It's kinda funny all the post stating that he made a contract so he can't change it, despite it being clearly stated in the article that the law in that country states you can. Did you guys even read the entire article???????
It's kinda funny all the post stating that he made a contract so he can't change it, despite it being clearly stated in the article that the law in that country states you can. Did you guys even read the entire article???????
Agreed. It is nice for people to have silly little opinions about all this but the law of each country, Poland included, is not based on opinion. The law in Poland is very clear here. He can ask for more money, has asked for more money and most likely will receive more money. This is not a question of should he get more it is a question of how much should he get. Polish law is pro-creator. Not pro-business like the USA or others. Think what you want about the man but he is entitled to fair compensation. The Polish copyright law agrees and supports that.
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.
You mean this law which will need to be enforced in a country where it's legal system appears to be in a state of disarray atm?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's kinda funny all the post stating that he made a contract so he can't change it, despite it being clearly stated in the article that the law in that country states you can. Did you guys even read the entire article???????
Agreed. It is nice for people to have silly little opinions about all this but the law of each country, Poland included, is not based on opinion. The law in Poland is very clear here. He can ask for more money, has asked for more money and most likely will receive more money. This is not a question of should he get more it is a question of how much should he get. Polish law is pro-creator. Not pro-business like the USA or others. Think what you want about the man but he is entitled to fair compensation. The Polish copyright law agrees and supports that.
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.
You mean this law which will need to be enforced in a country where it's legal system appears to be in a state of disarray atm?
Well mate you can't expect us pesky European countries justice system to meet the Pantheon like standards of the US!
The stuff we've been hearing from across the pond would even raise a few eyebrows in the court of Caligula!
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
It's kinda funny all the post stating that he made a contract so he can't change it, despite it being clearly stated in the article that the law in that country states you can. Did you guys even read the entire article???????
Agreed. It is nice for people to have silly little opinions about all this but the law of each country, Poland included, is not based on opinion. The law in Poland is very clear here. He can ask for more money, has asked for more money and most likely will receive more money. This is not a question of should he get more it is a question of how much should he get. Polish law is pro-creator. Not pro-business like the USA or others. Think what you want about the man but he is entitled to fair compensation. The Polish copyright law agrees and supports that.
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.
You mean this law which will need to be enforced in a country where it's legal system appears to be in a state of disarray atm?
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Remove CPR from the equation and substitute EA instead. People would be all over EA and supporting the author. But because it is a game that people seem to enjoy they over look logic and favor the game maker. The law states he can receive more money. There is a reason countries have added the bestseller clause for creatives. The Netherlands just passing it into law in 2015 is a good example. Creatives get shafted all the time every day.
This will settle out of court. As it always does. Regardless what CDR fans want to think or believe.
So you are saying creatives are often stupid and sign bad deals, so it's good that laws are created to protect them from being so?
I'm from a time when a person honors their agreements, and doesn't try to break them when the situation such as the lure of getting more suits them
Small individual or large "evil" corporate entity, a deal is a deal unless some sort of deceit up front is involved.
On the surface it doesn't appear to be the case and if the EU is passing such laws it's a bad thing IMO.
Pro tip for life...dont make agreements you can't keep.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So you are saying creatives are often stupid and sign bad deals, so it's good that laws are created to protect them from being so?
I think that's what he was saying. It's a reasonable thing, too. Laws are meant to make things work more smoothly, to prevent exploitation, ... A deal that's lucrative to both sides is better than a one sided deal.
I feel that Andrezj Sapkowski got quite a good deal from all of this even without extra licensing payments. Without the games, his novels would likely never have had the success they got, and there would never be a TV series (which I assume he got some good money for). But still, he got a bad deal, and if the law allows him to make it better, that's IMO a good thing.
He signed a contract and agreed to X amount of money in first place. So no you can't ditch for more.
It's far more likely that Projekt Red pulled an AmazonDotCom and decided to "goblin" him or "Ferengi" him out of his money and he's simply asking for his fair share. Happens all the time in these big companies. Just ask Jeff Bezos.
It's kinda funny all the post stating that he made a contract so he can't change it, despite it being clearly stated in the article that the law in that country states you can. Did you guys even read the entire article???????
Agreed. It is nice for people to have silly little opinions about all this but the law of each country, Poland included, is not based on opinion. The law in Poland is very clear here. He can ask for more money, has asked for more money and most likely will receive more money. This is not a question of should he get more it is a question of how much should he get. Polish law is pro-creator. Not pro-business like the USA or others. Think what you want about the man but he is entitled to fair compensation. The Polish copyright law agrees and supports that.
