Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Cyberpunk 2077 - It Can't Get Darker Than Night City, Right?

1545557596062

Posts

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    Hahaha yeah after reading-
    “I was stupid enough to sell them rights to the whole bunch,” Sapkowski said at the time. “They offered me a percentage of their profits. I said, ‘No, there will be no profit at all — give me all my money right now! The whole amount.’ It was stupid. I was stupid enough to leave everything in their hands because I didn’t believe in their success. But who could foresee their success? I couldn’t.”

    I guess I don't know how Polish law works but I can't see "So I was an idiot and they did really well so now I deserve more money despite me just admitting that the only reason I don't already have more money is me being dumb" working as a basis for a lawsuit.

    FencingsaxElvenshaeBigityPhillishereZilla360BucketmanAndy JoeCommander ZoomJazz
  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    They also did ten years of work to get to 3, millions in development costs of art and assets that he has nothing to do with. It's an uphill battle for him even with the provisions that some countries have to protect artists from going destitute while others make money off their art

    Albino BunnyBigity3clipseZilla360
  • BigityBigity Lubbock, TXRegistered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    If he wins that case, presumably Fox will sue George Lucas for the merchandise rights to Star Wars, on the basis that that turned out to be a terrible decision by them?

    If it's polish law, it's polish law. Is Disney based in Poland?

    Presumably though, CD Projeckt Red laywers know Polish law though, and they are fighting the suit.

    It would seem to signal they feel they have a strong case against anyway.

    76561198017303226.png
    ElvenshaeMoridin889
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    BucketmanchromdomElvenshae
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    MegaMekFencingsaxElldrenJazzRchanen
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    In which case I'd expect a polish lawyer to include a clause when they sign for the money, like 'I agree not to demand more money later when I regret my current decision'.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
    Elvenshae
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    In which case I'd expect a polish lawyer to include a clause when they sign for the money, like 'I agree not to demand more money later when I regret my current decision'.

    I'd expect the law to explicitly forbid that. If you have that sort of law, why would you allow a coercive clause that negates it?

    KarlBig ClassyMoridin889MegaMekElldrenmilskiRchanen
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Spicy Rudolph Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    In which case I'd expect a polish lawyer to include a clause when they sign for the money, like 'I agree not to demand more money later when I regret my current decision'.

    I'd expect the law to explicitly forbid that. If you have that sort of law, why would you allow a coercive clause that negates it?

    I'd imagine that if he gets a percentage then that would cover it.

    Make. Time.
  • m!ttensm!ttens Registered User regular
    I feel like waiving the initial offer of x% royalty (unknown what that actually was) to take the cash payment is kind of going against the spirit of that Act on Copyright and Related Rights thing. It would be one thing if CDPR had originally offered $100k and a free copy of the video game, but it sounds like their original offer had been (in hindsight) more than fair.

    DonnictonBobbleBucketmanDemonStaceyGSMElvenshaeMoridin889FencingsaxElldren
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    In which case I'd expect a polish lawyer to include a clause when they sign for the money, like 'I agree not to demand more money later when I regret my current decision'.

    I'd expect the law to explicitly forbid that. If you have that sort of law, why would you allow a coercive clause that negates it?

    We have personal injury laws and allow waiver of liability clauses.

    Contract law is complicated and weird. Poland also has civil law, from what I can tell, which operates quite differently from the common law system we have in the US. I don't really trust any commentary that isn't from lawyers licensed to practice in Poland.

    drowning in the ever heaving waters of mother Earth's salty tiddy.
    destroyah87Dizzy DchromdomFencingsaxElldrenMassenaRchanen
  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    He was offered royalties first but he himself flatly rejected it and demanded a fixed sum instead, believing that them stupid vidya gaems are for stupids so they will never be as popular as intelligent books for the intelligent people. Doubtless this will be a key point of the defense, since it was his decision to screw himself and not an act of CDPR.

