WotC Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims

[Staffan]

WotC is free to re-release the same material under a different license. But, that new license is merely another option that may be used, not must be used. They cannot prevent anyone from using the older one, because WotC cannot control whether a licensee got a version of the text with the new or old license.

And, in fact, WotC did this - back in the day, 3e was licensed under the OGL, or the d20 license, depending on whether the publisher wanted ot use the d20 logo and actively claim compatibility with D&D or not.

That's not exactly true. The d20 System Trademark License was a thing layered on top of the OGL.

The OGL has a clause that says, paraphrased, "You may not use any other party's trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Gaming Content, including as an indicator of compatibility, without a separate license covering the use of the trademark." This means that you're not allowed to say "An adventure for Dungeons & Dragons" or "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook" or things like that. The d20 System Trademark License was that separate license, saying "You get to use the d20 System Logo and say that your stuff is for the d20 System, and refer to the core books in a limited fashion, but in exchange you can't make your thing into a separate game, and you can't change certain definitions."

The d20 STL was not irrevocable, and was changed multiple times (most famously to block the Book of Erotic Fantasy) and eventually revoked. That's why you today see things like "For use with the 5th edition of the world's most popular role-playing game".

 

[Morrus]

The d20 STL was not irrevocable, and was changed multiple times (most famously to block the Book of Erotic Fantasy) and eventually revoked. That's why you today see things like "For use with the 5th edition of the world's most popular role-playing game".

I’m waiting for the first person to publish a “DnD” book. I’ll be fascinated to see what happens. Its such a popular Twitter hashtag that it’s arguably nearly as recognisable as ‘D&D’ on social media, and indistinguishable when said out loud.

 

[pemerton]

Say Joe Writer creates the "Open Author's License". Its terms are equivalent to putting the work into Public Domain, with the one stipulation that the work must include a frontispiece reading, "Many thanks to Joe Writer for his material," with the work. Joe publishes a book, including v1.0 of this license.

Then, the week after Joe creates version 1.1 of the Open Author's License, with the same stipulations, but an addition that the licensee must also pay $100,000 per month to Joe Writer or his estate, in perpetuity (or, include any other onerous stipulation that you wish - for the example, all it needs is to be onerous). Joe publishes a single copy of the book with this new license.

Sam Author comes across the work with version 1.0, and uses it. Joe comes up and now claims that he's retracted 1.0, and that Sam now owes several hundred thousand dollars worth of pack payments, or other imposition of the onerous terms, or face lawsuit.... Which is, of course, complete nonsense. You cannot change contract terms without the permission of the parties in the contract!

So, no - if you openly distribute a work with a license, and allow the licensee to enter into that license without an express discussion and signed agreement with you first, the license can't be changed in the background, separate from the work it applies to. The OGL happens to make this expressly clear, but it would be true regardless.

I'm not sure I quite follow your example. But if Joe publishes an offer, and then retracts it, the retraction takes effect even if copies of the (former) offer are still in circulation.

There may be an issue of estoppel, but - at least in Australian law, which is my home jurisdiction - I'm not sure that a gratuitious offer of the sort you've described would generate reasonable reliance.

In your example of Sam, of cousre Sam wouldn't owe Joe money - Sam never entered into a contract to pay for a licence to use Joe's work. But that doesn't mean that Sam's use of Joe's work is licensed, if Joe has retracted his offer.

 

[Deleted member 7015506]

Although I wanted to keep myself out of this (thanks for the mild and very gentle reminder/remark ), and since I thought my english is basically not bad, but it gets too complicated for my limited understanding: The second part of Fyrlock's posting is out and to be honest, although I think I can converse on a lot of subjects in my second language, I have to admit, that basically I don´t understand the argumentation. So for those folks better educated than me on the point: read and explain to us.

 

[S'mon]

Although I wanted to keep myself out of this (thanks for the mild and very gentle reminder/remark ), and since I thought my english is basically not bad, but it gets too complicated for my limited understanding: The second part of Fyrlock's posting is out and to be honest, although I think I can converse on a lot of subjects in my second language, I have to admit, that basically I don´t understand the argumentation. So for those folks better educated than me on the point: read and explain to us.

All I can say is that it doesn't look like something written by an IP lawyer or by someone particularly familiar with IP law.

I am strongly against the kind of over-extensions of IPR I have seen argued for by lawyers & rightsholders, and occasionally found for in judgements. But this... well I feel it probably harms the cause of reasonable limits on the scope of IP protection by creating an easily dismissable argument. If argument is the right word.

 

[Beleriphon]

I’m waiting for the first person to publish a “DnD” book. I’ll be fascinated to see what happens. Its such a popular Twitter hashtag that it’s arguably nearly as recognisable as ‘D&D’ on social media, and indistinguishable when said out loud.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if WotC has a trademark on that, and would actively enforce their trademark rights if somebody tried it.

 

[S'mon]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if WotC has a trademark on that, and would actively enforce their trademark rights if somebody tried it.

Nope - there are a bunch of DND trademarks, but none filed by Hasbro/WotC - Record List Display

 

[MoonSong]

I’m waiting for the first person to publish a “DnD” book. I’ll be fascinated to see what happens. Its such a popular Twitter hashtag that it’s arguably nearly as recognisable as ‘D&D’ on social media, and indistinguishable when said out loud.

I like to think about whether "The End D" or "Dee-en-Dee" would cut it. Maybe some Spanish "Calabozos y Dragonezz!!" or "Denede"

 

[Morrus]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if WotC has a trademark on that, and would actively enforce their trademark rights if somebody tried it.

You don't need to be surprised. You can look it up. No they haven't.

 

[Umbran]

The d20 STL was not irrevocable, and was changed multiple times (most famously to block the Book of Erotic Fantasy) and eventually revoked. That's why you today see things like "For use with the 5th edition of the world's most popular role-playing game".

Fine, let us set my extremely rudimentary license example aside. Let us concentrate on the examples we have.

The d20STL was revocable, said so explicitly, and included text in the license to cover its revocation.

The OGL was not revocable - it says it is explicitly perpetual, and that for any given reference document, you could use any version of the license that reference had been previously published under.

Pretty clearly, the difference is intentional. There can't be a whole lot of question that WotC didn't know the difference. Why can I believe the d20STL, but not the OGL?

And, before you repeat that an entity cannot make an offer that cannot be rescinded, I have a counter-example: Public Domain - the license that is the complete offering of reproduction of the work, in whole or in part. Once you have released a work into the Public Domain, you cannot recall it, and neither can anyone else. It then follows that other irrevocable licenses may be constructed out of "Public domain, except...," with varying levels and forms of exception, but holding to the same point that the license offer cannot be removed.