D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D

[jmhimara]

I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?

For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?

As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?

Doesn't sound right.... This was unambiguous in the OGL because it had a "share-alike" component. OGC had to remain OGC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?

For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?

If their work contains content from the SRD 5.1, then yes, they would need to do that.

As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?

Doesn't sound right....

Because it isn't. At least, as I understand it.

 

[overgeeked]

and while the names "mind flayer" and "beholder" were added to that which was put out in the open through yesterday's CC release, that doesn't mean the entire appearance and description of them from WotC's products was added too, and I'd be careful about just trying to use mind flayers and beholders as-is based on those mentions.

Exactly. Only what’s in the SRD was released. Nothing outside the SRD was released. None of the lore or art was released. Nor stat blocks. Yes, the name “mind flayer” and “beholder” are CC. Nothing else.

 

[jmhimara]

If their work contains content from the SRD 5.1, then yes, they would need to do that.

I'm not sure I'm convinced if my derivative work is not under CC. Especially if it's not easy to distinguish what was or wasn't taken from the SRD.

If I release my derivative work under the following license "You can use any part of this work WITHOUT attribution as long as you give me a dollar." Does that apply to the entirety of my work, or just the "original" part? Doesn't seem like the CC-BY license makes that distinction for derivatives.

 

[overgeeked]

I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?

It depends on the derivative. Unless the derivative is also specifically released under the CC license, then it’s off limits. The CC-BY is not a viral license.

For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?

If they use the SRD-derived content, yes.

As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?

Doesn't sound right.... This was unambiguous in the OGL because it had a "share-alike" component. OGC had to remain OGC.

No. Because despite it being under the CC license, WotC is still the copyright holder. Meaning you don’t own it. You don’t have the right to release it into the public domain. We can use the content under the listed CC-BY license, not further release it into the public domain. CC waives most rights, not all rights.

 

[jmhimara]

You don’t have the right to release it into the public domain.

That was a bad example. What about releasing it under any other license that doesn't require attribution?

 

[Cadence]

That was a bad example. What about releasing it under any other license that doesn't require attribution?

Your using the CC-BY material required that you give attribution, and anyone using your adaptation of it need to give attribution too. You are not allowed to avoid telling people the conditions.

D&D 5E - Creative Commons and D&D

I hate to say it, but I fear that the answer is yes. I foresee a balkanization coming, where products are released under the OGL, ORC, and CC, and it becomes harder for publishers to reuse each other's content, as products published under one license can't have their material (easily) reused...

www.enworld.org

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That was a bad example. What about releasing it under any other license that doesn't require attribution?

You still don't have the copyright--just the ability to make use of it yourself. You cannot license anything from the 5.1 SRD because you have no right to it--just a license to make use of it yourself.

Being able to use something =/= having the copyright to it.

 

[CleverNickName]

Being able to use something =/= having the copyright to it.

And this isn't a new thing. This isn't unique to the Creative Commons license.

This is how copyrights and licenses have always worked, as far as I can tell.

 

[jmhimara]

Your using the CC-BY material required that you give attribution, and anyone using your adaptation of it need to give attribution too. You are not allowed to avoid telling people the conditions.

You still don't have the copyright--just the ability to make use of it yourself.

OK, so that part of what was tripping me up. Seemed that my former assumption was incorrect.

Does that apply to the entirety of my work, or just the "original" part?

It seems that whatever license you apply a derived product, it ONLY applies to your "original" creation, not anything that is taken from the SRD (also mentioned in the CC FAQ, albeit somewhat hidden -- assuming I'm understanding it correctly). That makes sense!

Still though, this introduces some complications for the CC that were not in the OGL. E.,g. if you change something significantly, there can be ambiguity in what is considered original and what is considered "the source." Although perhaps in practice this is not a big deal. Similarly, since you don't have to enumerate what is and isn't taken from the SRD, the burden of that is left on future adapters of your derivative work to comb through the text should they want to make that distinction. Then again, I can't imagine many scenarios where that would be necessary.