Sapkowski demands CDPR pay him more

[hivemind]

sapkowski never wrote a bad book
cdpr never made a good game

 

[Atchodas]

sapkowski never wrote a bad book
cdpr never made a good game

Meanwhile what you said is technically THE TRUTH

CDPR made mountain of dollar out of their bad games and Sapkowski is a broke beggar

 

[hivemind]

the fate of soulless corporation vs the fate of the starving artistic genius

 

[DJOGamer PT]

 

[S.torch]

They were the biggest video game publisher in the country you dumb fuck.

Compared to what? Other video games publishers in Poland? You can at least name five big names from there in the time that they bought the rights of The Witcher?

 

[Harthwain]

What matters is that CDPR hit a jackpot and this happened on top of Sapkowski's creative work in worldbuilding, character creation and finally his own brand recognition. Especially the latter cannot be discarded, because the Witcher name generated much sales in the broader Central and Eastern Europe region when the first game was released. This mean that Sapkowski's contribution to the overall success was much greater than the $2000 he was paid, even if that was the amount he himself initially demanded. He is therefore in full rights to demand that his remuneration must be increased.

It's not that simple though.

1) If you really want to make an argument that his "name generated much sales in the broader Central and Eastern Europe region when the first game was released", then that would apply for the first game, which was way less popular and made less money than further works. After that the opposite argument is true: people were learning about Sapkowsky's book AFTER they played the games, which - in turn - drove sales of his books up. Besides, Sapkowsky's contribution wasn't all that big. Literally all he did was to give a license. The actual work on the characters (the in-game story, voice-acting, graphic design) is all on CDPR, which lowers Sapkowsky's contribution.

2) The games, made by CDPR, were openly distasted by Sapkowsky, who tried to make an argument that HE was making the games popular, rather than the games were renewing his tarnished popularity. Enough for a TV agreement with Netflix and more translation requests for his books. That would be an argument for the court that Sapkowsky benefited more from the games than he is willing to admit and as such it has to be taken into consideration for any eventual remuneration.

3) The two rules I mentioned in my previous post still apply. Sapkowsky made his decision being fully aware of what he was doing and he openly admitted it. Since he wasn't scammed by CDPR in any way, he's not a victim here and as such he does not have to be protected from his own stupidity by the law. As such it wouldn't be impossible for a judge to decide that Sapkowsky has to live with his decision.

As such his "full rights to demand that his remuneration must be increased" isn't as strong as you make it sound. Yes, he has the right to demand that, but what happens after that is in judge's hands and neither side is sure what's going to happen. That's the major part of why BOTH sides are willing to deal, rather than going directly to the court (that, and saving themselves the time it'd take before any binding rulling would be made).

 

[hivemind]

i hope cdpr sees this, king

 

[Gerrard]

They were the biggest video game publisher in the country you dumb fuck.

Compared to what? Other video games publishers in Poland? You can at least name five big names from there in the time that they bought the rights of The Witcher?

Yeah dude, CDProjekt was a tiny indie company when they started that project. They definitely weren't descendant from one of the biggest companies on the Polish stock market.

 

[Chunkyman]

The origins of contract law long before we had codified legal systems was based on the male concept of honor, and that a man honors his word and keeps what he promises (independent of future developments). Written contracts, and subsequent courts which affirmed them, were merely an extension of that and helped with disputes between parties both for record keeping (so that you can confirm what precisely was promised between the parties), and to enforce people actually keeping their word.

It also of course has basis in Christianity, expressed generally in the form of the Golden Rule (Luke 6:31)
-And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
No one on the whole planet likes it when someone has given you their word and then reneges on what they promised. If you despise it whenever people do that to you, why would you be okay with doing that to them (or empathize with someone who was doing that to someone else)?

If I sell you a house for $50,000 and that's what we agree on, I'm selling you a house for $50,000. The fact that you might turn that into a $5,000,000 mansion, or even some millionaire becomes infatuated with the property and gives you $5,000,000 for it, has no bearing on what it was that I gave my word (written into contract) that I would sell it to you for. If I then go up to you after the fact and start making threats (legal or otherwise) and demanding "my share" of it's current value, all I'm telling you is that I have no honor and my word doesn't mean anything.