    PSN: Donnicton - Switch FC: SW-6944-1374-2020 - Wii/3DS FC: 1633-4230-5354 - Steam: Donnicton - BNet: Donnicton#11763
    manwiththemachinegunDemonStaceyGSMDanHibikiElvenshaeBigityFencingsaxElldrenJazz
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Just gonna say guys but a bunch of cis posters complaining how casual transphobia isn't news worthy and is overwrought to smear the game is uh, not a good look.

    But to be honest between that, their weird phrasing around the humanity discussion and the Witcher's whole thing it's being super obvious that 2070 wasn't going to be a particularly progressive or interesting take on the subject past it's huge budget.

    I'll probably be proven wrong, but relatively massive budgets for a studio don't seem to translate all that often into particularly "progressive" or "intellectually radical" games. In fact, they seem juts as likely as to deter that fact. Cyberpunk as a genre can go back and forth on that, but outside that what immediately came to mind was when Infinity Ward's budgets within the Call of Duty franchise skyrocketed with Modern Warfare compared with Call of Duty 2 (itself not a low-budget title)....and each subsequent title one-upped the previous one as a high-budget xenophobic Cold War-baiting fever dream.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Albino Bunny
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited October 2018

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    It's pure speculation, but it almost feels like that when he was considering his case, Sapkowski realized he basically had no choice but to get ahead of the whole, "I fully expected this franchise to crash and burn, so I took my money and ran, and now I deeply regret it."

    Which, to be fair, if you told you were making a potential video game franchise out of a series of Polish sort-of-grim fantasy novels and short stories, I'd give it a 50/50 chance of crashing and burning too. It doesn't make him sound any less remorseful about taking said money and running, or very sympathetic, but I suppose he has no choice but to acknowledge that.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Big ClassyFencingsaxElldren
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    daveNYC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

    They are using the law correctly though.

    Correctly here means; did the person you sold rights to make 3x more than they paid you for the rights? If yes, then they are in the wrong.


    Edit- which I gotta say that law sounds like the most insane thing to me.

    Axen on
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

    They are using the law correctly though.

    Correctly here means; did the person you sold rights to make 3x more than they paid you for the rights? If yes, then they are in the wrong.

    That law was IMO created to protect artists from being screwed over.

    The author wasn't screwed over. He was offered a % based amount of the royalties and turned it down. This is his own fault.

    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
    BobbleElvenshaeBigityFencingsaxNotoriusBEN
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    Karl wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

    They are using the law correctly though.

    Correctly here means; did the person you sold rights to make 3x more than they paid you for the rights? If yes, then they are in the wrong.

    That law was IMO created to protect artists from being screwed over.

    The author wasn't screwed over. He was offered a % based amount of the royalties and turned it down. This is his own fault.

    That’s not how the law works.

    It is very simple.

    No matter what the circumstances are, if the person you sold the rights to makes 3x or more the amount they paid for the rights then the original creator is due more compensation.

    That’s all there is to it.

    Doesn’t matter if the original deal was made in good faith or through trickery.

    MegaMek
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    It's Polish law, none of us actually know if it's being applied correctly or not :P

    drowning in the ever heaving waters of mother Earth's salty tiddy.
    DonnictonBobbleElvenshaeMoridin889FencingsaxMr RayElldrenCorsini
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    The law is not complicated at all.

    In fact the EU in general has a similar law as well.

    MegaMekcaligynefob
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    But we haven't seen the actual law documents, we've seen an American journalist's summary of what they believe the law to be. I would bet the actual statutes are not at all as straightforward as what that article claims, because they never are, because reporting on law is notoriously shitty.

    drowning in the ever heaving waters of mother Earth's salty tiddy.
    Moridin889Fencingsax
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    We have seen the actual documents!

  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Axen wrote: »
    We have seen the actual documents!

    I didn't see a Polish law citation (an actual citation with chapter and verse, not "the law says blah blah blah") anywhere in that article. Source?

    3clipse on
    drowning in the ever heaving waters of mother Earth's salty tiddy.
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    What article are you talking about?



    He goes through the whole thing.

    Axen on
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    What article are you talking about?

