作者：Rami Ismail

这个发生于不到一周前的故事与许多其它可怕的法律故事一样。

那是游戏开发者大会的第三天，即我刊登本文的两周前。许多独立开发者坐在当地的餐厅吃饭，其中一个人提到了一份他们并不确定的合同。该合同是关于所谓的Game_JAM。我听过这个理念：一个由Polaris所运行的关于game jams的真人秀，这对于所有参与者来说都是一次让人激动的冒险。它不仅能够帮助人们揭秘什么是开发，同时还能够为Polaris的观众呈现游戏开发文化的一个重要部分。这是一个很棒的理念，就像Amnesia Fortnight或Super Game Jam一样，GAME_JAM也对我们的产业具有潜在的帮助。

GAME_JAM是由独立游戏开发社区中一群受欢迎的人（包括管理者，朋友和业务合作者）所组织的，他们具有非常棒的初衷。我的朋友Zoe Quinn（代表作《Depression Quest》），Robin Arnott（《Antichamber》，《Soundself》），Davery Wreden（《史丹利的寓言》）以及我的合作者Adriel Wallick（“Game A Week”，《Rock Band Blitz》）参与了GAME_JAM，所以我将为他们浏览合同。

contract(from gamasutra)

我并不是一名律师。从未如此自称过也不想这么做。我是一名游戏开发者，曾经帮助过独立开发者分析无数合同与协议，所以我会为那些不太精通法律术语的开发者提供帮助。

与独立行业中的所有事物一样，有些人比其他人更了解某些特定的对象，而我们也愿意尽可能地与别人分享自己所知道的内容。许多更精通业务的开发者将会帮助别人去阅读合同。而我只是碰巧认识这个故事中的参与者，所以他们才会找到我。当你阅读了更多法律术语并面对过各种不同规格的公司，你便会开始清楚合同中的一些特定模式，短语和语调。

在饭店里，我花了5分钟的时间去质疑：这份合同太糟糕了。合同中最引人注目的要点包括：

排外性：在GAME_JAM的播出期间，参与者不允许出现在类似的节目或联合的YouTube网站上。

放弃隐私：参与者必须同意放弃除卧室或浴室以外的任何地方的隐私权。这包括在任何区域使用隐藏麦克风或摄像机，包括在“男女共用的住所。”

歪曲的权利：syndicated有权为了达到特别的效果而歪曲开发者，他们的行动以及目的。这并未局限于夸张或捏造的故事。

出差的义务：参与者有义务前往GAME_JAM所要求的某个事件或任何其他推广活动或展会。并且只有路程超过200英里才能报销旅费。

市场营销：参与者需要参与品牌活动，包括但并不局限于“Mountain Dew”。基于此，参与者将需要根据GAME_JAM的需求为展会做广告，并且不允许说任何有关jam，其赞助商或者组织者的坏话。

在阅读GAME_JAM的完整预算时我感到很困惑，即基于40万美元左右的费用，对此我考虑到一个事实，即合同中的一个条款所规定的，开发者如果是在靠近所要求访问的区域时，他们就需要为自己支付旅费。

如果开发者签订了这份合同，那么他们所能获得的收益将不会超过300美元（每个人），这其中还包括了住宿费和返程机票费。参与者并不是想通过GAME_JAM获得金钱或名声，他们之所以来到这里是因为相信自己能够以诚实且多样的方式向世界呈现这个小小的游戏开发文化部分，即使这意味着他们只能喝Mountain Dew，他们也愿意去尝试。

而其它的大多数条款是我们所不能容忍的：许多开发者不能支付200英里内的旅费，大多数这些独立开发者的市场营销是依赖于YouTube的某些部分，参与者太多了，我们还需要考虑开发者的名誉。允许GAME_JAM去歪曲他们的行动和言论将给他们未来的职业生涯造成不良的影响。

这份合同是基于一种特定的语气，即想向你传达这份合同是不会发送给那些不在乎game jams并缺少对参与者的尊重的人。这同样也告诉了你组织者并不期待GAME_JAM创造足够的“戏剧化”，他们觉得能够将这种戏剧化注入其中。

我向一些潜在的参与者解释了事情的严重性。他们对此感到震惊，我们立刻联系了其他参与者，其中的一个人还联系了展会的一个制作人并开始进行协商。我的建议是不要签订合同或任何GAME_JAM所提供的其他法律文件。

