THE CURRENT STATE OF V:TES - November 2015

THE CURRENT STATE OF V:TES November 2015 Onebookshelf V:TES project stopped As many of you already know, OneBookShelf was in negotiations with Wizards of the Coast for the Wizards license and with CCP Games for the World of Darkness license, in order to bring V:TES back in print. WIZARDS OF THE COAST FRONT On the one hand, the cost of the Wizards license, which was not disclosed, was never mentioned as an issue by Onebookshelf, so negotiations continued. Managing the project would involve a review and approval process for artwork and content before the Wizards imprint could be added to a product. Unfortunately there was nobody at Wizards who had ever worked on Jyhad/V:TES, which, added to the lack of interest by anyone internally at Wizards to manage the project, led Wizards to inform Onbookshelf that they were definitely not interested in pursuing a V:TES project. Ben Peal sent a message to personal contacts in Wizards' Research and Development department inquiring about the possibility of anyone they knew of in the company who would be interested in managing the project. But no response was received. CCP GAMES FRONT On the other hand, CCP Games suspended the negotiations after they cancelled the World of Darkness Online, saying that they were re-evaluating their properties to determine what to do with them going forward, which led to a sale of the White Wolf properties to Paradox. Furthermore, the V:EKN Design Team, at the request of Onebookshelf back in November 2014, developed a concept for a boxed set of Sabbat-themed starter decks intended as the launch product for a Kickstarter if the licenses were obtained. That Product was almost entirely reprints, but with about a dozen new crypt cards and one new library card. A graphic designer was contracted and created a mock-up of the box design. Consequently, the starter decks and the new cards, which were part of the project proposal to Wizards and CCP, were tested from December 2014 to January 2015. So had the licenses been acquired, the Kickstarter would have been launched the very next day. The V:EKN Design Team is to release those cards designed as part of a Sabbat-themed PDF mini-set in 2016. MEETING WITH STEVE WIECK After this chain of events, there was an in-person meeting with Steve Wieck (owner of OneBookShelf.com, on the board of directors for CCP), Johannes Walch (partner in OneBookShelf.com and member of the VEKN Inner Circle), and Ben Peal (Design Team Leader) in Germany. Steve pointed out that OneBookShelf was only interested in publishing V:TES, not any other WOD-themed CCG. Therefore, a non-VTES WOD-themed CCG would require a different publisher. Steve Wieck also informed that CCP was not interested in licensing the World of Darkness IP for a V:TES-compatible collectible card game that cut out the Wizards properties, mainly because CCP was concerned about a possible lawsuit from Wizards. WHICH ALTERNATIVES DO WE HAVE NOW? 1. Continuing the production of PDF sets to keep promoting V:TES, while contacting Paradox for the publication of V:TES. 2. Allowing proxy cards in tournaments, so that new players can have access to difficult-to-acquire cards, in which regard, the VEKN is conducting as of today an online survey for everyone interested to give their opinion on the subject. V:EKN Website Coordinator

It is understandable that CCP postponed the decision while they were in the process of selling off their WoD IP. Now that the deal is done, I would regard Paradox as a new chance to reopen the discussion. With respect to Wizards, it is a pity that they have no-one involved internally, it is somewhat surprising that they have no interest in free money and choose to let the IP sit on the shelf rather than licensing out. Who are the contacts within the Wizards company that we have access to? From a brief internet search I have the impression that a guy named Nicholas Mitchell is the attorney in charge of licensing programmes, did we get into touch with him? PS my offer to help out on IP matters still stands, just let me know.

