Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Strahd von Zarovich Released Into Creative Commons (Kinda)

In the 5.1 SRD that just got released into the Creative Commons is a bunch of IP including Count Strahd von Zarovich, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, the City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire. The beholder is also specifically referenced by name in the Deck of Illusions, and Mind Flayers and Slaad are also referenced--at least by name--repeatedly in the document.

Here's a link to the content released to CC.

WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons. So, what's happened? The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a...

www.enworld.org

What does that mean? Under OGL v1.0a terms like this were generally designated as ‘Product Identity’ and were unavailable for use. The CC license has no such provision. This means that those using the OGL cannot (still) use terms designated as PI, but those using the CC can use the full content of the document released under it.

Only the names of these creatures and places are contained in the document--so you can't use Strahd's image or stat block or description, nor can you use those of the beholder, etc. But it does appear that you can refer to these items.

 

[DLIMedia]

This is an extremely risky conclusion, and is something that should be clarified explicitly by WotC before things get out of hand.

Strahd is MENTIONED... beholders are MENTIONED... but that does not mean they're "released" as CC and fair game. Sure, you can mention Strahd in passing just like they did, but I wouldn't go and make him the centerpiece of your publication just yet.

It's no different than mentioning Mickey Mouse in a movie or other media; you can mention his name, sure, but god help you if you show an image of him.

A passing mention does not mean that the Intellectual Property restrictions no longer apply. They are still protected by other legalese outside of the CC license.

 

[Rabulias]

Not sure if it was noted, but I believe all these names were in the original 5.1 SRD as well. I think they really just copied over the 5.1 SRD and swapped out the OGL page for the CC page.

Edited to add: I just checked and they are both 403 pages long. Coincidence? I think not!

 

[DLIMedia]

Edited to add: I just checked and they are both 403 pages long. Coincidence? I think not!

I admit I haven't gone through every word in the 400+ pages, but looking at the critical things I don't see any wording different between this and the original 5.1 SRD.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't think it's reasonable to ignore the fact that "this" was such an act of epic stupidity that wotc trying it after failing the first time time it was not a credible claim when the leaks first started in november or whatever it was.

edit: This was kinda like home depot getting rid of parking lots in an effort to shut down the parkinglot guys who will help you do whatever because customers sometimes pay them instead of getting pro install services from home depo

It was an -epic- mistake.

But I don't think Alta Fox is by default better at handling this sort of situation and would somehow have utterly avoided the drive from within WotC to seek increased monetization with their Hasbro Councilmembers who were pressing WotC to increase monetization on behalf of their investors...

Because, again, Alta Fox did their big presentation about how WotC was underperforming and could bring in more revenue which caused Hasbro, once Alta Fox failed, to press WotC to perform better, which caused those in charge of WotC to make this serious of horrendous decisions.

Alta Fox having 3 Hasbro Board members applying that pressure probably wouldn't have done anything to change the outcome.

 

[Steampunkette]

This is an extremely risky conclusion, and is something that should be clarified explicitly by WotC before things get out of hand.

Strahd is MENTIONED... beholders are MENTIONED... but that does not mean they're "released" as CC and fair game. Sure, you can mention Strahd in passing just like they did, but I wouldn't go and make him the centerpiece of your publication just yet.

It's no different than mentioning Mickey Mouse in a movie or other media; you can mention his name, sure, but god help you if you show an image of him.

A passing mention does not mean that the Intellectual Property restrictions no longer apply. They are still protected by other legalese outside of the CC license.

There was a piece of the CCBY4 posted in this thread by @FallenRX about how Trademarks referenced in the CCBY4 remain Trademarked. I updated the OP with that information, as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Who do you think will be the sacrificial executive Lamb? Who does Chris Cock throw under the bus to save himself? My bet is WotC President Cynthia Williams, D&D Vice President Rawson is just too new to blame, and firing him does nothing to appease the angry MtG fans.

I don't think that's how corporate politics actually work. It's not how it works in my experience.

Hasbro just laid off a ton of people, their stock is going downhill, and they had two essentially immovable milestones coming up that they absolutely don't want bad publicity tarnishing: the movie and the 50th anniversary.

I don't know if we'll ever know the details, but I think someone higher up was fed up with the bad news, including the bad internal numbers that led to the layoffs, ordered the manager or managers he blamed for the issues into new positions or thrown out of the building and in the resulting vacuum, the pro-open gaming faction was left in charge, whether that was a new manager or just the collective decision of the survivors.

It's possible that the person or persons behind the OGL saga aren't names we even know. Corporations are many-headed hydras, and that's before you bring in the board of directors and activist investors.

Again, I think we'll see some titles change in the next few days and maybe some new faces. But it might be a long time before we're able to say with real confidence "ah ha, it was THAT person who caused this and THAT other person won a power struggle."

 

[Steampunkette]

Also Also:

If Alta Fox hadn't said anything between November and January 26th because the SEC put the fear of God into them, why'd they open their mouth on the 26th?

Did the SEC say "You can publicly badmouth WotC -after- the 25th at 11:59pm." and they just sat in the timeout corner like agreeable little boys until that hilariously arbitrary date?

No. They were in "Wait and See" mode. Just like everyone else.

 

[Charlaquin]

This does not matter, the actual creature descriptions and stat blocks don't appear just the names. And the names don't do anything on their own.

But, theoretically, could one use the names to describe things that bore a resemblance to their D&D counterparts, provided they had unique stats and the descriptive details were different enough?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

WotC say "Please do not include any other attribution regarding Wizards other than that provided above. You may, however,
include a statement on your work that it is “compatible with fifth edition” or “5E compatible.”"

The funny thing is this does not appear to be a legal requirement, so it seems you could now put "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, published by Wizards of the Coast. Trade Mark used without permission" on your work that uses CC material. It would be a bit rude though. (And of course being legal doesn't necessarily prevent nasty C&D letters).

To the people using and purchasing 5.1 SRD derived products "5e compatible" is the thing that will actually soon come to make something marketable. There's no legitimate reason why someone would want to sew confusion by unnecessarily referencing "Wizard's of the Coast" and their "Dungeons and Dragons" line of (soon to arguably be formerly) 5e compatible products on their own 5e compatible product. Your just advertising a competitor.

Which is all to say that even with "not endorsed by WotC" language I would avoid directly referencing D&D or Wizards of the Coast anywhere on the outside of a product, because WotC has a case that the rational reason to do so is to try to free ride off their brand in some way, and that's the thing that trademark protections exist to prevent. Briefly discussing one's product's D&D lineage and what "5e" means in an introduction or what have you is about the only context where I would advocate that mentioning WotC trademarks beyond what they requested for the CC attribution makes any sense.

Of course explaining "5e" will only be necessary until the community comes up with a good alternative backcronym for what it means.