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.
You mean this law which will need to be enforced in a country where it's legal system appears to be in a state of disarray atm?
None of that has anything to do with Copyright law or court. This is a civil case not a criminal case.
Apples and Oranges
Also is that really fair considering the state of the justice system of the vast majority of countries around the world?
Come on. From you? smh
Why is it surprising coming from me, I'm an old cold warrior who still distrusts all current and former communist states, especially their legal systems.
As I often quote from the Drifter in Bunkaru, "I'm a product of a fucked up generation," and I'm OK with that.
Interesting and perhaps relatable quote from the Economist on the state of Polands legal system reforms.
"Does PiS, which won 38% of the vote in 2015, have a mandate to rip up the post-1989 social contract? Mr Morawiecki plays down Mr Kaczynski’s talk of revolution. But, he adds, “every contract can be amended.” Polish institutions need a shake-up, he says. Courts average 685 days to enforce a contract, the fourth-slowest in Europe."
"Every contract can be amended"....not good news for CDR if this is a prevailing attitude.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's sad to see this sort of conflict. Both parties have passion for the Witcher IP and should have respect for one another, but the novelist in question has no respect for games as a storytelling medium and no regard for the storytelling accomplishments of CDProjekt.
Compare that to the Metro series, whose author rightly credits the video games with improving the success of his novels.
As an aspiring writer myself, I have more respect for the Metro view. Respect is due to those to whom you license your work, and that respect can pay dividends if one takes a standard percentage commission for licensing rights.
I'm pretty convinced they will come to an amicable agreement at some point during the whole process. At the end of the day, its about money and the amount of money both parties can generate going forwards with the IP is considerable so an amicable long term solution will be beneficial to all.
I don't know, because to me the law looks like the writer can only sue for more royalties. If there's no possibility that CD Projekt Red could lose the their right to use Witcher IP, then they might not have any incentive to settle unless they'd be getting a really good deal.
It's sad to see this sort of conflict. Both parties have passion for the Witcher IP and should have respect for one another, but the novelist in question has no respect for games as a storytelling medium and no regard for the storytelling accomplishments of CDProjekt.
Compare that to the Metro series, whose author rightly credits the video games with improving the success of his novels.
As an aspiring writer myself, I have more respect for the Metro view. Respect is due to those to whom you license your work, and that respect can pay dividends if one takes a standard percentage commission for licensing rights.
Tolkien and Rowling both disparage gaming. JRR never would have let his IP be used for any game. Are they unworthy of respect?
This isn't about respect or how we feel about the people or the celebrity attachment and status we ascribe to them. This is about the law and justice. The intent of the law is to treat everyone the same regardless of our opinions.
Let's also put something in perspective. This person is receiving 3%. They're asking for 3% more for a total of 6% revenue. They're asking for a back payment of 16M. 16M is 3% of what number? That's the revenue everyone else is getting. That is a big big number.
Gamers recently got up in arms here (and on reddit I saw) over the 30% fees charged to content creators and studios by Steam, Google Play, etc. In those cases the studio is making 70% of the gross revenue. In this case CDPR is making 97% of the revenue. At worst CDPR will only make 94% of the revenue.
There is no question that CDPR brought a lot of success to this author. They likely would never have been able to make it otherwise. And that's why the law is in place. Because CDPR and other publishers know they have the advantage over unknowns.
Fledgling creators shouldn't be put in the position where they have the option of shouldering a lot of risk, or getting a shitty payment, or just getting nothing at all. The appropriate course in this and similar cases would be to provide an up front payment (like they did) and then have that deducted from the 6% revenue sharing until it was paid off. The creator should have both of those because in the end CDPR still keeps 94% of the revenue. That is huge.
I don't like TW series. I don't like anything I've read about "S". That's irrelevant to what the right course of action here is. Not only because it's the right thing to do but because it helps establish a precedent and trend in law.
But you're going further in your assessment than merely quoting the law while criticizing others for doing so.
It doesn't matter what percentage CDPR is keeping if they're legally entitled to that percentage. That's also the law, whether your or I think it fair, small, huge, whatever. CDPR isn't being evil by attempting to retain the profits that, up until now, were not even legally disputed to be theirs.
If the law says the guy can renegotiate, that's the law and the judge may very well order CIG to make reparations. But you're also going beyond merely stating the law (that there's a right to sue for reparations based on the unexpected financial success of the video games) and forming what you believe should be the conclusion to that suit already. No different from anyone else on the other side, concluding they feel he should be entitled to nothing more.