> Borrelstein wrote: > It is understandable that CCP postponed the decision while they were in the process of selling off their WoD IP. Now that the deal is done, I would regard Paradox as a new chance to reopen the discussion. > As mentioned previously, getting those channels opened is in progress by the V:EKN ICs. Paradox mentioned that communicating with the communities of the White Wolf games is a priority for them. We're one of those communities, and there's no sense in waiting for them to find us. > With respect to Wizards, it is a pity that they have no-one involved internally, it is somewhat surprising that they have no interest in free money and choose to let the IP sit on the shelf rather tan licensing out. > There's a lot about the whole situation that I personally find exasperating. One is what you just mentioned - it's not much money, but it's also not much work. Just take the money. How does Netrunner get back in print and not V:TES? How does Up Front! - a Wizards property - get back in print after twenty years - by OneBookshelf! - and not V:TES? Not that I begrudge Netrunner or Up Front! - they're fantastic games and it's great that they're back. It's just mystifying with respect to V:TES. > Who are the contacts within the Wizards company that we have access to? > From a brief internet search I have the impression that a guy named Nicholas Mitchell is the attorney in charge of licensing programmes, did we get into touch with him? > My personal contacts at Wizards are senior members of Wizards' R&D staff. I'm not giving out their names because, well, they're personal contacts and I don't want to alienate them by having their inboxes flooded. To my understanding, OneBookShelf was working with Wizards' brand management team and not their legal team. OBS does a lot of business with Wizards on a wide range of products and brand imprints. > PS my offer to help out on IP matters still stands, just let me know. > Appreciated. If something comes up, we'll be in touch.

If WotC are not interested even in discussing this project, they obviously will not take any legal action to fight for their vague IP in VTES. Can we already drop this theme from all topics, concerning future of VtES? But I think before making any big decisions we have to hear something from Рaradox. As I understand, they promised to be open to comunication with the fans. NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > If WotC are not interested even in discussing this project, they obviously will not take any legal action to fight for their vague IP in VTES. Can we already drop this theme from all topics, concerning future of VtES? > The case of Up Front is proof to the contrary. It is a game that was originally published by Avalon Hill back in the 1980's, but was out of print for twenty years or so. Wizards of the Coast purchased Avalon Hill (mainly to own the rights to Civilization), but didn't reprint Up Front or any of a zillion other good AH games. Wizards licensed Up Front to Multi-Man Publishing (MMP publishes Advanced Squad Leader, another AH title), but MMP for whatever reason didn't reprint Up Front!, either, and let the license lapse. Fast forward to 2013, when a group called Radiant Games announced they had acquired the rights to Up Front from its creator, Courtney Allen. A Kickstarter was launched and raised $300,000 or so. Wizards saw this and noted that they held the rights to Up Front, not Courtney Allen or Radiant Games. Despite having no real interest in getting Up Front back in print for 20 years, Wizards sued Radiant Games to the point where all of the Kickstarter money was lost and Radiant Games no longer exists. Wizards then proceeded to negotiate a deal with OneBookShelf to print Up Front for the purpose of protecting their property: www.wargamevault.com/product/148406/Up-Front-Complete-Game-BUNDLE This then leads to a weird question, with a course of action I really don't recommend: If Wizards will sue someone out of existence and then publish a game they previously had no interest in for years, just to protect their ownership of it, then...like...would it work if someone published V:TES in order to provoke the same course of action from Wizards? It's a really, really stupid idea. Don't do it. But it makes one wonder.

Plese answer the survey moje-ankiety.pl/respond-79717.html There are currently 150 answers including 1! new player (playing less then 1 year) VEKN Marketing CoDirector

> Damnans wrote: > Managing the project would involve a review and approval process for artwork and content before the Wizards imprint could be added to a product. Unfortunately there was nobody at Wizards who had ever worked on Jyhad/V:TES, which, added to the lack of interest by anyone internally at Wizards to manage the project, led Wizards to inform Onbookshelf that they were definitely not interested in pursuing a V:TES project. > Ouch. This all sounds incredibly frustrating. Sincere thanks go out to everybody who spent time (and especially those continuing to spend time!) working on these negotiations. And thanks as well for the update. It is really appreciated, and it's good for us all to see how much excellent work the IC and other volunteers are putting into the game. Great box art, by the way! Check out my VTES blog: Gaming with BS I also host a google doc which separates the TWDA into clans . That means I track how often clans win, which crypt groups get used, and how many people attend events. You can access all of that info here:

> brettscho wrote: > Great box art, by the way! > I agree! "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

Ben - This is absolutely not what happened to Up Front. What happened was Valley Games launched the kickstarter when they had contractual debts which they did not settle. They tried to hide their kickstarter money by starting a new company (Radiant), prompting the lawsuit from their creditors. After a prolonged legal battle over whether the two companies were sufficiently separated to not cover the debts of Valley, and after a hold on their kickstarter fund placed by the court for more than a year, the company reached a settlement with its creditor. With the cost of legal challenges and settlements, they could not complete their kickstarter pledges and are currently "looking into it". Shortly after the settlement, and to everyone's surprise, wargamevault put Up Front online. I'm not sure how this affects VTES, but Wizards sued no one associated with Up Front as far as I know. Baron of Berkeley