All the people commenting on the situation and supporting Sapkowski aren't even really commentating on legal definitions, they're just telling everyone their word doesn't actually mean anything and that you should never, ever do business with them.

 

[Storyfag]

They were the biggest video game publisher in the country you dumb fuck.

Compared to what? Other video games publishers in Poland? You can at least name five big names from there in the time that they bought the rights of The Witcher?

Yeah dude, CDProjekt was a tiny indie company when they started that project. They definitely weren't descendant from one of the biggest companies on the Polish stock market.

At the time of the deal, CD Projekt was not publicly traded. And it was not a descendan of Optimus, if tha is what you think.

 

[S.torch]

Yeah dude, CDProjekt was a tiny indie company when they started that project. They definitely weren't descendant from one of the biggest companies on the Polish stock market.

They weren't indie, but you're trying to make them look like some sort of EA, again.

Besides, what is indie and what is not depends on behaviour more than numbers.

 

[Serus]

You people are all autists, you know that? Who the hell are interest whether an old drunk or a big company will get or not any money. Is Sapkowski your uncle? Do you own large stocks of CDP? CDP will make games and the old drunkard will drink no matter what. All this interest is really weird to me.

 

[Theldaran]

In the end both Sapkowski and CDPR are hugely overrated.

 

[Harthwain]

You people are all autists, you know that? Who the hell are interest whether an old drunk or a big company will get or not any money. Is Sapkowski your uncle? Do you own large stocks of CDP? CDP will make games and the old drunkard will drink no matter what. All this interest is really weird to me.

And yet here you are...

Welcome to our one, big, autistic family, brother.

 

[razvedchiki]

CDRP gave free condom dlc so they are in the right!

 

[Dramart]

His crappy books are popular thanks to the video game, he should be grateful.

 

[thesecret1]

This whole conflict is hilarious. Witcher's setting and story aren't even good - they're mediocre at best, and only because CDPR cut out some of the more cancerous parts of it. It's babby's fist try at politics combined with what's essentially a monster hunter guild. Had CDPR decided to make their own setting with slavic-themed monsters, they would likely be just as successful. Nobody was drawn to play Witcher games because of the setting because nobody fucking knew of it – people were drawn in by getting a different flavour of fantasy (read: fantasy that doesn't copy paste half its shit from Tolkien) and playing a decent high-budget RPG. While Witcher 1 failed to get mainstream appeal, Witcher 2 did better and Witcher 3 had a massive marketing campaign going on to ensure success. At no point was any of this in any part thanks to Sapkowski.

 

[Alphons]

You people are all autists, you know that? Who the hell are interest whether an old drunk or a big company will get or not any money. Is Sapkowski your uncle? Do you own large stocks of CDP? CDP will make games and the old drunkard will drink no matter what. All this interest is really weird to me.

Actually, Sapkowski mentions me in his will for shilling for him on obscure forums.

DAMN CDPR!1!1

 

[Lagole Gon]

They were the biggest video game publisher in the country you dumb fuck.

Compared to what? Other video games publishers in Poland? You can at least name five big names from there in the time that they bought the rights of The Witcher?

Yeah dude, CDProjekt was a tiny indie company when they started that project. They definitely weren't descendant from one of the biggest companies on the Polish stock market.

I'm going to be a nitpicky asshole and say that they were not on stock market yet.
Not really relevant, I'm just feeding my autism.

 

[Gerrard]

Yeah, I got the year wrong, the project was already underway when they were listed.

Jesus Christ, are people seriously whining that law protects the rights of small time creators against a multi-billion corporation?

I can only imagine the epic butthurt if it wasn't the beloved CDPR but EA or Ubisoft buying rights to some obscure books for couple hundred bucks and going on to make billions while the creator doesn't get shit.

You're talking about people who unironically put marxist/anarchist/communist along their pronouns in their Twitter bio.

 

[Lagole Gon]

I like Sapko and I always appreciated his asshole ways - the only proper way of interacting with fans.

