What, I'm saying he probably felt good with the deal when the first game came out.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
CD Projekt: Demand for payment by Sapkowski 'groundless'
- Thread starter AlexxKidd
- Start date
What, I'm saying he probably felt good with the deal when the first game came out.
It's not an "I got mine" situation, it's a situation where he chose not to risk the video games failing, and the company chose to make a huge gamble (with money they really couldn't afford at the time) that they wouldn't fail. Then the video game company made games so good that they improved the value of the underlying IP. In what way should the author be awarded for his lack of risk-taking and for someone else improving his IP?
User Banned (1 month): Inflammatory false equivalencies and downplaying sexual assault
I think most people isnt criticizing the fact that he took the cash and not the royalties..probably neeeded the money..didnt have faith..whatever a mistake is a mistake we all make mistakes.
The fact that he is coming after 20 years asking for money even though he benefited directly by the success of the game (explosion in book sales , netflix deal etc). Thats what makes people angry.
And its not so simple as to OHHH POOR OLD MAN. give him a bone... cause that shit will make a LEGAL PRECEDENT.
its like all those men/woman who agree for a sum and when they runout of money they come crying for more.
Example: the CR7 case we are seeing in the news now.
Except this is not that. He was offered a royalty deal and he refused it. It's not as if he asked for it and they said no. They offered him, essentially, a piece of the game's success and he turned it down only to ask for it a decade+ later? It is not a valid argument, it is someone being sour over making a stupid business decision. Period. CDPR didn't take advantage of him, they made awesome content off of a property that was licenses to them. All above board. They own him nothing.
As I said earlier, if they want to contract with him to create new content and structure a new deal around that, then great! That would be a nice thing to do. But they owe him absolutely nothing regarding the original licensing deal.
Your ability to understand or not understand it doesn't change the law though.
They cited both Article 43 and Article 44 of Polish copyright law, FYI, they read as follows:
Article 43.
1. If the contract does not indicate whether the transfer of author's economic rights or the granting of license was free of charge, the author shall have the right to remuneration.
2. If the contract does not specify the amount of the author's remuneration, such remuneration shall be set taking into account the scope of the right granted and the benefits arising from the use of the work.
Article 44.
In the event of a gross discrepancy between the remuneration of the author and the benefits of the acquirer of author's economic rights or the licensee, the author may request that the court should duly increase his remuneration.
Everyone is saying he made a contract, he needs to stick with it, but the laws of the land are an inherent part of any contract, so by proxy CDPR signed a deal allowing Sapkowski to do exactly this. He is well within his rights, and given that the remuneration discrepancy is particularly massive he might have a good chance of winning.
Would the repercussions of that have an impact on future IP licensing in Poland? Probably. But that isn't Sapkowski's problem and unless it gets pushed up to the Polish equivalent of a Supreme Court no judge should be hearing the case under those conditions.
He has every legal right, within the contract he signed, to request an increase.
You hope a shitty deal maker gets rewarded for making a shitty deal?
And that would hold true if the option for remuneration was never offered, discussed, or mis-represented by CDPR. It was offered to him, he publicly stated that he had no faith they would ever be successful with the product, demanded the asking price in cash, up front, and now wants to walk that back. Again, this is not a case where he was taken advantage of, his IP was not stolen, it was not used outside the letter of their contract, etc. If the company tanked, do you think he would have returned any of the money he was paid? No.
"They offered me a percentage of their profits. I said, 'No, there will be no profit at all - give me all my money right now. The whole amount," he explained in a Eurogamer interview."
Any court that would have this presented to them should throw it straight out the window.
Article 44 says nothing about the licensee taking advantage of the author, simply that if there is a gross discrepancy the author may request that the court should increase his remuneration.
His refusal of a deal that would, in hindsight, have been more equitable might be part of the deliberation but it doesn't void his ability to pursue remuneration via article 44.
And again, it could easily be argued that Sapkowski took the straight cash option with the implicit ability to pursue further compensation through this means should the deal prove aprticularly lopsided. This isn't new legislation that he's using. This was law passed in 1994. The first game didn't release until 2007 and CDPR was started in 1994, after this law was passed from the looks of it.
