Editing Talk:Eridani Light Horse lawsuit

==Copypasta'ed==
I created this article by copying over content from the [[Eridani Light Horse]] article that was added by an unregistered IP (68.110.113.204). It was removed again by another (reverted to the article's previous text) and I expressly agree with that move, with admin hat on. However, I've also been meaning to write an article about the ELH lawsuit for some time and although it needs a lot of work I chose to use this text as a basis. Other users are welcome to edit and improve this page; it is explicitly not a "work in progress" by myself. But please take care to keep a neutral stance and a factual and encyclopedic writing style, as this is a sensitive topic. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (PDT)
: I agree that this version be used as a structure/placeholder only. There is a lot of uncited and inflammatory language here ("confession", for one) and -while written in the style of a historical document- is clearly not presented as unbaised or as a scholarly work.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 08:22, 18 May 2014 (PDT)
:: Wow... a link to this page was posted over to a thread at LOTB. Prior to that I don't think I knew it existed. I think everything except "The Judgement" can be deleted and even that needs clean-up. Probably add a short paragraph for an unbiased overview.--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 13:22, 6 July 2016 (PDT)
::: If you're looking for some factual material on the case, there's a court ruling:
::: http://www.alex.kaempen.org/Malcomson_v._Topps.html
::: Follow-up denial of appeal:
::: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2011/11/28/10-15540.pdf
::: Denial of Supreme Court hearing:
::: http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/275w6r2yc/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/scott-malcomson-petitioner-v-topps-inc/ {{Unsigned|Cray|19:21, 16 August 2016‎ }}
:::: So my next questions: Is it considered plagiarism if I copy parts of the court rulings verbatim? While I trust the court documents on alex.kaempen.org are the real thing, is that website considered a legitimate source that can be cited?--[[User:Cache|Cache]] ([[User talk:Cache|talk]]) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (PDT)
:::::Use the passages as cited quotes, that is never plagiarism. [[User:Dark Jaguar|Dark Jaguar]] ([[User talk:Dark Jaguar|talk]]) 16:05, 17 August 2016 (PDT)

==From Scott Malcomson==
: Malcomson here. Corrected a variety of factual errors in the article, including such things as a claim that the lawsuit had been dismissed. In fact, Topps HAD attempted a dismissal but Judge Murray Snow rejected that move. The case went to judgment, which is the opposite of dismissal, which is why the appeals court cites that judgment in upholding the lower court. The appeals court also stated clearly that my ''contributions'' to Battletech did not rise to the level of co-ownership. This does not erase the contributions which were held to that standard, nor does it detract from the fact that they were published as canon content, which the preceding part of this page acknowledges. I went to court once to defend my copyrights, and if Topps is peddling any of this nonsense I want to know, because it means I'll be taking them to court again in order to enforce the decisions of the Ninth Circuit.