> BenPeal wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > ... > > > > Fast forward to 2013, when a group called Radiant Games announced they had acquired the rights to Up Front from its creator, Courtney Allen. A Kickstarter was launched and raised $300,000 or so. Wizards saw this and noted that they held the rights to Up Front, not Courtney Allen or Radiant Games. Despite having no real interest in getting Up Front back in print for 20 years, Wizards sued Radiant Games to the point where all of the Kickstarter money was lost and Radiant Games no longer exists. > > > Radiant was sued by mr Phil Sauer not by Wizard > > as a creditor from Valley Games mr Sauer said that VG owners sold to Radiant Games (i.e. themself) UF rights at 0 cost in order to avoid to give back to him his money > > a texan court lock all kickstarter money (also from Airborne in your pocket game) until RG and mr Sauer reach an agreement so mr Sauer have his money (or most of them) and RG depleted all resources between legal expense and agreement > > you can read all in this topic , it is just 571 pages long > > thus said almost every one involved in this mess think that wizard sued if the game was place in production > > > BenPeal wrote: > > > > > elotar wrote: > > > Wizards then proceeded to negotiate a deal with OneBookShelf to print Up Front for the purpose of protecting their property: > > > > > > www.wargamevault.com/product/148406/Up-Front-Complete-Game-BUNDLE > > > > > > This then leads to a weird question, with a course of action I really don't recommend: > > > > > > If Wizards will sue someone out of existence and then publish a game they previously had no interest in for years, just to protect their ownership of it, then...like...would it work if someone published V:TES in order to provoke the same course of action from Wizards? > > > > > > It's a really, really stupid idea. Don't do it. But it makes one wonder. > > > > > > > > OneBookShelf reprint UF as it was originally produced (rules, cards, artworks) while Valley game planned to rewrite and expand the original game, using new artworks and updating rules > > OneBookShelf scan many part of the original game in order to reprint it (and they did a great job by the way) > > This is why Wizard could authorize a reprint it even if mr Allen seems to have the rights to produce a new version of it > > > > so in my opinion if someone try to reprint VTES wizard will sue it asap > > Stefano "Walt" Calzighetti Prince of Pordenone (Italy)

> Count wrote: > Ben - This is absolutely not what happened to Up Front. What happened was Valley Games launched the kickstarter when they had contractual debts which they did not settle. They tried to hide their kickstarter money by starting a new company (Radiant), prompting the lawsuit from their creditors. After a prolonged legal battle over whether the two companies were sufficiently separated to not cover the debts of Valley, and after a hold on their kickstarter fund placed by the court for more than a year, the company reached a settlement with its creditor. With the cost of legal challenges and settlements, they could not complete their kickstarter pledges and are currently "looking into it". Shortly after the settlement, and to everyone's surprise, wargamevault put Up Front online. > > I'm not sure how this affects VTES, but Wizards sued no one associated with Up Front as far as I know. > Ah, interesting! Thanks for the much better information about this! EDIT: Thanks to Stefano "Walt" Calzighetti for your information, as well! So, Radiant Games (the puppet company) launched a Kickstarter for a game they didn't have the rights to, got sued by previous creditors regarding Valley Games (the main company) not about the rights to Up Front but about previous works, bled out all the money from the Up Front Kickstarter, and then after all the money was gone, Wizards publishes Up Front via OBS (wagamesvault)? As if my head couldn't be spinning enough already...wow... But in the end, Wizards held the actual rights to publish Up Front, and made a business decision (publishing the game) to protect those rights. As for what this means for V:TES, it means that Wizards does (very eventually) pay attention to its properties and could make similar or stronger moves to protect them.

