Another Immortals Handbook thread

[Alzrius]

The work is not going to be open content from the 'get go'. But thats definately something I'll consider over the next few months based on feedback from people.

Strictly speaking, I'm pretty confident that you MUST make, at the very least, the non-original stats OGC, since they're from an OGC source (the SRD). I don't know for certain, but I think that, technically, selling it at all, even unofficially, could result in some problems, though I doubt that'll happen.

That said, I really hope that a significant portion of this is OGC. A work like this deserves to be emulated.

 

[S'mon]

Vague legal impression from copyright lecturer without a legal practice qualification - I don't think the IH, what I've seen of it, infringes copyright under UK law (it's not an adaptation of a pre-existing work from what I've seen), and thanks to the recent US Allen decision (that it's ok for 3rd parties to create supplements for games, in that case Monopoly), apparently not under US law either. That said, I obviously haven't read the whole thing & I don't see any reason not to use the OGL for it, even though legally it would be possible. There's nothing in it that wouldn't be OGL compliant. Presumably when it goes on official release the publisher will OGL-ise it.

Edit: I see the OGL is listed in the greyed-out contents, the bit that doesn't actually appear in the book. I do think you should sort this out.

 

[S'mon]

The Allen case establishing that it's ok for third parties to make supplements for games is at http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9456593.html

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Alzrius mate!

Strictly speaking, I'm pretty confident that you MUST make, at the very least, the non-original stats OGC, since they're from an OGC source (the SRD). I don't know for certain, but I think that, technically, selling it at all, even unofficially, could result in some problems, though I doubt that'll happen.

What parts of the work are non-original though?

If theres a problem with it then I have 30 days to correct it, following notification.

That said, I really hope that a significant portion of this is OGC. A work like this deserves to be emulated.

I'll consider it.

At this point I'm thinking: size, density, virtual size, universal base damage and the new feats will be OGC. The stuff on the kosmos and the monsters won't be (including the new artifacts and spells).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey S'mon!

Vague legal impression from copyright lecturer without a legal practice qualification - I don't think the IH, what I've seen of it, infringes copyright under UK law (it's not an adaptation of a pre-existing work from what I've seen), and thanks to the recent US Allen decision (that it's ok for 3rd parties to create supplements for games, in that case Monopoly), apparently not under US law either. That said, I obviously haven't read the whole thing & I don't see any reason not to use the OGL for it, even though legally it would be possible. There's nothing in it that wouldn't be OGL compliant. Presumably when it goes on official release the publisher will OGL-ise it.

Edit: I see the OGL is listed in the greyed-out contents, the bit that doesn't actually appear in the book. I do think you should sort this out.

Yes my mistake. I'll definately sort that out for the official release obviously. DOH!

 

[Nifelhein]

Usually system mechanics have to be made OGL, this is because they are derivative work from the SRD and can only be published undedr the OGL, otherwise they would have to be made your house rule and posted in websites like it was until the SRD came, the copyright stuff would prevent any publishing.

It does not matter if the work is or is not original, anything using the SRD mechanics, thus monsters stats, new abilities given to them, their names, types, sizes, feats, skills, are necessarily OGL, even if you do not say so in the OGL, they are to be and you will not have a case.

That said, description can usually be made closed content, but you would want to have some bits of it open, this is what WotC has done to the monsters in the MM when they went to the SRD, check that out for an idea. I advise you to use italics for anythng not closed content in the monsters, making sure not all of it is either closed or open.

I know Monte has maded some copyright claims over a specific way of writing something, that is legally sound but not stone solid though, and so it can be broken in a court, if it ever goes that way, I doubt because Monte is very polite and usually address problems without the need to pay a lawyer.

That all said, I cannot really say whether the whole work or not must eb OGC, but I know that it is hard to avoid any mechanics being, pantheons are hardly ever open, but their stats, if given, those are open. I could go on for sometime, but I have the OGL and nothing of the bestiary to specifically point things out.

Anyway, I am not a lawyer, yet, and I am not frrom either the UK or USA, but copyright stuff is one of the most world wide laws, since you do want it to work well all around it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

UK, please, please, please don't use "crippled content" like Monte does; he makes everything open but the names of the spells, feats, monsters, magic items, etc..

Well, how are you supposed to use something if you can't refer to it by name? You can't and so it might as well be closed. I don't want to derail the thread, but crippled content seems to obey the letter of the OGL by violating its spirit. It strikes me as mean.

 

[Nifelhein]

I would love to see how it would come out if he ever was to send someone here in Brazil to court, he is not making something Open or closed, he has to do that and saying the name is not implied is not only bad restriction, but also the same as violating the whole thing itself.

Imagine the situation if all spell names from the SRD were not open content... not to say that it would be silly to have the word Feat be closed itself. That is direct violation, not relfex as it seems, when you make something according to the OGL terms, you have to follow it and its direct events, making a feat requires it to be open content, that means the feat itself is, its name is the very first thing that identifies the thing...

He can talk to as many lawyers as he wants, that is legally defensible, utterly wrong.

Edited:

Also, if Monte takes that problem into a court, WotC might just make it useless by editing a new OGL and guess what, by the terms of the license they can do that and you will have to be under its ruling right away, no complains... but that is unecessary, in my opinion.

 

[Knight Otu]

I think most things can be declared closed content/IP by some twisting of the wording, but IANAL. I'm confident that a work based on the OGL and D20STL has to include at least 5% Open Content.

You use two names for each creature, right? I think you could make the esoteric name IP, and the rest open. All proper names most likely should be IP. In those cases where this might create "crippled OGC," you may be able to go the WotC way and say "You can refer to those items by removing the IP name" or "You may refer to those items by replacing 'Thryn's' with 'Thundering'" or similar tactics.

 

[CR2000]

I doubt because Monte is very polite and usually address problems without the need to pay a lawyer.

I don't think it's because Monte's nice guy. It's just easier and cheaper to settle out of court than in court. While he might be, I doubt it (most people like that are arses when it comes to their material, talk to Larry Niven), it's probably more along the lines of just easy and money to get it all accomplished without a lawyer.