Maybe neither party was aware of it at the time but this was part and parcel of their agreement. CDPR can now make a case as to how he was compensated as he desired at the time and beyond use of the source material (what they paid for then) that Sapkowski contributed no additional value to the projects. They can also argue that he refused what would, in hindsight, have been more equitable remuneration. They have a good case to push back. But Sapkowski's claim is far from groundless.
1. there is nothing in the law that says his refusal of an alternative form of payment invalidates his ability to file suit under Article 44.
2. No court should throw it out. That is what happens when a case lacks validity, which there is no evidence to support that conclusion here. They could find in favor of the defendant and settle the matter if the belief is that further remuneration under Article 44 only applies to authors who were not given an option for what, in hindsight, would have been a better deal. That would involve a lot of inference from a judge however.
The reality is likely that this is all just a bargaining chip for both sides. If it goes to trial and Sapkowski wins CDPR will contest but will lose substantial leverage in their attempt to buy the IP from him. Conversely if CDPR wins Sapkowski is likely to challenge as well, but would have far less leverage in selling the IP in its entirety, either to CDPR or a third party.
Last edited:
This is an excellent way to disband any potential buyer and developer of a franchise. An EA-like, for sure.
If that was the case, probably The Witcher would never gain a second game.
The royalites would be the best case for Andrzej, and now it's way past of that.
Thank you for posting this.
I don't care if Sapkowski is a jerk or not, it doesn't matter. He made a bad deal that ended up in "a gross discrepancy". That is it.
I understand these laws are made to protect authors from abuse. But in this case where the author was duly compensated and he refused to be paid more, this law should not apply.
As a Witcher games fan I don't feel bad for the author. He is a bitter old man because he knows most of his work's fame is due to the game, and he hasn't lost a chance to express his rage about that fact.
Anyway, let's see what Polish courts say
About possibly using ideas from the games:
"I will definitely skip any 'alternative ideas'," Sapkowski promised. "It'll come easily to me anyway, as I don't know any of them. And even if I knew, it would be funny and silly were I to write based on the game's suggestions. I suppose I have made myself clear when I said that I will never accept any ideas and concepts of 'complementarity plots' and 'building coherent stories'. A story can only be contained in a book."
From: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...r-of-the-witcher-books-thinks-about-the-games
"A video game serves a different purpose," Sapkowski says. "It works differently. How much substance can there be in the lines of text when the hero walks through the woods and talks to a squirrel? Where's the literature in that? Where's the room for depth or sophisticated language with which games could elevate culture? There's none."
From: https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-games-andrzej-sapkowski-profits
He thought games were stupid, had done ever since shooting Martians on an old console plugged into a TV. "OK let's play cards or let's drink vodka," he said back then, "but killing Martians is stupid. And my standpoint stands: it is stupid."
From: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-sapkowski-the-writer-who-created-the-witcher
There are even more in those articles if you read them.
Like I said, all of that has been acknowledged by him and his lawyers and yes, when I said "raw deal" I definitely meant in hindsight. A man of foresight he is not.
This is the part that gets me. CDPR took a huge risk, and they almost lost their studio making these games. It's hard for a business just getting started. They made a bet on their talent and hard work and they won in the end.
So again, please provide proof that he's a "bitter old man", that "most of his works' fame is due to the game" and that "he hasn't lost a chance to express his rage".
CDPR didn't go looking to license a complete nobody author's work out of the blue. Sapkowski's books were incredibly successful in Poland specifically but throughout eastern Europe. They had already been optioned into a TV series at that time. English translation rights had already been acquired if I recall at that point. It was already a success and it could easily be argued that the only reason CDPR didn't go bankrupt after the troubled development of the first game was the inherent selling power in their home region that Sapkowski's books gave them.
The Witcher 3 has exploded the popularity of the IP just recently, but up until the last several years you could easily argue that had it not been for the support of people who were fans of the books first CDPR wouldn't have survived long enough to make The Witcher 2, let alone The Witcher 3.
So not liking video games and not accepting a licensed work as canon is somehow him viewing games as "the lowest of the low"?
He doesn't get the art form. So what? He's enver actively worked to denigrate CDPR's games or undercut their sales. He makes it very clear that they, like almost all licensed adaptations of a prior work, are non-canon and that he, personally, doesn't enjoy video games.
Wow, what an asshole, right?
