4e D&D GSL Live

[nothing to see here]

It is my understanding that you can do so without the GSL. The use of the logo, or something close to it, doesn't constitute a violation of trademark law IF it only indicates compatability. So, you can say that your program works with Microsoft Windows, without needing Microsoft's permission. If the use can mislead the customer to think that the product IS a D&D product (or is a Microsoft program or so on) than this is a breach of trademark; but trademark law does NOT prohibit the use of your trademarks by others, only its use to identify their products as part of your brand or so on.

I'd be prepared to wager that few decisions would get you acquainted with WOTC legal counsel as fast as sticking the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your trade dress in any way not expressly detailed in the GSL.

 

[Yair]

Not the LOGO, but the word.

You can say your product is Microsoft Windows compatible, but you can't stamp a logo on the box without following Microsoft's licensing guidelines.

You might be able to say your product is Dungeons and Dragons(R) compatible. But you CAN'T use any stylized logo that says so. Fair use of Trademark does not mean you can use the unique graphic logo in a product. That would truly cause "confusion".

Why would using the logo automatically lead to confusion? It is my understanding that a logo is a trademark just like any other, and can be used just like the words themselves can be as long as it is used in a manner that won't confuse. If I were to put the D&D name in letter reminiscent of the D&D-logo, say something like

"This product is designed to be compatible with the [logo-like]Dungeons & Dragons[/logo-like](R) Fourth Edition game. ... [small-letters]This product is not validated or in any way affiliated with Wizards of the Coast (R), and is not part of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) game"[/small-letters]."

I can't see how that can be interpreted as leading to confusion in any reasonable customer, which I think is the criterion.

Of course, IANAL. If you are one, I'd defer to your wisdom.

I'd be prepared to wager that few decisions would get you acquainted with WOTC legal counsel as fast as sticking the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your trade dress in any way not expressly detailed in the GSL.

I won't take that wager As I said, the advantage of the GSL is that it provides a relatively safe harbor.

Still, there are venues with laws at least intended to protect you from harassment litigation. If you are based in such a place, I'd consider taking even Hasbaro on, if you're a 3pp wanting to publish products for 4e.

 

[Yair]

To me, this GSL is essentially WotC saying to the 3PP, "Guys, stop making variant games based on D&D, and make more supplements that all D&D players can use."

I agree, and think it's cool. I don't think anyone is saying it isn't cool that WotC is allowing this.

What isn't cool is that WotC allows this in a way that poisons the content you create. If you write the Rapan Athuk adventure for 4e - great! but now you can't publish Rapan Athuk 3e, or True20, adventures - not so great, but acceptable. What's really got people in a tangle is that when 4e ends, and the GSL is hence revoked - you can't take Rapan Athuk and publish it under the OGL, under the Pathfinder Tenth Edition rules. You arguably can't even publish it under any other system, or into the public domain, as WotC is the sole judge of what's part of the same "product line", and may look at the content in deciding that. That's just has nothing to do with being allowed to make supplements rather than variant games, it goes way beyond that.

I also think it would have been even cooler if WotC had allowed some leeway in what's a "variant game". I don't think using an alternate "turn undead" mechanic (or "Druid" class, or what a "Demon" is) is an alternate game that should be blocked. The inability to present variant rules significantly limits the game IMHO.

the restrictions of the GSL are clearly intended to make sure that whatever you make is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons.

The poison pill restriction has nothing to do with that.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

If you don't like the GSL, why not produce your material for a system more in line with Ryan Dancey's vision? OSRIC certainly has room for more writers and more publishers...

 

[TimeOut]

Summation of the GSL:

WotC: Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements for D&D.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Sure, it is reasonable. The intent is clearly a good one for the D&D brand. But if you are too restricted to create even the basic supplements beyond "Feats and Powers splatbook #2003244-XA" then the license is wrong.

I would love to publish (for free) my campaign setting and all the stuff I have written for it in the past, after I finish converting it all to 4e. I can't do so, without removing some things from the core setting.

There are no gods, so no classes based on the divine power source. Arcane classes have a fundamentally other working, because arcane magic is not the default accessible magic on this world.

There are no Dragonborn, Halflings, Eladrin or Tieflings in the world. (Yes, it sounds restrictive at first, but actually it isn't.)

It is ok that I can't just modify the existing classes and I understand the reasons. But I need the right to exclude specific parts completely from my setting. This is not changing or altering them, just saying that class "x" from the D&D 4e PLAYERS HANDBOOK is not availiable.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Why would using the logo automatically lead to confusion? It is my understanding that a logo is a trademark just like any other, and can be used just like the words themselves can be as long as it is used in a manner that won't confuse. If I were to put the D&D name in letter reminiscent of the D&D-logo, say something like

While I am not a lawyer, I have studied Trademark law in general. I can show you the USC Code, but it's probably easier showing you the Wikipedia articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution


You have the right to "fair use" of the trademark. Using the logo is not allowed unless it's a case of something like comparing a physical product to another--if you're doing a comparison ad for Pepsi you might be able to us a Coke bottle (with its trademarked logo) next to it--or if the logo is so indistinct that it's considered a weak symbol.

