Thank you to the OP for the work you have done on this useful article..

to the reaction of the original authors, who were credited by the op... get over yourself

Hi!

Thanks for all your positive feedback.

As I started the project and looked for suitable content, I was happy to find the Menagerie as it is Creative Commons and, as the name already implies, actually invites you to work with it. I fulfilled all the requirements which the license is asking for by giving credits on the second page of the document, putting it under the same license and do not intend to sell it. The reason the GSA is not mentioned is quite simple: It is just not mentioned in the document and I found it through a direct link where the GSA was not really present.

Through the quick response of Donovan it became clear for me that, though they put it under a CC-License, they still care very much about their project and are still involved and working on it. By not thinking it completely through and not giving them a notice, they end up not having a good feeling about this project (as seen by Donovan's post). We are not in the harsh business world. Fans of this wonderful rpg are putting their time and effort in these projects and the last thing I want is to have strong feelings about it. This is the reason why I put it offline and looking for a consent, so that everybody is happy. And, what may be even more important, by cooperating the final result will be even better.

I contacted Donovan and we currently talk about how we can accomplish this goal, all I cand do right now is ask for a little patience.

While we sort things out together though, I do not really have something to do in the creative way and I am open for new projects. So if there is an author of some fan created content and likes to have it in this layout (and have it posted for the community) send me a PM and I will see if we can make it happen.

Thanks for all your support!

The Dearth

thedarth2, I might have a project for you! Perhaps if you'd be happy to use your format to create a campaign specific guide? A setting/sourcebook, as it was, that contains information about characters, Story So Far, NPCs, etc.? This would be for my EOTE game, though I would also wonder whether you might be up for doing a similar project for a V20 chronicle...

Being one of the authors, I would have much preferred if you'd contacted myself or Cyril before doing this. Particularly as this is a Gamer Security Agency exclusive. After all, it's not that hard to send an IM through these forums or even just make a comment on the GSA itself about this project.

I'm sure it wasn't the intent, but it does come across as you "swiping" our work and changing things "just because you could," which in turns comes across as disrespectful. I also tried to get approval for the artwork I did use when and where I could, passing up several pieces simply because of a lack of response or the artist in question said no. And I see a couple of those pieces in there, so if the artists get wind of this, they could very well accuse me of going back on my word that I'd respect their wishes.

I know I don't really have any authority here, but frankly this felt more like a slap in the face than any kind of positive contribution. Hell, you didn't even mention the GSA itself, which I deliberately set-up as being the primary means of accessing this document.

Had you asked up front about doing this sort of thing, I would have gladly said yes, and even informed you that there's updates and changes that have been made.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Creative Commons License you utilized with this grant the OP the right to do this? I didn't get to see the OP's version, but didn't he make a nod to the authors (Attribution), did not use it for commercial purposes, and willingly shared it for others to use and edit? Unless the Attribution portion required a nod to the GSA (as an author of sorts), then the OP is still within their rights to do this as remixing is allowed with the selected license.

Just curious, as everyone seems to be arguing over this and seem to be forgetting how things work with Creative Commons.

But as a note on the art: yeah, that is a whole different kettle of fish, as not much of that is available in the Commons, and the artists would be well within their rights to complain and/or put a stop to this being out there. Unless they put it in the same type of license to allow remixing, non-commercial use and attribution allowed, the OP shouldn't have used the art in question.

Just a few notes from your friendly neighborhood librarian.

--LibrariaNPC

(Before you PM me to ask: Yes, I'm a real librarian)

Agreed!

If this is the same menagerie created during Beta, then the majority of the book wasn't created from FFG material, but derived based on what FFG seemed to use to "balance" their races. So, that doesn't mean it was swiped from FFG. And either way the OP was kind enough to take down the work until they could work out the usage. Especially since it sounds like the OP did exactly what Donovan told the artists he wouldn't do (use their work without their permission).

If the ''original author'' didn't ask for consent to use the characters, races, and visual imagery from FFG, Disney, George Lucas... Whoever legally owns the rights to star wars at the moment(doubtful), why would anyone have to ask them to use material derived from a copywritten and tardemarked source?

I mean hey, the reason they can ''swipe'' it from you is the same reason you where able to ''swipe'' it from the actual owners right?