: Cease engaging in demonstrably defamatory edits. If you wish to argue this point further, contact Topps legal counsel (or that of any Battletech licensee), and have them contact me about it. This is above your pay grade.{{Unsigned|97.124.41.50}}
::Malcomson, I am one of the Sarna Admins, the article has been restored to its previous state and locked by Deadfire (one of our senior editors) until a member of the Admin team was available. I think there is a better way we can handle this, I would like to invite you to [[User talk:Dmon|my talk page]] so we can have a conversation about any issues you may have with the article and look at how we can possibly improve the article. I am not American and my grasp of the American legal system is rather slim and I do not feel the article would benefit from getting stuck in technicalities but if there is something that is outright wrong or you feel is offencive I am willing to discuss it with you.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:10, 13 September 2022 (EDT)
::The article was essentially written by me so any issues can be directed at me. I will say right out of the gate that I feel your tone is combative and that I‘m a bit unhappy to be accused of defamation. Please explain how the article or any errors in it are defamatory? To be clear, I'm willing to hear you out but Sarna isn’t the place to re-litigate this case. It was simply covered as a real-world event pertaining to BattleTech. I want it to be neutral and factual, and you evidently disagree, I'm open to suggestions. Feel free to voice then here or on my talk page. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (EDT)
:::My apologies for going hard there. My experiences with Topps, specific to this lawsuit, began and ended with their attitude of "we will not negotiate, only litigate", and from the content of the article it seemed that Topps was in part or whole the source of various inaccuracies. Nic has reassured me that Topps/CGL are not actually calling any shots here, and I also want this to be neutral and factual, but I also understand I am close to the trees in these particular woods. That in mind, I will do my best to stick to what's verifiable and provide documents as you may need them. Going from top to bottom, then:
:::I did not originally sue for joint ownership of Battletech. My initial filing was only in response to Topps' assertions that I did not have any copyrights in any contributions to Battletech, and that I had not made any contributions at all. These two points were the only things I sued for, eschewing any financial compensation - this was solely a copyright defense. It was only after the discovery phase, in light of uncovered internal company documents, that a co-ownership claim became technically possible. I motioned to Amend my Complaint, Topps attempted to dismiss the case right there, and Judge Murray Snow refused them. There was indeed enough evidence, in his view, to at least invoke the test for co-ownership.
:::'''Regarding the original ELH Scenario Pack project''': all of the information is factually accurate, but one pertinent fact is missing: the on-spec agreement stipulated that if FASA did not cut a contract for ownership of the manuscript, I would own all original content therein and could even "rework it for sale to other companies". Another point would be that after this project fell through, I took the ELH History section of the project and put it on my private Battletech fan website with a copyright notice in my name, which becomes important later due to testimony given to the court via former ClassicBattleTech.com admin Jason Knight. At this point, the matter was effectively settled, or should have been - I was not a contributor to Battletech and did not claim to be. I'd simply written what was, as it hadn't been contracted or published as official anything, "elevated fanfiction".
:::'''Regarding Roy Calbeck:''' missing here is the blurb about Roy being placed on indefinite leave, attempting to drink himself to death, and witnesses reporting that he had disappeared into thin air. This is important because the section was deliberately written to be ambiguous. Readers were not expected to believe an actual anthropomorphic unicorn was running around the Battletech universe; this was intended as just another "unexplainable weird thing" which crops up in many Battletech works, and as such the reader was left free to either dismiss it as a nonsensical rumor or headcanon something in between (plastic surgery? digital disguise? a weirdo in a costume? who knows). Another point I should bring up is that his appearance in the 1987 Mercenary's Handbook does not exceed what copyright law calls a "stock character", which is not copyrightable. There must be distinct and unique characteristics for copyrightability, and in my development of Roy through writing, cartooning, and ultimately his inclusion in the ELH History as published by WizKids, he meets that standard - as found by the courts. I feel I have to reiterate this because otherwise it will be argued as personal bias. However, the actual canon of his story is that he came so close to drinking himself to death that he "fell through" realities, landing in an interdimensional nexus heavy with magic, where he was transformed into a unicorn in order to process the alcohol that was killing him. This was specifically for the purposes of engaging in an online roleplay community called "The Past and Future Inn", and started a long series of out-of-Battletech-universe adventures. At the end of those adventures, Roy returns to his home universe and service with the ELH as noted in the blurb... basically putting all that silliness off-camera while retaining it as his actual background. This was me having fun. Unfortunately, when Topps pulled my work, I found people who just 48 hours before had been praising that same work were now attacking both it and my personal character in any way they could. This continued for some years, to the point of people drawing images of Roy being dismembered while throwing fits about the deliberately ambiguous text regarding his being a unicorn. I finally de-ambiguated Roy's status just to thumb my nose at them, in an article titled "Battletech Has a Unicorn In It". That is why his status as an anthropomorphic unicorn is confirmed and, given the results of the lawsuit, shall remain.
:::'''Regarding the Website section:''' I never originally submitted any of my FASA work to WizKids. During the lawsuit, ClassicBattleTech.com admin Jason Knight wrote a scathing testimony email, sending it directly to Topps' legal counsel while CC'ing a copy to me, for which I will be forever grateful. In it, he asserted that my entire work had been "copypasta'd" from my website without my knowledge or permission - minus my copyright notice - directly to CBT's official Battletech Timeline. This is why I was never mentioned or accredited - the work had been stolen. Knight's letter, which continued at length, also included the affirmation that ClassicBattleTech.com operated under Terms and Conditions of Use provided by WizKids (and before them FanPro, before them FASA, and after them Topps), all of which stated "This website owned and operated by [FASA/FanPro/WizKids/Topps] and its affiliates". It was very much not a fan-owned website, operating entirely in the corporate name, with the variants of these ToSes going back to 2000. I introduced Knight's letter into court documentation as evidence, which Topps never challenged or even acknowledged. It should be noted, however, that Knight did not do this on my behalf - throughout his letter, he made it clear he thought he was accusing ME of various things such as "plaugarism" (because I had used the same two opening paragraphs from the 1987 ELH History), while trying to excuse the theft as "an honest mistake". His status as a hostile witness, combined with his unintended corroborations of my court filings, was deeply helpful. There was no "falling out between parties" whatsoever, however. After the second edition of my ELH History was published by WizKids to ClassicBattleTech.com, everything was fine and in fact I occasionally discussed possible updates to the work as the main Battletech timeline advanced. It was during one of these discussions, as I was drafting a third version for consideration (with an ongoing debate in the CBT Forums about what WarShip[s] the ELH should have [if any]), that my work suddenly disappeared without notice. As noted above, within 48 hours I had been de-personed and my work publicly denigrated by site mods - including some of those who had been engaged in the WarShip discussion. The disappearance of my work in August 2005 was more than two years after Topps' purchase of WizKids - and Topps never had any involvement with its publication. As mentioned previously, they also refused to discuss the matter until I filed suit in 2008. Even then, they limited any discussion with me to my deposition and, immediately after that, a five-figure settlement offer which I countered by saying they could just buy the work for less, which they refused. For that matter, they also refused a court order which threatened sanctions if we did not meet for face-to-face good-faith negotiations, asserting that since I still insisted I owned copyrights in contributions to Battletech that such talks would be a waste of time; if I didn't simply drop my case in order to speak to them in good faith, they wouldn't speak in good faith. Judge Snow did not, however, enforce his order.
:::'''Regarding the lawsuit:''' as I mentioned before, I did not file the lawsuit seeking co-ownership but only defense of my copyrights in my contributions to the Battletech property, and only filed the Motion to Amend in order to include a co-ownership claim when discovered evidence supported the possibility, which Judge Snow agreed with despite Topps' attempt to dismiss. The case was never dismissed at any point, for either process or lack of merit (had there been no merit, Topps' dismissal would have carried). Importantly, while Topps denied all of my claims - having no actual knowledge themselves of the matter - none of the witnesses from WizKids were called upon to do that. Almost exclusively, they were called to discuss WizKids' policies about "work-made-for-hire" contracts, in which someone who signs such a contract is surrendering the rights in their work in exchange for the hire. As no such contract between myself and any Battletech publisher existed, the point was entirely irrelevant, and only reinforced the fact that I had retained my copyrights.
:::'''CORE TO THE LAWSUIT:''' both the lower and appeals courts applied a well-used three-prong standard for co-ownership (originating with Almuhammed v Lee, 9th Circuit, 2000). The appeals court, in fact, did not address any other of the lower court's arguments, finding that this three-prong test was the only relevant matter. '''The thing is, the Almuhammed test has two prerequisites for being applied at all: that the claiming party have copyright in something, and that something must be a contribution to the larger property being tested for co-ownership'''. All three of the prongs test the actual contribution to see if it rises to the level of co-ownership, such as with "Does the contribution have widespread audience appeal?". Whether it does or not, it is still a contribution. Copyright affirmation is likewise required before getting to this point because if the claimant does not own copyright in the contribution, they cannot co-own copyright in the larger work because the contribution belongs to someone else. The appeals court, just to clarify, also said specifically that I have contributions in Battletech. That two short stories, one being a longer version of the other, are "tiny" compared to the whole of Battletech is without question, and does go against the issue of co-ownership, but each issue - copyright, contribution, and co-ownership, is separate, and each must be satisfied in that order for the next test in line to matter in front of a court.
:::'''TL;DR:''' people arguing that I don't have copyrights in contributions in Battletech are arguing against the rulings both courts made, and which the appeals court asserted was dominant.
:::'''FINAL NOTE:''' the "Battletech Line Developer", due to the court's findings that no co-ownership exists - and that counts in BOTH directions - has no legal authority to affect my work in any way. This also happened with another case about a play called "Rent", in which a contributor to the play was found not to be a co-owner, but still was declared to have absolute copyrights in their contributions. They, not the opposing party, had the right to pull the content if they liked, but as it was not the property of the opposing party no such rights pertained to them. While I have been content these many years to consider my work on par with the original House Sourcebooks - i.e., largely out of date, overwritten in many places, but still canon for those parts not overwritten - this is a red line which repudiates the decisions of the court and I would be forced once again to defend my copyrights. For that reason, I am happy that "citation needed" is appended to that section, so I shall assume it is a rumor and expect it to be removed unless someone at either CGL or Topps wants to pick that fight with me.
::::Apology accepted. Let’s work together then on improving the article.<br />I have three questions for now, based on my current understanding of the situation:<br />1. What exactly was the original claim you sued over? The only thing that the court seems to have ruled on was the joint ownership claim, so I take it in amending the claim during the lawsuit you changed it? (As opposed to adding joint ownership as an additional claim.)<br />2. I'm a bit confused about why you felt your copyright was infringed, can you elaborate on that please? Copyright is a right to exclude others from using your work without permission. My impression is that the only possible copyright issue here would have been uploading your text piece to the BT site, and the only claim you could make about that would have been for them to remove it - but I take it that wasn’t what the lawsuit was about?<br />3. Similarly, I don’t think I understand the "contribution" part. The fiction piece in question was clearly BattleTech fiction and nobody ever disputed that; in fact that is arguably at the root of the whole issue. If what you’re saying is that the court ruled that it ''should'' be a part of BattleTech then I respectfully disagree for two reasons: the court was never even called to rule on this as a disputed issue in the first place (ties into question 1 above), and in any case I don’t see how the court could actively shape the IP against the owner's wishes and effectively rule over BattleTech canon? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 01:58, 21 September 2022 (EDT)

== What does this mean? ==
"Malcomson was attached the character of [[Roy Calbeck]]"

What does attached mean here? [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 11:48, 23 May 2022 (EDT)

:Upon re-reading, yeah, it sounds weird. Have reworded the part. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:26, 23 May 2022 (EDT)

::Thanks. Makes a lot more sense now. [[User:Madness Divine|Madness Divine]] ([[User talk:Madness Divine|talk]]) 12:52, 23 May 2022 (EDT)

== Update link for Warner Doles ==

I understand that the eridani light horse lawsuit article is temporarily locked for editting.

This comment is a placeholder reminder that the [[Warner Doles]] link in said article should be updated to [[Warner Doles (person)|Warner Doles]] when the article becomes unlocked again. [[Special:Contributions/76.82.146.242|76.82.146.242]] 03:06, 14 September 2022 (EDT)
:Updated the wikilink. Thank you for pointing it out!--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:01, 14 September 2022 (EDT)