Open Game Content and Product Identity License

[AbraZero]

As I understand the OGL, one is free to use and redefine the terms in the SRD, except those marked as product identity.

I have seen some wiki pages that are using the OGL replace proper names with generic ones. ie. Mordenkaiden's Sword => Magic Sword. As I understand it, this is fine since the game rules are not under copyright.

1) I think the OGL was a great idea and I want to respect the limits that it sets. If I wanted to create a monster with similar mechanics to, say, a beholder, which of these are allowed by the license?

a) Beholder (obviously no)
b) Beholdere (add a letter)
c) Bholder (remove a letter)
d) =Beholder= (add non-letter characters)
e) Holder Eye (partially generic term)
e) Flying Eye (generic term)
f) A new player class called Beholder that is about growing eye stalks and shooting lasers
g) A new player class called Beholder that is not related to eyeballs or shooting lasers

2) Can material that has not been released as open game content be treated the same as product identity material? For example, the Warforged race is not mentioned by the OGL SRD but I'm sure a trademark exists on it. Do the same renaming rules apply?

3) Some creators have attached additional licenses to their products. (For example: ORSIC (Can't provide a link since I am a new poster.)) Are these additional licenses only applicable in the case of "extras", like being able to indicate compatibility? My understanding was that if one is releasing open game content, no additional restrictions could be applied to it as per the OGL.

 

[Morrus]

There is no product identity in the SRD. The SRD itself renames spells with proper names like Mordenkainen in them

 

[AbraZero]

There is no product identity in the SRD. The SRD itself renames spells with proper names like Mordenkainen in them

Thanks Morrus, that answers question #2.

 

[Nellisir]

As I understand the OGL, one is free to use and redefine the terms in the SRD, except those marked as product identity.

There is no PI in the SRD. There is PI in other products that utilize the OGL, however. If you do use PI, the concern is less about the OGL and more that you're directly messing with some sort of intellectual property of the copyright holder. The OGL doesn't enter into it.

1) I think the OGL was a great idea and I want to respect the limits that it sets. If I wanted to create a monster with similar mechanics to, say, a beholder, which of these are allowed by the license?

The default answer is to pretend you can't read anything that's PI, so a-e1 are out; e2 is fine; f is kinda silly; g is fine.
There's really not much reason to try and be clever about this stuff. If it's a flying eyeball, people will connect it to the beholder. And WotC was extremely generous with the OGL and the SRD, so maybe there's something from another source that is Open Game Content that would work instead? Then you have the pleasure of introducing a new opponent instead of recycling an old one.

2) Can material that has not been released as open game content be treated the same as product identity material? For example, the Warforged race is not mentioned by the OGL SRD but I'm sure a trademark exists on it. Do the same renaming rules apply?

Basically. Mike Mearls wrote a construct character race called the Ironborn for Malhavoc Press's Book of Iron Might. The key is to take the concept (a construct character race) and don't look at any of the mechanics; figure it out on your own.

3) Some creators have attached additional licenses to their products. (For example: ORSIC (Can't provide a link since I am a new poster.)) Are these additional licenses only applicable in the case of "extras", like being able to indicate compatibility? My understanding was that if one is releasing open game content, no additional restrictions could be applied to it as per the OGL.

The OGL governs the reuse and attributation of material that is designated Open Game Content. That OGC content cannot have additional restrictions; you are correct. The additional licenses usually deal with using PI to indicate compatibility, something that is expressly forbidden by the OGL unless authorized by an additional license. My understanding is that usually one product CAN indicate compatibility with another product, so the OGL is a restriction on normal copyright laws (but you get benefits too, so it works out). The d20 License used to cover indicating compatibility with Dungeons & Dragons, but that ended/was pulled in 2008 or so.

There are basically 3 kinds of content in an OGL product: that which is designated Open Game Content (OGC); that which is designated Product Identity (PI); and that which is neither, and usually called Closed Content. When you are reusing OGC, only look at the open content. Ignore everything else.

 

[AbraZero]

Thanks Nellisir. The beholder question was just an example.

Is there an easy way to determine which terms are product identity and which are not? Proper names and locations are easy enough to spot. I'm worried about running into trouble with something like "Dragonborn". My first guess would be that it is not available, and that using "half-dragon" or "wyrmkin" would be required.

However, when I searched for the term on google, the first match is actually referring to a Skyrim race which was obviously invented after the D&D one...

I'm sure there are other terms that are used so commonly that they are incorrectly assumed to be public domain. Is anyone familiar with a wiki that attempts to collate a list of terms like "hobbit" and "mithril" that can easily be mistaken as public domain?