当一些开发者开始将朋友和其他人带劲jam中，这群人却也彻底被法律团队所发送的该死的合同所包围着。合同的内容和限制性条款以及参与者需要遵守的一系列要求都让他们倍感惊讶。

这是错误的事。

我通常会告诉独立开发者为每一份合同进行协商，即使它是完全糟糕的。而这是我第一次告诉某些人去撕掉合同走人。这真的是份再糟糕不过的合同，显然这一事件是由人们并未完全掌握的一次制作的零散部分所组成的。对此的重新协商将需要花费数周的时间。我们却没有那么多时间。

我联系了组织中我所认识的一些人，并尝试着去搞清楚事情的真相。我只是想帮助朋友避免糟糕情况的出现，所以我将扮演起最后的解说员或“产业专家”。也许我还可以采用其它的方法去帮助他们，但现在我们需要确保的是没有人会去签订这份合同。

我们转变了策略。因为再过几天活动就要开始了，所以我建议参与者不要签订合同，并提出重新协商合同的请求，以此摆脱一些厚颜无耻的要求。即使未签订合同，他们也仍能参加jam，然后他们将协商条款，以此决定该如何支持GAME_JAM并选择或限制GAME_JAM能够使用的内容。

在花了几天时间从洛杉矶的游戏开发者大会中回过神来后，我飞到了Eurogamer Rezzed，而Adriel仍留在Culver City。我们一直保持着联系，以防任何糟糕情况的发生，并且她也承诺不会在任何情况下签订任何协议，即使重新协商过的合同有所好转。要知道我们是从最糟糕的情况出发，所以任何情况都能算是改善。而我们需要的并不是改善：我们需要一份有效的合同。

参与者发送了重新协议的请求，“团队领导者”在接下来的一天重新协议了一份新合同。在活动开始的前一天他们收到了新合同。

我所担心的是：尽管合同的内容有所好转——即取消了歪曲条款和特定的排外性，但却仍然很糟糕。

我再次建议他们不要签订合同，直到对方将所有条款都修改为可接受的内容。更多的制作人员和你的开发者同伴将开始等待着你作为唯一一个不去签订合同的人，但是这种情况在法律案件中并不重要：如果你写下了自己的名字，这便是你的责任，你需要自己去处理结果。

就像Zoe在一篇完全不相干的文章的第一行所暗示的那样，她便是顶着这种压力并为了获得更棒的条件而努力着。这里没有任何情感力量，并且你知道有一个巨大的制作团队等待着你签下名字。我建议其他开发者坚持立场，不管这么做会造成怎样的消极结果也不要签名。

不管怎样，GAME_JAM的进展并不顺利，不只创造了一场闹剧，它还表现出了歧视妇女，误传消息等行为。有几次我甚至会宁愿自己的直觉是错误的，但事实却不是如此。我收到来自参与者中的3条tweet，其中还包含了#ramiwasright的标签。

我真心为Robin，Davery，Zoe，Adriel以及其他离开GAME_JAM的开发者感到自豪。人类历史上最昂贵的game jam在一天内瞬间崩溃了，而人们之所以能够毫发无损地离开便是因为他们具有一个强大的原则，他们团结在了一起，那些并未签订合同的人可以无需承担合同上的任何法律责任而轻松地离开。

合同是一项严肃的业务，它们可能是积极的也可能是消极的。我喜欢将它们当成是避免人们争论一项愚蠢内容的方法。以下是关于如何面对合同的一些方法：

找到一位合适的律师，如果存在一些选择的话。你有可能找到一个免费提供服务或要求收入分享的律师。在所有的情况中，拥有一个真正的律师能够避免你被一些外行术语所欺骗。

只相信坏的感觉。当提到合同时，请相信你的坏感觉。如果你的直觉告诉你这是不合理的，那就不要签订合同：让有能力核实合同的人，最好是一名真正的律师，帮助你进行分析。如果你觉得一份合同怪怪的，那就不要签字，先找出原因，并与对方协商某些条款。

合同是可协商的。当你收到一份合同时，它的条款通常是对发送人来说最有利的。所以你总是能够协商那些让你觉得有问题的条款。当你在协商时，请指出存在问题的特定条款，并建议对方删除条款，添加其他内容，进行改写或作出更详细的说明。

字里行间具有漏洞。如果合同不存在最终期限，那便不存在最终期限。如果合同提到了“所有和任何”，它便意味着“所有和任何”。如果合同说道你必须为了“Mountain Dew或附属公司”参加“品牌活动”，你便等同于签下一份强迫自己使用百事公司的降落伞去跳伞的合同。

要求尽可能多的定义。什么是品牌活动？什么是附属公司？你需要参与这项“活动”多久？在记录了最初的展会后你是否仍需要做这些事？询问任何可能的问题并确保对方能够改写合同，直至你不会被迫做任何自己不想做的事。

没有人真正理解法律术语。我们所谈论的是由那些接受过将近10年专业教育并面对着最严厉的职业准入门槛的人所编写的内容。如果任何文字表达并不清楚，那就要求对方修改为你能够理解的内容。要求对方解释你并不理解的法律术语是合理的，但是如果你要签订一份自己完全不懂的协议，我也只能摊手。

在签订合同后你就只有遵守的义务。那时候就不存在时间表和最大的校订数。如果对方抱怨你花了太长时间或催促你赶紧签协议，你需要提醒对方你没有义务快速签下协议。你并不需要马上签字。你可以要求将合同带回家或由律师顾问全权负责。签下名字就意味着你将与合同的条框束缚在一起—-当然你就必须遵守它们的快节奏需求。

你大可以选择离开。不签名总比签下一下糟糕的协议好。

GAME_JAM结束了，这对于我们中的所有人来说都是个重要的经验教训。开发者需要团结起来，我们想看到的是彼此都能获得成功。我们希望新人也能够够加入进来，我们想要教育并分享知识。现实是在我们所能控制的范围之外，但情况却并不总是如此。我很高兴所有人都能脱险。

虽然合同是一种有用的工具，但是它们却也非常危险。我们必须谨慎地对待它们，如果你并不完全确定自己所面对的内容，请大胆地求助别人。

现在，我可以说Super Game Jam是对于游戏开发和game jam是最佳理解。我们不能忘记，至少GAME_JAM的初衷是好的。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

A warning about contracts from the sidelines of the most expensive gamejam in history

by Rami Ismail

As any terrible legal story starts, this one starts not much longer than a week ago.

It’s the third day of  the Game Developers Conference, almost two weeks ago when I’m posting this. A bunch of independent developers are sitting in a local restaurant having a meal, and one of them is mentioning a contract that they’re unsure about. The contract is for something called GAME_JAM. I had been told about the idea: a Polaris-run reality show about game jams, an exciting venture for everybody involved. Not only will it help demystify development a bit more, it will expose the massive audiences of Polaris to an important part of gamedev culture. It’s an exciting idea, and like Amnesia Fortnight or Super Game Jam, GAME_JAM has tremendous potential to do good for our scene.

GAME_JAM is being organized by a group of well-liked people in and around the independent game development community – curators, friends and business partners – and the premise is great. Involved in GAME_JAM as participants are my friends Zo? Quinn (Depression Quest), Robin Arnott (Antichamber, Soundself), Davey Wreden (The Stanley Parable) and my partner, Adriel Wallick (Game A Week, Rock Band Blitz), so I offer to read the contract for them.

I am not a lawyer. Never claimed to be, never wanted to be either. I am a game developer that has assisted independent developers with hundreds of contracts and negotiations, and I try to advise developers that are less versed in legalese.

Like everything in the indie scene, some people know more about certain subjects than others and we try and share and broadcast that knowledge as much as we can. A lot of the more business-savvy developers help out with reading contracts. I just happened to know everybody involved in this story, so they came to me. As you read more legalese, and deal with more companies of varying sizes, you start to recognize certain patterns, phrases and tones in contracts.

In the restaurant, five minutes of my life are spent in disbelief: the contract is awful. The most striking points in the contract include:

Exclusivity: participants were not allowed to appear on similar shows or syndicated YouTube networks for the full duration of the main broadcast timeframe for GAME_JAM.

Waiver of privacy: participants had to agree to waive all rights to privacy in any area that is not the bedroom or bathroom. This includes the ability to use hidden microphones and cameras in any area of the production, including “co-ed living quarters”.