If the ''original author'' didn't ask for consent to use the characters, races, and visual imagery from FFG, Disney, George Lucas... Whoever legally owns the rights to star wars at the moment(doubtful), why would anyone have to ask them to use material derived from a copywritten and tardemarked source?

I mean hey, the reason they can ''swipe'' it from you is the same reason you where able to ''swipe'' it from the actual owners right?

If this is the same menagerie created during Beta, then the majority of the book wasn't created from FFG material, but derived based on what FFG seemed to use to "balance" their races. So, that doesn't mean it was swiped from FFG. And either way the OP was kind enough to take down the work until they could work out the usage. Especially since it sounds like the OP did exactly what Donovan told the artists he wouldn't do (use their work without their permission).

You right...it was based on the beta book FFG made.....So technically it was still" swiped" from FFG

thedearht2 – I would still be very careful about using FFG's EotE trade dress for the pieces you're producing. That is the real issue here, not Donovan's huffing, foot-stomping and arm-crossing.

In regards to how to proceed with the Menagerie you created, there should be no reason not to. You attributed the source when you made this post (in the flipping title). You took it down when there was the initial storm of complaints. You have been polite and professional through the whole process. You have every right to do what you've done and make it available.

At the end of the day, when using Creative Commons, the GSA licensed it to allow this sort of thing to happen. Follow Wheaton's 1st Law of the Internet: Don't Be a D!ck.

thedearht2 – I would still be very careful about using FFG's EotE trade dress for the pieces you're producing. That is the real issue here, not Donovan's huffing, foot-stomping and arm-crossing.

In regards to how to proceed with the Menagerie you created, there should be no reason not to. You attributed the source when you made this post (in the flipping title). You took it down when there was the initial storm of complaints. You have been polite and professional through the whole process. You have every right to do what you've done and make it available.

At the end of the day, when using Creative Commons, the GSA licensed it to allow this sort of thing to happen. Follow Wheaton's 1st Law of the Internet: Don't Be a D!ck.

Yeah, Made a replica of the character folio and didnt have any issues pushing it out there so he should be okay.

In regards to the drama...lol..is really laughable but whatever. Im for him posting it too.

This is why we cant have nice things

thedearht2 – I would still be very careful about using FFG's EotE trade dress for the pieces you're producing. That is the real issue here, not Donovan's huffing, foot-stomping and arm-crossing.

In the U.S., like trademarks, a product’s trade dress is legally protected by the Lanham Act, the federal statute which regulates trademarks and trade dress.^[2]

Section 43(a) states the following:

Key phrases: uses in commerce; commercial activities;

If you don't want someone rewriting and redistributing your work, the best thing to do is to place close attention to the license under which you release this work.

But if GSA is going to release it under the licenswe it chose to use, it has to live with that choice...

• to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to Remix — to adapt the work

Those are the terms.

It's not a slap in the face, it's following your license that you chose to use. Bad form to complain about it later.

Well, aside from thedearth2's response, this was pretty much the reaction I expected from this forum.

To be honest, I had plans in the works to "pretty the document up" and a person in mind to do it if they had the time on hand to it once the final revisions to the various species and new additions were completed. So in that respect, thedearth2 unknowingly jumped the gun.

As I mentioned in my post, the OP didn't have to do anything in regards to the material that I and the other authors created, and could have simply followed the same tact that pretty much everyone in this thread is doing and telling us to 'sod off.'

But another matter that's been overlooked is that there were a couple pieces I saw where the artist (who owns the piece) said "please don't use this," a factor that was ignored. Another I never heard back from, which itself relates to "lack of consent," and both would be within their rights to be pissed off that their work was used without consent by the OP. How they may have reacted upon finding out their work had been taken and used without their permission, even if it was a non-profit endeavor, I can't say, but I'd imagine they'd be pretty upset, and would have a valid case to insist that MediaFire take the item down since it makes use of stolen material (their artwork).

Maybe it's just the fact that I'm one of those "creative types" that has had their work blatantly stolen and plagiarized that this is a sore issue for me, and why I try to get permission and give full credit when and wherever possible. As this thread pretty much proves, not everyone feels the same way.

And Fart Head, having found nothing useful for contribution, decided instead to be crass and immature and hotlink a poorly animated gif.

