This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.
Talking and Driving... in The Return
19th Sep 2017, 8:00 AM
first Latest
Talking and Driving...

first Previous Next Latest
Average Rating: 0
Number of people who have voted: 0
Author Notes:
19th Sep 2017, 8:00 AM

Next page is tomorrow, Wednesday.

Comments:
19th Sep 2017, 9:31 AM

I still feel like I'm missing something on how Weers could 'take' a campaign, as with the information given, that's just not how these things work. Is there something in another webcomic I should read or something?

19th Sep 2017, 9:46 AM

From what I understand, it seems like what she does is she publishes modules based on other people's campaigns, then takes them to court on the grounds of "copyright infringement" or "theft of intellectual property," more likely the former, which the original players have trouble proving since, under normal circumstances, people don't bother trying to trademark their homebrew material. I'm not saying this is 100% accurate, since even I think this is questionably legal at best, but that's what I think it is. Anyone who knows better, please feel free to correct me

19th Sep 2017, 10:20 AM

As I understand it, she gets them to sign a contract giving her control of the idea, somehow. Either through strong arm tactics or by beating them within the campaign.

19th Sep 2017, 12:12 PM

Pretty much as I understand it, yes. And I am the one trying to write that out without getting bogged down in badly improvised legal jargon.

19th Sep 2017, 12:28 PM

It's pretty much just stealing patents. If you can beat someone to the copyright punch, they can't fight you for the rights. I don't know exactly how Disney does it, but I imagine Weers works in the same way. And a lot of the time they do strong arm or work out a contract where they play you for the campaign.

20th Sep 2017, 10:08 AM

Well they don't play for settings in the real world.

And you're confusing copyrights and patents. Copyright is based everywhere on who originated the idea. Patents in most countries are first-to-file, though in the US and a few other countries they are first-to-invent. This is why in some labs, dated lab notebooks have to be signed by a third party.

Proving it in court is another matter, of course.

The implication thus far seems to be that there was a pre-existing deal trading THIS campaign for something else, but on a contingent basis, ie, rights only transfer under some pre-determined conditions: It's used mostly in real-estate e.g. "I'm only agreeing to buy this house under the condition that the plumbing is working before this date." http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102913/contingency-clauses-home-purchase-contracts.asp

Sounds like even Rastaba isn't entirely clear on how to make this work, though.

In the other campaign she shows up in, the chain was different: a 3rd party company purchased the publishing rights, then Weers bought them up and sat on the rights, which since they had not thought to add a 'good faith effort to publish' clause, meant it just never got published.

What I thought initially, though this is not what has been shown, is that Betty (I think that's the campaign creator's name, I get confused) made a deal to wager the Crystal Gems campaign against the campaign from the other comic. Is that the intent? If so it's gotten kinda lost in the shuffle, and was never actually stated.

20th Sep 2017, 11:20 AM

About only thing I could follow was 'Rastaba doesn't seem to know what she's doing'. Which is absolutely correct. So try not to apply too much heavy logic to It, please? As it's not like I am trying to be super realistic.

20th Sep 2017, 1:29 PM

Oh dear, I didn't mean at all that you don't know what you're doing! Your work is great, and I wouldn't be reading this if I didn't like it.

I merely meant that it felt like this particular plot thread was not fleshed out yet: in other words, an improvisational writing style, and I was trying to give ideas.

Leave a Comment