The entire premise of my argument is situated on the fact that parties can't see the future, and in one instance you feel that's worth one party being able to void their original decision and demand renegotiated terms, but the other you won't advocate that. You think consumers that back projects don't have inside knowledge of the industry due to willful ignorance?
I'm sorry, but no one is owed a career as a creative. If you need the money, and you sign away the rights, that's too bad. I know a lot of folks who are working jobs they don't like because they need the money. Should they have the right to demand their employer renegotiate terms? For the vast majority of industries and states here in the U.S., they do not. At will employment says the employer can offer an employment contract on a take it or leave it basis, and don't owe you anything beyond that contract no matter how productive you are for the company. Hell, the company can void said offer at any point, even after you've accepted the terms of employment.
That's why I stated the part about taking the unnecessary risks. If you don't know what you're doing, you can't predict the outcome, then avoid backing up crowdfunding projects. It would have no effect on your life whatsoever. An artist can't make that choice because his children might starve to death. This is beyond apple and oranges.
Employees renogiate their deals all the time for various reasons. I'm not sure how is it in the US but in here this happens more than you think. That's not the point though.
Taking a job you don't like because you need the money is different from a career throughout history systematically benefit the key people vastly less than others involved in it. And as I said, this could also apply to other careers as well, and no, that doesn't make it alright.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
That's why I stated the part about taking the unnecessary risks. If you don't know what you're doing, you can't predict the outcome, then avoid backing up crowdfunding projects. It would have no effect on your life whatsoever. An artist can't make that choice because his children might starve to death. This is beyond apple and oranges.
Employees renogiate their deals all the time for various reasons. I'm not sure how is it in the US but in here this happens more than you think. That's not the point though.
Taking a job you don't like because you need the money is different from a career throughout history systematically benefit the key people vastly less than others involved in it. And as I said, this could also apply to other careers as well, and no, that doesn't make it alright.
I truly think this might be a difference of perspective. Here in the US, renegotiating terms of employment is generally only done to the point the employer thinks they can keep the employee from jumping ship to a competitor, no more. It certainly isn't often a two-way "negotiation."
The idea that one reneges on a deal properly made just doesn't garner lots of sympathy for the average American I think. At least not to those I know personally.
The Polish courts may very well apply a standard to these cases that attempts to gauge how well the creator knew what he was getting into here. If that's the case, I find it a much better matter of law because it assesses the context surrounding the contract instead of attempting a "one size fits all" solution.
I can't get behind the idea that, just because CDPR did a good job creating video games with the IP, the creator should be able to demand more than he originally agreed to for no other reason than he wants more.
The idea that one reneges on a deal properly made is just doesn't garner lots of sympathy for the average American I think. At least not to those I know personally.
agreed!
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
That's why I stated the part about taking the unnecessary risks. If you don't know what you're doing, you can't predict the outcome, then avoid backing up crowdfunding projects. It would have no effect on your life whatsoever. An artist can't make that choice because his children might starve to death. This is beyond apple and oranges.
Employees renogiate their deals all the time for various reasons. I'm not sure how is it in the US but in here this happens more than you think. That's not the point though.
Taking a job you don't like because you need the money is different from a career throughout history systematically benefit the key people vastly less than others involved in it. And as I said, this could also apply to other careers as well, and no, that doesn't make it alright.
I truly think this might be a difference of perspective. Here in the US, renegotiating terms of employment is generally only done to the point the employer thinks they can keep the employee from jumping ship to a competitor, no more. It certainly isn't often a two-way "negotiation."
The idea that one reneges on a deal properly made is just doesn't garner lots of sympathy for the average American I think. At least not to those I know personally.
I agree mate. And to be fair, I don't consider myself to be absolutely right. I'm merely trying to introduce a new perspective.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
The idea that one reneges on a deal properly made is just doesn't garner lots of sympathy for the average American I think. At least not to those I know personally.
agreed!
Yet it happens all the time in America. weird.
It might very well "happen all the time" (perhaps, do we really have studies on that? Other than anecdotal) but I think the general "feel" is that Americans want to make a bargain and stick with it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Yeah but that is crap and everyone knows it. Look at major sports stars. Film stars. CEOs. Analysts. All renegotiate for better deals all the time. This has always been done and will always be done.
They do so via threat (either explicit or implocit) to go to another team, agency, etc.. I said as much in my previous post: employers do only enough to keep their talent in-house. Not quite the same as "hey, what YOU did was more successful than I thought it would be, so give ME more money!" They renegotiate based on their own performances, not the other party's performance.
And CEOs, film stars, and sports stars are hardly considered normal or average.
Yeah but that is crap and everyone knows it. Look at major sports stars. Film stars. CEOs. Analysts. All renegotiate for better deals all the time. This has always been done and will always be done.