Right to misrepresentation: syndicated held the right to, in all and any way, misrepresent the developers, their actions and intent for dramatic effect. This wasn’t limited to exaggeration or fabricating stories.

Obligation to travel: participants are obliged to travel to the event, and to any other promotional activity or show GAME_JAM required of them. Flight expenses would be paid for only if the participant was more than 200 miles away.

Marketing: participants would be required to participate in branded activities, including but not limited to ‘drinking Mountain Dew’. On top of that, participants would be required to advertise the show as requested by GAME_JAM, and would not be allowed to speak ill of the jam, its sponsors or its organisers.

It’s baffling to read that the full budget for GAME_JAM was apparently over $400,000 considering the fact that there is a clause in the contract that asks developers to risk having to pay for their own flights if they’re close to a location they’re required to visit.

The full benefits for the developers in exchange for signing this do not exceed $300 each (threehundred dollars, that is not a typo), lodging and return flights. The participants weren’t in GAME_JAM for the money or fame, they were in it because they genuinely believed they could show the world this little part of game development culture in an honest and diverse way, and they were willing to try that even if that meant they had to drink Mountain Dew.

The majority of the other clauses were simply deal-breakers: a lot of the developers can’t afford travel under 200 miles, the marketing of most of these indies depends in some part on YouTube and the participants were mostly up and coming developers with a reputation to think about. Allowing GAME_JAM to misrepresent their actions and words could have terrible results for their future carreers.

There was a certain tone in the contract that tells you that whoever agreed to send this contract to the developers is completely oblivious to game jams and lacks any respect towards the participant. It also tells you that the organisers did not expect GAME_JAM to yield enough ‘drama’, and that they felt the need to be able to inject drama into it.

Within minutes, I made the note on my phone at the top of this post, and it encapsulated the entire contract in a few lines. I read it to the potential participant to explain how bad things were. They were shocked and we immediately reached out to fellow participants, one of whom contacted a producer on the show to start negotiating. My advice was to not sign the contract or any other legal document GAME_JAM would send.

While the developers had been approached by friends and good people to participate in the jam, that chain of people had been completely circumvented by the legal team sending the damning contract. The contents of the contract and the restrictive terms were a surprise to pretty much anybody along the chain of command that the participants could reach.

Something was terribly wrong.

I normally tell indie developers to negotiate every contract, even if it’s absolutely terrible. This is the first time I told anybody to tear it up and walk away. The contract was terrible, the event was days out, apparently the event was being organized by fragmented parts of a production nobody really had a full grasp on. Renegotiating anything on this scale tends to take weeks. We had days.

I got in touch with someone I know in the organization and tried to get a grasp of what was happening. I just wanted to be near my friends in case something bad happened, so I applied as a last-minute narrator or ‘industry expert’. I hoped they could fly me out to Los Angeles, skipping manning our LUFTRAUSERS booth at Rezzed in Birmingham, UK to make sure everybody would be OK. Maybe there’d be something I could do to help out, but for now, we needed to make sure nobody signed the contract.

We shifted strategy. With the event happening in only a few days, I recommended the participants to not sign the contract instead and make a request to renegotiate the contract to get rid of the most brazen points. Without the contract signed, they could still participate in the jam, and then they would be able to negotiate the terms, decide which affordances to allow GAME_JAM and select or limit the content of the footage GAME_JAM could use.

In the best case, everything would be fine, they’d be able to negotiate the deal afterwards and use a productions’ worth of footage as leverage. In the worst case, they’d still be able to walk away and openly discuss the jam.

After spending a few days winding down from the Game Developers Conference in Los Angeles together, I flew out for Eurogamer Rezzed and Adriel remained in Culver City for the jam. We’d be in touch in case anything bad happened, and she promised not to sign anything under any situation, even if a renegotiated contract was better. We were departing from a bad situation, and anything could look like an improvement. We didn’t need improvements: we needed a good contract.

The participants sent a request for renegotiations and the ‘team leaders’ spent the majority of the next day renegotiating a new contract. They received it a day before the event would kick off.

What I was worried for happened: even though the contract was much better – it revoked the misrepresentation clause and specified the exclusivity much more in the developers favor – it was still quite terrible.