But as far as I know he has only himself to blame here. Volenti non fit iniuria. Unless I don't know something.

 

[Darkzone]

[...] If the law says they have to pay up, they have to pay up and opinions of butthurt gamers on the internet doesn't matter.

Does it say that though?
You're forgetting about ratio legis (reason for the law) as well as pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be honored). The whole situation is far less clear than you make it seem so. Sapkowsky could try and make his claim before the court, but the CDPR also had arguments speaking in their favor, which is why Sapkowsky is going to take a deal with CDPR and get a few millions out of it, instead of trying to battle for the whole sum.

So you are are polish contract lawyer. Sapkowski "could try" is a wrong statement if the law explicit says that he is entitled to. Even in USA were they had the least law intervention into contract agreements there were artist who have went to court over such an agreements like in the case of Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel. But Poland is polish and ruled by Poles and they decide how parties and contracts are subjected to the law of their land and it is their moral values that are their basis for their law.

They settled and paid him millions, because they knew that legally he wasn't owed anything.
This is definitely a thing that happens.

They settled because they would lose in a court of law.

They settled, because it's ultimately better for them that way.

If they don't settle, they'll enter into a long fight they don't want to be in for PR reasons alone, and the judge MAY still decide that Sapkowsky should get some allowance.
If they settle now - and for a sum of their choosing - they avoid the whole years-long struggle in the court, they get to shut up Sapkowsky and any of his further claims on the subject and will be seen as "the good guys from CDPR who gave Sapkowsky the money he didn't really deserve" in the eyes of the public opinion, which matters to them more than a few millions they're going to pay.

You have received a retarded tag from me with this statement and i will explain to you why, because up until this you were quite good (not correct).
Settlements are only better for a party, if they settlements spare them costs and time, like costs of the court or cost due to losing the case. And since time is money ...
The damage for the CDPR's PR is null, since nearly all of the people that play their games do not read his books, therefore there is no connection to this artist on a personal level. The next product of the Witcher franchise will take year and people will forget this entire thing in that time.
Also it was CDPR that damaged (not really) their own PR with going public with the demands send from Sapkowski's lawyer and not Sapkowski himself or his lawyers (they tried to keep it covered up). So yes your PR argument is retarded.
For CDPR a court case and the lawyer costs are just peanuts and they could drag it on for years without breaking a sweat, but for Sapkowski this is a very different thing. Lawyers have a high cost and who could pay them better off a billion dollar heavy company or some old fart that recieved $2000 from CDPR?
CDPR could have made a great PR stunt out of it, if they would have published: That due to the recent great accomplishment of their company and they gratefulness towards Sapkowski they honor him as a national treasure by paying him additionally a grateful sum, so that his grandchildren will live a secure life. This could have been made with giving him the check and some hugging and praising his works and lot of cameras. How do you think the public would have reacted to this? CDPR would be in every mouth alone for this and they would have been the good guys with a great relation to Sapkowski and polish nation.
But they didn't, because they were sure to win a court case based on their understanding of contract laws and they made the stupid decision to publish the letter from the Sapkowski's lawyers against their demand. After CDPR's lawyers have checked with the law and the probable reaching out the court by Sapkowski's Layers CDPR knew that they will pay. And so they went for the least costly way and for the settlement, which was probably also the goal of Sapkowski's lawyers, because a court case could go on for years to come.
No company, insurance or bank wants to pay money to others, because they are not welfare enterprises! It is the probable lose at a court that forces them to pay. And if they can drag out the payment out for years then they will.

 

[Stavrophore]

Sapkowski is an alcoholic asshole, who made a bad decision back then, and right now is causing ruckus and badmouthing CDPR to force them to pay. And sadly he won eventually...

 

[Atchodas]

Sapkowski is an alcoholic asshole, who made a bad decision back then, and right now is causing ruckus and badmouthing CDPR to force them to pay. And sadly he won eventually...

These are the times we live in

 

[Gerrard]

Badmouthing thieves, what an asshole.
You people belong in the gas chambers.

CDPR made a bad decision in not having the ability to predict the future and not being aware of the existence of a law that protects artists from Jews who try to fuck artists in the ass.