Game definitions?

[Cergorach]

Just a quick comment here, OGC is, by definition, already derived from the SRD. So to say "content from the SRD and OGC" is redundant, since all OGC is already derived from the SRD in some form or another.

I can designate a chapter as OGC that doesn't contain a single bit of derived content from the SRD. OGC irrevocably related to the OGL, not the SRD (unless i missed something).

 

[jmucchiello]

In my experience, threads involving "Is this OGC?" on EnWorld and other websites tend contain far more misinformation that valid information. The mailing list I mentioned contains the most informed opinions about all matters OGL-related. The only way to truly get an informed opinion about OGL matters is pay $150-500 an hour to an IP lawyer specializing in Open Content contracts.

99% of what you read about the OGL, including in the very books released by OGC publishers, is invalid. Even my posts contain errors involving the contract.

If my penchant for pointing out the reason not to have these discussions here is baggage, so be it. My only reason to do so is prevent someone from following dodgy advice.

 

[jmucchiello]

i'm seeking opinions on the matter of vague OGC designation

Well why didn't you say that to start with. IMO, they suck.

in the hopes of clearing up the vagueness.

Tilt away a windmills. You are not the first to attempt this and you won't be the last. If you look at the archives at opengamingfoundation.org, read the threads of woodelf and HUDarklord. They date back over many years and they boil down to one thing: Until WotC send a cease and desist at a publisher using vague OGC Designations, publishers will not stop using them.

 

[rpgHQ]

Just a quick comment here, OGC is, by definition, already derived from the SRD. So to say "content from the SRD and OGC" is redundant, since all OGC is already derived from the SRD in some form or another.

Any OGC is readily available to be used by any publisher (look at Mongoose's Ultimate line of books for an example). Unless the content contains something that is specifically defined as PI (product identity), it's all available, even ver batim if you desire.

I think you got that abit backwards. The SRD is a work published under the OGL. The SRD is derived from various works by WotC and released under the OGL, not the other way around. The SRD has lots of copyright material in, stuff that could be classified as PI if the publisher so choses. WotC released the SRD in its entirety as Open Game Content. I could for example take the Epic Level Handbook, and using its game mechanics publish my own work with my own epic classes and so forth and not use any of the epic level information from the SRD. The sticking point is that all my descriptions of epic rules would have to be worded so as not to tread on WotC's copyright on their descriptive text, the literary part of the book.

That being said most publishers go by whats in the SRD not in the PHB, DMG or MM or other related products as its already all designated as OGC and the is no worry about 'stepping on toes', there is no need to make sure their descriptive text for a feat or spell that appears in the SRD will violate copyright.

But one could release something not related at all to D&D or the SRD using the OGL and declare parts of it as OGC or PI under the terms of that license. Actually one could release a game under the OGL and actually have MORE legal protection than they would without using the OGL. As the OGL allows one to declare things normally not covered by copyright when it comes to games as PI and thus closed content under the OGL.


And to joe: no, its not baggage pointing someone to the OGF site or their OGL mailing list, its the way you did it that was improper and even my response post to your impropriety, that was the 'baggage' he was talking about.

 

[rpgHQ]

Cergorach, I think I understand where your trying to go with things on material and vaugeness of declared OGC but unless I am reading the OGL wrong one does not have to implicitly declare PI. PI is defined very exhaustively in the OGL.

If you look at section 1d in the OGL

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art

This is open game content that does not have to be expressly identified, and then the rest of 1d goes on to include

and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

So if something falls under the first part of section 1d yet is not clearly marked as OGC you can still u se it.

That being said, PI is exhaustively defined and actually covers some things that would normally be bundled under 'game mechanics, methods, concepts, and procedures', that is to say stuff that would normally be in the public domain under normal copyright.

So I think the thing is, if its not clearly marked as OGC you then have to see if it is covered by the definition of PI before you can even consider if it is undeclared open game content.

 

[jmucchiello]

So if something falls under the first part of section 1d yet is not clearly marked as OGC you can still u se it.

That is debatable. Most lawyers on the mailing list imply (since they don't give legal advice) that anything not OGC is outside the safe harbor created by the OGL. You are daring the copyright holder to sue you when you leave the safe harbor.

That being said, PI is exhaustively defined

Ryan Dancey (who penned the OGL) has said the list is examplary not exhaustive.

in the public domain under normal copyright.

But this isn't normal copyright, this is a contract between two parties. A contract between two parties can include agreements that go beyond the boundaries of copyright. The 1st amendment guarentees free speech. A Non-disclosure agreement is a voluntary forfeiture of that inalienable right. Thus copyright analagies have little place in discussions involving the OGL.

