I'm sorry, but those the second two sound well dodgy to me.
# In the case of prize winning work (1st and 2nd place), the applicants of the works hand over the exclusive license of sales to GPH and GPH should share royalties with the applicants
# sharing royalty rate will be decided by GPH according to the general policy of GPH. But if GPH invest funds on the games after this contest, the profit sharing rate may be alternated through the negotiation with the applicants
Should? don't you mean will? Hardly binding is it?
Which is what? Why not tell us? What is GPH's policy?
If a contest winner isn't happy with the royality rate, can they rufuse? that second term seems to suggest that handing over the licensing of sales isn't negotiable.
Personally, I'm very skeptical, but only because they're not telling us everything - either due to language barrier, or to gain some sort of upperhand, I don't know, but either way it's dodgy in my opinion.
# In the case of prize winning work (1st and 2nd place), the applicants of the works hand over the exclusive license of sales to GPH and GPH should share royalties with the applicants
# sharing royalty rate will be decided by GPH according to the general policy of GPH. But if GPH invest funds on the games after this contest, the profit sharing rate may be alternated through the negotiation with the applicants
Should? don't you mean will? Hardly binding is it?
# sharing royalty rate will be decided by GPH according to the general policy of GPH
Which is what? Why not tell us? What is GPH's policy?
If a contest winner isn't happy with the royality rate, can they rufuse? that second term seems to suggest that handing over the licensing of sales isn't negotiable.
Personally, I'm very skeptical, but only because they're not telling us everything - either due to language barrier, or to gain some sort of upperhand, I don't know, but either way it's dodgy in my opinion.