Although 20k€ is still better deal than Sapkowski selling rights to Witcher to CDProjekt for 40k PLN (10k€)
I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
241–250 of 778 posts
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite intersting seeing the difference in focus and tone between HN and the Minecraft subreddit. Although the end poem has received criticism here, it's obvious from the thread that it's touched a lot of people. Being friends and known a small number of "artists", the difference in mindset was extremely apparent - some of them just think and see the world fundimental very differently from the way I do. Many acti…
Not really. If this was the post on HN I'm sure people would be more sympathetic because it leaves out all the important details, like the fact that he actually received €20k for it and the pompous idea that he's one of the creators of Minecraft.
Nowhere does he say he thinks he's the creator of Minecraft. You sound spiteful, and I can't tell why.
EDIT: The comment used to say " ... the pompous idea that he created Minecraft". It was later edited.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#243Quoted post unavailable.
Wow, what an unpleasant hate-filled response to a single paragraph taken out of context from the entire post.
The fact that his work is still referenced, is still part of the game, and wanted by people on t-shirts/mugs/etc is significantly more contribution than the moronic made-up "0.000000000001%" number you claim.
He is a flawed person and he admits it several times in his post. But he also uses his story to highlight some good points about how broken the tech-capitalist system can be for artists, and that is my takeaway from this post. So please have a little empathy, it is not easy to know if you are being treated fairly in this complicated world today.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#244I think a lot of commenters are stuck on the €20k the author was paid for the work and their completely human reaction (jealously, etc) to seeing the payout other people who worked on the game got after the buy out. Yes they got paid for producing the work, yes they were jealous. Yes they reacted like most humans would. But, that €20k did not cover the copyrights to the work. Just the creating of it. Regardless as to…
a) Did the author really expect that he would be getting royalties to all the Minecraft end text teatowels and fridge magnets as part of the deal? Clearly, the success of these products is largely correlated with the success of the game rather than the importance of what he wrote.
b) If I had wanted to make merch with this text on it last week but had been deterred by fear of M$ lawyers, I wouldn't really feel any different about it after the author 'releasing the poem under CC'. His claim to own the rights in the first place is totally dubious. He seems erratic and will probably go on to perform other stunts and legalistic trolling before he gets bored.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#245I kinda feel like this guy is overstating his contribution to Minecraft. It's nice to have an end screen message, but that isn't what drove the value of the game and could have easily been replaced by something else. Rule #1 of getting paid for your work is don't do a bunch of work without signing a contract first. Even if you're an artist. I highly doubt he could have released that poem on his own and turned it into…
Indeed, the odd twist in this story was that he was paid for his work. I was expecting a story about how he was still chasing his money to this day. I'm fairly sure that no credible lawyer would give him the time of the day if he did try to get more now. He did work, he accepted money for that work and only later he thinks he's entitled to more and wants to re-negotiate. I don't know about his jurisdiction, but here…
> a contract could be implied by conduct of the parties
There are other cases, though, where the courts have declined to imply transfer of copyright or license - even with a written contract - when it hasn't been explicitly specified.
cf https://www.albright-ip.co.uk/2013/04/implied-assignments/ for one example
> The idea that just because there isn't a written contract that he magically retains the rights is magical thinking
IANAL, obvs., but I think the situation would be "the implied contract would imply a license to use the poem but not transfer of copyright" - the key point would be whether that license was "perpetual, exclusive" to Mojang. If not perpetual, he could revoke it at any time and Microsoft will then have a copyright problem for any copy sold after that point. If exclusive, the license may not have transferred to Microsoft in which case they have an extremely large problem given the number of copies sold since the buyout.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#246Quoted post unavailable.
Wow, what an unpleasant hate-filled response to a single paragraph taken out of context from the entire post. The fact that his work is still referenced, is still part of the game, and wanted by people on t-shirts/mugs/etc is significantly more contribution than the moronic made-up "0.000000000001%" number you claim. He is a flawed person and he admits it several times in his post. But he also uses his story to highl…
The fact that t-shirts and mugs are available on RedBubble does not prove that anyone wants to buy them. The business model of RedBubble means that merch can be created speculatively for no cost to anyone until it's actually bought.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, Minecraft would have still sold as much if the ending screen said "You won" or much simply "The end". But, he did still put in the effort in creating the poem. Every part of the game matters, and I think it's fair if he gets paid or at-least gets credit for his contributions to the game. I understand the author being hurt as he's one of the 5 people that contributed to the game, he just needed the credit or any…
> I think it's fair if he gets paid or at-least gets credit for his contributions to the game. He did get paid, $20000. How was Mojang supposed to know he wanted more when he accepted that payment?
They also agreed to give him and his other work "exposure to the Minecraft community", which didn't end up happening and was explicitly reneged on.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#248I feel for the guy, making a living off of art is difficult. However, with an extensive email chain explaining the story was written as the ending of Minecraft, even going into detail about how it was to be displayed in game, an agreed upon offer (if a bit vague), and then an exchange of funds - with no immediate attempt to return said funds. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds a lot like a legally binding agreement. > So…
My interpretation of the legal status is that the author is entitled to accept the €20k as payment for his time but that amount doesn't constitute payment for the copyright of the work. Mojang subsequently wanted to purchase that copyright and hence why they sent the contract for £1 to be signed. Julian believed the copyright was worth more and so rejected the offer. All that is to say that if my interpretation is co…
In the UK I think you're probably right, but it's not the clearest situation. You may argue that all of the communication up to the point where he agreed with their offer is part of the contract.
> However, in some circumstances, for example when copyright is not dealt with in the contract to commission the work, courts may be willing to find that there is an implied licence allowing the commissioner to use the work for the purpose for which it was commissioned. This does not necessarily result in a transfer of ownership. Instead, the commissioner of the work may only get a limited non-exclusive licence. This situation demonstrates the importance of establishing who owns copyright through a contract.
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he was an outsider, he wasn't Notch's friend. Notch contacted him for the express purpose of writing the End Poem. Of course, I'm sure they were friend ly in their discussions, there's no point in being actively hostile to the people you're working with. But the idea the relationship extended anything past a game developer and a contracted writer seems to be entirely in the author's mind.
One side sees it as the start of a friendship, the other as a work contract. It certainly feels a bit like he was feeling lonely and needed to see this as a friendship. I'm sure there was a deep artistic connection, but that's not quite the same thing as a friendship. It's awkward and frustrating when only one side sees a relationship as a friendship.
It's possible this is true, but then the author needs to stop acting like they are totally blameless and everything is just where the universe took him. All of the author's problems here are self-inflicted.
Re: I liberate the ending to Minecraft from Microsoft and give it to you
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the odd twist in this story was that he was paid for his work. I was expecting a story about how he was still chasing his money to this day. I'm fairly sure that no credible lawyer would give him the time of the day if he did try to get more now. He did work, he accepted money for that work and only later he thinks he's entitled to more and wants to re-negotiate. I don't know about his jurisdiction, but here…
I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work. But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.
> But I don't think it's clear whether he has the rights to the work or not.
He owns the copyright, hasn't transferred the copyright, he clearly owns the rights in the work.
> I don't think there's any doubt that Mojang / Microsoft are entitled to use his work.
I think you're right that there's an implied license for them to use it but the scope of that license was never specified and I'd guess a clever lawyer could make reasonable hay from the case that it's now much broader than he wanted.