Talk about bad form

And if art wasn't an issue? What of the CC license granting permission to alter, modify, etc? Would it be an issue if the artwork were not a sore point?

And Fart Head, having found nothing useful for contribution, decided instead to be crass and immature and hotlink a poorly animated gif.

...I can't seem to find the option to Block users any more. Am I missing something?

Click on your own user name. Change profile and look for Ignore Preferences.

And Fart Head, having found nothing useful for contribution, decided instead to be crass and immature and hotlink a poorly animated gif.

...I can't seem to find the option to Block users any more. Am I missing something?

Click on your own user name. Change profile and look for Ignore Preferences.

Ha, thanks. That was completely unrelated, and somehow got appended to my message on my tablet. Didn't mean to say I was blocking anyone

Most RPG players (and especially GM's) are "Creative Types."

I've contributed (both officially and unofficially) to all sorts of RPG's.

If you're writing something that is meant to be shared with the fan community rather than sold to them, then put it out there and let people use it as they want. We're all "fans" here.

The unreasonable upset makes me hesitant to use the original (Species Menagerie) material at all for my game.

And if art wasn't an issue? What of the CC license granting permission to alter, modify, etc? Would it be an issue if the artwork were not a sore point?

If the art wasn't an issue?

Not a thing I could do. I could still remark and cite that I'd have preferred him to have asked permission. Even with the art issue, he could still have said "not my problem" and left it up. I'd feel obligated to those artists in question to report it to MediaFire since I'd agreed in the past to their requests to not use their work, but beyond that, nothing I could do.

I'm glad that he opted to take the path he did, particularly as he didn't have to. And things are in the works to get this back online, along with several updates and additions, so it's not like it's gone forever.

And for the folks that think I'm being overly dramatic over this, I hope the day comes when something you've worked on gets stolen and the other person's response is exactly the same as the one you've shown me.

Most RPG players (and especially GM's) are "Creative Types."

I've contributed (both officially and unofficially) to all sorts of RPG's.

If you're writing something that is meant to be shared with the fan community rather than sold to them, then put it out there and let people use it as they want. We're all "fans" here.

The unreasonable upset makes me hesitant to use the original material at all for my game.

The real point of contention isn't the written part, but the artwork. Which luckily turns out the bulk of it can be found on Wookieepedia and thus falls under their "fair use" clause, although the corresponding website links that I made a point to include to reference back to Wookieepedia were themselves removed along with any mention of Wookieepedia, something I made very sure to include for the reason mentioned above. On the surface to anyone that happens to stumble across it, it looks like the thedearth2 simply grabbed the artwork from the web, though at least listing who the original artist was.

Some of those folks are ones whose art I'd like to use at a future date or are folks whose work I respect and enjoy, so I don't want to burn any bridges, or worse yet have any of those folks take their art down entirely so that it doesn't get swiped without the other person at least having the decency to ask.

That said, there will certainly be some legalese tweaks in the next version to hopefully prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

Use a different license. It's the license you chose to release under that caused this "problem".

Use a different license. It's the license you chose to release under that caused this "problem".

I believe the problem (and it is one, not a "problem") is the use of art without permission.

And if art wasn't an issue? What of the CC license granting permission to alter, modify, etc? Would it be an issue if the artwork were not a sore point?

If the art wasn't an issue?

Not a thing I could do. I could still remark and cite that I'd have preferred him to have asked permission. Even with the art issue, he could still have said "not my problem" and left it up. I'd feel obligated to those artists in question to report it to MediaFire since I'd agreed in the past to their requests to not use their work, but beyond that, nothing I could do.

I'm glad that he opted to take the path he did, particularly as he didn't have to. And things are in the works to get this back online, along with several updates and additions, so it's not like it's gone forever.

And for the folks that think I'm being overly dramatic over this, I hope the day comes when something you've worked on gets stolen and the other person's response is exactly the same as the one you've shown me.

Not to be an ass, but I would question your use of the word "stolen" when A. you originally posted said work online with the intent for others to make use of it and B. he mentioned the source for the stats by name, thus giving credit to you and any others who might have worked on the project.