    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/10/02/witcher-author-demands-16-million-additional-payment-from-cd-projekt-red/

    Which is where the discussion of this potentially violating Polish law came from. The actual law isn't quoted, as far as I can tell, and I don't really trust most journalists to accurate summarize a law or how that law is applied.

    drowning in the ever heaving waters of mother Earth's salty tiddy.
    NotoriusBEN
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    What article are you talking about?



    He goes through the whole thing.

    Ah he pulls up the actual law in here, awesome. I wish I could read Polish because this is where seeing court filings of how that law is actually applied in practice becomes helpful.

    But, again, this is an American lawyer who presumably isn't licensed to practice in Poland, so...I'm not super interested in his analysis? Poland uses civil law, which is drastically different from the American common law system (this was drilled into me when I first started learning contracting). Until some Polish legislators and/or attorneys chime in it's going to be hard to say what the odds of this succeeding are.

    drowning in the ever heaving waters of mother Earth's salty tiddy.
    FencingsaxLucid_Seraph
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    What article are you talking about?



    He goes through the whole thing.

    Emphasis on "may request the court"

    So he has to go to court and then ask them to force The Witcher devs to fork up more cash.

    I would be very surprised if a court says "yeah, sure" and not "tough shit, you were offered royalties and didn't take it".

    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
    DonnictonElvenshaeBigity
  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Didn't they re-offer more money at some point, too?

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    I'll definitely be interested to see how this plays out.

    I can't see how a court would side with him on this (based on the assumption that him executing article 44 isn't an automatic win and there is no court deliberation).

    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the author is morally in the right, just that he has a legal right to pursue this.

    Personally I think he is being greedy. There are numerous interviews both written and recorded in which he states in no uncertain terms that The Witcher game series has actually be hugely profitable to him.

    edit- Leonard: "This law is bullshit!"

    That's why I enjoy Lawful Masses, for his cutting edge legal analysis. :razz:

    Axen on
    3clipseElvenshaeLucid_Seraph
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Axen wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

    They are using the law correctly though.

    Correctly here means; did the person you sold rights to make 3x more than they paid you for the rights? If yes, then they are in the wrong.

    That law was IMO created to protect artists from being screwed over.

    The author wasn't screwed over. He was offered a % based amount of the royalties and turned it down. This is his own fault.

    That’s not how the law works.

    It is very simple.

    No matter what the circumstances are, if the person you sold the rights to makes 3x or more the amount they paid for the rights then the original creator is due more compensation.

    That’s all there is to it.

    Doesn’t matter if the original deal was made in good faith or through trickery.
    Are you a polish lawyer?
    Me neither.
    I have no idea how the lawsuit will go, but seeing the CDPR is not settling, i'm going to assume their lawyers are not certain of their defeat.

    Nyysjan on
    ElvenshaeBigityElldrenRchanen
  • QuiotuQuiotu Registered User regular
    I feel for Sapkowski, even he admits his own stupidity. But this is where you try and renegotiate. Suing this company after the fact just makes you look petty, and keeps any potential negotiations later all but impossible.
    And can I say... he's making money off of this deal that he's not really talking about. His books were pretty much only known in Poland until the games, now they're known all over the world. He has to be making some bank from book sales after his books' visibility skyrocketed after the games' success. So he's profiting... he's just not profiting enough in his eyes.
    He could always write another book and do it in tandem with CDPR making a game out of the story, or help them in writing new stories. But he's not, he just wants a cash grab, which is the WORST option he has at this point. I really don't get it..

    wbee62u815wj.png
    BigityLucid_Seraph
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck the search for the means to put an end to things an end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    i think there is a good possibility there might be some interesting stuff in cyberpunk simply because a lot of what ends up being a games "treatment" of different subject matter is often confined to very small, individual parts handled by individual or small groups of writers. for example, there might be a single trans character who is read as what the game is saying about trans issues in general - and cdpr has a bunch of different writers, many of whom likely have quite different political views to each other. depending on who does it, how its handled, what kind of editorial force is used all kinds of things could pop out

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
    ElvenshaeSynthesisAlbino BunnyFencingsaxElldrenJazzUnlucky
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

    They are using the law correctly though.

