# Dundjinni and licensing dispute?



## Emirikol (Jun 9, 2004)

The Dundjinni program is supposedly pretty good and I was considering purchasing it..however, I just read a disturbing report at LGWriters yahoogroup.  Evidently, there are some licensing issues with use of the product to produce maps for anything other than home use.  The issue was that even though RPGA regional LG scenario authors are unpaid, the license 'may' be prohibiting use because of 'promotion' or somesuchotherthingy.  Anybody know the official word on this?

jh


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 9, 2004)

Check the Dundjinni forums. I know they had a discussion going on there about this a little while ago. My impression was that you currently couldn't use their map packs or art for making commercially available maps (and perhaps some other sorts of maps) but that they might have consider some sort of other license for commercial use.


----------



## Henry (Jun 9, 2004)

Moved to Computers Forum.


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 9, 2004)

Any specifics?

jh


----------



## pogre (Jun 9, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Any specifics?
> 
> jh




From their forum:


> Hello all -
> 
> A word from the biz end here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Painfully (Jun 9, 2004)

It sounds like we need to start working on public domain art packs to allow full, open use of the material people want to create.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jun 9, 2004)

Just another reason I can't get behind this product.


----------



## Ayrk (Jun 9, 2004)

I purchased Dundjinni, based on the information posted above with the intent to use custom art packs. I went ahead and pre-ordered to save a little cash.

Imagine my surprise when I install the product and read the EULA that states (and I'm paraphrasing) the only commerical use allowed is by a non-business entity (basically a sole proprietership). There has been a question about this change on the boards since the weekend, but no answer yet (although I haven't read them yet this morning).

Needless to say, I'm feeling kind of hosed. It's not like I can return the software and what I was told I can do now I'm told I can't. I guess I (as a freelancer) will sell my custom maps to my partnership for $1 to keep in terms with the EULA.

Hopefully some kind of answer will be forthcoming.


----------



## Max (Jun 9, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> The Dundjinni program is supposedly pretty good and I was considering purchasing it..however, I just read a disturbing report at LGWriters yahoogroup.  Evidently, there are some licensing issues with use of the product to produce maps for anything other than home use.  The issue was that even though RPGA regional LG scenario authors are unpaid, the license 'may' be prohibiting use because of 'promotion' or somesuchotherthingy.  Anybody know the official word on this?
> jh




This was posted yesterday (the 8th) by Webmaster J.T., on the Dundjinni site:

----------------
"I am pretty sure that is okay. I need to check with Mindy for an official answer to this, but here is a tentative one based on my own understanding of the issue as it was discussed at Fluid. 

RPGA folks can create and distribute Dundjinni maps and adventures for use in tournaments provided they include an appropriate "images (c) Fluid, made with Dundjinni, www.dundjinni.com"-type label. 

I will follow up with this tomorrow."

--------------------

The thread is here, if you wish to check and see if more information is posted later today, as stated.

http://www.dundjinni.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=369&PN=1


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 9, 2004)

Are there any such commercial limitations with the Campaign Cartographer suite?


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 9, 2004)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Are there any such commercial limitations with the Campaign Cartographer suite?




No. In fact you can find a number of print RPG books that use CC maps prepared by freelance cartographers. Many of the old TSR maps were made this way, as was the Forgotten Realms Atlas on CD.


----------



## Chaz (Jun 10, 2004)

Yeah this is just more BS. They create the tools, you purchase them.. But then you cant use the material that you create, using their tools that you purchased for a commercial venture??

At the price they are charging(especialy for the "adventure creation package" the only one I had concidered) the creations you make should be useable by you in any way shape or form you see fit. Oh well time to reconsider my fluid purchase... once again. 

Gimme a break.

Peace


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 10, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Just another reason I can't get behind this product.



Because the sofware developers chose _Dundjinni_ to be protected under the US Copyright Law?


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Jun 10, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Because the sofware developers chose _Dundjinni_ to be protected under the US Copyright Law?




A number of people see this as similar to the owning company saying that you can use MS Word, or Adobe Illustrator, or Adobe Photoshop, or Campaign Cartographer, etc., for personal use only, but not publish for profit anything you print out with it.

It's not exactly the same, since they're only preventing you from using their graphics, but it does place the software in a radically different category from the other software tools just mentioned.


----------



## prcrash (Jun 10, 2004)

Chaz said:
			
		

> Yeah this is just more BS. They create the tools, you purchase them.. But then you cant use the material that you create, using their tools that you purchased for a commercial venture??
> 
> At the price they are charging(especialy for the "adventure creation package" the only one I had concidered) the creations you make should be useable by you in any way shape or form you see fit. Oh well time to reconsider my fluid purchase... once again.
> 
> ...




The only thing that the are not letting you do is sell maps that use the artwork that comes with dundjinni
. You can create your own artwork, if you want, and the maps that you create with your own artwork, you can sell. Don't go slamming the product just because you didn't research a little more before posting...


----------



## msd (Jun 10, 2004)

I will say this for them...

The staff of Fluid seems to be pretty active on their forums and pretty responsive to all types of issues that have been raised throughout the course of development.

I agree that the current EULA is _far_ from ideal, but when I look at the responsiveness and the thoughtful exchange occurring on those boards and then compare it to the current exchange taking place on various boards re: DRM (and what, IMHO, appears to be a near total lack of constructive response addressing those concerns), I hold out real hope that this is something that can be changed so that everyone benefits...

I'll get out of my Pollyanna costume now  

-matt


----------



## Ayrk (Jun 10, 2004)

msd said:
			
		

> I agree that the current EULA is _far_ from ideal, but when I look at the responsiveness and the thoughtful exchange occurring on those boards and then compare it to the current exchange taking place on various boards re: DRM (and what, IMHO, appears to be a near total lack of constructive response addressing those concerns), I hold out real hope that this is something that can be changed so that everyone benefits...
> -matt




My problem is that what they said in the forums and EULA do not match. I'm happy making my own art pack so I can create custom maps. Heck my maps are modern anyway do I'd have to do that.

