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.

 

[S'mon]

I think the "Please do not include any other attribution regarding Wizards other than that provided above" is part of the reasonable request the licence incorporates into its terms.

Which perhaps rules out "Compatible with D&D - D&D is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast used without permission". As I think there is at least an argument that that might constitute an attribution to Wizards. That argument probably wouldn't be knockdown, but I wouldn't necessarily want to be the first person to defend against it!

"Compatible with D&D", without the rest, doesn't look like any sort of attribution to Wizards. But perhaps raises its own risks around trademark use.

Yes, I think we disagree. There may be software cases on this, since being able to stop others indicating compatibility with your product would be a big deal in the open source software world. "You used some of our code under Creative Comments - that means we get to stop you saying your software works with our software" seems like a no-no to me, and the opposite of what the CC wording is intended to achieve.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I think we disagree. There may be software cases on this, since being able to stop others indicating compatibility with your product would be a big deal in the open source software world. "You used some of our code under Creative Comments - that means we get to stop you saying your software works with our software" seems like a no-no to me, and the opposite of what the CC wording is intended to achieve.

In the software case, is there the request not to indicate compatibility?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It’s absolutely a no-no. Copyright attribution and fair use of a third party’s trademark are very much not the same thing. Wizards can make a reasonable request regarding attribution, but they can’t restrict anyone’s fair use rights regarding trademarks. It’s outside the scope of the CC, as per Section 2(b)(2): "Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License."

 

[pemerton]

It’s absolutely a no-no. Copyright attribution and fair use of a third party’s trademark are very much not the same thing. Wizards can make a reasonable request regarding attribution, but they can’t restrict anyone’s fair use rights regarding trademarks. It’s outside the scope of the CC, as per Section 2(b)(2): "Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License."

The CC isn't a statute, and WotC can do whatever they want with their IP (subject to law). I'm trying to understand what falls within the scope of a reasonable request as to the manner of attribution, which is part of the terms on which WotC is offering to licence its material - in particular, can WotC's reasonable request be taken to extend to the preclusion of certain modes of attribution?

The fact that WotC is not offering to licence its trademarks doesn't affect this, and the only reference to "fair use"/"fair dealing" is in relation to the copyright licence, not any of the licensor's trademarks.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

The CC isn't a statute, and WotC can do whatever they want with their IP (subject to law). I'm trying to understand what falls within the scope of a reasonable request as to the manner of attribution, which is part of the terms on which WotC is offering to licence its material - in particular, can WotC's reasonable request be taken to extend to the preclusion of certain modes of attribution?

The fact that WotC is not offering to licence its trademarks doesn't affect this, and the only reference to "fair use"/"fair dealing" is in relation to the copyright licence, not any of the licensor's trademarks.

If you want to license your IP to someone under the CC only if they comply with additional restrictions, I suppose that's fair. It's not what WotC has done though.

 

[Bosen]

Maybe shhhh until things are official.

As the CC publication has already happened, the 5.1 SRD release under such is already official.

 

[Alzrius]

On that note, Eyes of the Deep are also Open Content.
There's also The Iconic Bestiary: Classics of Fantasy by Ari Marmell (who did some official work for 3.5, 4e and 5e) which includes:
Eirisai (chaos outsider)
Evil Eye (floating eye)
Greymalkin (morphing cat)
Ophiduan (snake humanoid)
Phrenic Scourge (aberration)
Scavenger Worm (insect)
Tunnel Brute (umber hulk/scorpion)
Phrenic Scourges, for example, were used by Dreamscarred Press for their Pathfinder Psionics.

Or in other words, in the order listed:

The IP-free slaad
The IP-free beholder
The IP-free displacer beast
The IP-free yaun-ti
The IP-free mind flayer
The IP-free carrion crawler
The IP-free umber hulk

I'm still waiting for a web-enhancement with IP-free versions of the githyanki and githzerai.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This thread is to talk about the content that's been (accidentally, I suspect) released under the CC license. The stuff about someone being fired is hyperbolic in that regard (which doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong).

I literally said "We are jokeing about"

 

[Alzrius]

I literally said "We are jokeing about"

No, you didn't "literally" say that.

Now, if you're implying that the "lol" in your statement was meant to indicate a lack of seriousness, then I can tell you it didn't come off that way; rather, it seemed to be characterizing this thread with a spiteful laugh rather than one of jocularity. Or at least that's how it looked to me.

 

[Shardstone]

Yuanti and Yuan-ti have no active trademarks when I searched the US trademark database. That means you are probably safe to use your own version of Yuanti, be they people with snake tails (as mentioned in the SRD) or your entirely new spin on them. This may seem small or pointless to some, but for some reason I've always like the name Yuanti a lot and the general vibe of them (serpent-people of various kinds being an ancient trope), so this is good news for me.