Possible Greenwood reprint.....

[ilweran]

Anyone else read this interview with Mark Ryan?

 

Not that I'm getting my hopes up. If it were straightforward it would already have happened as it has with the Celtic Shaman pack, so I assume the question of who owns the rights to the Greenwood art is maybe not clear cut.

[FLizarraga]

Oh, dear. This is the proverbial can of worms.

 

He says something that’s definitely NOT true, though. He speaks about a lady that’s “selling” the Greenwood and Chesca’s text on her website. The lady in question, who is probably also a member of this forum, has never “sold” anything: she has made them freely available —with Chesca’s blessing, by the way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilweran]

Yes, I saw that and wondered if he meant who I thought he meant because as you say she isn't selling anything.

 

I suspect nothing will come of it. I also suspect (and to really emphasise it, this is pure speculation) that if he went ahead it would have to be self published as I don't think any publisher would take the legal risk. If they were confident over the rights issue I think we'd have had a second edition of the Greenwood rather than the Wildwood.

 

Anyway, a fairly thorough googling doesn't show up any other mention or any further info.

 

I'd love a 2nd edition,  but if I wasn't confident about the legal/moral situation I think I'd have to pass on it.

[Rose Lalonde]

Yes, what FLizzaraga said, especially the can of worms.

 

He says, "I am the only functioning owner of the rights to 'Greenwood Tarot'," and calls for Chesca Potter or "anybody that’s got any issues" (regarding his plan to possibly reprint it himself) to get in touch with him. If he means functioning as in he's the only one available to contact so he's making the decision, I didn't think the law looked at copyright that way?

 

He says she struggled with some cards so he drew them out for her, and then she based her artwork on that and, "As far as I'm concerned, I had a lot of input, intellectual input into the actual physical manifestation of the cards. I believe I have the rights."

 

I have zero idea of how that all went down between them other than what he's said, but the phrases "as far as I'm concerned" and "I believe" seem like red flags. There must be some actual copyright info in print that's more concrete than that.  (Which is probably why, as you said, ilweran, we don't have a second Greenwood out from a publisher.)

[Wanderer]

Agree with this... I have a lot of concerns, and surely copyright law is really not that ambiguous. Where the copyright belongs to multiple parties, my (fuzzy) understanding is that all have to agree before action can be taken. This may mean that Chesca shouldn't have given permission on her own for the free download, but it also means that Mark can't republish without her consent. How many worms can fit into this can, I wonder..?

 

Personally, I prefer Chesca's attitude, but that's beside the point in a legal sense. I wouldn't hold my breath on this reprint coming out, though...  :-\

[Rose Lalonde]

I remember on AT it being pointed out that the images for personal use were shared without titles on them, because Chesca Potter could only give her permission for the art, not the words on the cards. Because of that I assumed at the time that legally she had full copyright ownership of the images, and he had full copyright ownership of the words/book, but now I'm thinking I wish I could see something official with an actual copyright symbol on it.

[ilweran]

Just checked my copy. It says © Mark Ryan and Chesca Potter 1996 in the book and I can't see any other © anywhere else.

 

ETA just checked the original Celtic Shaman's Pack. That has © John Matthews and Chesca Potter 1995, and obviously that has been reprinted. How curious.

[Rose Lalonde]

Thanks, ilweran[/member] !

[DanielJUK]

I've emailed the person involved to let them know about the existence of this thread :)

[EmpyreanKnight]

Thanks for the heads up guys! I thought this thread would bear good tidings, but that detail left a bitter aftertaste. Still, I made certain arrangements to prepare for possible eventualities.

