Caerdwyn
Villager
tl;dr there's another Wizards document out there that needs to be stamped out.
A heads-up to all who have been following the Open Game License debacle... pay attention to the OTHER potential problem: the Fan Content Policy.
company.wizards.com
Yes, Wizards/Hasbro have backed down on the OGL and SRD 5.1. That's great! It never should have gone this far, but here we are. However, there is a "back door" that is still out there which can potentially be used to harass competitors and critics, or to seize fan work without compensation. That is the Wizards Fan Content Policy (FCP).
I have my own reading and interpretation which concludes that most of it was never enforceable or is legal junk to begin with:
We have millions of master rules-lawyer DMs used to people trying to get away with shenanigans.
We have tens of millions of min-maxers who know how to look to grant themselves Advantage in a rules system.
We have many, many real-world attorneys who play the game and who are paying attention to this.
And Hasbro/WotC? You're under the microscope. You're on probation. You've made a positive step which I and many others acknowledge, but if after all this you still think you're clever, think again. You're not owed forgiveness, and a second abusive scandal will be the nail in the coffin that destroys the value of D&D forever. Your investors and shareholders will not be pleased. Speaking of which:
I also am aware that Paramount is not happy that you've ruined their investment in "Honor Among Thieves". Their attorneys are looking at your behavior too, and I'd bet a copper to a GP that there are mutual-obligation, legal detriment and non-performance clauses in the contracts between Hasbro and Paramount that cover actions that badly harm the viability of the project. Personal opinion: I think it's likely that Paramount applied a lot of pressure to Hasbro to knock it the F off when publications like Forbes and Motley Fool started discussing (and thus widely amplifying) OGL upset and calls for boycotting of the movie. P.T. Barnum's assertion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" just ain't so, even in this circus.
I, however, am not an attorney. I am a DM of 45 years' experience, a QA engineer of 33 years' experience, an author of commercially-successful fiction who has successfully used the legal system to defend my own intellectual property, and a department head that read, approves, rejects, and signs contracts on a daily basis. I'm not coming in completely cold here, but would like to hear from IP specialist attorneys as to whether the FCP ever had any real relevance or what, by simply stating "We can has Policy", what power Hasbro can simply assign to itself without others' consent, and how to proceed to dismantle the FCP as a potential sleeper-cell.
A heads-up to all who have been following the Open Game License debacle... pay attention to the OTHER potential problem: the Fan Content Policy.
Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast
Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy.
Yes, Wizards/Hasbro have backed down on the OGL and SRD 5.1. That's great! It never should have gone this far, but here we are. However, there is a "back door" that is still out there which can potentially be used to harass competitors and critics, or to seize fan work without compensation. That is the Wizards Fan Content Policy (FCP).
I have my own reading and interpretation which concludes that most of it was never enforceable or is legal junk to begin with:
- "We ask." It's good to want things, but asking does not mean you get what you want.
- It's not an agreed upon license.
- With the SRD 5.1 now in Creative Commons, the FCP is in many ways in direct conflict with that, and loses.
- Some of it is just restarting "trademarks are a thing". Yep. That's not a policy, trademark infringement is a law. FCP is irrelevant.
- Same for implying "officialness" or endorsement. That's already covered by law.
- That bit about "we can take your stuff for free"? Without agreed-upon compensation, that's also against the law.
- And about a "right" to take down any videos, reviews, etc. they feed like? Nope. Illegal seizure, especially given the now-present CC-SA-4.0 license, basic intellectual property law, and public statements made by WotC all acknowledge that they can't take that stuff down. It's just hot air, and abuse of copyright claims can land them in hot water.
We have millions of master rules-lawyer DMs used to people trying to get away with shenanigans.
We have tens of millions of min-maxers who know how to look to grant themselves Advantage in a rules system.
We have many, many real-world attorneys who play the game and who are paying attention to this.
And Hasbro/WotC? You're under the microscope. You're on probation. You've made a positive step which I and many others acknowledge, but if after all this you still think you're clever, think again. You're not owed forgiveness, and a second abusive scandal will be the nail in the coffin that destroys the value of D&D forever. Your investors and shareholders will not be pleased. Speaking of which:
I also am aware that Paramount is not happy that you've ruined their investment in "Honor Among Thieves". Their attorneys are looking at your behavior too, and I'd bet a copper to a GP that there are mutual-obligation, legal detriment and non-performance clauses in the contracts between Hasbro and Paramount that cover actions that badly harm the viability of the project. Personal opinion: I think it's likely that Paramount applied a lot of pressure to Hasbro to knock it the F off when publications like Forbes and Motley Fool started discussing (and thus widely amplifying) OGL upset and calls for boycotting of the movie. P.T. Barnum's assertion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" just ain't so, even in this circus.
I, however, am not an attorney. I am a DM of 45 years' experience, a QA engineer of 33 years' experience, an author of commercially-successful fiction who has successfully used the legal system to defend my own intellectual property, and a department head that read, approves, rejects, and signs contracts on a daily basis. I'm not coming in completely cold here, but would like to hear from IP specialist attorneys as to whether the FCP ever had any real relevance or what, by simply stating "We can has Policy", what power Hasbro can simply assign to itself without others' consent, and how to proceed to dismantle the FCP as a potential sleeper-cell.