 

[Nellisir]

Is there an easy way to determine which terms are product identity and which are not? Proper names and locations are easy enough to spot. I'm worried about running into trouble with something like "Dragonborn". My first guess would be that it is not available, and that using "half-dragon" or "wyrmkin" would be required.

If it's in the SRD, it's not PI.
If it's not in the SRD, and it's from a WotC product, it's not under the OGL at all. With very few exceptions, NONE of WotC's products have ever used the OGL. Terms can only be PI if the product uses the OGL. Product Identity does NOT equal intellectual property.

However, when I searched for the term on google, the first match is actually referring to a Skyrim race which was obviously invented after the D&D one...

See, that's overthinking it. It really doesn't matter what other people are doing, just...don't use dragonborn. Or warforged. Changeling is OK if you don't make them exactly like pale-skinned pseudo-dopplegangers.

I'm sure there are other terms that are used so commonly that they are incorrectly assumed to be public domain. Is anyone familiar with a wiki that attempts to collate a list of terms like "hobbit" and "mithril" that can easily be mistaken as public domain?

Nope.

 

[Nellisir]

Is there an easy way to determine which terms are product identity and which are not?

By the terms of the OGL, OGC and PI are supposed to be clearly identified. PI almost always is; OGC often is. Closed content sometimes is. There's usually a OGC declaration in the front or the back of the book.

Again, almost NO WotC books use the OGL, so just ignore them.

 

[Morrus]

Is there an easy way to determine which terms are product identity and which are not? Proper names and locations are easy enough to spot. I'm worried about running into trouble with something like "Dragonborn". My first guess would be that it is not available, and that using "half-dragon" or "wyrmkin" would be required.

The way to do this is to look at the SRD. If it's in there, you can use it. If it's not, you can't. Download the SRD and you have a list of everything you can use.

However, when I searched for the term on google, the first match is actually referring to a Skyrim race which was obviously invented after the D&D one...

Skyrim doesn't use the OGL, so the terms of the OGL are not relevant to it. You can create your product without using the OGL, and then you're not bound by its terms. In that case, you're simply operating in the normal realm of copyright and trademark law, which is likely beyond the range of advice you can realistically get on a messageboard. The OGL makes it easy for you; the non-OGL route means you need to know exactly what you're doing and definitely consult a lawyer. Using the OGL (correctly) guarantees you won't be challenged.

I'm sure there are other terms that are used so commonly that they are incorrectly assumed to be public domain. Is anyone familiar with a wiki that attempts to collate a list of terms like "hobbit" and "mithril" that can easily be mistaken as public domain?

I've not heard of such a list, but there might be one out there somewhere.

 

[AbraZero]

The way to do this is to look at the SRD. If it's in there, you can use it. If it's not, you can't. Download the SRD and you have a list of everything you can use.



Skyrim doesn't use the OGL, so the terms of the OGL are not relevant to it. You can create your product without using the OGL, and then you're not bound by its terms. In that case, you're simply operating in the normal realm of copyright and trademark law, which is likely beyond the range of advice you can realistically get on a messageboard. The OGL makes it easy for you; the non-OGL route means you need to know exactly what you're doing and definitely consult a lawyer. Using the OGL (correctly) guarantees you won't be challenged.



I've not heard of such a list, but there might be one out there somewhere.

My concern is about creating new content that overlaps with something in a WotC book I am not familiar with. There are dozens of supplements I have not read. (A database of the terms they consider trademarked would really help.)

I don't understand your comment about Skyrim. 'Dragonborn' would be 'closed content' and closed content is not covered by the OGL... so I'm not sure how using it would affect how someone interacts with closed content?

 

[Morrus]

My concern is about creating new content that overlaps with something in a WotC book I am not familiar with. There are dozens of supplements I have not read. (A database of the terms they consider trademarked would really help.)

That's the same problem every creative has - they can't see or read everything, whether they're designing games or writing a novel or a song. Yeah, it's a tough one. I guess you do your due diligence and make sure you're not stepping on any toes to the best of your knowledge. If you're planning on publishing, checking out those few dozen supplements might not be an unreasonable step to take. But no, there's no published list of restricted content; there's only a list of open content.

Independent development can often be used as a defense against IP infringement claims, but if it reached that point something's gone wrong with your planning somewhere.

I don't understand your comment about Skyrim. 'Dragonborn' would be 'closed content' and closed content is not covered by the OGL... so I'm not sure how using it would affect how someone interacts with closed content?

My point was that Skyrim - and what it does or doesn't do - isn't relevant to a discussion about the OGL.