 

Also, GJ at being proactive, Daniel. :)

 

 

[FLizarraga]

I've emailed the person involved to let them know about the existence of this thread :)

 

Well done, Daniel!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RavenOfSummer]

Wow, so I had no idea Mark Ryan (Greenwood and Wildwood co-creator) is a well-known actor? I recognize him from the show Black Sails: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0752699/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm

 

 

[CherryNukaCola]

Yeah, his reasoning for owning rights to the artwork is 100% nonsense. Unless Ms Potter has signed over the rights to him, it still rests with her. It sounds like he's going to do a reprint regardless, unless Ms Potter stops him through legal channels, which I doubt she will want to, given how hands off she's been with the deck.

 

There *are* people out there selling bootleg Greenwoods as originals at extortionate prices and I wouldn't be sorry to see them shut down, but the idea of him fraudulently taking credit for her artwork makes my teeth grind (and frankly, is illuminating as to why he has had no contact from Ms Potter all these years).

[ilweran]

Maybe he's trying to push her to get in touch. It did seem like he was challenging her to get in touch.

 

I wonder if the reprint of the Celtic Shaman's Pack has changed his view?  I mean, as far as we know Chesca Potter seems to have cut all ties with that part of her life so probably wasn't consulted.

[gregory]

I remember on AT it being pointed out that the images for personal use were shared without titles on them, because Chesca Potter could only give her permission for the art, not the words on the cards. Because of that I assumed at the time that legally she had full copyright ownership of the images, and he had full copyright ownership of the words/book, but now I'm thinking I wish I could see something official with an actual copyright symbol on it.

Yeah, his reasoning for owning rights to the artwork is 100% nonsense. Unless Ms Potter has signed over the rights to him, it still rests with her. It sounds like he's going to do a reprint regardless, unless Ms Potter stops him through legal channels, which I doubt she will want to, given how hands off she's been with the deck.

 

There *are* people out there selling bootleg Greenwoods as originals at extortionate prices and I wouldn't be sorry to see them shut down, but the idea of him fraudulently taking credit for her artwork makes my teeth grind (and frankly, is illuminating as to why he has had no contact from Ms Potter all these years).

She has copyright to the artwork; he has NO right to reprint it. She does not have the right to print it herself with titles as that was part of the joint project.. That's why she allowed everyone to download it with no titles. Her reasoning for pulling the artwork, as I understand it, was that Mark Ryan wrote a book for it that she totally disapproved of. Give the very sloppy book he then wrote for the Wildwood - with major misdescriptions of the cards, based on Greenwood images rather than Wildwood cards, I have little interest in anything he puts out.

 

As I recall it says somewhere on the original "ARTWORK copyright Chesca Potter."

 

I certainly hope any publisher realises what a can of worms this is, and doesn't play ball.

[ilweran]

I think the last sentence there is very likely to be true!

 

Didn't know that about the GW book. Or the Wildwood book - I got very cross with that deck when I saw what had been done to the GWs beautiful Strength card and so never read the book.

 

I found the WW was quite disappointing all round really  :(

 

eta - oh and hello gregory good to see you here! When I found AT had gone you were one of the posters I immediately missed  ;D

[Wanderer]

To be fair to the Wildwood, it's a totally different deck to the Greenwood, and many cards are not just redrawn, but completely different - it's a reimagining of the woodland mythos, rather than a modification of the GW. Personally, I actually find it much stronger than what I've seen of the GW imagery (it takes all sorts!), although I've not had a chance to use the GW so don't know how the readings work. Yes, the WW book is imperfectly written... but this is only ever a starting point for us; it's how the deck interacts with us personally that really matters.

 

What I'm trying to say is not to let distaste at peoples' actions influence opinion of a deck. By all means dislike it, but make sure you're doing so for the right reasons; I don't know if popular negativity can make a deck go 'sour', but don't want to find out!  ;)

[ilweran]

You do have a point. They are different decks using the same system, and there are many cards in the WW that I do like.

 

I think there may have a problem with expectations for the deck. I love the GW and as you say the WW is not the GW, but it's perhaps not surprising that when people found out about the WW what they were expecting was informed by the hype and mythology surrounding the GW.