They do so via threat to go to a other team, agency, etc.. I said as much in my previous post: employer's do only enough to keep their talent in-house.
And CEOs, film stars, and sports stars are hardly considered bormal or average.
Exactly. The elite and privileged get to do it. No one else can.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The author is demanding renegotiated terms based on CDPR's performance, not his own. That makes this situation nothing like contract renegotiations of sports stars or film stars.
Yeah but that is crap and everyone knows it. Look at major sports stars. Film stars. CEOs. Analysts. All renegotiate for better deals all the time. This has always been done and will always be done.
They do so via threat (either explicit or implocit) to go to another team, agency, etc.. I said as much in my previous post: employer's do only enough to keep their talent in-house.
And CEOs, film stars, and sports stars are hardly considered normal or average.
Well that is your opinion. The law does not agree with you or support that position.
What position specifically are you responding to here? That CEOs, film stars, and sports stars aren't average? Or that employers only renegotiate to keep talent in house when necessary?
I think we've reached the Big Lebowski point in this thread:
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So the lesson to be learned here is, if an Game developer offers you a percentage of the profits, you take it rather than turn it down in favour of more cash up front, because whining about it afterwards, people are just going to laugh at you
So the lesson to be learned here is, if an Game developer offers you a percentage of the profits, you take it rather than turn it down in favour of more cash up front, because whining about it afterwards, people are just going to laugh at you
Not in Poland. There you take the up-front lump because you can't lose either way.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So the lesson to be learned here is, if an Game developer offers you a percentage of the profits, you take it rather than turn it down in favour of more cash up front, because whining about it afterwards, people are just going to laugh at you
Not in Poland. There you take the up-front lump because you can't lose either way.
I can't imagine CDPR not being able to afford some decent lawyers.
Yeah agreed. People have moved beyond trying to reason and moved to just trying to be ‘right’ For those of us this kind of thing actually effects it is a tough conversation with many sides. For everyone else it is just a grandstand soapbox for their ‘opinions’ Have fun.
Well... I am retired now but I did spend over 30 years negotiating employment contracts for regular, everyday, health care workers and I still have several friends who continue that work. My interest in contracts goes well beyond "grandstanding soapboxes."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So the lesson to be learned here is, if an Game developer offers you a percentage of the profits, you take it rather than turn it down in favour of more cash up front, because whining about it afterwards, people are just going to laugh at you
Not in Poland. There you take the up-front lump because you can't lose either way.
I can't imagine CDPR not being able to afford some decent lawyers.
That best seller clause though...
I admit that I have no clue how it has been adjudicated there in the past and the precedents that created, but a simple reading of it seems to give the author a pretty potent hammer.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Yeah agreed. People have moved beyond trying to reason and moved to just trying to be ‘right’ For those of us this kind of thing actually effects it is a tough conversation with many sides. For everyone else it is just a grandstand soapbox for their ‘opinions’ Have fun.
Oh c'mon man, it's debate on a forum. Constantine didn't leave the discussion butthurt, and neither has anyone else.
I get this might be applicable to your career, but nobody here is targeting you personally.
So the lesson to be learned here is, if an Game developer offers you a percentage of the profits, you take it rather than turn it down in favour of more cash up front, because whining about it afterwards, people are just going to laugh at you
Not in Poland. There you take the up-front lump because you can't lose either way.
I can't imagine CDPR not being able to afford some decent lawyers.
That best seller clause though...
I admit that I have no clue how it has been adjudicated there in the past and the precedents that created, but a simple reading of it seems to give the author a pretty potent hammer.
The literal reading of the clause quoted here guarantees no certain outcome, it merely provides the avenue for parties to seek reparations should they feel inclined to do so based on the success of the IP.
Now, you have experience reviewing such contracts, so you can correct me if our courts generally view such a clause as affirmation of owed reparations or if it's what it seems to be on its face. But the literal wording doesn't seem to imply any rights other than the right to challenge the contract in court.
Employees renogiate their deals all the time for various reasons. I'm not sure how is it in the US but in here this happens more than you think. That's not the point though.
Taking a job you don't like because you need the money is different from a career throughout history systematically benefit the key people vastly less than others involved in it. And as I said, this could also apply to other careers as well, and no, that doesn't make it alright.
I disagree. When an employee does well he can use it to get better terms for his future work, but he can't re-negotiate terms for work he's already done.
The writer here is in a privileged position of re-negotiating terms for work he's completed years ago and already been paid for in full. No employee ever gets that kind of privilege.
