Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Loriel · 08-28-2003, 09:51 AM

Sounds reasonable, but you may need to address the scope of the confidentiality. If you send to the builder information that is also available to the public (eg history or theme which is on the mud's web page), and try to treat this as "confidential", then it is (quite sensibly) likely to be regarded as invalid, and the whole "agreement" (or at least the "confidentiality" part of it) could also become invalid.
Fair enough, but you might find it useful to have a similar agreement for "one-off" deals for any builders who prefer them, and possibly to incorporate the current rate in the agreement (to avoid any possible misunderstanding/dispute)
I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you intend here, but your requirement appears unreasonable. It implies that you can reject work by a builder, thus not paying for it, but that the work is effectively "yours" (insofar as it can't be used anywhere else). I think you need to allow a builder whose work you reject to use it elsewhere.
Possibly amend it to something along the lines of "The agreement becomes void if the work is not approved/accepted within 30 days, or is rejected, and the copyright ownership of the work reverts to the builder."
You would probably want to extend that to ensure that any references unique to your mud would be removed before the work can be used elsewhere, to protect your IP.
This is too ambitious. I think you would be wise to apply some reasonable restrictions. To take some extreme examples, using that area as an example "How not to write an area" in your manual, or to use it in a way that the builder is philosophically opposed to (eg on a porn site) would be unreasonable, and risks making the agreement invalid. I realise that it's going to be difficult to find a suitable form of words to define "reasonable" limits for how far you can change the work, but at minimum I think you need to allow the builder the option of insisting that the work should be "anonymous", rather than credited to them.
Fine - except the point I made above, where the work has changed to the point where the builder wishes to be uncredited. Allow the builder an option to insist on removal of the credit.
Understood, in the context of a "standing agreement" rather than one agreement per zone.

Additional point. Whilst I'm sure you don't expect your mud to fail, it's wise to take precautions and allow for the possibility. In that case, the ownership/copyright of the work should revert to the builder.

I would prefer to see this situation resolved via a suitable form of exclusive licence (irrevocable except under extreme conditions), but I think that if you reconsidered your "requirements" in the light of my comments above, and amended your agreement appropriately, it would be fairer to builders without weakening your position unreasonably.

Final point - I think KaVir may have misplaced a decimal point in saying that this represents 1 or 2 cents per hour. Sounds more likely it should be 10 to 20 cents an hour (for 100 to 200 hours to make a 20 dollar zone). Still falls some way below a "reasonable" wage, but it's better than nothing.

08-28-2003, 09:51 AM	#22
Loriel Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 49	Sounds reasonable, but you may need to address the scope of the confidentiality. If you send to the builder information that is also available to the public (eg history or theme which is on the mud's web page), and try to treat this as "confidential", then it is (quite sensibly) likely to be regarded as invalid, and the whole "agreement" (or at least the "confidentiality" part of it) could also become invalid. Fair enough, but you might find it useful to have a similar agreement for "one-off" deals for any builders who prefer them, and possibly to incorporate the current rate in the agreement (to avoid any possible misunderstanding/dispute) I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you intend here, but your requirement appears unreasonable. It implies that you can reject work by a builder, thus not paying for it, but that the work is effectively "yours" (insofar as it can't be used anywhere else). I think you need to allow a builder whose work you reject to use it elsewhere. Possibly amend it to something along the lines of "The agreement becomes void if the work is not approved/accepted within 30 days, or is rejected, and the copyright ownership of the work reverts to the builder." You would probably want to extend that to ensure that any references unique to your mud would be removed before the work can be used elsewhere, to protect your IP. This is too ambitious. I think you would be wise to apply some reasonable restrictions. To take some extreme examples, using that area as an example "How not to write an area" in your manual, or to use it in a way that the builder is philosophically opposed to (eg on a porn site) would be unreasonable, and risks making the agreement invalid. I realise that it's going to be difficult to find a suitable form of words to define "reasonable" limits for how far you can change the work, but at minimum I think you need to allow the builder the option of insisting that the work should be "anonymous", rather than credited to them. Fine - except the point I made above, where the work has changed to the point where the builder wishes to be uncredited. Allow the builder an option to insist on removal of the credit. Understood, in the context of a "standing agreement" rather than one agreement per zone. Additional point. Whilst I'm sure you don't expect your mud to fail, it's wise to take precautions and allow for the possibility. In that case, the ownership/copyright of the work should revert to the builder. I would prefer to see this situation resolved via a suitable form of exclusive licence (irrevocable except under extreme conditions), but I think that if you reconsidered your "requirements" in the light of my comments above, and amended your agreement appropriately, it would be fairer to builders without weakening your position unreasonably. Final point - I think KaVir may have misplaced a decimal point in saying that this represents 1 or 2 cents per hour. Sounds more likely it should be 10 to 20 cents an hour (for 100 to 200 hours to make a 20 dollar zone). Still falls some way below a "reasonable" wage, but it's better than nothing.