Cards Against Filipinos BULLSHIT
Let’s start off with a couple of points, shall we?
1) We’re Filipinos who fucking love Cards Against Humanity. That shit’s fun.
2) We don’t hate Cards Against Filipinos. The cards are okay. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but okay.
3) We just think the “creator” of CAF is an idiot for refusing to be held accountable for blatant IPR infringement.
LET ME ELABORATE.
Right off the bat, he calls himself the creator of Cards Against Filipinos. I don’t know about you, but that sounds a lot like claiming “I made this thing.” So basically, he’s the mastermind behind CAF (give or take some contributions from other folks, of course).
Next, the part where he claims he has express permission from the CAH creators - yet can’t provide screencaps of emails or contract PDFs as proof of this. Spoiler alert: a bunch of us emailed CAH and the reply has been more or less the same: “We didn’t give permission for this.”
He also mentions “I worked with Gaming Library to get that permission, since they are the sole distributors of CAH in the country.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but last time I checked, distributorship has NOTHING to do with licensing.
“I’m releasing everything FOR FREE… unless people want to donate” In response to that statement, I would like to present this:
Alright, it’s in production and he’s selling it! Php is Philippine Pesos, with a conversion rate that fluctuates between 45 to 50 pesos to $1. That’s roughly $47 right there. The original Cards Against Humanity is being sold at $25. That’s a pretty big jump between the cost of CAH and CAF. $47 is an even bigger jump from “FREE.”
The “our country might not have a thriving indie gaming industry any time soon” bit was a nice touch. Also in the photo: The “creator” states once again that they have “express permission from the original creators” under a CC-by-NC-SA 2.0 license.
Stop trying to be a special snowflake, man. The CC-by-NC_SA 2.0 license is right there in plain text on their website. You didn’t get any extra attention showered on you by CAH. Again, I’d like to see proof of this “express” permission you’ve been granted. You should have already anticipated that some people would use their critical thinking skills and ask for proof - which you can’t seem to provide.
I’d like to highlight that they state it right there: “… you can use, remix, and share the game FOR FREE, but you can’t sell it without our permission.”
Oh, and it looks like the International Editions are also included in this screencap! Where’s the Philippines edition? Not there? Yep, no endorsement at all from CAH, boo-freaking-hoo.
Sent a screencap of his cousin’s sales post for CAF in a university trading group in Facebook, and this is the answer I got. I’d just like to repeat: “WE HAVEN’T GIVEN PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE” (capitalization mine)
Someone else in the trade group brought up CAH’s denial of having given any permission to distribute, and I believe they also brought it up with the “creator” of CAF.
The “creator” responded with this post (It’s a long read, we’ll wait. Or you can skip to the TL;DR after these four screencaps)
In case you didn’t bother reading, TL;DR he’s twisting legal jargon to suit his purposes. Of course people are too lazy to check if it’s legit.
First off, what rights? Permission to produce and distribute with monetary compensation is NOT your right. And once again he mentions that danged license!
CC-by-NC-SA 2.0 <<<< WHAT IS THIS SHIT ANYWAY?
Here’s a handy link! On that page you will find the terms and conditions of the license, like how you’re supposed to credit the original “but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.” Oops?
Oh, and let’s not forget, he also highlighted that he’s not selling this stuff for commercial purposes! Some people seem to keep ragging on him because they think this counts as COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION. Let’s break that down, shall we?
Commercial - money-oriented; for profit
Distribution - making a product or service available to consumers
So… did money change hands, and did he provide a product to people? I think that’s a YES. Doesn’t matter if you didn’t profit much, the point is you still had enough extra to “give alms to street children.” That still counts as a profit, what you decided to do with it doesn’t matter, and doesn’t cancel out the fact that you made extra, above printing costs. Don’t use a sob story to try to cover up your (really stupid) mistakes.
Oh, and he mentioned Apples to Apples.
Friends did mention how technically CAH copied Apples to Apples’ concept. Thing is, you can’t patent GAMEPLAY. Why do you think we have Tycoon and Millionaire’s Game, which operate on the same gameplay as Monopoly? I like how redditor BolshevikMuppet explains it: “The only way a trademark suit works is if someone used your trademark or trade dress in such a way as someone could buy their work believing it was your product.” Trade dress refers to the visual appearance of a product. I don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that it looks nearly identical to the Cards Against Humanity decks. Add to that the fact that he keeps claiming that he has express permission (when the CAH email response indicates otherwise), and people are being deceived into thinking it’s a CAH product. See, no one’s going to pick up a CAH deck and think “hey cool, Apples to Apples!” But they can pick up a CAF deck and mistake it for a CAH deck. Hmmmm smells like a trademark suit, at the very least.
[X] violate “credit the original but not in a way that makes it appear that they endorse your use” [X] trade dress EXTREMELY similar, if not identical [X] emails from CAH denying having given any permission
Seriously, man. Backpedal juuust a little harder.
“Let the hilarity continue” - CAF “Creator” Martin Callanta
——–
UPDATE 04.13.16
I consider this low. Don’t hide behind “charitable acts.” You made a mistake, now be accountable for it. Also, nice shameless pity party/self-promotion.
If charitable acts were your actual intention, then why couldn’t you be bothered to obtain permission PROPERLY and LEGITIMATELY? I still call bullshit. I actually do hope you can prove us wrong, cynical as this blog may sound.
Also, you’ve confessed right there that you’ve actually made money off this. That is considered a profit. What was that again about you doing this not for commercial purposes? Hmm.
And damn son, you’re sloppy with money if your “charity work” nearly prevented you from delivering a product that people already paid for.
——–
UPDATE 2 - 04.13.16
Didn’t think I’d have to update twice in a day.
I’d like to highlight: “Malakas ang kalaban.”
Roughly translated, that means “The opponent is strong.” Man, if your “opponent” is a bunch of people who know how to fact-check Creative Commons license stipulations/limitations via Google, maybe it’s time to realize that you’ve sunk pretty low? I don’t know, I’m just making observations here.
Also, your true opponent is the law on Creative Commons licenses. Maybe you shouldn’t have gone up against the law in the first place?
Sorry, this just reeks of “And I would’ve gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling kids!” It doesn’t sound like he’s learned his lesson AT ALL. It’s like he doesn’t - or can’t? - comprehend that what he’s done is wrong.
And mind you, no one called him out on distributing the downloadable soft copy. No one told him to take that down. That’s because the soft copy works within the CC-by-NC-SA 2.0 license that he so proudly keeps mentioning. I still think he has no idea what it actually covers, to this day.
——–
Will update whenever new info is available.