Gamers sure are a sensitive lot when it comes to seeing games as "art" and respecting their head canon.
This clause is somewhat problematic, but I think that if the court somehow agrees with Sapkowski and interprets it literally like this, it's going to immediately* get nuked or neutered on the very same grounds. Otherwise CDPR and the likes will simply sign up as businesses somewhere else in EU.
Oh, I agree he should be able to pursue, absolutely. However, given his attitude, assertion, refusal of an offer, etc. I certainly hope he is not rewarded for that. As for striking a new deal for new content and opening up the royalty floodgates, that would be great! But going for the missed revenue that he was offered and turned down? Horrible precedent to set.
Except that he didn't state that was the case. What he DID say was that he had no faith it would ever be successful and demanded the full asking price upfront. It can be easily argued that he truly believed that there would be no additional revenue at all, so there would be nothing to renegotiate down the road.
He thought games were stupid and made a bad deal. Now that he was proven wrong by the success he wants to use legal action to avoid accountability for making the wrong decision. Sounds like an asshole to me.
I can't wait for your next novel on how we should treat someone who doesn't care about our medium until he sees dollar signs.
Weird that an old guy in Poland, a place that didn't get a ton of translated games until very late in his life wouldn't understand gaming. Poland spent a lot of time behind the Iron Curtain and then it wasn't until the 2000s that anyone could really even afford a luxury item like a video game console or something. Piracy kept big games out and not translated.
What his opinion about games has to do with the license case? He dislike games so what?
Few things here:
Responding to Article 43:
1. The license wasn't free of charge.
From a quick Google Search:
"According to Sebastian Zielinski, former and original head of CDPR, the Polish developer paid for the license over two installments — one of 15000PLN and another of 20000PLN. This translates to (roughly) $9,500 USD of today's money"
2. Author does not get granted remuneration as the license wasn't free. This section becomes invalid.
Responding to Article 44:
"the author may request that the court should duly increase his remuneration"
Few things to this:
1. Author does not get granted remuneration as the license wasn't free. This section becomes invalid.
2. In the event that he DOES get granted remuneration, he can request for an increase, but it doesn't mean that it will get approved.
3. Remuneration is usually a payment for goods/services and not a purchase order or transaction.
From a quick Google Search:
"Remuneration is payment or compensation received for services or employment. This includes base salary and any bonuses or other economic benefits that an employee or executive receives during employment."
So basically:
Most of us hoping for him to get the money he deserves just like to see corporations not getting away with abusing artists.
Wait did he received only money for two installments? Is that right?Few things here:
Responding to Article 43:
1. The license wasn't free of charge.
From a quick Google Search:
"According to Sebastian Zielinski, former and original head of CDPR, the Polish developer paid for the license over two installments — one of 15000PLN and another of 20000PLN. This translates to (roughly) $9,500 USD of today's money"
2. Author does not get granted remuneration as the license wasn't free. This section becomes invalid.
Responding to Article 44:
"the author may request that the court should duly increase his remuneration"
Few things to this:
1. Author does not get granted remuneration as the license wasn't free. This section becomes invalid.
2. In the event that he DOES get granted remuneration, he can request for an increase, but it doesn't mean that it will get approved.
3. Remuneration is usually a payment for goods/services and not a purchase order or transaction.
From a quick Google Search:
"Remuneration is payment or compensation received for services or employment. This includes base salary and any bonuses or other economic benefits that an employee or executive receives during employment."
So basically:
Residuals should always be up for negotiation depending on the value of the IP. I like the Polish law here, and hope Sapkowski is given a chance to renegotiate. I know people paint CDPR as the saints of the gaming industry, but they're being pretty unreasonable here considering the Polish law.
If he wants to piss his Netflix fees up the wall by spending it on lawyers so be it. Hope CD Projekt wipe the floor with him.
I'm more surprise others countries didn't have license renegotiation if it become too big.
Lawyers probably take part of the money if he win the case.
At least it is how most cases works here.
No they paid him the agreed upon amount for the license over two installments. They offered him royalties but he refused.
Basically he screwed himself over and now that it's a massive series, he wants his monies, which he can't get anymore due to his massive goof.
So the The Witcher 3 is not licensed?
If he only received money for two installments then CDPR will really lose this case.
