Shouldn't AS write a new book?

[Zyvik]

According to this article, Sapkowski rejected the first draft of the contract with CDPR, because they misspelled Geralt's name as Gerald:

https://www.dualshockers.com/andrzej-sapkowski-sold-rights-witcher-cd-projekt-red-9500/

No wonder he was sceptical about them.

 

[Guest 3847602]

It's not that his skepticism was misplaced, it's that he had a choice between "no risk+low reward" vs "moderate risk+unknown, but potentially enormous reward" and chose the former. He wasn't scammed or deceived in any way...
I do have a sympathy for him, but why should CDPR be penalized for his mistake. Cause they became too big and successful, and we can't have that?

 

[Zyvik]

As long as it's legal, I don't see a problem.

 

[Guest 3847602]

So is stoning, in some countries.

 

[Zyvik]

C'mon, that's not even remotely the same.

 

[hiuuz]

If you do something what may have the consequence the stoning, you better to count with that option.

 

[Guest 3847602]

C'mon, that's not even remotely the same.

It's just my usual response to "it may not be ethical, but it's legal, so it's cool".
Of course, there are other examples (lobbying, bankruptcy abuse...) where you can do 100% legal, but unethical stuff to you benefit. Teltale Games did nothing "illegal" to their employees, yet people still think of them as bag of dicks.

 

[SigilFey]

No real-world political references, please.

 

[lelxrv]

Comment from Outstar's channel:

The Article 44 of the Polish copyright law is the co-called "bestseller clause". Its aim is mainly to protect poor authors or painters from exploitation, in that they may sell their work for peanuts when poor and later somebody may make millions of it. In this case, CD Projekt Red created their own work based on Sapkowski's world (we call it derivative work) and not simply sold his copyrighted work (books). Therefore Sapkowski's case in light of Article 44 is far from strong. His own words also probably will not help him, as this rule is based on equity and he comes across as an arrogant douchebag rather than a poor exploited artist.

I know of one judgement of the Court of Appeals in Poznan from 2009. The case concerned the remuneration for a co-author of a book. He got 900 PLN for his part, demanded 20.000 after the book sold well for years, the court awarded him 10.000 PLN. However, that was a simple case of "I wrote a book, you sold it" rather than "I wrote a book and you made a game with a completely new story". I expect the case will not reach the court and will be settled.

And in another video I saw similar interpretation of the article. That gross discrepancy is about "re-selling" of the work essentially. Granted, the guy admits that he doesn't know anything about EU and Polish copyright laws (apparently he's a lawyer in US), it's just his interpretation:

And another opinion:

As a Polish attorney, not specialized in copyright as I may be, I'd say that Sapkowski has good shot at winning some money. CDPR has some arguments to reduce the amount. For one, there is the question of how much of their profits was due to the copyright to the Witcher franchise and how much due to their own work. And given that books were pretty much unknown outside of Eastern Europe it might be argued that the license itself was only responsible for fraction of the profits. Also, the court has discretion in ascertaining what is the author's due remuneration. Given that games pretty much opened a giant, new maket for the books - introducing the Witcher to English speaking audience, and indirectly allowed Sapkowski to get a caontract with Netflix, it is possible to argue that Sapkowski has indirectly profitted from the games. Given the narrow scope of the quick research into the article 44 that I did, the chance court will acknowledge the merit of the case seems rather high, but the due remuneration is pretty much in the air.

 

[felixsylvaris]

AS definetly should write a new book, that is an easy money for him.

There is a thing with video games that developer could show bills for all programers, artists who worked on the game. It is not an adaptacion of script but fanfic in different medium.

 

[BaalNergal]

There is a thing with video games that developer could show bills for all programers, artists who worked on the game. It is not an adaptacion of script but fanfic in different medium.

Even in the U.S., that stance almost requires a degree in theoretical physics to fully understand all of the complications involved. It comes down a lot to issues of fair use, whether or not you profit from it, and how much the copyright holder actually cares; this is why video game production of existing IPs almost always involves heavy amounts of copyright negotiation.

