General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
So the point is that not only do I want to play 4e, but I want to share materials with fans so that they can play 4e with their favorite setting. I need to post some rules on my website in order to do that.
Then you might be using their IP in a way that they don't want you to.
Regarding the issue of posting adventures on a web site... would the following work?
I have one site that uses the fan site kit for logos, trade dress, etc. This is "ryryguy's official D&D fan site."
I have a second site that does not use the fan site kit. It's pretty much just a collection of my free adventures published as PDF's in accordance with the GSL. This is "ryryguy's free adventure depot."
On the kit-based "official site", I put links to the "adventure depot". I can hype the adventures, give capsule summaries, sample art, maybe even post stat blocks of a cool monster from one of the adventures (assuming stat blocks are allowed under the kit license, which is a bit unclear).
While I can't use the fan kit stuff on the "adventure depot", I can still have common elements on the sites, like a "ryryguy" logo. (Maybe the adventures in the depot wouldn't have to be free - there's nothing stopping a fan-kit site from linking to RPGNow with reviews of the product there, is there?)
Would this work? (IANAL... and I don't know if there's some legal definition of what constitutes separate sites that would have to be honored.)
It's still a bit annoying that there is no license, apparently, which would allow somebody to post adventures in "wiki" form, with links between connected rooms and so forth. That could be a really convenient way of presenting adventures, worth exploring. Could WotC actually be considering such to be some threat to their business? Or is this just unintentional, falling through the cracks of the available licenses?
I'm unsure what you are attempting to accomplish by setting up two web sites.
If you are abiding by the GSL restrictions for your free product, it would work perfectly fine on the fan site.
Oh, I thought part of the fan kit license was that you could not post adventures there. I must have misunderstood.
I guess the disgruntlement (to the extent that there is disgruntlement) is that you'd still have to abide by the GSL for that, and people were hoping for something different and looser for free adventures?
Main Entry: edict 1: a proclamation having the force of law 2:order, command <we held firm to Grandmother's edict — M. F. K. Fisher>
Yes, precisely. There is no edict here. There is a license agreement, which you are free to use or ignore. If you choose to ignore it (and not use the related materials), it does not apply to you. It is therefore not an edict, because you can choose whether or not it will apply to you.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
What it comes down to is each person with a fan site has to ask themselves a question.
"Is it worth adhering to the terms of this license in order to use these images?"
My guess is that in nearly all cases, the answer will be no.
As to an actual fan site policy, my guess is the Hasbro legal team will not publish one ever. It's too restrictive for them. They'll let copyright law stand as is and take any issues they determine are worth it to court. Better to operate without actually saying anything in regards to fan sites than to give away any of Hasbro's rights via an externally published policy.
The million dollar question isn't our interpretation, it's WotC's. Does their policy apply to the kit only, or are they applying that beyond?
Of course they aren't going to apply the terms of this policy to any sites not using the kit.
That doesn't mean they won't take recourse if a site infringes on their IP in other legal areas - but thus far all the sites they have taken action against have included published material from WotC books that was being freely posted and openly distributed online.
Now, I definitely agree it would be nice for WotC to release a 'statement of purpose' as to what fan sites they have no problems with. But it wouldn't really change anything - as it is, WotC could go crazy tomorrow and try to shut down every site that mentions the words "D&D." They wouldn't actually be entitled to do so, but many sites would probably get hurt due to not having the resources to handle a legal battle. But the thing is, even if they posted a policy saying "These websites are fine"... they could still go crazy, change their minds, take down that policy, and go after fansites anyway.
For myself, I'm absolutely confident they aren't going to do any such thing. They will go after sites that illegally distribute the actual material in their books. But most fan sites, operating under fair use, filled with fanfiction, artwork, characters, stories, backgrounds, homebrew material, articles, reviews, etc, etc, etc? Shouldn't have any issues. Many of those sites will need to make absolutely no changes to use the fansite toolkit - and similarly, many of them likely won't see the need, and continue operating entirely on their own. Unless they are doing something seriously wrong, WotC isn't going to come after them.
Wow. Thanks WotC. If I was setting up an Amazon Associate's site, I'd have all I need. I guess they think the point of a fansite is to be free advertising for their books and minis. Any really useful art images (pics of the races, maps, holy symbols, monsters) are missing, as are any FR specific art (which really sucks if your trying to show off your LFR inspired campaign.) OTOH, its great for an Eberron-inspired one, as long as you don't specifically reference anythiing Eberron on the site (since all the unique elements of said setting, warforged, shifters, daelkyr, dragonmarks and other campaign-specific elements are not in the GSL-SRD).
Seriously, there's not one image in that "kit" I couldn't get from 10 minutes on Wizard's own site (both the product gallery and the artwork gallery) or a good google-image search. It feels more like a PR pack for a web-reseller (like an Ebay store) than a fankit. You want to make a good D&D Fankit? Release DnDVecna and DnDLolth fonts and the symbols kit for 4e.
Of course they aren't going to apply the terms of this policy to any sites not using the kit.
How do we know this? I hear a lot of people saying this, but I haven't read anything that says that the policy only applies to the kit. Is it the wording where it says "kit policy"? Or the accept button?
I'm just confused on this one point. Any clarification would be helpful.
Quote:
Now, I definitely agree it would be nice for WotC to release a 'statement of purpose' as to what fan sites they have no problems with. But it wouldn't really change anything - as it is, WotC could go crazy tomorrow and try to shut down every site that mentions the words "D&D." They wouldn't actually be entitled to do so, but many sites would probably get hurt due to not having the resources to handle a legal battle. But the thing is, even if they posted a policy saying "These websites are fine"... they could still go crazy, change their minds, take down that policy, and go after fansites anyway.
I think the legal term here, IIRC, is "chilling effect." It's kind of a paranoia brought on by the perceived threat of potential legal action.
Quote:
For myself, I'm absolutely confident they aren't going to do any such thing. They will go after sites that illegally distribute the actual material in their books. But most fan sites, operating under fair use, filled with fanfiction, artwork, characters, stories, backgrounds, homebrew material, articles, reviews, etc, etc, etc? Shouldn't have any issues. Many of those sites will need to make absolutely no changes to use the fansite toolkit - and similarly, many of them likely won't see the need, and continue operating entirely on their own. Unless they are doing something seriously wrong, WotC isn't going to come after them.
That is my hope. I'm not about to touch that kit for the Nexus. We've had a good relationship with WotC, and been told on a few occasions that they like us. Scott Rouse used the Nexus and Athas.org as examples of what good fan sites should be. So that all sounds good.
Of course, WotC legal is kind of their own beast. I wonder what their stats are....
Then you might be using their IP in a way that they don't want you to.
Well, that's sort of the question, isn't it? Does WotC want Canonfire! (the Greyhawk site), Planewalker.net (the Planescape site), Birthright.net, and Vaults of Pandius (the Mystara site) to go away? Those were all explicity allowed, and endorsed, by WotC at one point.
I really don't think this will happen. Has anyone taken any content off their site that was there yesterday as a result of this action?
I don't know your answer to this question, but I can give a specific example of a chilling effect WotC's fan site policy has had since it was announced however long ago. From March 2005 to Oct 2007, Candlekeep released 9 issues of the Candlekeep Compendium. Because of its use of WotC's FR IP, this project always relied on WotC's good will, which Candlekeep's administrators believed they had. However, Candlekeep has not had a site update since 16 Aug 2008 and the 10th Compendium, though nearly finished, has not been posted in that time, specifically because the announced fansite policy worried the Candlekeep admins about whether WotC would take a more aggressive stance on fan productions. I'm not sure that this new policy has done anything to clear up the issue, largely due to the way it was announced.
My read of this is similar to several other people here... This license only applies to the use of artwork in the package, if you choose to use any of it on your website. Alas, there is not a single image in there that I feel the need or desire to use on my website. And since I do not use or publish 4E materials, the GSL does not apply to anything I do, as well. As such, for my purposes, WotC still has not released fansite guidelines.
::sigh::
Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk Maldin's Greyhawk
Loads of edition-independent Greyhawk goodness... Maps, mysteries, magic, mechanics, and more!
Of course, WotC legal is kind of their own beast. I wonder what their stats are....
I think in some ways that's the big problem. The legal crew of WotC seem to operate in a completely different country then everyone else at times. It's possible that this whole "fan kit" is just a byproduct of bored lawyer syndrome.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
My read of this is similar to several other people here... This license only applies to the use of artwork in the package, if you choose to use any of it on your website.
Again, though, how do we know this for a certainty? This is the popular opinion, but I could easily see WotC legal saying that this policy applies to all fan sites.
Quote:
Alas, there is not a single image in there that I feel the need or desire to use on my website. And since I do not use or publish 4E materials, the GSL does not apply to anything I do, as well. As such, for my purposes, WotC still has not released fansite guidelines.
Agreed. Do they not consider that there are pre-4e sites out there? What about sites for properties such as Star Frontiers that may not even use D&D rules? What if I ran a Dragonlance site using solely the SAGA rules set, or an Alternity site? What about sites that have both 4e and 3e rules, or 4e and Pathfinder?
This is completely frustrating. WotC would have been better served to have done nothing. Or, to say that folks can use those images so long as they're not used to make a profit.
WotC would have been better served to have done nothing. Or, to say that folks can use those images so long as they're not used to make a profit.
I don't know about that. I think they are well served by setting terms in return for using specific art work that link back to the D&D brand identity. And that may serve whomever wants to include that kind of art in their sites. I don't think anybody else is served at all.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Wow. Thanks WotC. If I was setting up an Amazon Associate's site, I'd have all I need. I guess they think the point of a fansite is to be free advertising for their books and minis. Any really useful art images (pics of the races, maps, holy symbols, monsters) are missing, as are any FR specific art (which really sucks if your trying to show off your LFR inspired campaign.) OTOH, its great for an Eberron-inspired one, as long as you don't specifically reference anythiing Eberron on the site (since all the unique elements of said setting, warforged, shifters, daelkyr, dragonmarks and other campaign-specific elements are not in the GSL-SRD).
Seriously, there's not one image in that "kit" I couldn't get from 10 minutes on Wizard's own site (both the product gallery and the artwork gallery) or a good google-image search. It feels more like a PR pack for a web-reseller (like an Ebay store) than a fankit. You want to make a good D&D Fankit? Release DnDVecna and DnDLolth fonts and the symbols kit for 4e.
Come on WotC, make it LOOK like an effort!
This is pretty much exactly as I saw it.
I thought the cover images wouldn't help at all on my site. I wasn't going to sell amazon books. I wanted to post a blog for my online War of the Burning Sky campaign. Can i do it as an official D&D Fan site? Maybe not, since I am running a 3PP campaign. So... so what? I then still put up my own site with pics from the campaign PDFs and blog about the adventures anyway. I can't be stopped for doing that. I just don't use this official trade dress.
How is this a problem, then? I lower and shake my head in shame for WoTC to give such a small number of images. They could have flooded us with all the official images from all art and map galleries all zipped up and ready to go packaged up each month online with the Dragon and Dungeon releases.
Can I put soem of these up? Maybe not, but WoTC would have done well for themselves if they added them. I would sign it. I have nothing disparaging to say to WoTC about their products. I like 4e and I acutally (cuddled) sat up and read Open Grave last night. My late Saturday night with a plate of buffalo wings and some undead goodness. Wife and baby asleep. See, I like what WoTC has been putting out for my 4e game.
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
Agreed. Do they not consider that there are pre-4e sites out there?
Probably not. They stopped supporting previous games. They are a business, in hard times. What do they stand to get out of spending effort supporting fan activity on products they don't sell?
They might get a small amount of goodwill. The goodwill of people who are not purchasing current products is not worth a whole lot when you're trying to pay the bills.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