Interesting update, frustrating re WotC. It sounds to me like your approach has been the right one, i.e. to try to find persons in WotC with an interest in developing the game. If that interest is not there, maybe an alternative approach would be to contact someone whose salary/bonus is directly proportional to the amount of revenue he/she generates for the company. I am not familiar with WIzard's internal organisation, but maybe some senior/commercial person (dunno) for whom the "free money" itself will be enough to take on the project regardless of interest in WoD - especially since, as you say, not a lot of work is required (with the ICs and the community doing it all for free!). Then that person could facilitate the necessary work internally with R&D dept, legal etc. My only concern is that WotC does not want to let the game be printed because they think that VTES players will eventually turn to Magic if VTES dies, or that reopening VTES will lure some players away/back from Magic, i.e. reprinting will make Wizards lose MtG revenue. Regardless of whether that is an accurate assumption (I dont think it is), it may be WotC's policy on the matter. anyway, just my 2 cents. Great work, keep it up (and we all owe you a round whenever you come to our city...)

There is no such thing as "rights on the game", all what is really legally defendable is art assets. As I remember from some earlier discussion - there are some cards (parity shift?) wich can't be reprinted by WW because of problems with rights(on picture?), so I've made a conclution, that rights on all other cards and game materials (rulebook) are fine. Obviously, if we are feeling paranoid, we can remake all art assets (pictures, layout, icons, rulebook). Probably we should do it anyway - it's all very outdated (full bleed ftw) and confusing (we need to color code and layout code different types of cards and disciplines), as well as it'll be the reason for old players to buy reprints. Yea, and getting rid of events and imbueds already will be fine too. B-) NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > Yea, and getting rid of imbueds already will be fine too. > > B-) > There, I fixed that for you

> elotar wrote: > There is no such thing as "rights on the game", all what is really legally defendable is art assets. > I´ve tried to say this, but I guess it depends on where you are. In the US you seem to be able to get into legal trouble even though you are right "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> cnislev wrote: > > My only concern is that WotC does not want to let the game be printed because they think that VTES players will eventually turn to Magic if VTES dies, or that reopening VTES will lure some players away/back from Magic, i.e. reprinting will make Wizards lose MtG revenue. > Worse case: they sell V:TES cards instead of M:TG card. Considering the amount of work to print V:TES cards (almost none), it's a balanced bargain. Best case: they sell V:TES cards and M:TG cards. I'm sure they are probably aware that they must find alternative revenues, in case the players move away to other games they don't publish. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> elotar wrote: > There is no such thing as "rights on the game", all what is really legally defendable is art assets. > You are correct about copyrights for game mechanics. You remain incorrect about trademarks and patents. Please read the following: boardgamegeek.com/thread/493249/mythbusting-game-design-and-copyright-trademarks-a And before any of you get ideas about how Wizards' patents have expired, please read this: www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent

> BenPeal wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > There is no such thing as "rights on the game", all what is really legally defendable is art assets. > > > You are correct about copyrights for game mechanics. You remain incorrect about trademarks and patents. Please read the following: > > boardgamegeek.com/thread/493249/mythbusting-game-design-and-copyright-trademarks-a > Yes, so it´s no problem to print the game unless you use trademarked stuff and violate copyrights that you don´t own. As I understand it, the only thing regarding Vtes that is owned by WotC is the "Deckmaster"-trademark. Anyone, please correct me with some decent argument if you have it! > BenPeal wrote: > And before any of you get ideas about how Wizards' patents have expired, please read this: > > www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent > My idea is that is has expired, because I´ve used this fancy tool to calculate it: www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator You cannot pay to maintain a patent beyond 20 years: "Maintenance fees are due three times during the life of a patent, and may be paid without surcharge at 3 to 3.5 years, 7 to 7.5 years, and 11 to 11.5 years after the date of issue." "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

> Ashur wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > And before any of you get ideas about how Wizards' patents have expired, please read this: > > > > www.uspto.gov/patents-maintaining-patent/maintain-your-patent > > > My idea is that is has expired, because I´ve used this fancy tool to calculate it: > www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator > You cannot pay to maintain a patent beyond 20 years: "Maintenance fees are due three times during the life of a patent, and may be paid without surcharge at 3 to 3.5 years, 7 to 7.5 years, and 11 to 11.5 years after the date of issue." > Looking at the packaging for Lords of the Night, the patent owned by Wizards of the Coast and licensed by White Wolf Game Studio/CCP is RE37,957: Link to patent RE37957 It was filed on June 29, 1999 and issued on January 7, 2003. Given a 20 year patent term, it will not expire until January 7, 2023.

> BenPeal wrote: > It was filed on June 29, 1999 and issued on January 7, 2003. Given a 20 year patent term, it will not expire until January 7, 2023. > Do you mean there is a patent on every single VTES-set that extends the 1994-patent? What does "This application is a division of pending application Ser. No. 08/263,447 filed Jun. 22, 1994" mean? What is a "division"? There are no shortage of questions here. "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

I think that all this questioning is sterile because 1/ noone here has the knowledge about what is copyrighted 2/ noone here has the knowledge about how exactly the licencing works 3/ noone can afford a lawsuit against Wizards, even if they're wrong and their licence has expired. I think we should focus on how we could make Paradox and Hasbro work together. Paradox may have the means (lawyers and so on) to get V:TES in reprint. We don't. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Ashur wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > It was filed on June 29, 1999 and issued on January 7, 2003. Given a 20 year patent term, it will not expire until January 7, 2023. > > > Do you mean there is a patent on every single VTES-set that extends the 1994-patent? > Wizards owns (as far as I've been able to search in the US Patent Office database) only two trading card game patents: 5662332 RE37957 5662332 was filed October 17, 1995. It has an issue date of September 2, 1997. RE37957 was filed June 29, 1999. It has an issue date of January 7, 2003. Ah, but from 1995 and onward, the term of the patent (20 years) is based on the date of filing, not the date of issuance. 1994 and prior, the term of the patent (17 years, and this gets important later) was based on the date of issuance, not filing. RE37597 mentions that it is a re-issue of 5662332. Looking up what a re-issue is...oh, interesting: www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1401.html "Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue." So RE37597 is, in effect, a corrected version of 5662332, not with an extended term, but with the original term - October 17, 1995 through October 17, 2015. (!!!!!) Both of these patents refer to - and are considered divisions of - the 1994 patent _application_ 263447 which was filed on Jun 22, 1994 but was never issued a patent number. This is probably where people get the 1994 date from. A division or continuation is explained here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisional_patent_application en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application So I think what Garfield and Wizards did was originally file in 1994, but waited for the new patent laws to take effect in 1995 so they'd get the benefit of a 20-year term instead of a 17-year term, using the division/continuation rules or something. But the upshot of all of this is that RE37597 expires at the same time as 5662332 (which I think was forfeited anyway as a result of the re-issuance). That expiration date appears to have been October 17, 2015. Patent-knowledgeable people out there: is all of this correct? I can't help but think we're missing something critical. Does this mean what we hope it means?

Do the artists still retain rights on art? Card names and symbols are probably IP that can get us sued, but full-bleed cards that have an image on one sideand a green or brown close but not identical to style on the reverse may have always been a loophole. Of course, this matters more if we cant get anything rolling with Paradox, and they are aware of the games existance if nothing else. Im not a patent lawyer, but from the sounds of things we should find one and buy them a few drinks.....

> ReverendRevolver wrote: > Do the artists still retain rights on art? > Card names and symbols are probably IP that can get us sued, but full-bleed cards that have an image on one sideand a green or brown close but not identical to style on the reverse may have always been a loophole. > You're blurring a few different things here. Moving to full bleed probably isn't really a useful loophole in the grand scheme of things - design rights law isn't usually all that useful, unless you're huge in your field and it's something quite distinctive. Plonking a few icons a picture and some text on a card is much more utilitarian, and we can probably point at dozens of games that have done more or less the same thing, before and since. Not just CCGs - think board games, or a war game with a picture of a tank with its stats and special ability. The issue is still then potentially with the individual elements, like icons etc. Whether artists retain any IP rights over their work will depend on the contract they signed with Wizards or White Wolf/CCP. That could vary from artist to artist, or over time. Some may have been doing work on a contract under which whichever-company-it-was took ownership of the copyright. Others may have granted a perpetual licence to whichever-company-it-was, but retained the right to use it for other uses. White Wolf may have benefited from cross-over with existing WoD-ish artists they had contracts with. And the problem is, more or less anything can "get you sued". Even if you can win a case because the other side are being idiots about nothing, you can still run up huge costs - lawyer fees, court fees, cost of discovery, amount of time taken to defend it, any bad publicity it might generate - and even if you can get the direct monetary costs back in the long term, in the short term it can cripple your cash flow if one of the big boys wants to yank your chain. > ReverendRevolver wrote: > Im not a patent lawyer, but from the sounds of things we should find one and buy them a few drinks..... > The most important thing to understand is that this doesn't all come under the umbrella of just "patents", or just "copyright", or just "trademarks" etc. There are multiple distinct areas of intellectual property law at play, which work subtly (and not so subtly) differently from each other.

