?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Camarilla Question

So, White Wolf have caused a bit of a stir by making anyone who wants to charge money for a game (even just to cover costs) join the Camarilla to do so. Plus any players that play more than once have to join the organisation.

Seperate games sure. People don't have to play inside the official chronicle, nor do they have to use the reporting systems, etc.

There are a number of things in the license that have intrigued me quite a bit and have put some cogs into serious gear. Could someone please send me the license agreement and any other related information (or post a link to somewhere I can reda it online). I was involved with the original licenses under both the old Board of Directors and also with the White Wolf Steering Committee when I was the International Development Officer so will probably recognise most of the basics but would like to see the current version anyway.

Many thanks.

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
lapinenoireuk
Jul. 12th, 2005 05:00 pm (UTC)
Still don't understand how the bigwigs at WW intend to enforce this.

I mean that I've just checked the Requiem, Forsaken, World of Darkness & the old Orpheus game books - and effectively it's the same blurb in each. Usual constraints on copyright but nothing else.

At no point does it say you can only play this game if "insert demand here" or "by virtue of buying this book you agree to the following" - therefore (IMHO) they'd have a hard time even getting court time (lawyers are a different case - they get paid {win or lose} by the hour) so, with this in mind, how can WW hope to impose, retrospectively, "conditions of fair usage" on a publicly available product. Even more insane if they try it with OWOD - a product they admit that they are NO longer supporting !!!! [A puzzled lagomorph twitches ears in confusion]

Very weird ! Shades of TSR trying to copywright the word "Nazi" ????
(Deleted comment)
lapinenoireuk
Jul. 12th, 2005 05:14 pm (UTC)
Beg apols ... I always thought it was toooo good to be true {grin}
(Deleted comment)
_grimtales_
Jul. 12th, 2005 08:16 pm (UTC)
You're likely correct.
But the way it is written doesn't make it look like that. The way its released doesn't make it look like that and, arguably, they have a strong enough case to go after people profiteering from them already, without all this.

So, PR disaster and unleashing Achilli the Asshat on the forums, as usual, not the best plan.
nesf
Jul. 12th, 2005 06:38 pm (UTC)
Man that thread on the WW forums is bitchy...

And there I was forgetting why I don't read them.
gabby2600
Jul. 12th, 2005 08:43 pm (UTC)
next they will try to trademark the term LARP.

WW should be shot.
ua_meruti
Jul. 13th, 2005 09:07 am (UTC)
I note with interest that WW weren't in a hurry to come out and defend this idea, or clarify it.

The big problem is that their published material doesn't contain this agreement, so they're trying to add it after the fact.
Therefore I wonder what would happen if you were to run a WW game, charge people - but follow the terms of the license, and then charge WW after the fact for the free advertising you've just done for their company.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow