Talk:Fantasy Games Unlimited

A Statement from Jeff Dee and Jack Herman of Monkey House Games, Inc.
We have been instructed by the court to post the following statement in several places around the internet - including in this Wikipedia article. However, we strongly suspect that dumping the entire statement wholesale into the article would be a breach of Wikipedia guidelines. We are therefor posting it here, and requesting advice as to the proper way to comply. Statement follows:

---

In 2010, a link was posted on the Wikipedia page for Fantasy Games Unlimited, which showed the state of New York had dissolved Fantasy Games Unlimited, Inc. in 1991. (For reference, this link can be found here: http://appext9.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=436812&p_corpid=374658&p_entity_name=fantasy%20games%20unlimited&p_name_type=%25&p_search_type=CONTAINS&p_srch_results_page=0) The information it presents is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate and undisputed. But if the presence of that link inaccurately suggested that the corporation was dissolved due to failure to pay taxes- as opposed to being dissolved for ceasing to pay state incorporation fees, then we sincerely and regretfully apologize for and hereby retract any and all statements on our part which might have given that impression.

Also in regards to the Fantasy Games Unlimited Wikipedia page, there have been other comments (which have since been removed) which stated, in effect, that the Scott Bizar DBA Fantasy Games Unlimited has taken “unjustified positions” and “improperly threatens legal action” and “has a bad reputation for holding publishing works in limbo”. We had no involvement in the posting of such comments, nor did we direct anyone to make them on our behalf, and have no knowledge of or suspicion as to who made them. Therefore, we take this opportunity to publicly declare that we do not support these statements, we have no knowledge as to the specific situations those statements were referencing, and that we will have no further public comment in regard to them.

Additionally, we have made statements to the effect that Scott Bizar DBA Fantasy Games Unlimited does not have the right to publish our game Revised Villains and Vigilantes. It is certainly our belief that this is true in light of advice of legal counsel and the accumulation of a significant body of evidence. However, this is a matter that has yet to be legally determined, and which will be determined through the legal action which we have undertaken. If we have given the impression our belief represented settled legal fact, we sincerely and regretfully apologize and hereby retract any and all statements we have made which may have given that impression.

Furthermore, we sincerely and regretfully apologize for and hereby retract any statement that we have made which may have been interpreted as negative commentary upon the character, reputation, honesty, integrity or virtue of Scott Bizar DBA Fantasy Games Unlimited.

In discussing this issue we have attempted to distinguish between the two separate legal entities that are Fantasy Games Unlimited Inc. of the State of New York (for the sake of clarity, this is the legal entity which was formed on July 1, 1975 and dissolved by proclamation on September 25, 1991) and Scott Bizar DBA Fantasy Games Unlimited, which is still conducting business. While doing so, we may have given the impression that Scott Bizar did not have the right to do business under the name Fantasy Games Unlimited. It is our belief that, even though the corporation that is Fantasy Games Unlimited Inc. of the State of New York no longer exists, Scott Bizar does have the right to use that name for his current business. We therefore sincerely and regretfully apologize for and hereby retract any and all statements we have made that may have seemed to imply otherwise.

Finally, in the discussion of our ongoing dispute with Scott Bizar DBA Fantasy Games Unlimited, we may have made comments that could be interpreted as inappropriately negative assessments of his dealings with writers and artists, or the quality of his products. Again, we sincerely and regretfully apologize for and hereby retract any and all statements we may have previously made that might have given this impression.

Jeff Dee and Jack Herman, Monkey House Games Inc.

---

Thank you, Jeffreyalandee (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to your statement and the court's default judgment, I edited the page to remove the claim that the dissolution of Fantasy Games Unlimited Inc. in 1991 was due to non-payment of taxes. That claim was added to the page from an anonymous IP address at 7:24 a.m. on Sept. 18, 2010. Rcade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Conceptual splitting of Fantasy Games Unlimited into Fantasy Games Unlimited (NY) and Fantasy Games Unlimited (DBA)
"Saigon. I'm still in Saigon." No, wait, that's not right, i'm at the keyboard of my desktop.

I don't recall my path to here: earlier i was working on Double album, and i think the two-disc albums had no relevant connection to the respective legal statuses of a NY-based corpn and an Arizona-based DBA. Be that as it may, here i am: "For my sins, they gave me a mission, but what should be a short and conceptual mission. Like Capt. Willard, i'm doin' a job that should not oblige me to take sides in the geographically broad underlying conflict. But i think i can count on not coming out of it a changed instrument of the entity i'm dedicated to!   I said "conceptual". By that i mean, mostly, that i'm committed to the two destination titles i've got at the top of the screen as red-links, but there is probably no point in doing more about the discussion, above here on this talk page, than to link both of the new articles' talk pages to this one, which is solely about the presumably finished legal interactions. Both of the two new articles' discussions should link to this talk page, but no one should find themselves burdened by that joint custody arrangement, as the overlap should lie in both their pasts. And the conflict over the common nickname sounds like it's settled. --Jerzy•t 03:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, could you be a bit more clear in what you're proposing, and why it's a good idea? Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, it's inherently confusing and some dialog will help reduce it. WP needs to be able to distinguish between the activities of FGU, a now defunct NY corporation, and FGU, a DBA in AZ whose principal had done business with the owners of the NYS corp. The DBA may be asserting a claim that assets of the corpn have somehow become his (tho, i assume, not bcz of the name). It sounds to me as if his license to use copyrighted material may have survived the dissolution of the corp, but at least some of the articles assert that the copyright remains with one or more of the individuals who created the corp. I may not have gotten it all right yet, but i can't imagine that we could be barred from clearing up confusion created by at least one article that speaks of FGU in three 'graphs, the first time referring to the corp and the last time to the DBA. If that doesn't clarify your concern, you should ask me a new question in light of this clarification. (And i'm not yet tired.) --Jerzy•t 05:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The situation is even more complicated than i first supposed. We do assert (without a ref) that the DBA FGU pre-existed the corporation, which was lost upon me. It's hard to read between the lines, especially since Herman and/or Dee seem to have lost effective control over what had been his/their intellectual property, perhaps as the result of the dissolution of the corporation via a default of a payment that, i think anyone would have assumed, should have been part of the fiduciary duty of the either the lawyer who handled the incorporation, or that lawyer's successor. I'm gonna revert the relevant article edits i did, as i find the matter is muddier than i care to cope with. Some editor made of sterner stuff (perhaps Captain Willard) may be better disposed for work on the matter. --Jerzy•t 10:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So to what extent do Reliable Sources cover this? If they don't, then we really don't need to, do we? Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)