So I think the thing is, if its not clearly marked as OGC you then have to see if it is covered by the definition of PI before you can even consider if it is undeclared open game content.

This is not accurate. PI must be declared. If it isn't declared, it isn't PI. Period. The laundry list in the definition of PI is not applied to the work to discover the PI, the PI is explicitly declared.

Regardless, if something is not clearly marked as OGC, it's off-limits in an OGL compliant work. Unless you want to be sued.

 

[jmucchiello]

I could for example take the Epic Level Handbook, and using its game mechanics publish my own work with my own epic classes and so forth and not use any of the epic level information from the SRD. The sticking point is that all my descriptions of epic rules would have to be worded so as not to tread on WotC's copyright on their descriptive text, the literary part of the book.

And a bevy of WotC lawyers would send you a cease and dessist letter in a heartbeat. WotC's stance seems to be that all works that can be derivatived from the SRD are attempts to be OGL compliant.

That being said most publishers go by whats in the SRD not in the PHB, DMG or MM or other related products as its already all designated as OGC

Actually, all publishers SHOULD go by the SRD ONLY. Doing otherwise is risking including something out of bounds of the OGL.

But one could release something not related at all to D&D or the SRD using the OGL and declare parts of it as OGC or PI under the terms of that license.

Goldrush Games has already done this. The Action! System is a fully OGC game system that is not derivative of SRD content.

 

[der_kluge]

The SRD doesn't contain any PI. That's why I could, and others *have* taken the entire thing, spruce it up a bit, and released it as a d20 product. It's perfectly, and legally copyable.

There are really three things in a book:
OGC
PI
other

OGC is anything that is derived from the SRD, or other OGC, which in turn is, by definition, derived from the SRD.

PI is anything that you, as the author, declare that is forbidden to be copied. It is generally a proper name, or a story, or something that is unique to your product, that makes your product special. PI can not be copied. Therefore, if I write a spell, and give it a name "die_kluge's wonderment" and make the name PI, no one can really use my spell. But, the spell mechanics (everything but the name) have to remain as OGC, because they are specifically derived from the SRD. This, is called crippled OGC, because while it is perfectly legal, publishers hate it because they either have to get permission to use the name, or they can't use it at all.

"other" is everything else. It is up to the publisher to decide on how to classify it. Take a module for example. A module might have a dungeon and monsters, and treasures. There might be some new crunchy bits for PrCs, and other nifty things in there as well. All that is derivitive of the SRD. It all has to be defined as OGC. The mechanics, that is. All of the names of all the monsters, and all the spells, and the names of the magic items - I can declare those as PI, thus rendering all my OGC "crippled". Or not. It's my choice.

But there is more to a module than that - there is the story, the plot, the sequence of events. This is neither PI, nor OGC, since it's not entirely proper nouns, and it's not derivitive of anything, but a sick, twisted imagination. Now, I have a choice. I can label it all as PI or I can choose to label it all as OGC. The choice is mine. I'm not dictated one way or the other. Most label it as PI, since you don't want someone taking your work in its entirety and re-publishing it (as if that would actually happen).

Nowadays, most publishers have gone to one extreme or the other. Some are of the 100% OGC camp. I love these folks. Essentially, and this is personal opinion, these publishers have decided that no one is really making any money at this whole d20 thing anyway, so they've decided that no one out there really is evil enough to take an entire work and re-publish it (no money to be gained by doing that, and a whole lot to lose, reputation-wise), so it's easier to just declare it as OGC. This happens quite often, unless you're writing in a heavily-branded campaign setting (Scarred Lands, for example).

Others choose to just be intentionally vague with their OGC designations, preferring to have the publishers come to them directly to ask. This, too, is a somewhat lazy approach to it, since it's easier to just say "ah, come ask us", than it is to specifically identify what is, and what is not OGC. It's cheaper, for one thing.

There are a few others still, that intentionally, and methodically go through and figure out which parts are, and which parts are not PI or OGC, and designate them as such, believeing (probably erroneously, and wishfully) that that single spell name, or magic item name is somehow going to be a big cash cow for them in the future (see: Mordenkainen) and so they protect their stuff like stingy, paranoid children.

That's the long and the short of it.

And before you ask, yes, I've published under the d20 license.

 

[rpgHQ]

That is debatable. Most lawyers on the mailing list imply (since they don't give legal advice) that anything not OGC is outside the safe harbor created by the OGL. You are daring the copyright holder to sue you when you leave the safe harbor.

Did I say it wasnt OGC? No, you quote me out of context. The first part of 1d again:

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art

OGC is not just what the publisher declares as OGC

Ryan Dancey (who penned the OGL) has said the list is examplary not exhaustive.