    Correctly here means; did the person you sold rights to make 3x more than they paid you for the rights? If yes, then they are in the wrong.

    That law was IMO created to protect artists from being screwed over.

    The author wasn't screwed over. He was offered a % based amount of the royalties and turned it down. This is his own fault.

    That’s not how the law works.

    It is very simple.

    No matter what the circumstances are, if the person you sold the rights to makes 3x or more the amount they paid for the rights then the original creator is due more compensation.

    That’s all there is to it.

    Doesn’t matter if the original deal was made in good faith or through trickery.
    Are you a polish lawyer?
    Me neither.
    I have no idea how the lawsuit will go, but seeing the CDPR is not settling, i'm going to assume their lawyers are not certain of their defeat.

    It doesn't take a lawyer to read. I mean the law they cite in the complaint is pretty unambiguously worded. Is there a gross discrepancy between the amount of money CDPR paid to the Author vs the amount of money CDPR made from the IP? I would say yes absolutely. In that case the Author is well within his rights to ask the court for more money.

    Whether or not he can win the lawsuit if he goes ahead with it I've no idea. The concept of this law is so alien to me as an American that I'm just stunned such a thing exists.


    edit- And again I feel the need to state that I do not think the Author is in the moral right here. The whole thing comes off like a cash grab to me.

    Axen on
  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    Quiotu wrote: »
    I feel for Sapkowski, even he admits his own stupidity. But this is where you try and renegotiate. Suing this company after the fact just makes you look petty, and keeps any potential negotiations later all but impossible.
    And can I say... he's making money off of this deal that he's not really talking about. His books were pretty much only known in Poland until the games, now they're known all over the world. He has to be making some bank from book sales after his books' visibility skyrocketed after the games' success. So he's profiting... he's just not profiting enough in his eyes.
    He could always write another book and do it in tandem with CDPR making a game out of the story, or help them in writing new stories. But he's not, he just wants a cash grab, which is the WORST option he has at this point. I really don't get it..

    His opinion has historically been that the games became popular because of him, not that his works became popular because of the games - in fact, he considers the games to have "spoiled his market". What with these damn millennials who can't appreciate books without a vidya gaem to point them to it:
    "I have nothing against the game itself. I think it's a high-level product. All the benefits CDPR received for it are absolutely well-earned. I have nothing against video games in general. I have nothing against the people who play them, even if I don't and never will," Sapkowski says. "The whole animosity started when the game began to spoil my market."

    "I wrote the first Witcher story 30 years ago," he continues. "When I come to my author meetings, there's no one in the audience close to my age. I am 69. There's no one. Kids everywhere. How are some of them supposed to know—especially in Germany, Spain or the US—that my books are not game related? That I'm not writing books based on games? They may not know that, and CDPR bravely conceals the game's origins. It's written in fine print, you need a microscope to see it, that the game is 'based on' [my books]."

    CDPR's faults don't end there, claims the author.

    "The belief, widely spread by CDPR, that the games made me popular outside of Poland is completely false. I made the games popular. All of my translations in the West—including the English one—were published before the first game."

    (I haven't seen any verified evidence that an official English translation ever made it to market before the release of Witcher 1, but Lithuanian/Russian/Czech/German translations existed as early as '97)

    PSN: Donnicton - Switch FC: SW-6944-1374-2020 - Wii/3DS FC: 1633-4230-5354 - Steam: Donnicton - BNet: Donnicton#11763
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Axen wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Supposedly,
    The author’s lawyers are basing this demand on Polish law, specifically the Act on Copyright and Related Rights. They argue that this law “may be invoked when the compensation remitted to the author is too low given the benefits obtained in association with the use of that author’s work.” In other words: The Witcher series has made millions and millions and millions. And Sapkowski hasn’t seen those millions.
    From here.
    Which seems to pretty obviously rewarding demanding cash up front since the option of demanding a cut of the profits later will always be there.

