We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[darjr]

Ope! Beaten to the punch.

 

[S'mon]

How does that work for things done by a team? (Like Level-Up where there are a bunch of designers and a publisher listed, or, as I'm beginning to suspect, do I have absolutely no clue about wrok for hire and the like).

We have works of joint authorship. In that case by default every author has a kind of overlapping copyright in the work. And we have employer owns copyright in works created by employees in the course of employment.

Normally with commissioned works the authors assign copyright in writing to the comissioner, and waive their Moral Rights. If they don't assign copyright then either there is an implied licence under the commission contract, or more recently courts have been talking about "equitable ownership" by the commissioner. I find the latter a bit iffy.

 

[Nikosandros]

Whatever is happening, it really seems like someone is leaking behind-the-scenes non-finalized stuff from WotC, presumably in an attempt to create enough of a kerfuffle that WotC goes "Hmmm this isn't a great idea!".

Yes, I had hypothesized this in a different thread some days ago. I was accused of peddling conspiracy theories.

While far from proven, it is instead not so unlikely and I actually think that it would speak positively of the folks at WotC (quite possibly from the design and development side) trying to curtail this kind of moves.

 

[Art Waring]

This is absolutely shooting the messenger, but I'm not particularly inclined to take DF on good faith when it comes to his bottom line.

I don't have any opinion of him (didn't really look into these things to be honest), & I have never played Zweihander, I'm just reporting on the current developments.

 

[Stonesnake]

Well, it seems that many of the items listed in the gizmodo.com have the exact same language as what we reported yesterday. Just saying...

 

[Cadence]

She notes in the twitter replies:

 

[mamba]

"While the original open gaming license is a relatively short document, coming in at under 900 words, the new draft of the OGL 1.1, which was provided to io9 by a non-WotC developer, is over 9,000 words long."

Bloody hell. Still reading.

“One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license agreement.” By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules. Large publishers who focus almost exclusively on products based on the original OGL, including Paizo, Kobold Press, and Green Ronin, will be under pressure to update their business model incredibly fast.”

“The “OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors and it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.””

I really do not care whether it funded competitors, esp. since it still allows PDFs which this claims is the main competition… WotC is bigger than ever so I do not see much/any harm there.

I do not care about limiting it to print, pdf and vtt only either (I care once it becomes less than that). I care about the register, report and pay fee bit. The license should remain open

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I read it, perhaps I misunderstood the point, or missed something, but it still seemed to be saying you could copyright these elements we don't normally copyright because of how they come together (but that is still fundamentally allowing the groove and vibe to be copyrighted---again unless I am missing something here)

Okay- last post on this and we move on to the actual topic. First thing you need to understand is that it's an appellate opinion, with a three judge panel. Two judges were in the majority (affirming, well, mostly, the lower court) and one judge dissented.

Now, the majority opinion made the following points. I will provide pinpoint cites (page numbers from the reporter):
1. Recitation of the standard of law. 1163-66. This is all standard stuff.

2. Denial of Summary Judgment. 1166-67. This is the most important part, as the "Thicke Parties" (ahem) primarily based their appeal on this. But here's the thing; after a full trial on the merits, you don't get to appeal the denial of summary judgment.

3. Everything else. 1167-1178. It's basically just a recitation of "you're screwed because of the standard on appeal after a jury trial." Nothing interesting here, except the part where they overturn the vicarious liability finding.

What you need to read, and understand, is the majority section VIII ("You Can't Get There from Here"), 1178-82 and contrast that with the Dissent. It shows that the majority is dealing with this as a procedural issue- that the failure here was a litigation failure, a failure to correctly preserve issues (such as by making a rule 50(a) motion) so that the court could rule on the merits.

What you're missing is that this opinion isn't about what the people on youtube are saying it is; instead, it's a procedural fight with one judge wanting to decide the case despite the rules while the majority is following the appellate procedure.

Here's the part where they make it explicit-
Lastly, the dissent prophesies that our decision will shake the foundations of copyright law, imperil the music industry, and stifle creativity. It even suggests that the Gayes' victory will come back to haunt them, as the Gayes' musical compositions may now be found to infringe any number of famous songs preceding them. Respectfully, these conjectures are unfounded hyperbole. Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or "groove." Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.

Williams v. Gaye isn't some apocalyptic tale of IP law. It is a cautionary tale of what can happen when attorneys ... well, don't maximize their odds of success. Now, in saying that, I will again reiterate that I don't agree with the underlying principle that even allowed the lawsuit to get that far, but people continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the case.

 

[darjr]

@Morrus I’m getting flooded by folks who want to know what ENWorld thinks, which I can’t answer of course. What do you think?

 

[Sacrosanct]

The thing with a license is that both parties have to agree to it. If one never agrees or uses the 1.1, then they aren't beholden to it. I'm hearing a lot of things that seem to infer that you (general you) have to use 1.1 as if it's mandatory.

If (and that's a huge if) WoTC could even revoke the license I and others agreed to, that doesn't mean I'm forced to use 1.1. It's not really necessary for most things. It's just a convenience. So unless there are some serious carrots to use 1.1 if it's that restrictive, I don't see anyone using it, making it a pretty worthless and irrelevant license.