this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
182 points (97.9% liked)

Games

16745 readers
859 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"DC reserves all rights and will take such action as DC deems necessary or appropriate to protect its intellectual property rights."

...

Days after Fables author Bill Willingham—whose work was adapted into Telltale's The Wolf Among Us—announced he had thrust the series into the public domain as a form of "asymmetric warfare" against DC Comics, the publisher has proclaimed that it still very much owns the rights.

"The Fables comic books and graphic novels published by DC, and the storylines, characters, and elements therein, are owned by DC and protected under the copyright laws of the United States and throughout the world in accordance with applicable law and are not in the public domain," a statement sent to IGN reads. "DC reserves all rights and will take such action as DC deems necessary or appropriate to protect its intellectual property rights."

DC's statement stands in direct opposition to two Substack posts Willingham has published over the last few days. The first, which included the initial announcement that he had decided to offer up the series to the public domain, took multiple stabs at DC's treatment of Fables as well as a few choice mentions towards Telltale Games and its adaptation.

A follow-up post divulged a few more details, such as negotiations where Willingham claims that DC "reinterpreted [their] contracts to assume they owned Fables outright," something which he claims was less of a mistake and more that the publisher "tried to get away with something and then retreated once it didn't work."

all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jaycifer@kbin.social 65 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I was reading a blog post that talks about exactly how much the author is able to put in the public domain. My understanding is that Willingham has a fairly individualized contract with DC that he is grandfathered in on and is rather abnormal nowadays and gives him more control. DC has been trying to, as stated above, “reinterpret” that contract to give them more control.

Essentially, DC may own the rights to the individual products they published, but the world and characters Willingham created can be used outside of those in new or reimagined context.

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago

Thanks for that link, amazing. I didn't realize how unlikely US is to change copyright length, or how important the creative commons license was

[–] dandroid@dandroid.app 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's likely that if anyone tries to use it as part of public domain, DC will take them to court. At that point, it's probably completely up to the whim of whoever's court it lands in.

[–] blackfire@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

If they don't take him to court and any new imaginings of the material keeps away from what tell tale already created I think it might actually be a DC loss, should they challenge it

[–] HidingCat@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Wow, just read half of it, it's a really murky situation (as the article mentions).

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That creates a significant can of worms in regards to what parts of the character are derived from the source material that is owned by DC. See not allowing sherlock holmes to smile for an example.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 year ago

If there's an ownership dispute between the creator of the thing and the people who sell it, I'm always gonna side with the person who created the thing. Publishers are a cancer.

[–] Computerchairgeneral@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not surprising that DC is pushing back on this, although I'm not sure if there is anything they can do if Willingham is right and he can put his characters and world in the public domain. Although I suppose they could just send out cease-and-desist notices to anyone trying to use the property and hope no one challenges it.

The original run was creator-owned so he has the right to release it to the public however I am not sure about it now as fables continued on under DC Black Label.