RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
This is going to be extremely noobish, but I'm totally lost since there's a lot of licenses floating around and all sorts of rules and it sounds like most people aren't sure themselves but: is it legal to make a new campaign setting for 4e with new classes, races, places, people, things and what have you that uses the 4e rules but completely new art, resources, etc? Also am I allowed to use WotC art or not? Am I allowed to reference other books for certain rules? Sorry, I'm really confused over the whole thing.
This is going to be extremely noobish, but I'm totally lost since there's a lot of licenses floating around and all sorts of rules and it sounds like most people aren't sure themselves
Don't worry about "most people", whoever that is. It doesn't sound as if their opinion is worth much. The licence governing third party products for 4e is the GSL. Best read carefully all the material there.
Quote:
is it legal to make a new campaign setting for 4e with new classes, races, places, people, things and what have you that uses the 4e rules but completely new art, resources, etc?
Yes, this is something you could do, provided you stick to items that are new. You may not publish descriptions of the classes, races or other material that are listed in the SRD (whether the same as WotC's version or different: you may neither define nor redefine them - clause 4.1 and 5.6), though you can add new material to support them. You may not use any WotC IP except the references listed in the SRD (clause 10.1) - that includes earlier editions.
Quote:
Also am I allowed to use WotC art or not?
Absolutely not. There is no reason to think you would be allowed to use it and WotC has specifically excluded artwork in clause 5.7.
Quote:
Am I allowed to reference other books for certain rules?
If they are WotC books, no, see above. For third party products, ask the publisher.
Okay...so...um...apparently something has been reported. Forgive me for also sounding naive, but I'm not sure what the basis for any 'reporting' of this thread would be....? Because of the assertion that 'most' don't know what they're talking about (which seems a bit hyper-sensitive, unless you are automatically assuming that you = most), or because of the GSL question, the nature of the advice given (was it incorrect?).
Reporting offenses has its place in making a forum better, but I think that listing something as reported with no clear indication (and again it might be clear to 'most') of the nature of the offense does little to nothing to stop the alleged offense from happening again.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
Forgive me for also sounding naive, but I'm not sure what the basis for any 'reporting' of this thread would be....?
I don't know either, but frankly posting a curt "Reported" post, with no further details seems rather taunting to an observer and report-worthy in itself, IMO. Maybe there were some smilies that ended on the cutting room floor that could have helped. *ahem*
I think what happened was that there was a spam post inserted, which Relique reported and the mods subsequently deleted.
That would be reasonable...not sure how hard it is to delete bits and pieces of a thread, but it seems like in cases where something is reported, any mod action that deletes 100% of the BASIS for reporting should either contain a comment from the mod, or they might as well just go ahead and also delete the post that says 'Reported'...it would be as if nothing happened.
Otherwise, you get neurotic people like me wondering WHY it was reported, and fearing that without information I might repeat the error and get zapped/banned/etc.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
Yes, this is something you could do, provided you stick to items that are new. You may not publish descriptions of the classes, races or other material that are listed in the SRD (whether the same as WotC's version or different: you may neither define nor redefine them - clause 4.1 and 5.6), though you can add new material to support them. You may not use any WotC IP except the references listed in the SRD (clause 10.1) - that includes earlier editions.
This is not necessarily true. You would not be bound by the terms of the GSL unless you expressly agree to be bound (i.e. go through the whole process they've setup to become a licensee).
If you do not become a licensee, then what you publish is governed by copyright law and not the GSL. I know I and many others have said this before, so excuse me if I'm harping on issues already addressed.
In any case, there are companies that have published "4E compatible" material without being a licensee. By no means does this mean there will not be actions brought in the future, but none have been so far. Remember, as long as you publish original material, there is no violation of law. Though, depending on how you express the fact that your material is 4E compatible, you may or may not have trademark issues.
If interested, look to see how other publishers have tackled the hurdles. Then hire a good lawyer.
__________________ Again, you could play this as just a flat series of die rolls, but if that's all you want to do, why are you playing a RPG? - Keith Baker
However, the point of having a license in the first place, is to remove the need for a good lawyer.
Most people in this particular business do not have either the money for or the interest in law and copyright matters. It's a small business, not suited to the average lawyer's fee.
They just want to go forth and create stuff for their favorite rpg. And be reasonably sure their customers' money does not have to go into WotC's coffers.
What I'm saying is that each time I hear the advice "go get a good lawyer", you could as well have said "shelve your plans, kill your imagination, and stick to your day job".
However, the point of having a license in the first place, is to remove the need for a good lawyer.
Riiiiiiiight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapnZapp
What I'm saying is that each time I hear the advice "go get a good lawyer", you could as well have said "shelve your plans, kill your imagination, and stick to your day job".
No, we didn't say that. Nor do WotC. It means that "if you follow the ground rules set by WotC, then put your imagination into making money for you." That also means that you're going into business, and no one sane enough to get into business blindly.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
Say, for example's sake I create a 30 level character class: the assassin.
I publish it, but then oh, 6 months later, WOTC releases a PHB III that features the assassin as a character class.
Am I suddenly in violation of the GSL?
You shouldn't be. You might take some [idiotic] flacks from die-hard WotC loyalist fans who think WotC can make a better assassin class than you, but who says there can only be one assassin class for 4e?
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
My concern derives from the GSL, where section 4.1 says you cannot define or redefine anything in the SRD.
So If I created the "assassin," I suddenly might find myself in violation, because a product I published suddenly redefines the Assassin class they create.
It seems pretty tricky.
I also wonder How that will affect Goodman games' Forgotten Heroes: Fang fist and Song book, as the PHBII will have the Bard, Druid and Barbarian.
It's likely as with any other aspect of publishing for fourth edition: you will simply have to live with the uncertainty.
WotC can shut you down at their leisure, but unless your business compete directly with one of their own drives, they're not likely to do so.
Just because you're in violation, that doesn't mean you will be stopped from selling your book. It does mean you will have to live with the threat of being shut down at any time, though.
Say, for example's sake I create a 30 level character class: the assassin.
I publish it, but then oh, 6 months later, WOTC releases a PHB III that features the assassin as a character class.
Am I suddenly in violation of the GSL?
No, because you can show easily that you didn't use or attack WotC's intellectual property.
If WotC then proceed to add their new Assassin to the SRD, the picture becomes murkier, but on recent and present performance you have considerably more than 6 months before you have to worry about that.
If WotC then proceed to add their new Assassin to the SRD, the picture becomes murkier, but on recent and present performance you have considerably more than 6 months before you have to worry about that.
It's a pretty important question, though. It highlights the single biggest problem with the GSL: on the surface, it seems that what's prohibited can change at the whim of WotC. And this doesn't require some nefarious intent on the behalf of WotC, just the addition of new material to the SRD. It's an inevitable situation that somthing will be added which already has a GSL version.
From my limited reading of the GSL, that's exactly why I have no interest in getting involved. It can be changed any time, and your only option if you don't like any given change appears to be simply to stop publishing anything under the GSL and destroy anything you'd done to that point.
It's very much a model that says 'unless you think that you will generate all the profit you desire in the VERY short term (weeks not months), you're putting lots at risk'...you need to be confident that you can publish, sell, and profit before WOTC can (for reasons malevolent or benign) change the GSL in a way that destroys your ability to market your product.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
My concern derives from the GSL, where section 4.1 says you cannot define or redefine anything in the SRD.
So If I created the "assassin," I suddenly might find myself in violation, because a product I published suddenly redefines the Assassin class they create.
It seems pretty tricky.
Just call it something else and avoid the problem completely. "Shadow Killer", "Sneaky Stabby guy", "Death Dealer", "Urban Ninja" - I'm sure you can come up with better names!
Just call it something else and avoid the problem completely. "Shadow Killer", "Sneaky Stabby guy", "Death Dealer", "Urban Ninja" - I'm sure you can come up with better names!
I get what he's saying. If he releases a product with an "assassin" before Wizards does, and it's under GSL, the way it's currently worded, he'd either have to change the name (despite coming up with the product first and already having it in print) or else remove the GSL compatibility. The GSL effectively can retroactively claim a product violates the license.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
