Hello all:

Well, I'm much surprised by this sudden interest in Harn copyrights. There have been several appeals for CGI to make its position clear, and one or two false statements have been made, so we will respond.

CGI has always acknowledged that NRC was the original creator of HARN. However, starting with the very first product, the Harn Regional Module, published in 1983, NRC and CGI have shared the copyright. NRC and CGI operated on a handshake for the first four years, then in 1986 a contract was drawn up to formalize our relationship. This contract clearly states:

WHEREAS:

A. Robin and the Company have jointly created an original Fantasy Universe and rules for fantasy role-playing, the expression of which is protected by Copyright owned by them jointly (the Concept").

B. The Company has developed, with the cooperation of Robin, this Concept into a game-related product or products to be marketed under the Trade Names "Harn", Harnmaster, Lythia, Kethira, and Kelestia or any other names chosen by the Company from time to time, (the Products).

C. Robin has agreed to grant and assign to the Company all of his rights to publish and market the Products and the Company has agreed to pay a Royalty to Robin therefor, on the terms and conditions set out herein.

That is crystal clear. CGI and NRC share the Copyright JOINTLY and CGI has the exclusive right to publish HARN products for sale.

Now this contract also has a TERMINATION clause which NRC has posted. This clause states that NRC regains all Copyrights and publication rights on termination. NRC uses the clause to justify his conduct. But a termination clause is proof of nothing. It merely lays out a procedure for termination. We say that NRC made false termination claims and then unilaterally terminated exactly 30 days later without making any attempt to arbitrate. Our contract contains this arbitration clause:

10. In the event that any disagreement arises between the Parties hereto with reference to this Agreement or any matter arising hereunder and upon which the Parties cannot agree, then every such disagreement shall be referred to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of The ARBITRATION ACT, R.S.B.C, 19790 C.18, as amended.

Since NRC was the party seeking change he was obligated to take our dispute to arbitration. This was never done. We asked for arbitration several times, but NRC refused, and later claimed there was nothing to arbitrate.

To justify termination, NRC picked a three period in our long history going back to 1982 when he received no monies from us. Why was no money paid for those three years? NRC had been paid excess royalties in the period 1982-1996 and we sought to claw back some of this money at a time when NRC was receiving much higher advance royalties from Auran. There was also an ongoing dispute in 1998 and 1999 regarding NRC's self-publication of HarnMaster Gold.

Later after Auran cancelled the Harn project, and their royalties to NRC stopped, CGI paid NRC monies again because he had no other source of income. We did this although there remained a substantial overpayment in past royalties. We actually OVERPAID NRC AGAIN in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, but NRC ignored these recent payments, and used three years in the PAST as his grounds for termination.

Why did he do this?

FIRST, the rise of the internet persuaded NRC he could earn more money and have greater control by self-publication of online materials.

SECOND, NRC and CGI had bashed heads for years on accents. NRC wished to add accents to HARN and we refused. We had published millions of words sans accents and felt that adding accents now would be confusing . Self publication allowed NRC to use accents.

THIRD, NRC had effectively been "on-strike" for ten years with respect to CGI. He had not submitted a product we could publish since 1994, namely HârnPlayer. There had been many promises to deliver important works like Chelemby and Trierzon, and CGI made advance royalty payments to NRC for those very products. Indeed, CGI printed the Trierzon map as early as 1992 in anticipation of a Trierzon Regional Module being delivered by NRC the next year. But NRC instead spent his time working on HarnMaster which he eventually self-published as HM Gold.


In summary,

FACT: CGI shares the copyright with NRC jointly. Our internet policy states that fandom works should acknowledge this shared copyright. That remains our position and is the proper thing to do until this dispute is resolved.

FACT: CGI claims that NRC has breached our contract without just cause or arbitration.

FACT: CGI therefore disputes NRC's right to terminate, and claims all revenue NRC has made from self-publishing is owed to CGI. Significant economic and libel damages to CGI may also be involved.

There are three possible outcomes:

LEGAL ACTION: Litigation or arbitration would be expensive. Arbitrators cost $300 per hour plus expenses. There are hundreds of pages of correspondence to read and twenty years of accounting records to investigate.

A DECLARED PEACE. If NRC recants his claims to SOLE ownership of Harn copyrights, then we will concede to him the right to self publish. All claims for damages are forgiven by both parties. Neither party pays royalties to the other. Effectively, we continue as we have been, but do so agreeably. The current situation has been good for our respective outputs. The material CGI has published in the past two years has been well received.

