Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[S'mon]

Yeah, no. If I didn't want to be anonymous, I wouldn't post anonymously.

I always write that on the internet, no one knows you're a dog. But if you keep posting that you're a good boy and deserve some kibble, people can figure it out pretty quickly - and without you having to tell them, too!

Anyway, as you know, most of the people here wouldn't know the fine distinctions regarding legal professionals that would matter.* Some time ago, on a different forum, there was a poster who was wrong (egregiously so) about a topic in the law- it was clear that not only was he unfamiliar with that area of the law, further, he was hopelessly clueless about how the law works in practice. After a while, he revealed (in the whole, "Do you know who you're talking to?" manner that was ... unfortunate) who he was. And he happened to be a law professor who I respected immensely- the type of person that writes books and treatises that are used in law schools across the nation. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of trying to be authoritative about an area of the law he didn't understand, as well as not understanding the difference between the academic understanding of law and how law works in practice.*


*To be honest, as amusing as it was to be lectured on American law by a Canadian practitioner, why bother? This is supposed to be fun, right?

**"Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, . . . and the first article is likely to be . . . the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th-century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar."

Well you certainly have the air of a US-based litigation attorney about you!

 

[Steel_Wind]

(IANAL) Are you certain it isnt a contract in disguise? They are quite sneaky about it, check out the second term:
"
2. Tell the Community it’s unofficial. Make it clear that your Fan Content is not endorsed or sponsored by Wizards—i.e., unofficial. Please include a note with your Fan Content explaining that:
“[Title of your Fan Content] is unofficial Fan Content permitted under the Fan Content Policy. Not approved/endorsed by Wizards. Portions of the materials used are property of Wizards of the Coast. ©Wizards of the Coast LLC.”
"

Doesn't look like one. It's not an offer, acceptance & consideration license contract.

What it is instead is merely a policy statement, whereby WotC represents to people that they will not sue them for "X" should they follow the guidelines noted at "A though D".

To go further on this, you should be asking: "Well, if it's not a contract, what's it worth then? It's just a gratuitous statement that means nothing, right?"

Yes and no. It is not a contract, true. WotC does not technically waive legal rights under it, and the fan does not obtain a contractual right to do "X' under it either. HOWEVER, remember these references throughout this thread to the terms "promissory estoppel" and reliance? And some discussions about how the remedy which flows from estoppel is better than nothing, but limited?

Well this is a perfect example of that. You, as The Fan, don't have a contractual right to do "X" under the FCP. WotC hasn't waived their rights to sue. You, as the Fan, are still technically in violation of a civil copyright claim. HOWEVER, you as the Fan can say "Hey, they misled me. They told me I could do "X" provided I followed "A through D". Well I did that and relied upon the FCP -- and here they are still suing me. That's not fair Your Honour. I should be able to do X, after all, I followed A through D, just like they told me."

And, assuming the evidence to back all of that up is established, the Court is likely to agree, in part, with the Fan. The Court will say you've been misled, that you reasonably relied on the representations of WotC when you could do "X", and if you followed "A throufh D" they wouldn't sue you. WotC is not acting fairly here. That's not right -- that's not equitable -- and so the court is likely to rule that WotC is estopped from asserting that cause of action against you under these circumstances.

"So I can do keep doing "X"?", you ask in court, naïve as a lamb.

"No", says the court. You don't have that right. WotC is objecting now and says you can't. It's their copyright and they say no. Don't do "X" anymore - I better not see you again back here." -- Case Dismissed --

So, you have a limited right to avoid a judgment for damages through estoppel, but you have to stop doing it and have no future right to do it, either. What you've got is better than nothing, sure, but it's not really what you wanted. It's a small scoop of ice cream without a big slice of apple pie.

That's estoppel.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well you certainly have the air of a US-based litigation attorney about you!

 

[S'mon]

As a general rule, American law tends to be more procedural and mechanistic.

Yes, I've heard this back from US lawyers: when I talk about how US (civil, commecial) courts are much more moralistic and Manichean/good vs evil than ours, they say back to me "No! Our courts are all about procedure and technicalities!"

I think the truth is both - that US (civil, commecial) court procedure is more mechanistic than in England, but that the US judges are also more inclined to pick out a goody to aid, and a baddy to crush.

 

[bmcdaniel]

As a general rule, American law tends to be more procedural and mechanistic.

In America, a great lawyer's true superpower is to turn every question into one of procedure.

Thats an interesting viewpoint. I will say that, at least in my own practice, I tend to the opposite view: US law tends to focus more on the underlying substance, whereas English law and the law of other countries (Canada being a notable exception) tends to be more formalistic/concerned with process and formalities than US.

Of course, these are very broad generalities, and one's views can be strongly influenced by one's particular practice. However, the above is actual advice I've given to paying clients for a practice at the intersection of US and non-US law for two decades.

(On the other hand, I do believe that US litigation is more concerned with process and formalities than other jurisdictions. But litigation is only a small part of the law.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thats an interesting viewpoint. I will say that, at least in my own practice, I tend to the opposite view: US law tends to focus more on the underlying substance, whereas English law and the law of other countries (Canada being a notable exception) tends to be more formalistic/concerned with process and formalities than US.

Of course, these are very broad generalities, and one's views can be strongly influenced by one's particular practice. However, the above is actual advice I've given to paying clients for a practice at the intersection of US and non-US law for two decades.

I ... well, look. First you have the issue of state and federal courts. If you're talking federal courts ... I can't possibly agree. But even state courts, for the most part, have their formalistic hangups (not to mention the state appellate courts).

While I no longer practice in that manner (ahem), I used to work closely with the teams that were in (inter alia) London and Mannheim. In terms of litigation, purely procedural arguments always had a much better shot in the US.

Can you given a litigation example you're thinking of?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm talking about the entire roster of weapons, as well as certain feats that supports firearms, and additive sets of rules and interactions related to Firearms. The DMG only 'very openly, shortly and vaguely' talks about firearms, for a narrative on 'what ammunition', and 'shoot X times before Loading'. These came no sooner than October 2017, and another portion in July 2020. Currently these still sit in UA while the Artificer (that was released in UA in the same year) has already come out, while the actual referenceable items/attacks were first seen in September 2018 with the release of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist

This post makes literally no sense. I have to ask, with respect, are you using Google translate or something to translate from a non-English language?

This bolded bit is absolutely nonsensical in English. It literally makes no sense. First off, it claims the DMG only "shortly and vaguely" talks about firearms (we shall ignore "very openly", that's got to be a typo or artifact, doesn't make sense), which is patently false. Also it's quoting someone? Why?

Dungeon Master’s Guide

Everything a Dungeon Master needs to weave legendary stories for the world’s greatest roleplaying game. Entertain and Inspire Your Players.

www.dndbeyond.com

The DMG has 10 firearms, and special rules for reloading, burst fire, and ammunition for firearms. That's neither "short" nor "vague". That's quite detailed.

Your next sentence then says "These came no sooner than October 2017, and another portion in July 2020". What is "these" in this sentence? Logically, it appears to be referring to the DMG, but it's obviously not true. The DMG came out in 2014.

Then we have some stuff about an Artificer UA - is that the firearms UA you're referring to?

Further, AFAIK, there's literally ONE Feat that supports firearms, Gunner. You refer to Feats plural, what are the rest? What books are they in?

I mean, it's looks like you're using some kind of translation software here, or quoting someone else. If either is true, that's causing a problem, to be clear.

But let's try one more time:

Where, exactly, are the D&D rules that you're claiming are taken from the Gunslinger homebrew? And where can I find the Gunslinger homebrew they were taken from?

EDIT: LOL are you going to say the Exandria book? Because I'm guessing that's it. That is Matt Mercer's work, just published by WotC...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

English law and the law of other countries (Canada being a notable exception) tends to be more formalistic/concerned with process and formalities than US.

I mean, that's a wild thing to believe. I know a lot of US and UK lawyers, I grew up with them and have worked in international law firms most of my adult life, and one thing that they have all agreed on was that the US was significantly more formalistic and process-focused. I can't speak to Canada, but...

 

[Bolares]

I have to say, being a lawyer from Brazil, reading this discussion is REALLY interesting.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have to say, being a lawyer from Brazil, reading this discussion is REALLY interesting.

Ha ha! Civil law.