Cortex Fan License Published

The fan license which allows you to create free material for Cortex Prime was announced by Fandom yesterday.

Fandom acquired the Cortex Prime system recently, and is also the owner of D&D Beyond.

The announcement was greeted with negative feedback about its restrictions by the community. The Community License grants ownership of any mechanics created under the license (but not 'lore' such as names, art, fiction, etc.) Additionally, Fandom can terminate the license at any time. The usage of the Cortex Prime mechanics is limited in that fans cannot "decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer the Cortex System, or any component thereof, by any means whatsoever."

In the comments under the announcement, Fandom confirmed that fan creations could not be distributed via DriveThruRPG or Itch.io because those platforms "grants them rights to specific parts of the content, including content that the community license does not grant you the rights to." I'm not familiar with Itch's terms, but DTRPG doesn't acquire any rights to content distributed on the platform.

Fandom does confirm in the comments that people can create their own versions of the Cortex mechanics without using the license; but by doing so you can't call it Cortex or use the resources Fandom provides. Mechanics in themselves cannot be copyrighted, but the expression (the text used) to describe them can.

Those wishing to sell their work will be able to use the Cortex Creator Studio, which will become available at a later date. The commercial license requires an application.

 

[Grantypants]

The only way this license makes sense to me is if it was drafted to be the terms and conditions for using their upcoming Cortex website. With that in mind, a lot of what people are complaining about seems more reasonable, or at least less unreasonable.
The first paragraph of the license says that using any aspect of the Cortex System means you agree to the license. That would be ridiculous if they meant playing or writing for the existing game, but standard procedure for creating an account on almost any website.
Other lines about how you can't disassemble or decompile the system and how Fandom doesn't guarantee that its systems are virus-free also don't make sense except as related to a website.
Claiming copyright over all material ever written compatible with Cortex is preposterous, but claiming copyright over all material posted to their website is... not great, but not unheard of either.

 

[Kannik]

I like the idea of a creator studio. And I think Cam is going to get this fixed.

Of note is that DMsGuild has one license and there is still the OGL for 5e. Both can be available at the same time.

Speaking of licensing and the DMSGUILD I think this is also important:

I have confidence in Cam at wanting to get this smoothed out (he's carried Cortex all this way!)… though at the same time I'm surprised that he “let” this go out this way. It’s possible he didn’t read it/left it to others to deal with, or that their internal discussions made this seem fine inside the framework of the different licenses, but to us coming in fresh it seems a mess.

From what I gather their intent was:

• Create something for free, off your own website/distribution, without using any of the Cortex trade dress: go wild.
• Create something for free, off your own website/distribution (but not on any site that allows for monetization?), using the Cortex trade dress (provided in the link provided): you adhere to the license that says any rules you create can be used by Fandom in a future product (they use the word ownership which is very much the wrong word here), and you keep any of your story/world IP.
• Create something for sale, you must sell it on their marketplace website, and adhere to a more stringent license that is upcoming.

All of which all sounds quite reasonable. What their license and poorly-worded FAQ actually says, however, looks to not match that intent yet. :/

Again, a very unfortunate situation that could negatively tinge things going forward, both for them and for any products designed and released by fans and enthusiasts that use the system.

 

[Alzrius]

Here's why it's terrible: firstly, it's a licence.
A licence is a legal document. It's something you actively sign.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think anyone signs - actively or otherwise - the Open Gaming License when they make use of it.

 

[Morrus]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think anyone signs - actively or otherwise - the Open Gaming License when they make use of it.

Correct.

 

[aramis erak]

I like the Cortex Prime system a lot and have a Mass Effect RPG half-written-up for it (and lightly playtested), which I might share on the internet one day (it's not ready yet), but this license seems pretty incompetent. It's not even like, intentionally grasping or something, it's just not at all the right license for the product.

Section 5 talks about decompiling... it's clear the lawyers used a computer game add-on content license.

 

[Grantypants]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think anyone signs - actively or otherwise - the Open Gaming License when they make use of it.

You don't have to physically sign anything when you use the OGL. The terms of the OGL say that if you use any content that other people have released under the OGL, then that counts as you accepting the terms of the OGL the same way a signature would. However, I doubt that any court would hold that just using OGL content was agreeing to the license, unless there was some other evidence you meant to agree. (For example, including the OGL text in your credits.)

 

[aramis erak]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think anyone signs - actively or otherwise - the Open Gaming License when they make use of it.

Correct.

The OGL does, however, state that using it is agreement to its terms. Which is, while not quite the same as signing, still a sign of acceptance. And it requires compliance with the terms to use it.

 

[Staffan]

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think anyone signs - actively or otherwise - the Open Gaming License when they make use of it.

I'm not a lawyer, but open licenses in general (e.g. the OGL, Creative Commons, GPL, etc.) tend to be accepted by including them in the product itself, thereby stating "I am using this material under this license and accepting the terms thereof."

But if I were to release a D&D supplement, I would not automatically be doing so under the OGL, and so I would not be bound by its terms. For example, one of the terms of the OGL is "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark." That means I can't release a product under the OGL and say it's for use with Dungeons & Dragons – that's why the d20 STL used to exist as a separate license, and these days publishers instead use euphemisms like "5e" or "the world's most popular RPG". But if I'm not using the OGL, there's nothing stopping me from saying my book is for use with D&D. I probably can't use the D&D logo, and I probably have to use some fine print to the effect of "D&D is a registered trademark owned by Wizards of the Coast blah blah", but indicating that your product is for use with another product is a commonplace thing. Depending on what else the book contains, I might be getting a nastygram from Wizards' lawyers for copyright violations, but indicating compatibility is not one of the things I'd get in trouble for.

 

[timbannock]

Interesting take aways to be had from some questions Mellie has answered on the Cortex RPG subreddit regarding examples of what's okay regarding referencing (or even rewriting) rules (in your own words):

 

[aramis erak]

You don't have to physically sign anything when you use the OGL. The terms of the OGL say that if you use any content that other people have released under the OGL, then that counts as you accepting the terms of the OGL the same way a signature would. However, I doubt that any court would hold that just using OGL content was agreeing to the license, unless there was some other evidence you meant to agree. (For example, including the OGL text in your credits.)

US courts have upheld shrinkwrap licenses provided the license text is on the exterior of the box. So, yes, they likely would.