He wasn't abused. He was paid. Hell they tried to give him what he wants now before twice. The man has been nothing but dismissive for the most part about the games and the studio. They've tried to work with him. This is on him. He has no one to fault but himself. He's been able to get increased sales, a netflix deal and who knows what else in the future. He literally is the bitter old man who yells at clouds.
How is that determined, though? Is it simply a matter of what CDPR has made, or is it based on a fair assessment at the time of the agreement?
That's crucial, because it wouldn't be difficult to argue that CDPR has enriched the entire IP across media through their own efforts, rather than the other way around. If their work improves the bankability of the IP are they then liable for that?
You're getting payment installments and game installments mixed up.
Think of "installments" as those "AS SEEN ON TV" ads: "you make this purchase for 2 easy installments of 29.99!" *insert mitch hedburg joke*
Not "Here is Witcher 3, the third installment of the Witcher Franchise"
well, I doubt his lawyer would waste his time and work unless he knew there was a chance of getting money out of CD project.
Maybe he is hoping they would settle to avoid legal fees and hassle?
Maybe he is hoping they would settle to avoid legal fees and hassle?
I think he respects the books, but he fails to admit the video games helped him out. He thinks the video games lost him book sales. Frankly, he's speaking some real fucking bullshit. CDPR should be grateful he was willing to sell franchise rights to the videogames, he should be grateful a studio like CDPR made a great videogame universe leading to more gamers picking up his books and publishers adapting his books for western release.
"The belief, widely spread by CDPR, that the games made me popular outside of Poland is completely false," Sapkowski told Waypoint of The Witcher series.
"I made the games popular. All of my translations in the West – including the English one – were published before the first game."
This is just – factually incorrect? The Witcher released globally on PC in October 2006. The first Witcher book released in English was The Last Wish, which arrived in 2007, and the first novel, Blood of Elves, wasn't published in English until 2008.
The author has said in the past that The Witcher games have lost him as many book sales as it brought in, and asked about this maintained that it "would be about equal, yes".
"There are more people who have played the games because they read the books," he added. "That's my count, but I'm not sure. I never did any studies."
Throughout the interview Sapkowski has little good to say about video games, freely admitting he's only in it for the money, and claiming that games are spoiling his "market" because all the authors he meets are younger than he is and think he writes adaptations of video games. Or something? It's not entirely clear.
What is clear is that Metro author Dmitry Glukhovsky thinks Sapkowski is not only "totally wrong" but also an "arrogant motherfucker", because he says that flat out.
Glukhovsky, who credits his fame outside Eastern Europe to 4A Games and the Metro series, has only ever had good things to say about working with games. He also managed to balance collaborating with 4A Games to shape the overall franchise story with bowing to the developer's expertise with the strengths of the medium, as opposed to Sapkowski's approach of taking the money and running.
https://www.vg247.com/2017/04/19/th...metro-2033-author-says-this-is-totally-wrong/
https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/art...the-authors-behind-the-witcher-and-metro-2033
Abusing an artist? Lmao. Sapkowski made the deal, he can deal with the consequences. Why should he be compensated for his stupidity?
Yeah, except in 2000 CDPR was a tiny indie studio which almost went bankrupt after Sapkowski refused royalties and wanted one time payment of $9,500 instead. That was a lot of money for Poland in 2000. He even refused to renegotiate the contract post Witcher 1 launch.
But you haven't bothered reading anything about the case, so sure, down with corporate overlords.
Eh, I'm on CDPRs side on this. They made a deal for licensing when he had the cards in his hand. He seems to have a legal avenue in Poland I guess, but it's like now that they're successful I want more. But it's not like the novels he wrote didn't see more popularity due to the games. So he still gained something.
But at the time it wasn't a bad deal, and there was no gross discrepancy. He wasn't taken advantage of by CDPR, the reverse in fact, the IP just wasn't very valuable at the time. It was very likely that the games woudn't succeed, and he decided to take the down payment rather than take a risk. Then his IP became more valuable *because* of the games, and it took years and three games to reach that level of value.
I could be remembering wrong, but as I understood it, the royalty deal CDPR wanted would have only been for the first game, but since he demanded money they really couldn't afford, they changed the deal to be the complete video game rights.
I just want to see artists get the money they deserve for their work. That's all.