a) Did the author really expect that he would be getting royalties to all the Minecraft end text teatowels and fridge magnets as part of the deal? Clearly, the success of these products is largely correlated with the success of the game rather than the importance of what he wrote.
b) If I had wanted to make merch with this text on it last week but had been deterred by fear of M$ lawyers, I wouldn't really feel any different about it after the author 'releasing the poem under CC'. His claim to own the rights in the first place is totally dubious. He seems erratic and will probably go on to perform other stunts and legalistic trolling before he gets bored.
a) I'm not the author so can't comment on what they really expect. But since they released the work under CC I'd suggest nothing, other than recognition, and based on the post after they finally realised their true reason for being hurt, I think it was also about being treated correctly and with respect.
b) INAL, but in the UK: "you automatically get copyright protection when you create: original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, including illustration and photography original non-literary written work... ". Assuming it's similar around the world there's nothing dubious about their claim, they didn't sign it away.
Regardless of your opinion of the person or their motives it seems they are within their rights to do what they've done.
Because he explicitly says so and it never was his intention. If you're trying to say that he agreed to it never understanding what he's agreeing to - then that would probably be a non-binding agreement in any legal proceedings.
He also says that he wrote them something along the lines "whatever, let's do the first deal you have offered me" and then intentionally never read the contract. Who knows what they have discussed and agreed to "as friends".
The entire situation is very messy. Mojang fucked up by failing to get the contract signed and failing to even notice it. OTOH the writer seems like a contractor from hell who you wouldn't ever want to deal with, and that's based on his side of the story.
> His claim to own the rights in the first place is totally dubious.
Is flat out wrong.
Not to say they have no case, sure, verbal agreements are agreements too.
HOWEVER, when the written contract is significantly different from the verbal agreement, the case that the written contract is binding, is highly dubious.
What, if I agree to pay you a dollar for a stick figure drawing and you send me a contract saying I agree to give you my house, is it binding if I keep the dollar? Did I implicitly agree to 'whatever you want' in an unwritten contract because I agreed to some verbal agreement?
The answer is definitely not.
There's a reason companies use legal written contracts. ...because they unambiguously assign rights; they did not do that. Therefore, it's Mojang's claim to the rights which is dubious, not the author.
The author says it's not about the money, but money was only one half of the verbal contract, the half that was actually delivered, and the author spends the entire article talking about the money half.
For me, the real issue for an artist that is actually not talking about the money would be the part of the verbal contract that was not fulfilled: Some type of promotional support for the author's other works. Exposure of that work the hundreds of millions of people seems like it would have a staggeringly massive non-monetary value (and in fact could have led to significant monetary gain). Instead though, the author goes to great pains to say it wasn't about the money while mostly talking about the money.
Yeah fairness, emotions, recognition, his own flaws and failures, and his general outlook on life. It's not about contract law or conflict with Mojang or Microsoft, it's just a story about his feelings.
Oh I'm sure. But feelings and money aren't mutually exclusive. Why do you think he posts donation links under the heading "THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO SAVE MY LIFE"?
Feelings are useful for figuring out what your goals are.
They can be money, they can be something more vague like recognition, or truly nebulous like "a sense of human connection," but you've got to have goals. Otherwise you're just a child stumbling in the dark and yelling out.
Reading the post, I don't know what the author's goals are, and I get the impression they don't either.
It sounds like they weren't sure about their goals to begin with, didn't do anything to achieve them, felt robbed because other people's goals were misaligned with theirs, before finally accepting they can't change the past, which
b) If I had wanted to make merch with this text on it last week but had been deterred by fear of M$ lawyers, I wouldn't really feel any different about it after the author 'releasing the poem under CC'. His claim to own the rights in the first place is totally dubious. He seems erratic and will probably go on to perform other stunts and legalistic trolling before he gets bored.