This can range from being legally sued and shut down for selling balloons depicting your characters (looking at you, Disney) to flat-out not caring if people make and distribute illegal copies of your products. Some companies, like Nintendo, tend to limit how much they care to how much it affects their main products; an amateur doujinshi depicting two popular characters in romance will often be flat-out ignored, and Nintendo has taken no legal action to stop people from making money off the Bowsette meme (even though one of their higher-ups would dearly love it if this meme would just go away), but copy one of their current products and they will come after you with an unholy vengeance.

I would rather go back to questioning if that piece of trash on the road is really a piece of trash or a disguise for a landmine than try to navigate the demonic nightmare that is copyright law.

 

[M4xw0lf]

Sapkowski always seems to come across badly when it comes to his relationship (business and artistic) to CDPR and their games. He's not only generally disinterested in the works of CDPR, but at times downright hostile.
I read a few years back that he sold CDPR the license for their games at a fixed sum, because he didn't believe they'd be a huge success and therefore didn't take the option of a participation right.
Now CDPR is making good money and he feels... what? Cheated, because his own lack of vision? It's a fact that the games have helped his popularity enormously, thus increasing book sales and last but not least handing him a Netflix series. I bought several of his books myself after having played the first game.
Coming back for CDPR's profits when their work has already benefited him seems nothing but greedy.

 

[geraltthebleidd]

I don't know Sapkowski but it seems that sapkowskis ego is misguided in believing that cd projekt red can make better storys than himself with the same characters he created. It is as everybody knows already that videogames are maybe more popular than books and not because his storys are crap. He should be happy for geralt that he is so popular now. So you can see that he must have some sort of bad pride and didn't wanted to see cd projekt red get so wealthy but they did maybe because better storys maybe because videogames are more popular who knows but i myself believe that cd projekt red made quality games themself with unique greyish colour from sapkowskis blueprint. He made a big mistake and now he should have no chance. He don't need the money but cd projekt is another story. Sapkowski doesn't want to give the torch to somebody else and wants to take his ideas his geralt to his grave. He succeded in a way many can only dream for their ideas. He is very ungrateful so i believe he is a great artist but a bad person but i can see where he comes from.

 

[felixsylvaris]

This article 44. of polish IP law could have interesting implication in video game industry. Like who is the author? engine programmer, audio graphic artists, dialogue copywritter, voice over actors, gameplay designer... should they demand bonuses if the game sales extremly well?
Probably it is not how it works, but fun idea.

 

[geraltthebleidd]

I believe this law is only for companys or if cd would make books from the IP. No one in the world would think that sapkowski has the right to get money from CDs hard work. This is insane. But he thinks maybe " I can try " very ungrateful. But if really the contract is gibberish and only for one game this could be very bad. But honestly i would be more happy if the rights would stay at cd projekt red and to be very honestly i am more than happy that the third game is already finished lol

 

[SarahGabriella]

Not buying the last book nor any future Witcher books he writes. He is a greedy fool who undervalued his own property and now wants the millions CDPR made with their hard work and dedication not to mention the gamers support who also bought his damn books!

 

[hiuuz]

Question is if CDPR would started a noname franchise, would it so successful as The Witcher?

 

[SarahGabriella]

Question is if CDPR would started a noname franchise, would it so successful as The Witcher?

Of course...the Witcher story was no name to many people anyways. Done right, they could easily have the same success without the Witcher copyright.

 

[M4xw0lf]

Of course...the Witcher story was no name to many people anyways. Done right, they could easily have the same success without the Witcher copyright.

I wouldn't say 'of course'. The books gave them great material to work with, even if they were hardly known outside Poland. So of course Sapkowski also contributed to the greatness and success of the games, but he was paid for that and only has himself to blame for not going for profit particiption instead of a fixed fee.

 

[BaalNergal]

The good news from this is the author of the Mistborn series is offering his books for CDPR to makes games out of.

So if Sapkowski was attempting to hurt CDPR in some way, he's already failed. They have yet another IP potentially lined up because of him.