1.0a is effectively dead even if Wizards backs down, but it is still important to fight for it.

[Bix and Box]

Avatar 2: $2B and counting - The only real hit they've had because never bet against James Cameron. Also he's still working under an older 21st Century Fox contract and has more independence than other Disney-owned production teams.
Doc Strange 2: $955MM - Made money, barely due to marketing costs
Black Panther 2: $840MM - Broke even due to marketing costs.
Thor 4: $770MM - Maybe broke even due to marketing costs.
Spider-Man: No Way Home: $1.9MM - very successful but had to split with Sony.

If Avatar 2 is the only hit they had, was Spider-Man not a hit? Or Doc Strange?

That sounds like a hell of a lot of marketing, to just break even on over 3/4 of a billion dollars. Source please?

 

[Glade Riven]

Spiderman was a hit but it's Sony produced, so it's not pure Disney profits. And Sauce. The man is a financial analyst and brings the receipts. Yes, world wide marketing often costs as much as the movie to make because marketing has gotten a lot more expensive in the last few years. Part of it is the diffusion of eyeballs away from network TV and even Cable/Satellite TV.

Every one of these movies was expected by Disney to make a billion. That's been the Hollywood benchmark since Batman vs Superman (which it didn't hit). Disney has also been over-spending money on streaming and lost a lot of the tertiary market by burning licensing deals and DVD residuals by focusing on their streaming platform.

 

[Bix and Box]

Every one of these movies was expected by Disney to make a billion.

In the pre-pandemic paradigm.

But I do agree with you here:

Disney has also been over-spending money on streaming and lost a lot of the tertiary market by burning licensing deals and DVD residuals by focusing on their streaming platform.

 

[Glade Riven]

In the pre-pandemic paradigm.

In a post-Spiderman: No Way Home paradigm. Or Top Gun. Or Avatar 2: Way of Water. All the movies that failed to break a billion were greenlit under Iger. Who is now back in charge? Which is weird.

Again, you don't replace your CEO on a Sunday. Ever. Except this one time, by Disney. This also seems to tie back to this activist investor group, too, that Iger and co are in a fight with, thanks to Perlmutter (former Marvel boss). Either way, the company is in a very bad place right now.

 

[Ashtagon]

The more I read from attorneys, here and on other sites, the less certain about that I become. Because as I understand it, here's what has to happen for a court battle to take place:

1) WotC goes ahead and officially declared the OGL v1.0a to be revoked/de-authorized as of a specific date.
2) Some publisher declares "damn the torpedoes!" and keeps publishing new content under it.
3) WotC sends them a cease and desist letter. [Optional]
4) The publisher files for declaratory judgment. [Optional]
5) WotC files suit against the publisher for copyright infringement.
6) The publisher counters, saying that they're not infringing on WotC's copyright because they're publishing under the OGL v1.0a.
7) WotC points out that they de-authorized/revoked the OGL v1.0a, so the license is invalid, and thus the publisher's stuff infringes their copyrights.
8) Either a judge or a jury decides who's right.
9) Appeals are filed; if accepted, go back to step 5 and repeat.

Now, steps three and four are, as noted, optional; I'm given to understand that the whole "declaratory judgment" thing is basically a step that doesn't legally force anyone to do anything.

What's more notable is how unlikely steps 2 and 5 are; most publishers aren't going to want to operate in an environment where they're essentially courting a lawsuit with a multinational corporation, while Hasbro doesn't seem to care nearly as much about a tiny publisher (and compared to them, all other TTRPG publishers are tiny) doing their own thing; they're in it for the VTT subscriptions/micro-transactions.

So we might not get the court battle that a lot of people are expecting.

Sure, it's really unlikely that a court battle will ever take place over this. But the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) around the possibility of a court case is enough to dissuade any small publisher from trying to use the OGL as is. WotC doesn't need to take it to court; they just have to maintain the potential implicit threat to do so.

It's like catching a burglar about to break in to your house, and he says, okay, I won't break in. But he carries on lurking in your street with a half-brick in hand, watching your house. You're going to keep watching him regardless, at least until he disarms himself and leaves the street.

It's not enough for WotC to say they've decided not to de-authorise (unspoken: for now). They need to make an updated OGL that closes the loose wording that allowed them to open up the idea that they could. That's the only way that any 3PP can rationally consider the OGL as a long-term licencing basis for their business.

 

[Glade Riven]

Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.

 

[Ashtagon]

Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.

Yes, I think everyone knows CC can't be backtracked at this point. The problem is the two decades worth of material under OGL licence that can't be used under CC, but also can't be safely used under OGL.

This issue isn't just about being free to use the SRD (only 5.1 for now; this is something else that needs to be pushed). It's also about being able to use the corpus of material built up as source material for new works.

 

[Glade Riven]

I, for one, look forward to both C7D20 and Project Black Flag.

Personally, I'm starting to think that this was all kicked into gear by an executive at WotC that thought they could create an easy win by bullying the 3rd party players to make the upcoming Hasbro Financials look better rather than a commitment by Hasbro to consolidate control over the property. Then it backfired horribly and the Hasbro board stepped in because the company is not in a very good spot right now.

I'm not going to trust WotC or Hasbro, but I will judge them and their products based on their own merit. And either C7D20, Black Flag, and/or Level Up will be in a position to become the next Pathfinder if One D&D sucks.

 

[Stormonu]

Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.

It's a better case, but never discount a lawyer's ability to find loopholes, especially when you've got a team in your pocket.