mamba
Legend
the fact that it was a single person, not 'people'?
D&D General WotC is at it again
- Thread starter Indagare Nogitsune
- Start date
dave2008
Legend
From what I hear (on this very thread) publishes have a separate license with WotC when they put things on DnD Beyond. This forum license has nothing to do with what a publisher puts on DnDBThe bigger deal, I think, is WOTC adding arbitration to settle disputes into the license. Arbitration almost always favors their client (in this case WOTC) and can be used in any lawsuit between the company with the TOS and a client who accepts it. In one recent case, someone died at one of the Disney resorts and Disney claimed it had to go through arbitration because the victim had signed up to Disney +. That ended up changing but not due to legal issues but to PR issues when that came to light.
IANAL and I don't know the full details of the arbitration clause in the DDB TOS but it might be used in a dispute, for example, between a publisher and WOTC if the publisher had signed up for a D&D Beyond account. That could get pretty nasty I think.
You can read it here:
Wizards — General Terms
www.dndbeyond.com
Section 19 and 20. You can opt out of this 30 days after you agree to it.
IANAL and I don't have the specific details but that might be an issue with the recent license update.
Indagare Nogitsune
Adventurer
One person, who remembers back when WotC tried that stunt with OGL and who thought people might like to be aware of it. Even if it is, as people post "bog standard", I do not like the idea of them claiming ownership over other people's stuff.
They haven't. Read it again. If you're going to complain about something, make sure you understand what it is you're complaining about.
Mercurius
Legend
Stop talking about real world politics. Oh, wait.
The Soloist
Hero
Didn't they have such terms since the Gleemax forums?
Side Story: Remember when WOTC did a contest for a new setting for D&D 3e? Well, I submitted an outline as per the guidelines and signed away my rights. The 'Points of Light' setting for 4e is strangely familiar to what I sent as a proposal. During a move, I lost my self-addressed envelop with the proposal inside. I can never prove this. Not that I would try to sue them. Just claiming a bit of D&D design fame would be cool. (or maybe it's just coincidence.)
Side Story: Remember when WOTC did a contest for a new setting for D&D 3e? Well, I submitted an outline as per the guidelines and signed away my rights. The 'Points of Light' setting for 4e is strangely familiar to what I sent as a proposal. During a move, I lost my self-addressed envelop with the proposal inside. I can never prove this. Not that I would try to sue them. Just claiming a bit of D&D design fame would be cool. (or maybe it's just coincidence.)
Last edited:
Even if the terms were likely there before the OGL stuff was even a rumor?
Misanthrope Prime
Hero
Insulting other members
I do not like the idea of you talking out of your ass, yet here you are.
Mod Note:
Rude.
Maybe stop trying to live up to your username. Keep it civil is rule #1 here.
You are done in this thread.
To clarify, as others didn't - they aren't claiming ownership. They are claiming license, which is not at all the same thing.
Or, to be even more specific, in posting to their site, you are agreeing to grant them license.
Don't want to give them license? Don't put it on D&D Beyond.
Similar Threads
