5E24 Product Identity

[Sacrosanct]

So basically, I guess my answer would be "everything not in the SRD is product identity". It's either something WotC created, or they have a unique presentation of something that may be public (copyrighted material including images and text).

 

[Keith Ammann]

A "pirate admiral" is product identity?! Not even Hasbro could make that claim with a straight face.

 

[Morrus]

And what if I'm not using either the OGL or the SRD, since I'm publishing commentary under fair use?

Then Product Identity is basically irrelevant to you. Just go by fair use guidelines and you'll be fine.

 

[Morrus]

ETA: I'm not sure how WotC could claim the pteranodon, djiini, cyclops or yeti as product identity.

They haven't done.

 

[Morrus]

Note, folks, that Product Identity (PI) and Intellectual Property (IP) are two different things.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A "pirate admiral" is product identity?! Not even Hasbro could make that claim with a straight face.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Those words aren't. But how Wotc presents them (including art) is IP.

But like Morrus is saying, if you're using Fair Use (assuming it qualifies as fair use), then it's kinda moot since it doesn't matter. And I don't think any monster is technically PI (maybe Beholder). When I think of PI, I think of logos and branding.

 

[Keith Ammann]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Those words aren't. But how Wotc presents them (including art) is IP.

But like Morrus is saying, if you're using Fair Use (assuming it qualifies as fair use), then it's kinda moot since it doesn't matter. And I don't think any monster is technically PI (maybe Beholder). When I think of PI, I think of logos and branding.

My lawyer and my publisher's lawyers seemed to think it mattered. As far as they were concerned, I was free to mention beholders, mind flayers, etc., as long as I had something to say about them, but I shouldn't depict them in any illustrations. That distinction seemed important to them.

 

[Morrus]

My lawyer and my publisher's lawyers seemed to think it mattered. As far as they were concerned, I was free to mention beholders, mind flayers, etc., freely, but I shouldn't depict them in any illustrations. That distinction seemed important to them.

If you're talking to your lawyers about this, why are you asking us?

Always, always, defer to your lawyers on legal stuff. Not the internet. That's what you're paying them for.

 

[Keith Ammann]

My question was literally

Is there an up-to-date list of what's considered WotC product identity in 5E24

which seemed to me like more of a "TTRPG forum question" than a "lawyer question."

I haven't supported my family for five years writing unauthorized D&D books without knowing whom to ask for legal advice.