OPEN SOURCE HARN:
• NRC has published claiming sole copyright.
• CGI has published claiming sole copyright.
• Argon Publishing is now publishing under license from Columbia Games with copyright Thinking Works.
• Numerous fandom articles have appeared with a variety of copyrights.

A simple, peaceable outcome is open-sourcing Harn whereby anyone can publish and SELL original Harn materials they create for the common good of all. This is an option CGI could support. It would generate oodles of publicity and might yet make Harn very popular. Please post your thoughts on this to an OPEN HARN thread.

Regards to all.

Tom and Grant Dalgliesh

_________________
---
Grant Dalgliesh

Columbia Games, Inc.
http://www.columbiagames.com

Thanks for stepping up and letting us know your side Grant. I for one don't know who to support on this issue with the amount of information presented and as you say the stack of material that would have to be reviewed to get at the bottom is beyong many of us on this forum.

I personnally hope the two side can come to a amicable agreement that will benefit both parties and us the consumers and fans.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

Hi Tom and Grant. Thank you for posting a reply and voicing your side of this issue.

It appears from your post that where CGI and NRC split is on arbitration vs. termination in the sense that you believe NRC's termination claims are false and open to arbitration.

This would mean you dispute the claim by NRC that the termination conditions in article 8b of your contract were met such that the contract was terminated. To clarify which of the following conditions of article 8b do you feel was not met:

8b) that CGI failed "to pay in any period of six consecutive months, an average payment of at least $250.00 per month hereunder to Robin"
8.b.i) that Robin did not give proper notice of the Default and intent to terminate
8.b.ii) If the Company fails to remedy the Default, Robin shall give Notice
8.b.iii) that Robin did not send a 2nd notice confirming termination with 45 days after the 1st Notice

I'm no lawyer of course, but it also appears to me that 8.b.ii is open to arbitration since a dispute regarding the amount in default is what you are arguing. Is this essentially the crux of your dispute?

-------------
foulspawner

I've started an "OPEN HARN" thread at http://www.harnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6167

_________________
Cyril laugh at puny human!

I'm very pleased CGI has decided to weigh in on this discussion and you have my thanks for doing so. I'm also interested in the CGI side, though I of course take it with the same grain of salt that I have NRC's.

Still, it seems to me some common ground is possible. For:


I am very heartened by the concept of an open Harn gaming license. I absolutely believe that there is room for both KP and CGI, and indeed, many more. I would also have no trouble with the declared peace. It seems to me that there is fertile ground for a settlement which will benefit all parties.

Let's pursue this please!

Thanks Grant for taking the time to respond! I too don't know which side is right or who is even for the most part right? And with all of the documents to go through on both sides it would certainly take someone who is very well off to be able to finance either arbitration or a trial.

Unfortunately your idea of a "declared peace" doesn't settle the dispute over the copyright and what fans need to put at the bottom of any piece of fandom that they produce so that those who "legally" deserve the credit gets their proper credit. And I've no doubt that you already know this since you and Tom have had to face all of the issues involved in this dispute for a number of years now.

Both you and NRC have now put forward some ideas for settling this issue and so there appears to be a glimmer of hope for us who are fans of Harn. Both your idea concerning open sourcing Harn and Ken Snellings idea that Robin approved of have merit and I hope that some agreement will finally be reached.

Thanks Grant, this was really needed.

Open Harn eh?

_________________
I will return, oh yes, I will return...

Hello,

Thank you CGI for responding with your side of the story.

One of the biggest problems with this issue being "resolved in the court of public opinion" is that everyone needs to be willing to air some very private information in public. The court needs the following questions answered:

CGI
- let us see the whole contract, rather than just pieces of it, preferably a scanned PDF where we can see the initials and signatures as well
- I would like to see the signed statement that NRC and CGI jointly own the copyright.
- Post copies of official letters, e-mails or diary notations (of phone calls) asking for arbitration so we can see the multiple dates
- what royalties did you agree to pay NRC in the contract in 1986?
- what royalties were OWED to NRC in each year (itemized by year) from 1982 - 2003
- what royalty ADVANCED payments were made, when, for how much and for what products
- what royalties were actually PAID to NRC in each year (itemized by year) from 1982 - 2003
- Post copies on the contract with Auran explaining what royalties were due CGI and NRC and what were actually paid (itemized)
- what exact OVER-PAYMENTS (claimed) were made in 2001-2003

NRC
- agree to allow CGI to release this very personal information
- present your side of what you WERE owed and what you ACTUALLY received

The problem is that when you get right down to it, this contractual dispute hinges on money. Well, money is a funny thing, it doesn't respond well to generalities. We need specifics.

The other funny thing about money is that companies (and those they pay royalties to) don't generally like their customers (us) to know how much they are making. Why, because most customers see the price they pay on one item and not the costs a company must pay: rent, heat, light, income tax, payroll etc. Thus, if a publication costs $30, but the art/maps/writer/printing costs only adds up to $5 (amortized over the entire production run), customers want the publication sold for $5.50 since they only consider the $24.50 (they view as "excess profits") being taken out of their wallets. Now before a flame war starts, I realise I am generalizing here, many customers do understand this, but I am basing my generalization on a long association with a friend who owns a game store. He bought items wholesale for $10 and sold them for $30. He had to to survive. Not many of his customers were very sympathetic.

So, if either NRC/CGI is unwilling to divulge this sensitive, personal and corporate information, then the "court of public opinion" is dead in the water.

Before we make any JUDGEMENT on the case, I need to know some pretty basic facts...

Are we talking about a contract dispute over 1,000...10,000...100,000 or a million dollars here?

The problem for NRC is that he is basing this on honor and legalities, however if the difference in the two sides financial bottom-line is $1,000 from 1982, he won't get much sympathy.

The problem for CGI is that if it is revealed they screwed the creator out of $100,000 then the backlash against them will be tremendous.

So....

We are back to the Mexican Standoff.

Who will show their books first?

Until someone does, the "court of public opinion" can't make a judgement.

TTYL

Kerry Mould

_________________
Well, my days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. - Mal, Firefly.

If by "books" you mean the contract, royalties and payments - I would have to agree.
Unless the light bill and rents are mentioned in the contract I think the "court" can get by without them.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

i am sorry, i do not know how to copy from someone elses post, so please bare with me,

Sageryne in a previous post has said:
"Who will show their books first?"

I do not care about their books!

As a loyal Harniac since 1983 (and trust me, it was hard to stay loyal some years!) I want resolution that repays Harniacs and most especially those who have produced so much excellent fanon material!

it used to be funny "such and such coming in 1987", and was still somewhat funny a few years after 1987, but it ceased to be funny in 1997!

Thanks Robin for creating Harn, Thank you CGI for publishing it, but I was dissappointed in both when the initial split occured over Harnmaster Gold (of course i am still dissappointed in Michael Keaton for dropping out of the third Batman movie because Tim Burton was not directing, but that is another thread).

I still contend that both should grant privileges for fanon to some of the top (and best producers) in order to maintain the high standard of current fanon material and then take their squabble to a third party to resolve. In a perfect world, this would have never come to pass, but until then take your arguement back into the house and let the neighbors get on with the bar-b-que!!

personnally, i will continue to buy and download any quality Harn product i can find (based on my belief that Harn, sorry Mr Crossby, was not the sole product of one mans efforts but many writers (Mr Edwin King is the first that comes to mind) and a publisher).

but in the meantime, thanks to CGI for finally posting their position.

Any money past this side or that would be below 10,000 of that I am fairly sure. Who owns what is another fiver altogether. I would personally recommend that the fans ignore this whole affair and get back to being constructive with the game. Let CGI and NRC battle it out and enjoy the reaping from what they sow. If not there is a fair chance this mess will just get messier and unreparable. But I do not game Harn anymore so take my 2d with a grain of salt (that goes for the rabid possé as well)...

_________________
I will return, oh yes, I will return...

Has any one else noticed that this has consumed the majority of posts & time, while the rest of the forum has for the most part, been neglected?

_________________
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light."

Nothing new, the most popular topics have always been like this. My favorite is the Doom of Hârn threads that pops up once 6-12 months. There are a lot of people here who do not game but that is really not the point. Topics about the companies etc. have always been the most popular. It's the same on other game forums even bigger ones like GW and WotC.

_________________
I will return, oh yes, I will return...

I understand correctly that you mean that Robin's portion the retainer paid to him and CGI by Auran counts as royalties paid to him by CGI?

I'm sorry, but where do you get that. It states that CGI decided to acquire some of the over paid royalties while NRC was receiving other monies in the form of royalties from Auran. When those monies stopped CGI started paying NRC monies again even though in their eyes they still had overpayments not paid back, thus continuing the problem, in their eyes, of how to recupe those monies over paid.

For the record I like what both sides have been producing and have even been helping Kelestia on a few projects. However, I do wish this situation does get resolved peaceablly and with as little damage to the game and community as possible.

I just wish those who support whatever side would stop reading into things that are not there to see and stick to the facts as presented.

I now bow out of the conversation since its seems there are forces here that would rather see a blood bath than a handshake.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

I would be interested in seeing the whole contract. But I really don't want to see the rest of the laundry displayed in public. I'm not a lawyer, but neither am I an accountant. The contract will tell me whether I'm violating copyright by publishing fanon, but the other stuff remains private to CGI and NRC, in my opinion.

_________________
Cyril laugh at puny human!

From Sageryne:

Check the posts from Robin. He said at one point that according to his figures CGI owed him about $23,000 and according to their figures he owed them about $24,000.


I'm glad that the topic is being discussed, but I do feel it's being discussed in an inappropriate place. The "court of public opinion" has no standing here, unless both parties are asking us to become the arbiters.

Thursday night I wrote a long posting with my feelings on this, and canceled it rather than start a flame war. Yesterday I saw that Chet had largely mirrored my own feelings.

We told both of them 2 years ago that they need to go resolve this in private.

I still feel that way. Only Robin and CGI are signatories to the contract, and they should resolve their dispute in either arbitration or a courtroom. We fans and customers are not bound by the publication contract between them, but we ARE interested in seeing this resolved and we have been pretty conscientious about trying to do the right thing.

As for the state of fanon and copyright notices, so far as I can tell, nothing has changed, legally. There are claims back and forth, but it seems to me that yes, the contract IS still in effect. Nobody with authority and jurisdiction has issued a legal finding that it has been either modified or terminated, so the status quo still applies.

It will continue to apply until there is a legal resolution -- and neither side has brought this matter before a judge. As the party trying to change the status quo, it's really up to Robin to file the suit.

My campaign website carries a copyright notice that was acceptable when I started the site. I'll change it to whatever I need to in order to stay legal, but not until there is a clear legal ruling on what that is.

I see, CGI had a dispute with Robin over what they perceived as overpayment and Robin perceived as valid payment. I recall it was around $25K from other posts.

A mutually acceptable outside accounting firm would probably be a lot cheaper that arbitration in this case.

From what I read of the contract it said that if he is not paid a minimum of $250 per month for ANY six month period he could ask for the money and if it was not paid, then he could terminate. (emphasis mine)

Tirpal, although this appears cut-and-dried, if NRC says that CGI owes him $23,000 and they dispute this claim than the arbitration clause should go into affect before termination can proceed.

I agree that the article is pretty clear that CGI has to continue paying NGC during ANY 6 month period and can't just forward him an advance and assume it pays for more than a 6 month time frame. However, CGI IMO from the contract can still dispute the amount in default and this would then be open to arbitration. Again I'm not a lawyer so take this with the 2d it's worth.

So, at this point I think that NRC should enter into arbitration with CGI which they state they tried to do but NRC refused. To me that is what is required from what we've seen of the contract and the 2 sides expressed. I don't care to see CGI's accounting records as that should be handled by an arbitrator and not the "court of public opinion". I think that at this point they both find and agree upon an economical arbitrator (or have Leitchy find an arbitrator as he has volunteered to do) to solve this and not get the fans involved as we have no power or authority to settle this dispute.

The only thing we can hope to do is persuade both sides to enter arbitration as that seems far more economical than going through the courts.

---------------
foulspawner

CGI is not disputing that they failed to pay Robin for one or more six month period. The are saying that the amount payable one way or the other is in dispute.

Robin is saying that because CGI does not dispute the fact that he was not paid his $1500 for some six month period he can invoke clause eight to terminate the contract. Hence the subsequent argument over one of the clauses in section eight saying that CGI must transfer all IP acquired under the contract.

If CGI wasn't making enough money from Harn during these periods to be able to withold some of the royalties to recoup the overpayment they talk about, then the situation that clause eight was meant to cover, namely not enough royalty revenue for Robin during that period became reality. If that is true then Robin was perfectly correct to invoke the termination clause.

We are at most talking about $25,000? US? This less than the average per capita income in the US.

Sheesh. Not to put too fine a point on it but this is chump change where corporations are concerned. I understand houses have been mortgaged - are we talking about trailers here? I'll bet many of us have 401Ks that are worth more than this.

I'm not saying that CGI is disputing that they failed to pay Robin only the amount defaulted. the termination clause states that if CGI pays the amount in default after recieving the first notice then NRC couldn't terminate. However, CGI is obviously disputing the amount owed to NRC and thus how much they are in default. So they can't be expected to pay the default until the amount in dispute is arbitrated otherwise NRC could say CGI owes him any random dollar amount right or wrong.

Furthermore CGI is disputing the termination claims by NRC which would need to be settled by an arbitrator.

I don't think the fans should be asked to be "arbitrators" and determine this dispute as we're not lawyers. This is a contract dispute over dollars owed and termination claims and not something that the fans should figure out on this forum. The two parties should take this mess offline and put it in front of an arbitrator where it belongs.

----------------------
foulspawner