[jesterman]

There definitely was, as they mentioned in the article. They choose not to though, opting instead to just sit on it for a long time I guess? Hopefully they talked to a lawyer before releasing this though, and hopefully Microsoft doesn’t go after this guy.

[krisoft]

> hopefully Microsoft doesn’t go after this guy

Let’s not spread FUD, what would they go after for this guy and why?

[xmprt]

They had a long conversation over email and an exchange of payment for the right to at least use the poem. Whether you like it or not, that can count as a contract. It might be different in different jurisdictions but here's the US definition of a contract (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract):

> The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.

[krisoft]

> They had a long conversation over email and an exchange of payment for the right to at least use the poem.

I agree with that.

This would be a real encumberance if the author were to decide he wants to sue someone. But that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing if Microsoft will sue the author.

We are not discussing if Microsoft can sue him. The way this works anyone can sue anyone for pretty much any reason. So that is not an interesting question.

So will they sue? The problem with these kind of informal contracts is that they are vague. Vague in practical terms means two things: 1 the outcome of any legal action is uncertain. 2 things take longer. This means that litigating things about them are expensive and uncertain.

And here I repeat: the question here is not if they can use it, but if they paid for exclusive rights.

So on one hand you have a huge mess of a litigation. On an other hand do you think microsoft is meaningfully and perceptibly harmed here? Do you think they will sell less game licences or ender dragon plushies because of this? I very much doubt it.

Based on the balance of these two above do you feel it is in the best interest of Microsoft to sue the author?

[xmprt]

That's a fair point. I think I was looking at it from the other perspective where the author was claiming that he had never approved a contract with Mojang and therefore deserved additional compensation which is pretty far from true. But I agree that Microsoft probably doesn't have a strong case here either and wouldn't gain anything from suing anyway.

[tsak]

Also the guy was living in Germany at the time so German laws apply which are different in regards to copyright.

[yownie]

that still doesnt get them perpetual rights nor ownership

[rippercushions]

It would not be too hard for Microsoft to argue that they did come to an agreement with the artist to transfer the rights in exchange for 20,000 euros, so they do now own the copyright to the End Poem and will sue for damages if the artist reneges on the deal and starts claiming it's public domain.

I hope they don't, but they definitely could. It would be a PR nightmare though, and there's not all much to be gained either (how much money can you make with the poem if you can't mention Minecraft?), so with any luck that will stop them.

[yownie]

without a contract how do you propose they could do that?

[rippercushions]

For legal purposes, verbal agreements can be contracts, plus here there's an email trail that includes what very much looks like an acceptance of terms by the author.