[Wanderer]

Yes, it was really marketed as a successor to Greenwood, which in some ways it isn't... I suspect that was a marketing decision, and wasn't helpful to anyone who wasn't making a profit from it. Best to take each as they are, methinks. And I do hope that something can be worked out between Chesca and Mark to allow a viable re-release of GW, as I'd definitely like to try it. 

[ilweran]

I'd quite like some more decks using the same system. It's not going to turn into a RWS-situation, but if a handful of people over the years created GW/WW type decks I think it would be a nice legacy for the GW.

[gregory]

eta - oh and hello gregory good to see you here! When I found AT had gone you were one of the posters I immediately missed  ;D

How nice of you ! I've been here since day one ! It's THE best of the new forums.

 

To be fair to the Wildwood, it's a totally different deck to the Greenwood, and many cards are not just redrawn, but completely different - it's a reimagining of the woodland mythos, rather than a modification of the GW. Personally, I actually find it much stronger than what I've seen of the GW imagery (it takes all sorts!), although I've not had a chance to use the GW so don't know how the readings work. Yes, the WW book is imperfectly written... but this is only ever a starting point for us; it's how the deck interacts with us personally that really matters.

 

What I'm trying to say is not to let distaste at peoples' actions influence opinion of a deck. By all means dislike it, but make sure you're doing so for the right reasons; I don't know if popular negativity can make a deck go 'sour', but don't want to find out!  ;)

Sure - but Mark tried VERY hard to "sell it" as a revamped Greenwood - which it very much isn't - and the book is so VERY bad...

 

To quote myself from ages ago when it came out:

 

Take a look at the Archer, for perhaps the most startling example. A very bad decision there; they should have written a book for the deck. The book makes no sense along with the Wildwood cards - which are nice cards, and very readable but, used along with the book, more than a little confusing !

 

The book says the Archer "looks beyond the arrow into the sky". But she isn't looking upwards at all

 

so this is probably just copied from the Greenwood book - in that deck she is indeed aiming upwards. The whole thing was a rather sloppy attempt by Mark to try and get back the kudos (and MONEY !)  he got (as a result of working with Chesca Potter) for the Greenwood. It's a nice deck; I actually like the art work (which of course was not down to Mark Ryan...)  - but the whole enterprise was shoddy and the book is really bad - given the very obvious mistakes like Archer, you can't help wondering how much more rubbish there is that you miss....

[PathWalker]

Having once compared the two books, it seemed to me to be just a reprint, with a bit more in the intro section added on  :(

It tried to be a "moved on" version of Greenwood, because of the cachet of that deck, and failed miserably. And then it sullied the waters around itself, by trying to be something it wasn't, and is probably in the long term a less successful deck than it might have been iff they hadn't tried to hitch it to the Greenwood wagon.

 

If the copyright of the artwork remain with Chesca Potter, as we all believe, then he would indeed have no right to reprint without her permission - BUT I think she would have to actively object and prosecute her case. Pirate decks (which is could be said it would then be) succeed if the copyright owners don't act swiftly and extensively to shut them down. Perhaps he hopes she won't object, because to do so would "bring her out" so to speak? Or he could then try and make a deal with her?

 

It's very sad, and rather unsavory I think.

PathWalker

[gregory]

Exactly. The campaign to bring her out has been going on for years and really is peculiarly unpleasant.

[ilweran]

Perhaps he hopes she won't object, because to do so would "bring her out" so to speak? Or he could then try and make a deal with her?

 

Well as I said, in that interview it almost seems like he's challenging her to come forward and object...

 

Thing is, if he does reprint it will sell, just like the pirated copies sell.

 

How nice of you ! I've been here since day one ! It's THE best of the new forums.

 

That's ok  ;D  It is rather lovely here!

[gregory]

I'd like to think she would get a lawyer to fight her corner against him, and manage to stay out of sight.

 

I wish I thought Mark Ryan would want to hide some day and people would systematically try to out him everywhere...