> Ankha wrote: > 3/ noone can afford a lawsuit against Wizards, even if they're wrong and their licence has expired. > I think that this is the most relevant part. The copyrights will be valid for decades to come, so that must be dealt with. Paradox will assumedly be the new owner of part of the artwork now, but some may still reside at Wizards. By the way, I just checked the trademarks database for Vampire The Eternal Struggle, some interesting stuff going on related to former producers WhiteWolf. VTES search trademarks Looks like despite CCP is (still) registered as the current owner of the original trademark, but Whitewolf filed a new identical trademark application on 26 October 2015 (along with some other related filings including VtM), maybe in response to the Paradox deal. I think WW have no chance to re-obtain it, but apparently they think they can benefit somehow. Possibly, WW has a renewed interest to produce the game once again in the future? [edit] Check - WW was also acquired by Paradox - so the renewed filing of the trademark may indicate anticipation of using that brand once again.

Link to the trademark filing by White Wolf Publishing AB of Stockholm, SE: www.wipo.int/branddb/en/showData.jsp?ID=EMTM.014730551

> BenPeal wrote: > Link to the trademark filing by White Wolf Publishing AB of Stockholm, SE: > > www.wipo.int/branddb/en/showData.jsp?ID=EMTM.014730551 > Amusing. Most probably it's just one from the long list, but we may hope... NC Russia

> elotar wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > Link to the trademark filing by White Wolf Publishing AB of Stockholm, SE: > > > > www.wipo.int/branddb/en/showData.jsp?ID=EMTM.014730551 > > > Amusing. Most probably it's just one from the long list, but we may hope... > Yeah, if you do a search for other White Wolf properties, you'll see a ton of filings from October 26-27. Still good to see V:TES in that list.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > elotar wrote: > > > > > BenPeal wrote: > > > Link to the trademark filing by Whitalf Publishing AB of Stockholm, SE: > > > > > > www.wipo.int/branddb/en/showData.jsp?ID=EMTM.014730551 > > > > > > > > Amusing. Most probably it's just one from the long list, but we may hope... > > > Yeah, if you do a search for other White Wolf properties, you'll see a ton of filings from October 26-27. Still good to see V:TES in that list. > We are mentioned in the second paragraph of the WW home page. We aren't forgotten, but that doesn't mean we have their attention as much as needed. Yet.

Get someone from Canada to do it. When it comes to foreign interests(even domestic interests) trying to drag a Canadian to court, there are all sorts of loopholes you can use to delay it and make it HELL for the company doing it. You could also register a company, Incorporate, get the game out of the gate into the hands of players, anyone who will carry it and then fold your company before any real heat is on the horizon. They can't go after you. Company doesn't exist. Have a good laugh.

> Arthur wrote: > Get someone from Canada to do it. When it comes to foreign interests(even domestic interests) trying to drag a Canadian to court, there are all sorts of loopholes you can use to delay it and make it HELL for the company doing it. > We got Russia too NC Russia

Curious, would all such products made by fans be banned and erased from these forums? Is there liability for VEKN regarding users posting such productions?

> Arthur wrote: > Curious, would all such products made by fans be banned and erased from these forums? > If you mean getting actual printed cards made and advertising them on these forums, then yes, of course, such posts are forbidden and would be deleted. > Is there liability for VEKN regarding users posting such productions? > There might be liability for those who host the website. Apart from that, I'm not sure. Regardless, don't do it.

> BenPeal wrote: > > > Arthur wrote: > > Curious, would all such products made by fans be banned and erased from these forums? > > > If you mean getting actual printed cards made and advertising them on these forums, then yes, of course, such posts are forbidden and would be deleted. > > > Is there liability for VEKN regarding users posting such productions? > > > There might be liability for those who host the website. Apart from that, I'm not sure. Regardless, don't do it. > I guess only protected-by-copyright material. Fan art and other stuff shouldn't be illegal right?

> cordovader wrote: > I guess only protected-by-copyright material. Fan art and other stuff shouldn't be illegal right? > Right.