    Of course internet gaming site legal analysis might not be the best there is.

    It's not a bad law, though. One of the reasons that so many of the African American musicians ended up either in poverty or touring until they died of old age was that while their music made someone millions and millions, their contracts were written to make sure it wasn't them.

    Unfortunately that's not how the law is being used in this instance.

    They are using the law correctly though.

    Correctly here means; did the person you sold rights to make 3x more than they paid you for the rights? If yes, then they are in the wrong.

    That law was IMO created to protect artists from being screwed over.

    The author wasn't screwed over. He was offered a % based amount of the royalties and turned it down. This is his own fault.

    That’s not how the law works.

    It is very simple.

    No matter what the circumstances are, if the person you sold the rights to makes 3x or more the amount they paid for the rights then the original creator is due more compensation.

    That’s all there is to it.

    Doesn’t matter if the original deal was made in good faith or through trickery.
    Are you a polish lawyer?
    Me neither.
    I have no idea how the lawsuit will go, but seeing the CDPR is not settling, i'm going to assume their lawyers are not certain of their defeat.

    It doesn't take a lawyer to read. I mean the law they cite in the complaint is pretty unambiguously worded. Is there a gross discrepancy between the amount of money CDPR paid to the Author vs the amount of money CDPR made from the IP? I would say yes absolutely. In that case the Author is well within his rights to ask the court for more money.

    Whether or not he can win the lawsuit if he goes ahead with it I've no idea. The concept of this law is so alien to me as an American that I'm just stunned such a thing exists.


    edit- And again I feel the need to state that I do not think the Author is in the moral right here. The whole thing comes off like a cash grab to me.
    What kind of presedence is there for this?
    How much room for interpretation does the judge get?
    Does the court take into account possible deals offered v deals made?

    I have no problem with the concept, artists are taken advantage of by not so honest agents, publishers etc all the time.
    The idea of the law makes perfect sense to me.
    But i'm not so certain that only thing that gets taken into account is this one law, with no further consideration for situation from where the lawsuit is coming from.
    If law was so cut and dry, we would not need lawyers.

  • SiliconStewSiliconStew Registered User regular
    I'd still think "I already knowingly rejected the same offer I'm asking for now" and basically believing he was scamming CDPR with "I sold them something I personally valued at zero dollars [at the time]" would harm his case.

    Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
    BobbleElvenshaeBigityAxenElldren
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    For the first three questions, who knows? It doesn't change the fact that he has the right to pursue this claim.

    However, there is absolutely nothing in the law that even suggests it is meant to be only used by people who feel they were duped or that a deal was made in bad faith.

    edit- This certainly applies to US Courts and probably just about any Court in the developed world, but Courts don't care how morally wrong (edit- or right for that matter) someone is. You can be thoroughly detestable and clearly motivated by self-serving desires, all that matters is the letter of the law.

    Which is ultimately a good thing, but can lead to some gross ass rulings.

    Axen on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Donnicton wrote: »
    (I haven't seen any verified evidence that an official English translation ever made it to market before the release of Witcher 1, but Lithuanian/Russian/Czech/German translations existed as early as '97)

    Purely out of my own interest, and taking Wikipedia on its own word, I did a search on the Russian-language version which suggests the Witcher novels and novellas had been available in Russian since 1991.

    Considering I've heard of several Polish short stories and novels, particularly in the fantasy or science-fiction genres, being distributed in the USSR (typically in the same format as they first appeared in Poland, magazines), this isn't surprising. I'm actually surprised it didn't make it earlier, but the same Wikipedia.ru article claim that Polish publication only began in 1986.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • XeddicusXeddicus Registered User regular
    There's no way he should win, that's why they sent a letter trying to scare them into paying out hush money instead of serving them a lawsuit.

    All of reasons why were pointed out: It's a request. That he doesn't even qualify for because nothing HE did made the money. He is not the author of games.

    But dumber things have happened.

    "For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
Sign In or Register to comment.