According to the EULA only a "non-business entity" can commercially sell maps created with Dundjinni and a custom art pack. We have been waiting since the package was released for an answer to this change, and there has not been one. (Again I haven't checked the forums today).


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 10, 2004)

See, msd, that's the tragedy of this whole thing.

I've read the responses from Fluid folks, and they seem like great people.  The problem is, their professional side of things has been disappointing.

There was the e-tools fiasco, and now they are charging upwards of $80 (platinum version) for a product that, while it looks really nice, has limitations on it's use.  If I buy any type of software for gaming design, especailly one that creates "professional-quality maps", I expect to be able to use it, well, *professionally*!  I don't want to have to worry that I can't use this or that icon in a published work because it's not part of the license.


----------



## msd (Jun 10, 2004)

DaveMage and Aryk:

I think you're both absolutely spot on with your criticisms.  I am just hoping that the user base can keep the pressure on the dialog in an effort to put things in the proper order.

Should we _have_ to do that as consumers?  No, clearly not...but if a little diplomatic effort is the only thing that stands between my free and unencumbered use of a nice product, I'd prefer to make that effort.

The other element in all this which bears mention is CC2.  There is a well-established piece of software out there that is used casually by hobbyists as well as professionally by publishers (without any similar restrictions) for about half the cost (the website seemed to indicate a price of around $40 USD).  If Fluid is attempting to upset the apple cart with their product, they are going to have to recognize where all the apples are.

Again, I agree with everyone who says that the situation is less than ideal.  Given an indication from Fluid's staff that they are willing to exchange in a constructive dialog with the user base about how to make the product better, I will hold out hope and try to continue to participate in that dialog.  Again, the tail _shouldn't have to_ wag the dog, but if it means a better product for better gaming...

Again, this is only my .02 - YMMV,
matt


----------



## tmaaas (Jun 10, 2004)

msd said:
			
		

> The other element in all this which bears mention is CC2.  There is a well-established piece of software out there that is used casually by hobbyists as well as professionally by publishers (without any similar restrictions) for about half the cost (the website seemed to indicate a price of around $40 USD).  If Fluid is attempting to upset the apple cart with their product, they are going to have to recognize where all the apples are




Actually, as far as I can tell, Fluid has already upset the apple cart to everyone's advantage. They've introduced competition into the RPG mapping field.

I remember not too long ago that CC2 was priced at $79.95. Maybe my memory is off, but it seems the price cut came after Dundjinni was announced.

And just browsing the boards now, I see an aggreement between Code Monkey Publishing and Profantasy to create integrated adventure creation software.

Now, both of these things may have happened without Dundjinni, but they may also have not. I suspect that Dundjinni was a definite consideration in the decision-making process, in any case.

I would also suspect that Fluid is not unaware of these developments, and will adjust their business plan as needed.


----------



## evildmguy (Jun 10, 2004)

Greetings!

First of all, msd said



			
				msd said:
			
		

> The other element in all this which bears mention is CC2. There is a well-established piece of software out there that is used casually by hobbyists as well as professionally by publishers (without any similar restrictions) for about half the cost (the website seemed to indicate a price of around $40 USD). If Fluid is attempting to upset the apple cart with their product, they are going to have to recognize where all the apples are.




I am a big CC2 fan but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that NBOS also has a mapping program as well.  In fact, ProFantasy was working on a new program to make maps of the galaxy but held off in response to NBOS' AstroSynthesis.  So, there is more than CC2 in terms of mapping programs.  This doesn't include at least two freeware mapping programs as well.  

After having said that, I like CC2 better.   



			
				tmaaas said:
			
		

> Actually, as far as I can tell, Fluid has already upset the apple cart to everyone's advantage. They've introduced competition into the RPG mapping field.
> 
> I remember not too long ago that CC2 was priced at $79.95. Maybe my memory is off, but it seems the price cut came after Dundjinni was announced.




Again, this is not completely true.  

NBOS has pretty much been at $40, with some discounts of up to $8, since I became aware of them several years ago.  I think it was in response to NBOS that ProFantasy made their own pricing change.  I don't know for sure but I thought this was also not long after ProFantasy products were available at RPGNow.  Anyone have the exact timeline on this?  

Again, as I said above, ProFantasy seems to be reacting to NBOS and what they have been doing as they are a direct competitor.  



			
				tmaaas said:
			
		

> And just browsing the boards now, I see an aggreement between Code Monkey Publishing and Profantasy to create integrated adventure creation software.
> 
> Now, both of these things may have happened without Dundjinni, but they may also have not. I suspect that Dundjinni was a definite consideration in the decision-making process, in any case.
> 
> I would also suspect that Fluid is not unaware of these developments, and will adjust their business plan as needed.




I am not sure what to think of this in terms of the rlxp you suggest between ProFantasy's products and Fluid.  On the one hand, CC2 is NOT supposed to be graphical.  I have seen some add ons, though, such as the harn world project, that can make some very nice looking CC2 maps.  OTOH, I do know they are working on a graphical version of their program which looks freakin' beautiful!  

I think that PF is more interested in expanding their base and adding in more functionality.  I think this is a good thing because I am not sure what else they could do in their mapping program.  (Maybe modern or SciFi feel but some of that does exist for CC2.)  I also think this will help their program appeal to more people, which is a good thing for them as well.  The question then becomes, would they have done this on their own without such programs as AstroSynthesis and Dundjinni?

I do agree that competition is nice and it warms my heart, while draining my checking account, that ProFantasy is going to respond to these things.  I am more than willing to wait for what ProFantasy does because of their track record.  

Good discussion!  Thanks!

Have a good one!  Take care!

edg
Alternity pimp


----------



## msd (Jun 10, 2004)

*You very well might be right*



			
				tmaaas said:
			
		

> Actually, as far as I can tell, Fluid has already upset the apple cart to everyone's advantage. They've introduced competition into the RPG mapping field...I would also suspect that Fluid is not unaware of these developments, and will adjust their business plan as needed.




I think you're probably right and the introduction of competition will only make the quality of product better.

Having said that, Fluid's attempt to compete with more established products (which, as evildmguy rightly points out are not limited to CC2) will, IMHO, be somewhat hindered if distribution of maps created with their software are not commercially re-distributable (_and I recognize that this statement is an oversimplification of the actual facts_).

The fact of the matter is that, while competition is great for the consumer, the consumer who sees this restriction might not consider the Fluid product as being competitive.

Again, all IMO...   

-matt


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 10, 2004)

prcrash said:
			
		

> Don't go slamming the product just because you didn't research a little more before posting...




The art is part of the product, thus he has a right to "slam" it if he so chooses. Fluid is not just selling the mapper. They're also selling the art.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jun 10, 2004)

Maybe I'm just a bit slow, but one thing I don't understand: what is the purpose of limiting the commercial use of the art in the program? What rights would Fluid be endangering if they allowed commercial use of anything designed with their program? 

Obviously, they need to protect the underlying program, so I agree with their "placeholder" strategy within actual .dja files. But creating a map, turning it into an image, then including it in an adventure that a company then sells doesn't seem to threaten their business at all. If anything, I would think that would be free advertising - just require any publisher to state prominently that the maps were created using their product. 

Just don't understand what the issue is for Fluid...


----------



## crabclaw (Jun 10, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> Just don't understand what the issue is for Fluid...



Knee-jerk greed?


----------



## WingOver (Jun 10, 2004)

Sir Whiskers said:
			
		

> Just don't understand what the issue is for Fluid...




Maybe they haven't figured out all the revenue potential with commercial licensing and just decided to say "no" until they have?

I tend to think that if people used their maps in commercial products, it would make it alot more popular... free advertising.  Plus theres a lot of aspiring garage-publishers out there who may represent missed sales over this issue.

Having said that, I don't fault them for being cautious with their new baby... maybe they need time to work it out, maybe they'll change their minds.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 10, 2004)

tmaaas said:
			
		

> Actually, as far as I can tell, Fluid has already upset the apple cart to everyone's advantage. They've introduced competition into the RPG mapping field.
> 
> I remember not too long ago that CC2 was priced at $79.95. Maybe my memory is off, but it seems the price cut came after Dundjinni was announced.
> 
> ...




Good point!  I thought I also noticed in that posting that a new version of CC2 Pro will be out later this year.  I'm interested to see their pricing structure.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 10, 2004)

WingOver said:
			
		

> Maybe they haven't figured out all the revenue potential with commercial licensing and just decided to say "no" until they have?




This is quite likely the reason behind it. Seems to me that Fluid specializes in making software for other companies, not for themselves, so this is new territory for them.


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 10, 2004)

*Dundjinni OK's maps for unpaid RPGA adventures*

I got an official answer for y'all from Dundjinni's legal person:

http://www.dundjinni.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=369&TPN=1
Mindy - Djinni (Admin)
Posted: 06/10/2004 at 10:41am | IP Logged 	
---
Sorry for the delay  
As a quick answer to the initial RPGA question - Yes, you can use our software to create maps and adventures for tournament play as long as you aren't selling them. In fact, we would love to see our maps on gaming tables everywhere. In exchange, as JT said, we'd like you to put our logo, URL, and made with Dundjinni in small type at the bottom.

---

This means that we are allowed to use Dundjinni for LG adventures.

This is GREAT NEWS!!!


jh


----------



## msd (Jun 10, 2004)

*What?*



			
				Emirikol said:
			
		

> In fact, we would love to see our maps on gaming tables everywhere. In exchange, as JT said, we'd like you to put our logo, URL, and made with Dundjinni in small type at the bottom.




I think you will all agree that I've been pretty supportive (perhaps too) of Fluid in this thread.  As a result, I think I've earned one small pot shot...

You'd _love_ to see your maps on gaming tables everywhere?  Then why the restriction?  Can Fluid possibly be so obtuse as to not be able to envision that the restriction on re-distribution is a potentially _major_ impediment to seeing their maps on gaming tables everywhere?

There...got it out of my system...back to civil and supportive mode...   

-matt

p.s. - Emirikol, I apologize in advance as if this appears to be shooting the messenger.  That is not my intent at all.  Quite the opposite.  I am, in fact, very appreciative of the fact that you are bringing the latest and greatest developments...


----------



## crabclaw (Jun 10, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> ...as long as you aren't selling them. ...This is GREAT NEWS!!!jh



If one buys the software and spends the time to create a work ...but ...can't ...sell ...it. This is NOT good news. "This" is no news at all, "users can't sell works they create" -- and they don't tell you that until you've already bought it!? "This" is precisely the topic of current discourse on this thread. I don't think I will ever buy this product if this is the position of the developers. Boycott.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 10, 2004)

AFAIC, that's an agreement between RPGA and Fluid, not a blanket permission for everyone. They can make maps for those free adventures, in exchange for promoting Fluid's software.

That's what happen when you ask first.


----------



## Sir Whiskers (Jun 10, 2004)

crabclaw said:
			
		

> Knee-jerk greed?




That's quite a bit over the line, don'tcha think? Given how reasonable Fluid is in their responses to these questions, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd just like to understand what issues (from their perspective) are causing them to be so careful about this.


----------



## Drengy (Jun 10, 2004)

*Getting paid for your work*

OK, this is probably a simple and naive view, but here's what I think about the whole "no selling maps created with Fluid artpacks."

First off, if you are looking to publish a commercial module with maps created using Dunjinni and their artpacks, my guess is that if you contacted Fluid you could probably work out a deal. One time fee, acknowledgement, etc. 

Before Dunjinni, creating a map of the quality possible with their artpacks would be a ton of time and money. You can't expect to spend $80 and suddenly eliminate this cost - not if you are creating a commercial product. I have too many graphic designer friends whose years of training and skill are under-valued because people think that all you need is some software and they can do the same thing for free.

Second, compare the visual quality of CC maps and Dunjinni maps using Fluid artpacks. It quickly becomes very obvious that there has been a substantial time and creative investment in those artpacks. Probably hundreds of man-hours, by skilled artists. They deserve to be compensated for their work. 

Third, imagine you could re-sell any map you create with Dunjinni. What's to keep you from just creating tons of custom maps and selling them, thus reducing the market for the Dunjinni program because users can just have you create the maps and sell to them. Or you could create lots of really small map components for sale so that people could assemble them themselves (like old school geomorphs) - again eliminating the need for people to buy Dunjinni.

Fluid needs to protect themselves from these possiblities, no matter how unlikely. If they just gave blanket permission to resell maps created using their artpacks, it would be difficult to stop the above from happening.

Lastly, if you still don't like their policies - don't buy the product. But don't attack them for protecting their interests.


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 11, 2004)

Drengy said:
			
		

> First off, if you are looking to publish a commercial module with maps created using Dunjinni and their artpacks, my guess is that if you contacted Fluid you could probably work out a deal. One time fee, acknowledgement, etc.




Possibly - but I would not contact Microsoft were I to compose a published work in Word - even if I used the clipart.



			
				Drengy said:
			
		

> Before Dunjinni, creating a map of the quality possible with their artpacks would be a ton of time and money. You can't expect to spend $80 and suddenly eliminate this cost - not if you are creating a commercial product. I have too many graphic designer friends whose years of training and skill are under-valued because people think that all you need is some software and they can do the same thing for free.




Indeed.  I would argue that if I were a small-time publisher, this is precisely what I would expect.  Would it be something as nice as a graphic designer could come up with?  Probably not.  But this product passes itself off as making "professional-looking" maps - so why not use it as such?



			
				Drengy said:
			
		

> Second, compare the visual quality of CC maps and Dunjinni maps using Fluid artpacks. It quickly becomes very obvious that there has been a substantial time and creative investment in those artpacks. Probably hundreds of man-hours, by skilled artists. They deserve to be compensated for their work.




Absolutely!  Which is why the software *purchase price* should be set to an appropriate level - and the art packs have an additional charge for them.



			
				Drengy said:
			
		

> Third, imagine you could re-sell any map you create with Dunjinni. What's to keep you from just creating tons of custom maps and selling them, thus reducing the market for the Dunjinni program because users can just have you create the maps and sell to them. Or you could create lots of really small map components for sale so that people could assemble them themselves (like old school geomorphs) - again eliminating the need for people to buy Dunjinni.




The people at ProFantasy (who make CC) don't seem to have had this problem.  And the response would be, of course, why should I buy your maps if I can make them myself on Dunjinni?



			
				Drengy said:
			
		

> Fluid needs to protect themselves from these possiblities, no matter how unlikely. If they just gave blanket permission to resell maps created using their artpacks, it would be difficult to stop the above from happening.
> 
> Lastly, if you still don't like their policies - don't buy the product. But don't attack them for protecting their interests.




The problem is, as I stated above, that they really seem like cool people indivdually.  I'd like to support their product.  It looks gorgeous.  I just don't like such limitations on usage of software I purchase.


----------



## msd (Jun 11, 2004)

Drengy said:
			
		

> Fluid needs to protect themselves from these possiblities, no matter how unlikely. If they just gave blanket permission to resell maps created using their artpacks, it would be difficult to stop the above from happening.



While I can see why a company would take this position (in the abstract), I have to (playing devil's advocate) ask the question of whether or not they are really serving their own best interests?  As you say, the product is beautiful and given the price point, I would think every small publisher out there would leap at the software for their cartography needs.

But...

Fluid's current policy simply cuts that potential revenue source right out of the equation.  So, really, what interest are they protecting and how well are they protecting that interest?

The knee-jerk reaction is to say that they are protecting their IP but (as a law student studying IP) this just begs the question: _what is the value of the IP to a corporation if it is divorced from a revenue stream_...what possible business objective is met by spending what must, as you note, have been a colossal number of man hours in R&D only to implement a policy that makes the result of that work unusable to a significant percentage of potential consumers?

Again, my sincere hope is that they re-consider their approach to this.  And, while I agree that you probably could reach an agreement with them regarding a commercial sale, do consumers, or Fluid (or most importantly Fluid's legal department) _really_ want to be involved in a series of one-off negotiations when it seems patently clear that plenty of software companies have handled similar dilemnas successfully without comprising their own need to protect the integrity of their IP or the viable use of the consumer?

Again, I think you've made a compelling case, and this is presented simply to demonstrate the other side of the equation.  All we can do is hope!

-matt


----------



## argon_the_red (Jun 11, 2004)

*New Dundjinni Publishing Guidelines*

Repost from the thread on dundjinni.com:

--------
There is a lot of hubbub about publishing! 

What follows is the official scoop. Will be revising our end user license agreement accordingly with the forthcoming patch. 


Maps 

You make a map and want to offer it up in some way. 

Two flavors. User maps and Dundjinni (“DJ”) maps. 

User Maps 
“User art” is an object or a floor texture or a door or etc you drew yourself. An original. 

A user map contains 100% user art 

What can you do with them? 
•     Use them in your campaign 
•     Use them at a convention or tournament 
•     Post them to a website 
•     Submit them to your favorite magazine. 
•     Sell them for profit 
•     Distribute them to any person on the planet as 
        you see fit, for ever and ever, amen. 

Use our software just like Photoshop or what-not. Sell your personal creations. Totally great by us. Just make sure it is your own art and not ours or someone else’s. 

DJ Maps 
If a map has DJ art - even just one DJ art item in it - partially or wholly, it’s considered a DJ map. 

What can you do with them? 
•     Use them in your personal campaign 
•     Use them at a convention or tournament 
•     Post them to a website as a freebie. 
•     Submit them to Dungeon or similar magazines for 
        publication. If Dungeon magazine pays you for 
        your submission of your module, that’s ok. 
        (Dungeon magazine would then, of course, have 
        to approach us to print the adventure with the 
        DJ map, and we’re open to talking about that 
        with them). 
•     Graphically modify a map or object in a paint 
        program and offer that as a freebie. 

What can’t you do with them? 
•     Don’t make a profit off of them by selling them 
        (as a freelancer or self publisher) 
•     Don’t use them as a promotion as an indirect 
        way of making a profit. For example, “Hey! 
        Here’s my great new campaign for 20 bucks and 
        19 DJ maps for free!” or “If you buy my core 
        books, you can get free, corresponding DJ 
        adventures on my website!” 
•     Don’t use DJ art in other software and then 
        sell that creation. 

In the context of selling, we’re trying to protect what we consider one of our main assets – our art. That’s really the point to put across here. If you have a question or scenario in your head about publishing, then come back to this point: don’t include our art in something you want to sell or otherwise use to make a profit. You couldn't copy a portion of a Monte Cook adventure or a Freeport map, fold it into your creation and then sell that, and we see this as being the same thing. 


Adventures 

You make an adventure and offer it up. 

I’m not sure why someone would want to offer an adventure without the reference map, but here goes. The same holds true for adventures as does maps. Don’t sell the DJ-formatted adventure. Offer it for free, use it at conventions, upload it with credit. Same rules apply. 

Now, you could take all that DJ adventure formatting, export to HTML and cut and paste into Word or wherever and come up with your own layout and symbols and etc, and sell that if you wanted. It’s your story and adventure, so as long as you strip out the “Dundjinni-ness” of it, that’s fine by us. 


Art packs 

You make an art object or an art pack and offer it up. Remember, this is your own art – nothing retouched of our art or etc. 

Three flavors. Free, Unendorsed and Official. 

Free 
You can offer your own free art or art pack for DJ. In fact, please do. You’ll get the most visibility for your stuff if you post any creations on our boards (as well as any other board you wish). It also helps us and keeps the community together. What’s cropping up now is just great! 

No credit is necessary on free art submissions. 


Unendorsed 
Unofficial, unendorsed art objects and art packs. You can create and sell your own art packs in the PNG file format. 

You may not use the Dundjinni logo on the packaging or marketing materials for such packs, or otherwise imply any connection or endorsement with DJ. However, you can state the following phrase in this sort of offering: 

“Compatible with tile-based mapping programs, such as Dundjinni. www.dundjinni.com” 


Official 
We are initiating a program with third parties to create officially licensed commercial art packs for Dundjinni. Artwork in these packs would be converted into .djx format with an installer. These packs would carry the Dundjinni logo as an officially licensed product. Participants in this program would enter into a separate license and royalty-based agreement with us for these packs. 


Providing appropriate credit 

Two flavors. Logo and web link. 

You must provide Dundjinni credit in the following instances: 

•     For maps used at a tournament or convention 
•     For maps submitted to a magazine or etc for 
        publication 
•     Any time you distribute more than 10 copies of 
        a map. 
•     Any time a digital map is posted to a website. 
•     Art objects do not require credit, unless it is 
        of the official flavor. 
•     Adventures offered for free already have the 
        Dundjinni credit on it when you print it, so 
        you are covered on this one. 

Logo 
The logo is a png file of the Dundjinni logo, web url and Keith. 

This logo will be offered as the .png DOTW this Friday, and permanently added to the downloads page. We will shape it in the form of a usable compass rose. 

Add this logo to your “users” folder in Dundjinni, and place it in the lower right corner of your map. When you stamp it down, make sure it is set to the top most layer. 

You should put this logo on future maps that are uploaded to the Dundjinni site too, since those maps could get redistributed to other sites. 

Web link 
The second form of appropriate credit has to do with the web. If you post a map, art object or adventure to the web, you must also include the following link: 

“Map made with Dundjinni software – www.dundjinni.com” 

Make that in 7 point legible font at least, please! 

You do not have to include this link on submissions to the Dundjinni site. 

If you would be so kind as to send us an email with that web page so we can track it, that’d be great! 

If there is a free DJ map, (or adventure), out there on the web and we like it, we reserve the right to copy that map to the DJ site as a freebie. Sort of a share-the-wealth program for all to benefit from. 


Summary 

As a small company that just spent a huge amount of resources to build Dundjinni, we want to protect our investment. We want to stay in business, and continue to provide you with patches and upgrades and art packs. 

We also want to maintain our focus on the needs of all the GM’s out there, for whom we built this product in the first place. And we think we can do that better if we split out and license commercial use separately from personal use. 

We hope this helps clarify the issue and puts it to bed, and that you can see where we are coming from on it. 

Peace, 

The Dundjinni Team 
--------


----------



## msd (Jun 11, 2004)

argon_the_red said:
			
		

> In the context of selling, we’re trying to protect what we consider one of our main assets – our art. That’s really the point to put across here. If you have a question or scenario in your head about publishing, then come back to this point: don’t include our art in something you want to sell or otherwise use to make a profit. You couldn't copy a portion of a Monte Cook adventure or a Freeport map, fold it into your creation and then sell that, and we see this as being the same thing.



In my mind, this is where the critical miss is...

I see the art packs as part of the functionality of the software just as in the same way that I consider the various fonts that come with Word to be part of the functionality of the software.  While I appreciate that reasonable minds can disagree on this point and probably will, I still simply fail to see how this limitation offers them any "protection" of their IP.

In my mind, their entire argument rests on a single, flawed assumption which is that map producers and map consumers are the same thing - effectively interchangeable parts.  In my experience, that's simply not true.  WoTC's map of the week is popular because people don't want to be bothered with making maps.  They simply want to be able to have the map without caring whether it was made in CC2, PSP, Dundjinni, etc.  For Fluid to see this type of consumer as a potential lost sale is to confuse map consumer with map producer.  In reality, consumers were likely not to be customers in the first place so the limitation doesn't help avoid lost sales at all.  It merely inhibits sales to people who would be map producers and Fluid customers but who won't purchase as a result of the limitation on re-distribution.

It's as if I walk into a store that sells musical instruments and, after buying a guitar, the salesman tells me that I can't record and sell music commercially because every CD sale represents a potential lost sale of a guitar...

Again, ymmv and probably does...


----------



## crabclaw (Jun 11, 2004)

[font=&quot]







			
				msd said:
			
		

> The knee-jerk reaction is to say that they are protecting their IP but (as a law student studying IP) this just begs the question: _what is the value of the IP to a corporation if it is divorced from a revenue stream_...what possible business objective is met by spending what must, as you note, have been a colossal number of man hours in R&D only to implement a policy that makes the result of that work unusable to a significant percentage of potential consumers?
> 
> -matt



 [/font]I suspect FLUID has an artist or two in mind that they want to "subcontract" to do all commercial fantasy cartography. Perhaps, the artist(s) who created the art packages? Shady deal if you ask me. 

 They are trying to corner the market. BOYCOTT! DON'T BUY DUNDJINNI!


----------



## Fluid (Jun 11, 2004)

I was about to say to check the Dundjinni forums for an update on our approach to publishing, but Argon beat me to it.

www.dundjinni.com


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 11, 2004)

Well, you folks at Fluid certainly have the right to do whatever you wish with your (and those you've contracted with's) IP.  I do not begrudge you that.

I hope Dunjinni is a success for you, especailly after what happened with e-tools.  Unfortunately, I will not purchase the product under it's current use  restrictions.  Admittedly, I would not even be likely to ever use it as a publisher, but for $80+, I would expect to have the option.  

Maybe I'm being unreasonable (wouldn't be the first time)... :\


----------



## Ayrk (Jun 11, 2004)

Well the change is not the ideal one I had hoped for, but it is certainly one I can live with. I can now put maps I create with custom artwork into a book I want to sell.


----------



## crabclaw (Jun 11, 2004)

According to this, you still have to give your works credit to Dundjinni.

   *******************************
   Providing appropriate credit 

   Two flavors. Logo and web link. 

   You must provide Dundjinni credit in the following instances: 

   • For maps used at a tournament or convention 
   • For maps submitted to a magazine or etc for 
   publication 
   • Any time you distribute more than 10 copies of 
   a map. 
   • Any time a digital map is posted to a website. 
   • Art objects do not require credit, unless it is 
   of the official flavor. 
   • Adventures offered for free already have the 
   Dundjinni credit on it when you print it, so 
   you are covered on this one.

   **********************************

   It says nothing about differentiating between whether or not you used the art package you bought or the art work you created.


----------



## crabclaw (Jun 11, 2004)

If the above is not the case -- then rebuilding royality free art packages for community distribution might be a good idea BUT if we are going to do that then why not simply use DUNGEONCRAFTER, you can make all the mods you want and the program is freeeeeeeeeee


----------



## Chaz (Jun 11, 2004)

prcrash said:
			
		

> The only thing that the are not letting you do is sell maps that use the artwork that comes with dundjinni
> . You can create your own artwork, if you want, and the maps that you create with your own artwork, you can sell. Don't go slamming the product just because you didn't research a little more before posting...



I can, and will, do as I like. I have a right to my opinion. If it differs from yours... Oh well.  

Peace


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 11, 2004)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I hope Dunjinni is a success for you, especailly after what happened with e-tools.  Unfortunately, I will not purchase the product under it's current use  restrictions.  Admittedly, I would not even be likely to ever use it as a publisher, but for $80+, I would expect to have the option.



Well, if you're not a commercial publisher nor aspiring to be, why all the fuss? If you wan to publish map commercially then you should get a commercial-grade mapping/drawing tool.

I'm guessing this tool is for gamers only, not aspiring publishers who want to break into the industry. We gamers want the tool to make the map for our own tabletop gaming session. Period.




			
				DaveMage said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm being unreasonable (wouldn't be the first time)... :\



Not my place to make such an assessment.


----------



## crabclaw (Jun 11, 2004)

Ranger REG,

 Yes you have a good point -- but the program is not for me and that's that -- I'm going to stop ranting about this now -- as in for good.

 cc


----------



## DaveMage (Jun 11, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, if you're not a commercial publisher nor aspiring to be, why all the fuss? If you wan to publish map commercially then you should get a commercial-grade mapping/drawing tool.




Why the fuss?  I think I explained that above.  

I like the look of the product, but don't like the limitations.  As to "commercial-grade" - what the heck does that mean?  Campaign Cartographer is a mapping/drawing tool with a similar price point.  Both make great maps. They both make professional-looking maps.  Dunjinni seems easier to use.  At this time, I'd prefer to use Dunjinni - and I would buy it if there were not these limitations.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> We gamers want the tool to make the map for our own tabletop gaming session. Period.




I had no idea you were the voice for gamers.  Must have missed that memo...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 12, 2004)

crabclaw said:
			
		

> Ranger REG,
> 
> Yes you have a good point -- but the program is not for me and that's that -- I'm going to stop ranting about this now -- as in for good.



crabclaw,

I'm sorry to hear that. As for me, the restriction is a minor issue. I'm not a convention participant nor an organizer. I just cater to my own gaming group. My main concern is the software's performance and compatibility with my PC and its every parts.

When I hear that I must install a true Java RTE in order to run _Dundjinni,_ I was a bit skeptical. I'd rather it would run on my WinXP Virtual Java Machine with no hitch. But I guess I can get over that hurdle.

All I want is a program for my own personal use.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 13, 2004)

crabclaw said:
			
		

> I suspect FLUID has an artist or two in mind that they want to "subcontract" to do all commercial fantasy cartography. Perhaps, the artist(s) who created the art packages? Shady deal if you ask me.
> 
> They are trying to corner the market. BOYCOTT! DON'T BUY DUNDJINNI!




Oh good lord . . . okay, so a company designing a beautiful mapper for the at home user should be boycotted because they dont . . . as of yet . . . have provisions for using their work commericially?  That's absolutely ridiculous!

It's actually quite common for any published product that includes artwork to have that artwork protected.  D&D has the d20 license, but I cant go taking the artwork out of the book and use it in my RPG book.  So CC2 allows commerical use, well that's actually pretty cool (I didnt know), but to slam Dundjinni for not including that as a part of thier business model . . . sheesh.

and from another poster 

-- Possibly - but I would not contact Microsoft were I to compose a published work in Word - even if I used the clipart. --

And comparisions to MS Word . . . that's kinda dumb.  A better comparision would be to an interesting and unique font you purchased and loaded into yor copy of MS Word . . . you either don't have the right to use that font commerically, or you paid a large fee which included the right to use that font commerically . . . not that there arent cool free fonts out there that dont have restrictions, but good hi-quality professionally designed fonts cost mucho dinero if you are also buying the rights to use them professionally.


----------



## msd (Jun 13, 2004)

*Ridiculous?*



			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> And comparisions to MS Word . . . that's kinda dumb. A better comparision would be to an interesting and unique font you purchased and loaded into yor copy of MS Word . . . you either don't have the right to use that font commerically, or you paid a large fee which included the right to use that font commerically . . . not that there arent cool free fonts out there that dont have restrictions, but good hi-quality professionally designed fonts cost mucho dinero if you are also buying the rights to use them professionally.



I don't think it's dumb at all, and with all due respect, your analogy seems a little off. I think everyone would be cautious if they had bought a unique font and then commerically re-distributed a piece of work printed in that font.

That's not the case here...the maker of the software and the maker of the font/art packs are the same company. Is it reasonable to wonder, when you use Arial to compose a work in Word which you intend to be published, whether or not you should contact Microsoft and ask whether or not they are owed a royalty for each distributed copy?

And to suggest that the complaint that their maps are not commercially re-distributable is "ridiculous" is a little dramatic. I totally agree that reasonable people can differ on this issue, but I think the label ridiculous is a little extreme. They are introducing their product into a market in which every competitor allows commercial publication. In fact, they chose the exact same price point (approx. 80 USD) as the (arguably) leader of the RPG mapping industry. If that doesn't speak to the fact that Fluid _itself_ sees themselves as being in competition with something like CC2, I'm not sure what does.

In the end, when all the other products in the marketplace allow this feature, the suggestion that Dundjinni should do so as well is hardly _ridiculous_...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 13, 2004)

So, Fluid is in competition with Profantasy. Profantasy is in competition with NBOS (the reason why they dropped the _CC2 Pro_ price down to about $40 US). So, who's NBOS in competition with?


----------



## afstanton (Jun 16, 2004)

You know, if I have to create all the art packs for this just to create a map with it that I can sell, and it costs that much...I don't need it.

They seem to want to protect their IP for fear they will lose sales.  That protection has made me decide not to buy it.  It backfired in at least my case.


----------



## Mynex (Jun 16, 2004)

afstanton said:
			
		

> You know, if I have to create all the art packs for this just to create a map with it that I can sell, and it costs that much...I don't need it.
> 
> They seem to want to protect their IP for fear they will lose sales.  That protection has made me decide not to buy it.  It backfired in at least my case.




And I'll post along the same lines as I posted on their forums..

"So what?"

The art work is their IP, they want to protect it, let them.  Honestly, some of the art is great, some so-so and some I can do without.  

They opened the program up to be of use to 'professional cartographers' (read: Those that want to make good looking maps fairly easily) but not their art packs?  So What?  The program itself makes life easier for people.

Want to make your own dungeon 'art'?  Pretty simple... Take a digital camera, get a hold of some dwarven forge pieces... take pics, drop em in photoshop (or whatever) and create them at the png size you need.  Done.

Ain't perfect... may not be pretty.  But it'll be better than trying to hand draw it all, scan it is, resize... or create in photoshop (or whatever) for those of us pressed for time/artistic talent.

Good lord people.. use your heads... You want pictures to use?  there's a TON of free art and 'real world' pictures that could be used... All it takes is hunting it down and converting it to the right size png... Even I can do that... And my artistic ability and PS ability makes a 3yr old with a box of broken crayons look like Van Goh work...

Who cares about their art?  I'd rather have my own anyways... 

Now, you all think about that for a second... If I, as an owner of CMP, who took over e-Tools and all that entailed, can say positive things about DJ/Fluid (And yes, I am here, in case you doubted it), then what are you complaining for?  Gah...


----------



## Archimagus (Sep 1, 2004)

tmaaas said:
			
		

> Actually, as far as I can tell, Fluid has already upset the apple cart to everyone's advantage. They've introduced competition into the RPG mapping field.
> 
> I remember not too long ago that CC2 was priced at $79.95. Maybe my memory is off, but it seems the price cut came after Dundjinni was announced.
> 
> ...




Just to clear up a few mistakes here.  While Fluid has created competition in the mapping field, some of your assumptions are incorrect.

The Price change has been discussed for at least 4 years.  Well before Dundjinni existed or was announced.

Code Monkey and Profantasy teaming up has been discussed for two years, again, well before Dundjinni existed or was announced.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 1, 2004)

This is all just a case of Fluid not getting their legal underwear in order before releasing their product, and having to take the strictest line they can while they sort themselves out. I think they were a little short-sighted, but that's about it. If, in the future, they do anything other than allow royalty-free distribution of work based on their art-packs, they shut the door on every professional or semi-professional out there, and that's a big chunk o' change. But what do I know? They may be making millions off regular DM's and consider the risks to their IP to be in excess of any extra revenue the professional segment may generate. That's their call.

I've actually just started using DJ in earnest in the last few weeks and apart from the smelly UI, I really like it. With even a little experience, the results are undeniably excellent.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Sep 3, 2004)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> A better comparision would be to an interesting and unique font you purchased and loaded into yor copy of MS Word . . . you either don't have the right to use that font commerically, or you paid a large fee which included the right to use that font commerically . . .




Um, no.  Ever read any of the type licenses?  That's not the case for anything in Adobe's type library, nor Monotype, nor anyone else I've ever seen.  I purchased a copy of both Spectrum and Optima, and I could use that commercially as much as I wanted, for the same low price anyone can get it from their online store.

Now, it gets somewhat less fuzzy if you're embedding the actual files into Word or PDF files which you distribute, but put it on paper and nobody cares how you use it.

(Sure, old comment, but so wrong it needed to be corrected.)


----------



## Dinubabear (Sep 5, 2004)

crabclaw said:
			
		

> According to this, you still have to give your works credit to Dundjinni.
> 
> *******************************
> Providing appropriate credit
> ...





Re-read it.  Under User Maps (which is 100 % user Art) it says we can use Dundjinni like PhotoShop, but if it is a DJ map (which is any map that even includes 1 piece of DJ art) we have to go by thier rules which includes providing them credit.  So if you want to design EVERYTHING (walls, floors, etc) you have different rights.  I know if I had to design everything it would look pretty sad.


----------



## Dinubabear (Sep 5, 2004)

msd said:
			
		

> In my mind, this is where the critical miss is...
> 
> I see the art packs as part of the functionality of the software just as in the same way that I consider the various fonts that come with Word to be part of the functionality of the software.  While I appreciate that reasonable minds can disagree on this point and probably will, I still simply fail to see how this limitation offers them any "protection" of their IP.




I wish you were correct, but you are not.  FONTS are not included with what you produce with them.  Just try opening a multiple font form Like HeroForge on a Mac.  Things won't line up.  Whether they have the Mac version of Office or use Virtual PC.  The only way that it will look the same is if they purchased some program that came with the same fonts.  You also have to have the same fonts installed to view a web page correctly (or Microsoft has a program that will upload only the letters of a font that are used to a script if you want people to view the page in the correct font, but this prevents people from copying the font without purchase since they only get the case & letters used.)

I bet using Corel Draw they would have a problem with me publishing & selling the vector drawing of Heddy Lamore that was used on the cover of some of their boxes.  Or any drawing program would have problems with you trying to sell the art that come with the program (samples) as your own.

The structure and ideas are fine to sell, like a word document.  But try selling Wingdings2.TTF and see if you don't get sued by Microsoft.  Same with Dundjinni, you can sell maps, just not with thier art.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 7, 2004)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> And comparisions to MS Word . . . that's kinda dumb.  A better comparision would be to an interesting and unique font you purchased and loaded into yor copy of MS Word . . . you either don't have the right to use that font commerically, or you paid a large fee which included the right to use that font commerically . . . not that there arent cool free fonts out there that dont have restrictions, but good hi-quality professionally designed fonts cost mucho dinero if you are also buying the rights to use them professionally.





That would be 100% dead wrong. Fonts are not protected by copyright.

The various font foundries protect the _name_ of the typeface.  The typeface itself is not protectable under copyright law and is specifcally excluded under the model international law.  Indeed, for the very reason under discussion here: so that the copyright holder of the font would not attempt to exert ownership over creations composed using the font.

This is why we have fonts which are "cloned". The same font - renamed to escape the modicum of protection afforded it.

6,500 web pages advertising "free" fonts - which aren't - inundate the internet to prevent you from meaningfully locating the typeface of your choice via search engine.  This is not an accident and is, in my opinion, a direct attempt by the typeface foundries to prevent google from destroying their business.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 8, 2004)

You're accurate, but not necessarily correct here, though, too.

While the _shapes_ of fonts aren't protected by copyright, the computer code describing an electronic font -- the actual mathematical metrics inside that TTF file, say --  _is_ protected by copyright. As such, unless you're capable of creating your own fonts or can find an unprotected "clone," you still can't distribute a font.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Sep 8, 2004)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> While the _shapes_ of fonts aren't protected by copyright, the computer code describing an electronic font -- the actual mathematical metrics inside that TTF file, say --  _is_ protected by copyright. As such, unless you're capable of creating your own fonts or can find an unprotected "clone," you still can't distribute a font.




But you can distribute anything you make using the font which does not have the font program itself.  So PDFs are subject to licensing, but bitmaps, printouts, or a huge mural on the Sears Tower are all unprotected.


----------

