CC and OGC

[Smeazel]

This is probably a stupid question, but what is the legal status of using a converted monster from the CC in a (third-party) Pathfinder-compatible product? I searched through the forum and couldn't find a definitive answer; the closest I could find was this thread, but the only answer it gave was "Maybe the license will clarify matters." Which... it doesn't, completely.

(I wasn't sure, incidentally, if I should have posted in that thread rather than creating a new thread... but I decided a new thread was probably preferable to necromancing a thread that was four and a half years old. Apologies if I made the wrong decision.)

The license does specifically mention the monster I want to use, if that helps (or hurts). But I'm not sure exactly what to make of the disclaimer at the top of the license that "All original sources and original monsters are the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Use of these copyrights on this website should not be inferred as a challenge to their copyrights." I think this disclaimer is just clarifying that the 1E/2E sourcebook the monster originally appeared in is still not considered Open Content, and nor is the monster as it was originally printed in this source, but that the converted monster is Open Content and fair game... but I'm not completely sure I'm interpreting this right.

I guess for the particular monster I'm interested in at the moment it's not that big a deal, because the monster in question actually is mythological in origin, and I can get away with just mentioning its name and other details about it that come from mythology and aren't original to its D&D incarnation. Still, I'd like to know if the conversions are OGC for several reasons... for one, because, even though the monster is mythological in origin, it's not at all well known, and I'd rather not have to try to explain "No, it's from Malaysian mythology! Really!" if challenged on this point; for another, because if it's OGC then I'm not limited to only mentioning details that come from the original mythological source and can also use facts specific to the D&D version of the monster, and third, and maybe most important of all, for future reference in case there's another monster I decide I want to use later that doesn't have mythological roots (like maybe the aartuk or the galltrit).

So... anyway, yeah, the main question is: Converted monsters from the Creature Catalogue: Okay to use in an OGL product released under the Pathfinder Compatibility License, or not? (And if yes, does this go only for creatures specifically mentioned in the license? I'd assume that even if the answer to the first question is yes, the answer to the second is... well, also yes... but I figured I may as well ask.)

Thanks in advance for any reply!

 

[freyar]

Welcome to EN World! (Though if your join date is really 2006, I should just say, "welcome to posting!")

Quite a good question. Unfortunately, Scott Greene doesn't really come around here much anymore, and he's certainly would know best. Maybe Shade will have an idea. He'd at least know if he updates the license when he puts in new critters.

In any case, if you're talking about one of the monsters from the start of the CC 10 years ago, you might look if it's in the Tome of Horrors by Necromancer Press (I guess not, since you're asking, but...). Also, if it is one from that long ago, I'd say it's safely OGC as long as you list the copyrights correctly in your section 15 and that you've interpreted the copyright notice here correctly.

The sticky issue is that the original CC and Necromancer (for the ToH) had some separate agreement with WotC about converting old monsters. But I don't know if there were supposed to be restrictions on that agreement that we've somehow missed with the newer conversions. We haven't wanted to convert anything to Pathfinder in the CC, partly because there was that agreement with WotC and partly because the CC mission is as a 3.X D&D resource.

Anyway, as a mythological critter, your project really should be perfectly fine if you design it yourself. As for obscurity, maybe your monster isn't so obscure. Does it have a Monstropedia entry?

 

[Cleon]

Anyway, as a mythological critter, your project really should be perfectly fine if you design it yourself. As for obscurity, maybe your monster isn't so obscure. Does it have a Monstropedia entry?

I think that it'd be easier if to design your own version of the creature (maybe drawing on the CC for "inspiration")

Then you wouldn't have to worry about legal issues, since it's a mythological beastie.

 

[Smeazel]

I think that it'd be easier if to design your own version of the creature (maybe drawing on the CC for "inspiration") Then you wouldn't have to worry about legal issues, since it's a mythological beastie.

Yes, I know that's an option as a last resort, but I've already explained the reasons why this is far from an optimal solution. (Especially the last reason I mentioned -- there may be other converted creatures I'd like to use later that don't have mythological roots. In fact, since my last post I'd already thought of one -- the lythlyx. It's also specifically mentioned in the license, and I'd really like to be able to mention it, too, but no mythological roots there.)

In any case, if you're talking about one of the monsters from the start of the CC 10 years ago, you might look if it's in the Tome of Horrors by Necromancer Press (I guess not, since you're asking, but...).

Right, it's not.

As for obscurity, maybe your monster isn't so obscure. Does it have a Monstropedia entry?

No, it does not. It does have a Wikipedia entry, but the mythological version is obscure enough that the plain monster name actually goes to the D&D version and the mythological version is disambiguated as (legendary creature).

Eh, what the hey. There's really no reason to be coy about what monster I'm talking about. It's the berbalang.

Also, if it is one from that long ago, I'd say it's safely OGC as long as you list the copyrights correctly in your section 15 and that you've interpreted the copyright notice here correctly.

Which is exactly my question... have I interpreted the copyright notice here correctly? I laid out in my original post what I think the copyright notice in the license implies (I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear), but it has some odd bits that aren't in the standard OGL and I'm not completely certain that I'm interpreting it right.

Thank you very much for your replies, but I still don't have a definitive answer... I guess maybe I'll just wait and hope I get lucky and Scott Greene shows up...

 

[freyar]

I believe that you're right about that extra bit regarding WotC's copyright; there's not much other way to do it. But I understand your legal concerns. I do know that the CC monsters were supposed to be OGC, so the answer to your questions _should_ be yes. However, I would note that the CC's OGL section 15 looks woefully out of date compared to all the monsters on the site.

 

[Smeazel]

I do know that the CC monsters were supposed to be OGC, so the answer to your questions _should_ be yes. However, I would note that the CC's OGL section 15 looks woefully out of date compared to all the monsters on the site.

Well, if the intent was that the CC monsters were supposed to be OGC, I guess it looks pretty probable that I'm in the clear. If it was one of the more recent conversions that the CC's OGL section 15 hadn't been updated to reflect yet, then I'd be more worried, but fortunately both the monsters I want to use (as well as a few others I'm considering using) are explicitly mentioned in the CC's OGL section 15 along with their sources, so it looks like I ought to be on relatively firm ground. I just won't try to use any CC monsters that aren't mentioned in the CC's OGL section 15 until it's updated or I find out for sure that it's okay.

Thanks.

 

[freyar]

Shade out to be able to clarify this a little bit when he comes in; he's just not usually around weekends.

 

[Shade]

Shade out to be able to clarify this a little bit when he comes in; he's just not usually around weekends.

Unfortunately, I'm as in the dark as you are. When I "inherited" the CC, I never took another glance at the OGL. I'm knowledgable about converting monsters, but know next to nothing about legalese.

Has Pathfinder converted the berbalang yet? If so, it's probably safe to assume that its mythological roots are sufficient.

 

[Smeazel]

Pathfinder has not converted the berbalang, no (if it had, I wouldn't be asking this). I'm sure its mythological roots are sufficient to get way with mentioning it, but, like I said, there are other reasons to want to know whether or not it's OK to use it under the OGL, even though, because of its mythological origins, I could get away with mentioning this particular monster anyway.

Thanks for the reply, though. I guess it doesn't really change the situation as of my previous post -- I gather the berbalang and lythlyx should be okay, since they're explicitly mentioned in the site's OGL, but I won't risk trying to use any monsters that have been converted since then and aren't mentioned there.

 

[Cleon]

Out of curiosity, are you intending to modify the Berbalang so it's closer to the Filipino original?

e.g. a human who's an astrally-projecting cannibal rather than something that's a monster when out of its trance.