Well I don't know how Polish contract law works, nor do I know what jurisdiction the contract/agreement has for disputes (this is very important to any contract in the US). What I do know of is HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of cases of artists from various mediums taking upfront cash as opposed to revenue share over longer periods of time. They are not allowed to modify the previous agreement. What they can do is renegotiate terms if the agreement doesn't have some form of perpetuity attached to the license. Even in those cases the value has been determined and they have less bargaining power.
The term "selling out" is an almost 1:1 literal of the above scenario.
State side, if that contract is ironclad and well worded he gets this...
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Yeah agreed. People have moved beyond trying to reason and moved to just trying to be ‘right’ For those of us this kind of thing actually effects it is a tough conversation with many sides. For everyone else it is just a grandstand soapbox for their ‘opinions’ Have fun.
Oh c'mon man, it's debate on a forum. Constantine didn't leave the discussion butthurt, and neither has anyone else.
I get this might be applicable to your career, but nobody here is targeting you personally.
So the lesson to be learned here is, if an Game developer offers you a percentage of the profits, you take it rather than turn it down in favour of more cash up front, because whining about it afterwards, people are just going to laugh at you
Not in Poland. There you take the up-front lump because you can't lose either way.
I can't imagine CDPR not being able to afford some decent lawyers.
That best seller clause though...
I admit that I have no clue how it has been adjudicated there in the past and the precedents that created, but a simple reading of it seems to give the author a pretty potent hammer.
The literal reading of the clause quoted here guarantees no certain outcome, it merely provides the avenue for parties to seek reparations should they feel inclined to do so based on the success of the IP.
Now, you have experience reviewing such contract, so you can correct me if our courts generally view such as clause as affirmation of owed reparations or if it's what it seems to be on its face. But the literal wording doesn't seem to imply any rights other than the right to challenge the contract in court.
Article 44. In the event of gross discrepancy between the remuneration of the author and the benefits of the acquirer of the author's economic rights or the licensee, the author may request the court for a due increase of his/her remuneration.
It's not a challenge per se as I read it. It's a simple application to the court for review and IMO, the whole thing hinges on the interpretation and application of "gross discrepancy."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
I'm sorry, but no one is owed a career as a creative. If you need the money, and you sign away the rights, that's too bad. I know a lot of folks who are working jobs they don't like because they need the money. Should they have the right to demand their employer renegotiate terms? For the vast majority of industries and states here in the U.S., they do not. At will employment says the employer can offer an employment contract on a take it or leave it basis, and don't owe you anything beyond that contract no matter how productive you are for the company. Hell, the company can void said offer at any point, even after you've accepted the terms of employment.
Employees renogiate their deals all the time for various reasons. I'm not sure how is it in the US but in here this happens more than you think. That's not the point though.
Taking a job you don't like because you need the money is different from a career throughout history systematically benefit the key people vastly less than others involved in it. And as I said, this could also apply to other careers as well, and no, that doesn't make it alright.
The idea that one reneges on a deal properly made just doesn't garner lots of sympathy for the average American I think. At least not to those I know personally.
The Polish courts may very well apply a standard to these cases that attempts to gauge how well the creator knew what he was getting into here. If that's the case, I find it a much better matter of law because it assesses the context surrounding the contract instead of attempting a "one size fits all" solution.
I can't get behind the idea that, just because CDPR did a good job creating video games with the IP, the creator should be able to demand more than he originally agreed to for no other reason than he wants more.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
And CEOs, film stars, and sports stars are hardly considered normal or average.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
The author is demanding renegotiated terms based on CDPR's performance, not his own. That makes this situation nothing like contract renegotiations of sports stars or film stars.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I admit that I have no clue how it has been adjudicated there in the past and the precedents that created, but a simple reading of it seems to give the author a pretty potent hammer.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I get this might be applicable to your career, but nobody here is targeting you personally.
The literal reading of the clause quoted here guarantees no certain outcome, it merely provides the avenue for parties to seek reparations should they feel inclined to do so based on the success of the IP.
Now, you have experience reviewing such contracts, so you can correct me if our courts generally view such a clause as affirmation of owed reparations or if it's what it seems to be on its face. But the literal wording doesn't seem to imply any rights other than the right to challenge the contract in court.
The writer here is in a privileged position of re-negotiating terms for work he's completed years ago and already been paid for in full. No employee ever gets that kind of privilege.
The term "selling out" is an almost 1:1 literal of the above scenario.
State side, if that contract is ironclad and well worded he gets this...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In the event of gross discrepancy between the remuneration of the author and the benefits of the acquirer of the author's economic rights or the licensee, the author may request the court for a due increase of his/her remuneration.
It's not a challenge per se as I read it. It's a simple application to the court for review and IMO, the whole thing hinges on the interpretation and application of "gross discrepancy."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED