‘The Witcher’ Author Demands $16 Million in Royalties From CD Projekt Red

[The Stormbringer]

CDPR should give him a copy of the games with signed artwork and stuff, thats worth something.

How about that, plus the amount they paid him (plus inflation)?

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Please do explain yourself qtpie. I’m dying to hear why my opinion on a shitty video game is ignorant. Because the critics like it? Isn’t your crowd skeptical of the critics?

It's ignorant because you're mixing your emotions and thoughts on a video game/fanbase with a situation that is deeper than that. A lot of posts in this thread describe it better than me so I recommend you do that.

Basically the author is trying to get millions even though back when he allowed CD Red to make Wither 1 he was offered a deal with royalties but instead he argued the game wouldn't sell and just wanted a lump some. Now this guy is major anti-video games. He hates them. So now he's asking for money because he was too stupid and made a mistake.

I get you hate the company and video games. I don't like the Wither games myself, only played the second one for 5 hours.

[WintersLegion]

It's ignorant because you're mixing your emotions and thoughts on a video game/fanbase with a situation that is deeper than that. A lot of posts in this thread describe it better than me so I recommend you do that.

Basically the author is trying to get millions even though back when he allowed CD Red to make Wither 1 he was offered a deal with royalties but instead he argued the game wouldn't sell and just wanted a lump some. Now this guy is major anti-video games. He hates them. So now he's asking for money because he was too stupid and made a mistake.

I get you hate the company and video games. I don't like the Wither games myself, only played the second one for 5 hours.

If you can get it cheap I recommend trying Witcher 3 I myself wasn't able to get into 2 mostly because of it's controls 3 is a lot better.

[Deleted]

Have I misunderstood something? Everybody seems to be assuming the company's claim is true and they obtained full rights. Now the author's claim is that he gave away his copyright only on the assumption they would make one game. Please correct me if this is not legally binding. However this just seems to be a 'who is telling the truth' kind of thing. I am not really sorry for him unless he is poor which I doubt, but neither am I sorry for the company. It will just come down to evidence and/or who has the better lawyers.

[WintersLegion]

Have I misunderstood something? Everybody seems to be assuming the company's claim is true and they obtained full rights. Now the author's claim is that he gave away his copyright only on the assumption they would make one game. Please correct me if this is not legally binding. However this just seems to be a 'who is telling the truth' kind of thing. I am not really sorry for him unless he is poor which I doubt, but neither am I sorry for the company. It will just come down to evidence and/or who has the better lawyers.

For me it's the fact that it's been 3 years since the last game came out and he never raised a fuss about them making more games. He even gave an interview just last year to Eurogamer and never once brought up that they were only supposed to make one game in fact this is what he said to them about the games. "The game is made very well," he says, "and they merit all of the beneficiaries they get from it. They merit it. The game is very good, well done, well done."

[Deleted]

For me it's the fact that it's been 3 years since the last game came out and he never raised a fuss about them making more games. He even gave an interview just last year to Eurogamer and never once brought up that they were only supposed to make one game in fact this is what he said to them about the games. "The game is made very well," he says, "and they merit all of the beneficiaries they get from it. They merit it. The game is very good, well done, well done."

Yeah but that's not evidence against him. There's plenty of reasons why he might not have come out earlier. For example he might always have known he was in the right but not cared that much, but now fallen on harder financial times. He shouldn't be penalised for that.

[unholytestament]

Yeah but that's not evidence against him. There's plenty of reasons why he might not have come out earlier. For example he might always have known he was in the right but not cared that much, but now fallen on harder financial times. He shouldn't be penalised for that.

In fact, that shouldn't factor in at all. Especially considering how it's most likely not true since sales of his books have gone up and he just made a deal with Netflix (and if he fucked up that deal too then the man REALLY needs some help).

But the man is on record saying it was his choice to take the lump sum over the royalty deal that CDPR offered him.

[Deleted]

But the man is on record saying it was his choice to take the lump sum over the royalty deal that CDPR offered him.

Err if you read the article the dispute isn't about that, it's about conditions of the deal - he claims a condition was they only made one game. Whether or not he gave away his copyright isn't being questioned, it's the extent of the rights he gave away.

[unholytestament]

Err if you read the article the dispute isn't about that, it's about conditions of the deal - he claims a condition was they only made one game. Whether or not he gave away his copyright isn't being questioned, it's the extent of the rights he gave away.

Right, which people pointed out he should have brought the issue up sooner since the third game in the series came out three years ago. And you came back with a ridiculous notion of him not acting until now because he had recently fallen on hard times, which is obviously false.

If the issue really is everything past the first game then he should have reached out to them when Witcher 2 was announced. Or when Witcher 2 DLC was announced. And so on. Not years after Witcher 3 has released and all its DLC has been completed.

[Deleted]

Right, which people pointed out he should have brought the issue up sooner since the third game in the series came out three years ago. And you came back with a ridiculous notion of him not acting until now because he had recently fallen on hard times, which is obviously false.

If the issue really is everything past the first game then he should have reached out to them when Witcher 2 was announced. Or when Witcher 2 DLC was announced. And so on. Not years after Witcher 3 has released and all its DLC has been completed.

How long he waits before coming out is completely irrelevant. It doesn't affect his legal standing. And honestly I don't think it's 'ridiculous' at all that he waited. He might not have been that smart law-wise and just now acting on advice - that's just one possibility, there are plenty of explanations. He should not be scrutinised for the 'reasons' he waited for what people think is a long term, unless perhaps there is some legal clause that says he cannot dispute the agreement if X amount of time has passed, for example.

[Tech614]

Right, which people pointed out he should have brought the issue up sooner since the third game in the series came out three years ago. And you came back with a ridiculous notion of him not acting until now because he had recently fallen on hard times, which is obviously false.

If the issue really is everything past the first game then he should have reached out to them when Witcher 2 was announced. Or when Witcher 2 DLC was announced. And so on. Not years after Witcher 3 has released and all its DLC has been completed.

Not to mention by the time they where making W3 they had grown to a size where they definitely had a good legal team checking their Ps and Qs. There is no way the deal was only for one game or they would have already rectified this situation long ago.

[unholytestament]

How long he waits before coming out is completely irrelevant. It doesn't affect his legal standing.

Incorrect. Inaction to defend copyrights can and has been used against companies to some success.

And honestly I don't think it's 'ridiculous' at all that he waited.

Then it's a good thing I called him waiting because he had supposedly fallen on hard times ridiculous then, isn't it? Reading comprehension is important, kids!

He might not have been that smart law-wise and just now acting on advice - that's just one possibility, there are plenty of explanations. He should not be scrutinised for the 'reasons' he waited for what people think is a long term, unless perhaps there is some legal clause that says he cannot dispute the agreement if X amount of time has passed, for example.

Yeah, you can throw out whatever guesses you want. That doesn't make other people wrong.

[Biomega]

To me though the law should also have a element of fairness to it.

Developer in this case made a unexpectedly profitable game based on the authors idea's and to me the fact that this author would be left out of any profits because he made a deal years ago is kind of unfair to me.

The Barbie doll example is good one, to me the original designer should get composition regardless of the original deal.

It IS about fairness, because it is about risk. You can't have an author take a lump sum for their IP, and if it goes well, then ALSO get royalties - while if it goes badly, the company is left footing the bill and the author still has their money. THAT'S not fair.

[stellvia]

It IS about fairness, because it is about risk. You can't have an author take a lump sum for their IP, and if it goes well, then ALSO get royalties - while if it goes badly, the company is left footing the bill and the author still has their money. THAT'S not fair.

To be fair, I think in this situation its designed in case there was an unexpected windfall, that the original person should get a bit more compensation due to that. The original contract probably has to be seen as being negotiated in good faith initially, however. Whatever amount he may get out of this is still far more than the profit CDPR expected to get out of the IP.

Another note: Just because someone is legally entitled to something doesn't mean they are protected from public opinion on the matter. He can and probably should see something more out of this, but I can still think he's a dick for how he's acted about the situation over the years.

[Mister Cheese]

Wow, so he readily admits he was stupid to turn down a percentage and cites his lack of faith in them as grounds for a deserved payday? Sorry man, you might be a talented author, but if you're not a good prospector you can't claim damages due to your own failure to predict the success of a venture.

This guy has said for years that he hated the series and video games and general before W3 found mainstream success. He's a moron. He doesn't understand basic investment either. What's the harm in just not taking the lump sum and letting them make whatever money they can off it for you?

[Morgaith]

Rename this title to: "Fat old cuck regrets being impatient and greedy."

this is gold /thread

[Biomega]

To be fair, I think in this situation its designed in case there was an unexpected windfall, that the original person should get a bit more compensation due to that.

Not if they didn't shoulder any risk. They gave him that option when they offered royalties as a choice - he could have accepted the risk, and as a result, would have been entitled to benefits.

You can't have someone get a lump payment, leave all the risk with the other party, and then when it turns out the risk didn't blow up have them come back to take even more out of the pot. That's not how good business should work.

To be clear, though, this is all contingent on there having been an original negotiation in good faith. It obviously doesn't apply for cases where there was deception, misrepresentation, fraud, and so on.

And in any case, from what I understand the issue is that the author is claiming here that the original contract only covered one game, not three - I find that unlikely to be the case, but I'm not privy to all the information. Going by similar attempts in the past in other cases, this seems more like a gamble to try and squeeze CDPR for an out-of-court settlement just to stop the nonsense. But again, I am not privy to all the info, or to Polish law. Maybe there is a real case, it's entirely possible.

[stellvia]

Not if they didn't shoulder any risk. They gave him that option when they offered royalties as a choice - he could have accepted the risk, and as a result, would have been entitled to benefits.

You can't have someone get a lump payment, leave all the risk with the other party, and then when it turns out the risk didn't blow up have them come back to take even more out of the pot. That's not how good business should work.

Well what we believe doesn't matter, only Polish law matters. Socialist governments have more generous protections. I don't see the law as being that onerous if CDPR expected to make $1M from the IP and made $500M instead, that the licensor could get say, another $5M out of them. I think in a way it incentivizes people to license stuff more: Maybe they choose not to do it at all if its just a small lump sum, but if its the next Blair Witch they might see $1M or something instead.

[Gallahadd]

Because under Polish law he has quite some solid ground to stand on regarding the case, and while it was his own stupid fault he definitely deserves some of the pie for his work.

Well, if he’s got a case, then CDPR will probably cut him off a slice, I mean he’s not asking for a huge cut.

[Scrysis]

See I can't agree with the law as the person got their payment. It's just like I made a chair and sold it to you. You go and create a beautiful painting featuring the chair and become famous for the chair. I turn around and demand to be paid more for the chair even though you did all the work of creating the painting and getting it shown in art gallerys and even made sure people knew I created the chair to begin with meaning more people by the furniture I make.

Your analogy is rather confusing.

No, the law is meant to help people like comic creators vs Mega big publishers.

So, example.

Comic creator A has come up with an awesome new super hero. Very well-written, flashy, good universe and world-building, and great story lines. He goes to try and publish it.

Now, Mega Publisher Barvel looks at A's works. They're super good. They can make absolute bank on this guy. So what do they do? They demand that A sell the intellectual property rights to them for a few thousand, or they're not going to publish it. Creator A NEEDS the money. He's spent YEARS writing and illustrating the material to this. He has medical bills. He needs money for rent. For food. Maybe he has kids. He really, really, really needs this. So he signs away the rights because he needs to eat like everyone else.

What happens? Publisher Barvel makes 10 million on comic book sales. 250 million on the first movie out of the box office with another 150 million in DVD/Blu-ray sales. They make 1 billion on merchandising. That intellectual property now soared in value. The guy who poured his heart and soul to make it? He got maybe 20k.

Well, he thinks, maybe I can just write the next comic in the series for more money. Oops! Barvel says no. They own the super hero now, and they're going to spice it up with a gay romance. They pay other artists to either imitate the original creator's style, or they drop all pretense and just have another artist on call illustrate the next issue. Creator A is totally fucked.

Well, you might think, why doesn't he just keep his IP rights? Well, there's the sticking point. The big publishers REALLY don't want you to have those. They do everything in their power to make sure that you don't. And solo publishing is a joke. It's insanely hard, and no one ever hears of you, so you'll be lucky to sell anything.

Tychus from Penny Arcade, Scott Kurtz from pvponline, Laurel K. Hamilton, etc. . . are just a few authors and artists that I've followed that have talked about this subject. The law is designed to protect the little guy from being bullied by the big companies.

In this specific situation, it sounds like CDPR did the right thing and that the author was just an idiot. Chances are that the law will be on CDPR's side, especially since it sounds like they gave him the opportunity, and he just didn't take it. It doesn't mean that the law is bad.