If he'd renamed it and posted his own stats which were suspiciously exactly the same as yours, then I would totally agree that he was stealing your work. What he actually did, however, was make use of the fan-generated information that you made for fans to use, and now you're upset that he's making use of it while openly admitting it came from you.

Logic, why are you such a fickle mistress?

And things are in the works to get this back online, along with several updates and additions, so it's not like it's gone forever.

This sentence should have been bolded/underlined/something to make it stand out a bit more since it's the positive note in all of this.Everybody wins!

And if art wasn't an issue? What of the CC license granting permission to alter, modify, etc? Would it be an issue if the artwork were not a sore point?

If the art wasn't an issue?

Not a thing I could do. I could still remark and cite that I'd have preferred him to have asked permission. Even with the art issue, he could still have said "not my problem" and left it up. I'd feel obligated to those artists in question to report it to MediaFire since I'd agreed in the past to their requests to not use their work, but beyond that, nothing I could do.

I'm glad that he opted to take the path he did, particularly as he didn't have to. And things are in the works to get this back online, along with several updates and additions, so it's not like it's gone forever.

And for the folks that think I'm being overly dramatic over this, I hope the day comes when something you've worked on gets stolen and the other person's response is exactly the same as the one you've shown me.

Not to be an ass, but I would question your use of the word "stolen" when A. you originally posted said work online with the intent for others to make use of it and B. he mentioned the source for the stats by name, thus giving credit to you and any others who might have worked on the project.

If he'd renamed it and posted his own stats which were suspiciously exactly the same as yours, then I would totally agree that he was stealing your work. What he actually did, however, was make use of the fan-generated information that you made for fans to use, and now you're upset that he's making use of it while openly admitting it came from you.

Logic, why are you such a fickle mistress?

Except he's not citing this as the example. If you'll recall, he specifically mentions getting burned before in a previous post in this thread.

As the other lead author on the project, for my part, hell, I'm flattered that someone likes something that I worked on enough that he wants to take it, pretty it up to that level, and release it for people to devour. But I would have also liked some heads up that this was going on for several reasons -

1. It's the professional thing to do. Even though no one involved is making money in this, it's still important (to me at least) to acknowledge the time and effort put into these things by all parties involved.

2. It's the courteous thing to do. It's easy to forget those simple courtesies on the internet where people are separated by oceans.

And number three -

3. Dude, I would have been overjoyed to help promote the hell out it. But I can't do that if I'm unaware of what's going on. More people means bigger reach, which means more people get possible benefit from it.

That's all. The art is a different beast entirely, but it's something that has been addressed and is being resolved.

Now, for those of you crying foul because of the license type used when it was posted, you all seem to be neglecting the fact that it is also an "attribution" license, which means that if it is not attributed in the way that the authors have specified, the person posting the work is at fault. Now, granted there weren't any specifications in the original document as to how we want it attributed (and I haven't seen the actual PDF to see how it was attributed in the first place), but I also don't think that either Dono or myself ever expected it to get *this* kind of treatment and that's something we'll be looking at and addressing in the final release when that goes live in the coming weeks.

The other thing that everyone seems to be forgetting is that the license in question is "non-commercial". Technically speaking (and I'm sure this is often overlooked here) posting the material to a commercial site like fantasy flight games (even the community forums) is not covered by the license. It doesn't matter whether anyone directly involved was getting paid, the fact is fantasy flight games benefits financially/commercially by having the community forums (thats why they bother to have forums of course).

Regardless of the technicalities, the result of the comments that were unsupportive of Dono and a few rather hostile I think are pretty chilling in terms of others sharing their fan-made material, which is really unfortunate. Cyril makes the point they will be looking more carefully at the licensing issues which is obviously prudent at this point. Again, I want to commend thedearth2 for acting with class when the concerns were brought to his attention. Not everyone in the galaxy is a pirate... scoundrel.... sith lord

1. It's the professional thing to do. Even though no one involved is making money in this, it's still important (to me at least) to acknowledge the time and effort put into these things by all parties involved.

2. It's the courteous thing to do. It's easy to forget those simple courtesies on the internet where people are separated by oceans.

That's absolutely fair, and I think that concern has been addressed/remedied by now?

However, going "well, just you wait until someone steals from you and see how you like it!" is maybe going a bit too far on the melodrama. Let's not wish thievery or worse on eachother, eh?