SRD excluded monsters

[Treebore]

I'm guessing that Black Ice Well was, like Paradigm Concepts' Unveiled Masters: the Essential Guide to Mind Flayers, begun before the finished SRD was released, and third-partty companies were all using the Gentleman's Agreement instead (for instance, St. Cuthbert is mentioned in Necromancer Games' The Wizard's Amulet).

Strictly speaking, some Product Identity terms could be technically used...but only because they slipped into the SRD by accident (e.g. "eladrin"). I suspect this is how Necromancer/Frog God Games is able to have monsters like the Slaad Lord of Entropy and the Slaad Lord of the Insane in their Tome of Horrors books (though I may be wrong).

I remember Clark Peterson stating he had direct permission from WOTC to use several IP creatures in Tome of Horrors I.

 

[13garth13]

I'm guessing that Black Ice Well was, like Paradigm Concepts' Unveiled Masters: the Essential Guide to Mind Flayers, begun before the finished SRD was released, and third-partty companies were all using the Gentleman's Agreement instead (for instance, St. Cuthbert is mentioned in Necromancer Games' The Wizard's Amulet).

Strictly speaking, some Product Identity terms could be technically used...but only because they slipped into the SRD by accident (e.g. "eladrin"). I suspect this is how Necromancer/Frog God Games is able to have monsters like the Slaad Lord of Entropy and the Slaad Lord of the Insane in their Tome of Horrors books (though I may be wrong).

Edit: Beaten to the punch by Treebore

Actually I thought that (and I could be wrong) Necromancer Games had a deal/agreement with WOTC for the Tome of Horrors, and thus all kinds of unique creatures (including numerous demon lords, etc) from Fiend Folio, MMI and MMII were included....and thus entered into OGL territory via the back door. That is why Paizo can mention mention Jubilex and have him appear (or is it Juiblex? One of those spellings is kosher and one is still WOTC IP) and have it be perfectly legit using the OGL, all due to the laundry list of creatures in the Tome of Horrors being open.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

MOST monster are drawn directly from myth and legend, so cannot be copyrighted. So the monsters WOTC kept out of the SRD are the ones that are actually original creations that they owned outright. Others are/were still owned by the original creators, most of which, if I remember correctly, first appeared in issues of White Dwarf magazine.

Rust monsters were definitively invented on the fly at Gygax's table back in the 1970s (as in, people who were there have recounted it happening), after they picked a toy out of a bag of cheap Hong Kong plastic monsters.

Rust monsters are WAY more iconic than slaadi or generic snake-men.

 

[Alzrius]

I remember Clark Peterson stating he had direct permission from WOTC to use several IP creatures in Tome of Horrors I.

My understanding is that the "permission" you speak of was the deal he cut with WotC to get the original Tome of Horrors made in the first place - essentially, that it was a deal to put a lot of monsters WotC wasn't too interested in anymore into the realm of Open Game Content.

Which, of course, means that anyone can use them now.

 

[Treebore]

My understanding is that the "permission" you speak of was the deal he cut with WotC to get the original Tome of Horrors made in the first place - essentially, that it was a deal to put a lot of monsters WotC wasn't too interested in anymore into the realm of Open Game Content.

Which, of course, means that anyone can use them now.

Yeah, I remember more like having a friend on the inside of WOTC that helped him get the permission, but don't assume it is all OGL, specific creatures may be excluded. The license in the back of the book should say what, if any, are not OGL in ToH 1. That would explain why Monkeygod was able to use Slaadi in Black Ice Well, though. That or they just got lucky and stayed under their legal radar.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, I remember more like having a friend on the inside of WOTC that helped him get the permission, but don't assume it is all OGL, specific creatures may be excluded. The license in the back of the book should say what, if any, are not OGL in ToH 1. That would explain why Monkeygod was able to use Slaadi in Black Ice Well, though. That or they just got lucky and stayed under their legal radar.

Or, as was stated, the project was begun during the Gentlemen's Agreement stage, which is why Mongoose was able to produce the Slayer's Guide to the Yuan-Ti, f'r instance.

 

[trancejeremy]

That's actually one of the problems with the OGL - it's not too clear in many cases. (Or rather, how WOTC implemented it)

Someone not aware of that Gentlemen's Agreement (which was what, the whole 3.0 era?) could easily pick up that Slayer's Guide to Yuan Ti and simply cite it in the OGL section, using it correctly, but possibly running afoule of WOTC, because they later decided it wasn't "officially" made open. Someone might not even realize that Yuan Ti were a WOTC creation, but Mongoose invented it.

Even with the Tome of Horrors, it doesn't really follow the OGL, but uses a different format, where you declare every single monster used, as if it was a separate publication for each monster.

 

[frankthedm]

The issue of just how the Tome of Horrors and OGL interacts is a very important issue since big chunks of Pathfinder's bestiary draws from that book. I've always wondered if Necromancer actually had the power to push all those classic D&D critters into the OGL.

 

[Sanglorian]

It's also worth adding that you usually can't claim copyright over a name. People have been speaking about slaad and githyanki and so on being Wizards of the Coast's 'IP', but while they might be trademarks they're not copyright in and of themselves. (Even if they were trademarks, you'd still be able to use them in some capacity - after all, I'm allowed to write a book about Coca Cola even though Coca Cola is a trademark).

So if I wrote a novel about 'slaad' and 'githzerai' duking it out in a plane called 'Limbo', I wouldn't be violating copyright law unless I copied some part of Wizards' creative expression.

However, to extra-complicate it, the OGL only allows you to use other people's copyright works if you avoid using Product Identity, and they have stated that 'slaad' and 'githzerai' are Product Identity. So if my novel reprinted some of the SRD - even parts unrelated to slaad and githzerai - then the fact that I used some of Wizards' Product Identity in a separate part of the book would mean I was in violation of the OGL, which would mean that my reprinting of parts of the SRD would be in violation of copyright law ... even though the actual parts of my book where I refer to 'slaad' and 'githzerai' are totally legal.

At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case - please do tell me if I've got it wrong. And hopefully I've explained it clearly.

 

[Alzrius]

Sanglorian, I'm fairly certain that you're correct. The OGL has nothing to do with questions of copyright - rather, it's a legal agreement that allows certain terms to be used and re-used (those that are declared Open Game Content) so long as other terms are not re-used (those that are declared Product Identity). Copyright has nothing to do with it.

My understanding of the Gentleman's Agreement is that it was just that - an agreement that allowed third-party companies to use WotC's intellectual properties before the specifics of the OGL were hammered out. This included projects that were begun before the OGL was finished, even though the final product went to market after the OGL had been released. Hence why you have products such as Unveiled Masters going to market in 2002, despite the OGL having been released by then (as I recall).

Those products don't - I believe - actually try to declare things like "illithid" to be Open Game Content.

With the Tome of Horrors, it's different (though I haven't checked). While I agree that it's odd that it requires you to declare each OGC monster individually, the fact that it's put "slaad" out there seems like a back-door admission that the term itself can be used as part of the OGL now (which, again, I think may be because the term itself accidentally appears in the SRD).