If we're not asserting our moral compass directions at one another, all we can say is there's a clause in Polish law that allows him to sue for reparations in this situation, and this suit will determine whether he's entitled to that renegotiation under that clause. That clause creates no absolutes; it merely states the IP creator can request increase through the courts. It guarantees no favorable decision from said suit.
It's sad to see this sort of conflict. Both parties have passion for the Witcher IP and should have respect for one another, but the novelist in question has no respect for games as a storytelling medium and no regard for the storytelling accomplishments of CDProjekt.
Compare that to the Metro series, whose author rightly credits the video games with improving the success of his novels.
As an aspiring writer myself, I have more respect for the Metro view. Respect is due to those to whom you license your work, and that respect can pay dividends if one takes a standard percentage commission for licensing rights.
Tolkien and Rowling both disparage gaming. JRR never would have let his IP be used for any game. Are they unworthy of respect?
Ultimately, Rowling still allowed her IP to be used in gaming. JRR Tolkien left his IP to his estate and they made a decision to license it to games; should the opinion of his estate not be respected?
One can respect the accomplishments of a person like JRR Tolkien without respecting some other unrelated opinion they may hold.
This isn't about respect or how we feel about the people or the celebrity attachment and status we ascribe to them. This is about the law and justice. The intent of the law is to treat everyone the same regardless of our opinions. Which is why this will be decided in court.
Let's also put something in perspective. This person is receiving 3%. They're asking for 3% more for a total of 6% revenue. They're asking for a back payment of 16M. 16M is 3% of what number? That's the revenue everyone else is getting. That is a big big number.
Gamers recently got up in arms here (and on reddit I saw) over the 30% fees charged to content creators and studios by Steam, Google Play, etc. In those cases the studio is making 70% of the gross revenue. In this case CDPR is making 97% of the revenue. At worst CDPR will only make 94% of the revenue. The reasonability of the situation is irrelevant. I for one agree that CDPR should pay the man for reasons of PR and improving relations with the author, but whether they are obligated to do so is for the court to decide. They made no attempt to screw him in the contract. They offered him the proper percentage and he turned it down in favor of a quick profit because he did not respect games as a medium and did not trust CDProjeckt to succeed.
There is no question that CDPR brought a lot of success to this author. They likely would never have been able to make it otherwise. And that's why the law is in place. Because CDPR and other publishers know they have the advantage over unknowns. CDProjeckt WERE the unknowns. They were a nothing company before the first Witcher, were seen as a cult classic at best with the Witcher 1, met middling success with the Witcher 2, and only became mainstream with The Witcher 3.
Fledgling creators shouldn't be put in the position where they have the option of shouldering a lot of risk, or getting a shitty payment, or just getting nothing at all. The appropriate course in this and similar cases would be to provide an up front payment (like they did) and then have that deducted from the 6% revenue sharing until it was paid off. The creator should have both of those because in the end CDPR still keeps 94% of the revenue. That is huge. Again, CDProjeckt was a fledgling studio and did make every attempt to present the author with the standard royalties in the initial contract. Denying that was his decision.
I don't like TW series. I don't like anything I've read about "S". That's irrelevant to what the right course of action here is. Not only because it's the right thing to do but because it helps establish a precedent and trend in law.
If CD Project Red's computer games had turned out to be flops would it have OK for them to ask for their money back due to the lack of benefit they received? Notwithstanding the fact they signed a contract of course.
It's why I have some problems with "best seller" clauses in the 4 or 5 EU countries that have that concept in their copyright law.
I guess I'm old fashioned in my thinking that a deal is a deal and the unanticipated outcomes that happen post deal are just serendipity that may or may not favor one side over the other and make the deal seem better or worse in retrospect.
I'm inclined to be pro-consumer, pro-worker and pro-creator in pretty well all circumstances but it seems to me that "best seller" clauses give creatives a get out of jail free second chance at revisiting contracts that no one else in business, commerce or work gets.
And @blueturtle13, these discussions usually go much better when people don't start assuming and implying base fanboi reasons for the opinions others give. You're better than that and have no reason to resort to either specific or general ad homs.
"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
If the law says the guy can renegotiate, that's the law
<snip>
Spot on imo. And worth thinking about what the law encourages. It looks pretty clever to me.
It encourages ideas creators to accept lower sums from companies - since it gives them the option to ask for more downstream.
It encourages e.g. developers to greenlight projects that, if the sum was higher, may simply carry to much risk that they will ever make a profit.
As a Polish company I am sure that CD Project Red know the laws. And I suspect they won't have any problem with the request. Haggle on the price of course since they are also a major player in the reason why its a big hit.