Your now playing symantic games. My use of the word was not in the legal meaning, its pretty clear from the contextof my post that I mean that PI is pretty well defined.

But this isn't normal copyright, this is a contract between two parties. A contract between two parties can include agreements that go beyond the boundaries of copyright. The 1st amendment guarentees free speech. A Non-disclosure agreement is a voluntary forfeiture of that inalienable right. Thus copyright analagies have little place in discussions involving the OGL.

And I didnt say it was about normal copyright, I merely mention the fact that PI goes beyond normal copyright. so what?

This is not accurate. PI must be declared. If it isn't declared, it isn't PI. Period. The laundry list in the definition of PI is not applied to the work to discover the PI, the PI is explicitly declared.

Regardless, if something is not clearly marked as OGC, it's off-limits in an OGL compliant work. Unless you want to be sued.

Thats funny, I dont see anywhere in the OGL that it says PI must be declared. Point that part of the OGL to me as I must have missed it.

Then your bit about wotC releasing lawyers on someone, once again the SRD isnt the OGL, to use the OGL I do not need to use the SRD, just like your example of the Action System. If I am not using something(say the SRD), then I am not deriving anything from it. The game mechanics in the Epic Level Handbook from my example under copyright law are public domain. I can create my own work based on those game mechanics, I even pointed out that the problem in doing so was making sure not to step on their copyright. Derivative work doesnt even apply in this case. Game mechanics in and of themselves dont fall under derivative copyright law.

Then your comment on publishers using the SRD, you quote me out of context again and are just repeating what I said, the same paragrpah that your quoting from I say they use the SRD so not to worry about violating copyright law.

 

[jmucchiello]

Did I say it wasnt OGC? No, you quote me out of context. The first part of 1d again:

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art

OGC is not just what the publisher declares as OGC

This has not been tested in a court. Until it is, OGC is only what a publisher declares it to be. Basically, some people want what you say to be true. Others don't.

Your now playing symantic games. My use of the word was not in the legal meaning, its pretty clear from the contextof my post that I mean that PI is pretty well defined.

Someone asked about something legal and you aren't using legal definitions. Interesting. PI is not well defined. If it was, there would not be debates about what it is with 4 conflicting opinions on the ogl mailing list.

Thats funny, I dont see anywhere in the OGL that it says PI must be declared. Point that part of the OGL to me as I must have missed it.

(e) "Product Identity" means ... clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity

Then your bit about wotC releasing lawyers on someone, once again the SRD isnt the OGL, to use the OGL I do not need to use the SRD, just like your example of the Action System. If I am not using something(say the SRD), then I am not deriving anything from it. The game mechanics in the Epic Level Handbook from my example under copyright law are public domain.

Are you going to use the term AC? hit points? Level? All of them are in the SRD and in the Epic Handbook. WotC seems as though they will assume your use of these terms is a botched attempt at the OGL. Explain what you can use in the Epic Handbook that doesn't LOOK like it is derived from the SRD.

Also notice I said this seems to be WotC policy. They haven't stated this policy as such but it makes sense from their point of view to assume any use of their material that could be derived from the SRD is such an attempt to use the OGL. That way they can use the OGL to enjoin you from using it.

Now, you apparently are one of those people who follows the letter of copyright law and claims that game mechanics are not copyrightable, only their expression. On paper you are correct. In a court of law, it doesn't matter who is correct because you are now out $50,000+ trying to defend yourself. RPG makers don't have that kind of money to play with for legal fees so it is a moot point whether you CAN use game mechanics outside the SRD. Unless you have the money to go toe-to-toe with Hasbro, or are so small as to fly under their radar, you just should not use non-SRD based material published by WotC.

I can create my own work based on those game mechanics, I even pointed out that the problem in doing so was making sure not to step on their copyright. Derivative work doesnt even apply in this case. Game mechanics in and of themselves dont fall under derivative copyright law.

And how are you going to do this without using terms like cleric, wizard, figher, class, hit points, ac, hp, experience points, 3rd level spell, feat, ranks in skills, etc? Those terms, WotC can claim, are derived from their OGC source called the SRD.

Look, I don't want to be argumentative. I know where you are coming from but it is a shaky place to stand legally. IMO, discussing a shaky legal standpoint in a public thread where someone is asking about legalities is asking for trouble and more importantly does not help the person who asked the question. This argument is why I did not want to "correct your error" in the first place. Claim I quote you out of context all you want. Call me a jackass and don't apologize. I don't care.

Ceogarch wants to know why publishers make vague OGC declarations and what can be done to stop them from doing so. Granted, he didn't clarify that up until a few posts ago. But the ability to use Epic Handbook sources based on copyright law has nothing to do with that, it's not even on topic.