair use rights: but they won't, and that's not unique or even unusual for GW or any other corporation. It's the common, default state of things for corporations that own intellectual property that has fans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
Still funny to me that a bunch of geeks slapped together a bunch of their favorite scifi ideas together and then a decade later started screeching about their 100% super dee duper original ip that they own for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Also using minis that were originally licensed to be runequest minis, then when the license expired or fell through (I forget which) changing the names and selling them anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
TheDiceMustRoll posted:Still funny to me that a bunch of geeks slapped together a bunch of their favorite scifi ideas together and then a decade later started screeching about their 100% super dee duper original ip that they own for sure. Yeah, that's also a fair point. And, I mean, it's clearly not that much of a stretch to do something close but different enough to be its own highly enforced IP. Just look at Warcraft and Starcraft, initially Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40K with the serial numbers scratched off, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
Taking ideas that are in the commons and using them to create your own story is how most creative work happens, and IP law is set up to protect the aspects of your work that are original art, yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Companies have no moral rights to their IPs. With very few exceptions they didn't create them in the first place and the actual creators are either long gone or no longer work at the company.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:34
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Meanwhile, Blades in the Dark is ALSO being developed for TV. If Peaky Blinders can work, so can a Blades in the Dark show. The main difficulty will be getting the weirdness right, but PB is basically a show about a Bravos crew (with a splash of Hawkers) with the magic stripped out. Disclaimer: I only watched the first two seasons before Netflix ran out for me. I've never heard of the people making it and have no idea what the quality will be for this, though. Just that conceptually it's a fit and Blades is designed to produce TV-esque sessions anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
The companies involved here have actually made TV shows and movies before, so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:If Peaky Blinders can work, so can a Blades in the Dark show. The main difficulty will be getting the weirdness right, but PB is basically a show about a Bravos crew (with a splash of Hawkers) with the magic stripped out. Disclaimer: I only watched the first two seasons before Netflix ran out for me. I thought the parts of Shadow and Bone that were adapted from Six of Crows were a pretty decent on-screen example of what a Blades Shadows crew might look like. Quite a few supernatural elements, too. Anyway, it's definitely within reach, but time will tell if they'll pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yeah, that's also a fair point. And, I mean, it's clearly not that much of a stretch to do something close but different enough to be its own highly enforced IP. Just look at Warcraft and Starcraft, initially Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40K with the serial numbers scratched off, respectively. Those at least were intended to be licensed to be Hams games. Unfortunately, whatever rando was in charge of licensing just went 'WAT?' and they didn't get a license for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The TTS guy was making parodies, and his use of GW art is in my opinion completely legal in that pursuit, under fair use laws. However, TTS guy was 100% right in worrying that a GW staffer or lawyer could literally click some buttons in the Youtube UI and his stuff would be shitcanned and he could get black marks from Youtube as well, with the potential of losing his account, too. YouTube being trigger happy is a side effect of YouTube being a globally-accessible website, so if your thing goes online and it's not geo-locked somehow, bang, it's been made available in every country in the world and someone grumpy about their IP being misused can have the luxury of choosing their venue when coming after you or in getting YouTube to restrict access to your poo poo. They are a global actor in a field where there is not that much in the way of global standardisation, which forces them to be as restrictive as possible. The first rule of discussing fair use of IP is to keep a big heavy metal ruler next to your keyboard and if you catch yourself talking about US-style fair use exceptions or parody rules like they are globally applicable, go to town on your knuckles until the desire goes away. It's a dangerous, dangerous trap to fall into because it involves imagining that US-style first amendment considerations apply worldwide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
I mean you're basically saying the same thing that should be said to people planning to go to college in the US, but we rarely do this should have known better routine when someone's life is ruined by college debt that was 100% predictable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Pretty much! Though I'd phrase my position as "should have been warned" rather than "should have known better".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Do you get to call yourself a TV developer before you develop anything for TV? Does GMS still get to call himself a game developer? Probably about 60% serious about that at this point, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Pretty much! Though I'd phrase my position as "should have been warned" rather than "should have known better".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Fsmhunk posted:Companies have no moral rights to their IPs. With very few exceptions they didn't create them in the first place and the actual creators are either long gone or no longer work at the company. The purpose of the IP system includes ensuring things get created. Work for hire is a legitimate inspiration and means of paying an argument. On the other hand one of the big issues of IP law isn't the existence of copyright so much as the ridiculous copyright durations. My take is it should be whichever is longer of life of the artist or 25 years - with corporations only getting the fixed 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
This is probably a seriously dumb question, and I'm saying this as someone who loved TTS. But at what point does something go from parody to light-hearted fanfic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
The Bee posted:This is probably a seriously dumb question, and I'm saying this as someone who loved TTS. But at what point does something go from parody to light-hearted fanfic? What's the purpose of the differentiation? Like, is "fanfic" less valuable or more infringing than "parody"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Fsmhunk posted:Companies have no moral rights to their IPs. With very few exceptions they didn't create them in the first place and the actual creators are either long gone or no longer work at the company. How about something like SJG, which is just him publishing his own poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 04:07
|
|
|
Fsmhunk posted:Companies have no moral rights to their IPs. With very few exceptions they didn't create them in the first place and the actual creators are either long gone or no longer work at the company. One point of moral rights in countries that go crazy for them is that they are forever, because the art has part of the artist's soul or whatever. Estates of dead creators can sue generations later for the moral rights of attribution, integrity, et cetera, and the estates of popular (dead) creators are probably companies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
Kestral posted:Meanwhile, Blades in the Dark is ALSO being developed for TV. This would be BIG NEWS for me, if I had any idea of what Blades in the Dark is. Is it a RPG? A Board game? A online RPG? I have never heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 12:45
|
|
|
admanb posted:What's the purpose of the differentiation? Like, is "fanfic" less valuable or more infringing than "parody"? Mostly for the purposes of knowing when somebody is protected under our current copyright laws. Is there even a hard line? Or is it a big old grey spectrum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 12:55
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Mostly for the purposes of knowing when somebody is protected under our current copyright laws. Is there even a hard line? Or is it a big old grey spectrum? There is no hard line, no. Fair use is a number of factors that have to be judged in each case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 12:58
|
|
|
Comstar posted:This would be BIG NEWS for me, if I had any idea of what Blades in the Dark is. Is it a RPG? A Board game? A online RPG? I have never heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 13:05
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Mostly for the purposes of knowing when somebody is protected under our current copyright laws. Is there even a hard line? Or is it a big old grey spectrum? Both are protected under copyright laws, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 13:10
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:There's an entire linked article in that tweet "Also moving into development is Blades In The Dark – a television adaptation of the popular role-playing game." So Popular that I have still never heard of it. Ok, a quick google tells me its a table top fantasy steampunk(?) heist game tabletop game that was Kickstarted. They couldn't find something...more popular? I can't imagine the player base of fans is big enough to get a TV show out of it based on just that. I guess the license would have been cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Also using minis that were originally licensed to be runequest minis, then when the license expired or fell through (I forget which) changing the names and selling them anyways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2021 13:21
|
|