So yes he agreed a legal contract. Laws are valid within a given framework however. And unless specifically excluded this framework is such that it allows him to ask for more.
2. good faith and community PR .. I bring Andrejz into the TV series as a Creative Consultant and writer , I give him a frontloaded contract that is fair to both and compensates for the original contract ..
Its a win /win and from his books im certain he has a lot to offer for a TV series that would be beneficial to CD Project/Andrejz and the community and fans of Witcher..
As I said above laws are valid within a framework - stuff that forms a part of what is agreed by default. In this case the framework says: can ask for more.
And - see post above - it strikes me as a law designed to help projects get greenlit.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
https://www.ft.com/content/ef3b5420-7f60-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d
The EU courts appear to be at odds as well.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ecj-damns-poland-legal-system-drug-dealer-fair-trial-artur-celmer/
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
The stuff we've been hearing from across the pond would even raise a few eyebrows in the court of Caligula!
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I find it best to stay under the radar and out of the legal system as the best way to go whenever possible.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm from a time when a person honors their agreements, and doesn't try to break them when the situation such as the lure of getting more suits them
Small individual or large "evil" corporate entity, a deal is a deal unless some sort of deceit up front is involved.
On the surface it doesn't appear to be the case and if the EU is passing such laws it's a bad thing IMO.
Pro tip for life...dont make agreements you can't keep.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It's far more likely that Projekt Red pulled an AmazonDotCom and decided to "goblin" him or "Ferengi" him out of his money and he's simply asking for his fair share. Happens all the time in these big companies. Just ask Jeff Bezos.
As I often quote from the Drifter in Bunkaru, "I'm a product of a fucked up generation," and I'm OK with that.
Interesting and perhaps relatable quote from the Economist on the state of Polands legal system reforms.
"Does PiS, which won 38% of the vote in 2015, have a mandate to rip up the post-1989 social contract? Mr Morawiecki plays down Mr Kaczynski’s talk of revolution. But, he adds, “every contract can be amended.” Polish institutions need a shake-up, he says. Courts average 685 days to enforce a contract, the fourth-slowest in Europe."
"Every contract can be amended"....not good news for CDR if this is a prevailing attitude.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/04/21/polands-ruling-law-and-justice-party-is-doing-lasting-damage
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Compare that to the Metro series, whose author rightly credits the video games with improving the success of his novels.
As an aspiring writer myself, I have more respect for the Metro view. Respect is due to those to whom you license your work, and that respect can pay dividends if one takes a standard percentage commission for licensing rights.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It doesn't matter what percentage CDPR is keeping if they're legally entitled to that percentage. That's also the law, whether your or I think it fair, small, huge, whatever. CDPR isn't being evil by attempting to retain the profits that, up until now, were not even legally disputed to be theirs.
If the law says the guy can renegotiate, that's the law and the judge may very well order CIG to make reparations. But you're also going beyond merely stating the law (that there's a right to sue for reparations based on the unexpected financial success of the video games) and forming what you believe should be the conclusion to that suit already. No different from anyone else on the other side, concluding they feel he should be entitled to nothing more.
If we're not asserting our moral compass directions at one another, all we can say is there's a clause in Polish law that allows him to sue for reparations in this situation, and this suit will determine whether he's entitled to that renegotiation under that clause. That clause creates no absolutes; it merely states the IP creator can request increase through the courts. It guarantees no favorable decision from said suit.
I guess I'm old fashioned in my thinking that a deal is a deal and the unanticipated outcomes that happen post deal are just serendipity that may or may not favor one side over the other and make the deal seem better or worse in retrospect.
I'm inclined to be pro-consumer, pro-worker and pro-creator in pretty well all circumstances but it seems to me that "best seller" clauses give creatives a get out of jail free second chance at revisiting contracts that no one else in business, commerce or work gets.
And @blueturtle13, these discussions usually go much better when people don't start assuming and implying base fanboi reasons for the opinions others give. You're better than that and have no reason to resort to either specific or general ad homs.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It encourages ideas creators to accept lower sums from companies - since it gives them the option to ask for more downstream.
It encourages e.g. developers to greenlight projects that, if the sum was higher, may simply carry to much risk that they will ever make a profit.
As a Polish company I am sure that CD Project Red know the laws. And I suspect they won't have any problem with the request. Haggle on the price of course since they are also a major player in the reason why its a big hit.
So yes he agreed a legal contract. Laws are valid within a given framework however. And unless specifically excluded this framework is such that it allows him to ask for more.
And - see post above - it strikes me as a law designed to help projects get greenlit.