I recommended once more not to sign until all terms were acceptable, and I couldn’t emphasize that enough. The potential circumstance of being on-set, with large production crews and your fellow developers waiting for you to being the only one not to sign was always-present, but that doesn’t matter in legal cases: if you put your name on the dots, that’s your responsibility, and you deal with the consequences.

As the first line of Zo?’s completely unrelated article imply, she did cave under that pressure and the slightly better terms. These are not simple emotional forces to deal with, and knowing there’s a huge production team literally depending on you signing is paralyzing. The other developers I advised stood ground, and refused to sign regardless of the potential negative effects on the series.

Either way, GAME_JAM didn’t go well. Between making a total farce out of game jams, it was misogynistic, misinformed and disrespectful. There are a few times when I’d rather have my gut feeling be dead wrong about something, but this was one of them. I received three tweets from the participants containing the hashtag #ramiwasright.

But I can’t be more proud of Robin, Davey, Zoe, Adriel and the other developers for walking away from GAME_JAM. The most expensive game jam in the history of mankind fell apart within a day, and the reason people were able to walk away relatively unscathed was because they had strong principles, they stuck together, and those that didn’t sign were able to do that walked away without risk of legal repercussion from the contract.

Contracts are serious business, and they can be both good and bad. I like to think of them as a way to keep people from arguing over dumb things. Here are some general pointers for contracts:

Get a lawyer if there is any option. It’s possible to find lawyers that’ll work for free or a revenue share. In pretty much all cases, having a real lawyer can save you from being tricked by strange wording tricks, misunderstandings and misinformation.

Only trust bad gut feelings. When it comes to contracts, trust your gut feeling only when it’s warning you. Don’t sign a contract because your gut instinct tells you it’s OK: always check with people that are capable of verifying a contract, preferably an actual lawyer. If you feel bad about a contract, do not sign, figure out why, and negotiate those terms.

Contracts are negotiable. When you receive a contract, it’ll typically be written to be as positive for the sender as possible. It is always possible to renegotiate terms that make you uncomfortable or problematic. When you negotiate, point out the specific clauses that are problematic, point out why they are problematic, and suggest dropping the clause, adding to it, rewording it, or making it more specific.

Anything between the lines isn’t there. If there is no end date to a contract, there is no end date. If the contract states ‘all and any’, it means ‘all and any’. If the contract says you will be obliged to participate in ‘branding activities’ for ‘Mountain Dew or affiliated companies’, you are literally signing a contract that could force you to go skydiving with a PepsiCo parachute.

Define as much as possible. What is a branding activity? What are the affiliated companies? How long will you be required to participate in these ‘activities’? Will you still be required to do these after recording the original show? Ask every possible question and have the contract redrafted until you can’t be forced to do anything that you’re uncomfortable with.

Nobody really understands legalese. We’re talking about words written by someone with an education of nearly a decade with some of the most stringent entry bars of any possible carreer. If any wording is unclear, ask it to be reworded as something that does make sense to you. It’s OK to ask for clarification on legal jargon you don’t understand, it’s not OK to sign something you don’t fully understand.

You only have obligations after signing. There is no timeframe and no maximum number of revisions. If the other party complains you’re taking too long or the deal needs to hurry up, remind them that you are under no obligation to sign quickly. You never have to sign now. You’re allowed to request to take the contract home or to run it by legal advisors. Signing binds you to the rules of the contract, not them – of course they are in a hurry.

You can walk away. Not signing and missing out is better than signing something bad and being part of it without recourse.

GAME_JAM is over, and it’s an important lesson to all of us. Developers tend to be friends and we want to see each other succeed. We want new people to join the medium, we want to educate and share knowledge. The reality is that outside of our scene, that’s not always the case. I’m so glad everybody got out OK. Huge shoutout to the developers involved and to Jared Rosen, who broke the story on IndieStatik risking his own job. My apologies to those involved in the (great) original concept, who saw the production slowly corrupted by external forces.

Contracts are useful, but they can be extremely dangerous. Handle them with care, and if you’re not completely sure what you’re signing, get help.

For now, I can recommend Super Game Jam as a good insight into the reality of game development and game jams. Don’t forget, the original idea of GAME_JAM was great.

Let’s go and demystify game development.(source:gamasutra)