You simply can't stamp any form of the Dungeons and Dragons logo on a box. If you use their exact logo you are using it without authorization. Your using it to promote your product, that's not "fair use". If you try a different logo with the same words--"Dungeons and/& Dragons, D&D, D and D, or other variations--it still comes under the same protection, since creating a different graphic logo of somebody else's trademark to use on your products is not fair use and is what Trademark law is designed to protect. (Heck, people get sued for similar looking logos with different words.)

You might be able to legally use it as a plain-text description, while also stating that it is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast and your use is not authorized by WoTC. Note I say might.

I would be very careful with the trademark law. It's the strongest law supporting WoTC in this case and protecting their property.

 

[Yair]

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_fair_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution


....

The only relevant pieces I got from these were:

"Intent to sow confusion is also relevant; hence, the general rule that no more of the trademark should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose. For instance, use of a word mark is preferred to a logo, and a word mark in the same style of type as surrounding text is preferred to a word mark in its trademarked distinctive type."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use is, I think, relevant in its entirety, especially
"former Playboy Playmate Terri Welles was sued for using the trademarked term, "Playmate of the Year" in a meta element in her website. The court found that Welles had to use the term to completely describe herself, as she had been given that title by the trademark holder. In the same case, however, Welles was barred from using Playboy's famous bunny-ears logo - while she had a right to use the title for self-identification purposes, this did not extend to use of the logo."

So yeah, it appears you are correct. In this case, using the D&D logo is a great benefit of the GSL.

Edit: I'd note that I consider this a preversion of the trademark rules, as such a use of tradermark does not foster confusion or misidentification, which is what trademark law is supposed to be about. But that's totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.

 

[wayne62682]

Basically it boils down to WotC wanting to adopt the Microsoft model of development: You can develop additions to our products that add extra functionality, but you can't modify our product itself.

 

[Kaffis]

Sure, it is reasonable. The intent is clearly a good one for the D&D brand. But if you are too restricted to create even the basic supplements beyond "Feats and Powers splatbook #2003244-XA" then the license is wrong.

I would love to publish (for free) my campaign setting and all the stuff I have written for it in the past, after I finish converting it all to 4e. I can't do so, without removing some things from the core setting.

There are no gods, so no classes based on the divine power source. Arcane classes have a fundamentally other working, because arcane magic is not the default accessible magic on this world.

There are no Dragonborn, Halflings, Eladrin or Tieflings in the world. (Yes, it sounds restrictive at first, but actually it isn't.)

It is ok that I can't just modify the existing classes and I understand the reasons. But I need the right to exclude specific parts completely from my setting. This is not changing or altering them, just saying that class "x" from the D&D 4e PLAYERS HANDBOOK is not availiable.

And such a setting, in Wizards' eyes, dilutes the D&D brand because it is no longer representative of what they are pushing as "Dungeons and Dragons."

D&D has room for different campaign settings. Faerun, Eberron (though I imagine 4e Eberron will take a step back towards the mainstream in many mechanical ways), Planescape -- they're all D&D, in that they are different expressions of the same iconic classes and magical fantasy sword & sorcery settings.

Such drastic alterations of the available classes, to the point of even removing entire power sources and changing the functionality of others, has stopped being Dungeons and Dragons in Wizards' eyes, and, as such, they don't want you slapping their logo on it.

The fansite license might be less restrictive, and allow you to post your campaign setting on a website (vs. publishing it in a one-time download format such as, say, a .pdf) as a collection of home-brew setting and house rules that *refer* to D&D (but aren't referred to *as* D&D) core rulebooks. Also, some legal insight (and/or precedent) might map out an un-logo'd product that doesn't claim to be D&D but refers the reader to core rulebooks as okay, too, but I expect this scenario to be much less hazy in the fansite language.

 

[Ourph]

Yes. What stops people from using the "old" power? Nothing, which seems to be the intent of the GSL.

I'm not sure why you would need to stop people from using the old power. As the publisher of a campaign setting, it's your job to give your campaign setting to the player/purchaser. It's not your job to control how the player uses it once he has purchased it. If he chooses a core PHB power rather than your new one for his Warlock character, isn't that his choice to make? He has still purchased your book. Isn't that all you can really ask for?

My campaign world has no Gods, so no Divine power source. As far as I understand the GSL doesn't allow me to exclude these things.

You can easily say, "The Gods do not exist in the World of TimeOut and, as a result, people do not choose to become Clerics or Paladins." That doesn't require you to redefine any terms or violate the stipulations of the GSL in any way. Clerics, Paladins and Gods are all still defined exactly as they are in the core rules in your product, players are just instructed that those elements won't come up in play.