Another Immortals Handbook thread

[S'mon]

Tyhe IH obviously doesn't reprint the SRD -- the tables, monsters, etc. are original. It creates derivative material, but not through intermingling with existing content but through changing it and using formats, copyrightable collections of otherwise uncopyrightable words and phrases, etc. Adding the OGL and saying "everything from the SRD is open, but the rest is closed" doesn't give you rights to distribute those derivative works (since you aren't applying the OGC label to them), so you're in the same position as if you hadn't used the OGL.

An "empty" OGC declaration isn't any better than no OGL use at all.

My head is hurting, but you appear to be saying that the OGL forces the user to declare as OGC anything that WoTC might be able to allege infringes their copyrights? Is that correct?

 

[CRGreathouse]

My head is hurting, but you appear to be saying that the OGL forces the user to declare as OGC anything that WoTC might be able to allege infringes their copyrights? Is that correct?

I'm saying that one gets no special copyright consideration from using the OGL but not declaring OGC. If chapter 1 of my book quotes large, copyrighted portions of the SRD and my OGC declaration specifies no OGC (or only chapter 2 OGC), then chapter 1 still infringes WotC's copyright. The fact that I used the license doesn't help, because the licence only applies to the OGC.

 

[Nifelhein]

S'mon, we have pretty diverse jurisdictions to talk about, common law, which is the legal tradition both the UK and USa follow, for those who do not have any legal knowledge, is a lot and deeply different of the german-romanic tradition, which is the one my country foolows, although common law and other countries have their influence on our system.

That said, I know the OGL is hardly complete to anyone who reads it, they determine what terms are but do not define which ones of those can be kept closed and which ones must be declared open.

As you noticed with CRG's posts, the idea is that anything that comes from the SRD is WotC's copyright, they have released it under a license of free use, though, and that would be the OGL, but if you publish a work while not saying that the mechanics used from the srd are open or if you do not say that work that is derivative from the SRD is open, then you are not following the terms of the license and may suffer legal issues.

As I posted, the OGL FAQ is rpetty clear in how they approach their license and how they envision the license working, the closer one wants to walk of the boundaries of the license, the easier it will be to arise problems, and that may end up in a court.

No publisher has ever been very concerned with separating open game content and closed content, the one I have that seems even beyond necessity, though, is Dinasties and Demagogues from Atlas Games Penumbra line, there they are very very clear, but not on the OGL, but one easily knows what they can reproduce and what they cannot.

In general a publisher just walks the safe line by putting somewhere in the chapter introductions that game mechanics, names of races, classes and the like are open game content, background descriptions and terms defined as product identity are closed content.

In a normal monster book, let us take the monster manual, for example, one could have a hundred monsters with all their stats as open game content adn all background information on them and description be closed, their names could be closed too, but that could easily allow some other publish to release the monster with a new and noe open name.

At first I wasn't very sure of this, but by reading WotC's page on the licenses and their FAQs I have come to my position. Sure you disagree with me, and even was polite enough to say I am wrong without speaking of me, but I doubt WotC would allow any others conduct different that what I am saying if it came around.

 

[S'mon]

I'm saying that one gets no special copyright consideration from using the OGL but not declaring OGC. If chapter 1 of my book quotes large, copyrighted portions of the SRD and my OGC declaration specifies no OGC (or only chapter 2 OGC), then chapter 1 still infringes WotC's copyright. The fact that I used the license doesn't help, because the licence only applies to the OGC.

And you're saying a brief declaration along the lines of "stuff taken from the SRD is OGC. New stuff is PI" is inadequate?

 

[CRGreathouse]

And you're saying a brief declaration along the lines of "stuff taken from the SRD is OGC. New stuff is PI" is inadequate?

I think that such a declaration (1) fails to meet the required standard of clear identification, and (2) fails to provide legal protection for the 'new' material which is, in fact, derivative of the old.

 

[S'mon]

Wel, it's beyond me how you could reasonably differentiate everything in the IH or indeed any published OGL work to the standard you say is required. Also I'm gobsmacked that apparently everything that could be claimed to be a derivative work (under the extremely broad & unusual US derivative work doctrine) HAS to be made OGC. I guess I'll shut up now since I guess I don't have anything useful to contribute. :\

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Okay I think now that we have established that none of us fully understand the OGC/OGL we should work out exactly what needs to be Product Identity and what should be Open Content. At this point I'm thinking:

Product Identity

- All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
- The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
- The 2 page introduction to Angels
- The 1 page introduction to Brood
- The 1 page introduction to Daemons
- The 1 page introduction to Demons
- The 1 page introduction to Devils
- The 2 page introduction to Dragons
- Monster Descriptions
- Monster Backgrounds
- Monster Tactics
- Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)

Open Content

- Size Matters
- Density
- Virtual Size
- Universal Damage
- 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
- Monster Names
- Monster Statistics
- Monster Combat Text
- New Artifacts
- New Feats
- New Magic Items
- New Material (Orichalcum)
- New Spells

Any thoughts on those 2 lists?

 

[Verequus]

Wel, it's beyond me how you could reasonably differentiate everything in the IH or indeed any published OGL work to the standard you say is required. Also I'm gobsmacked that apparently everything that could be claimed to be a derivative work (under the extremely broad & unusual US derivative work doctrine) HAS to be made OGC. I guess I'll shut up now since I guess I don't have anything useful to contribute. :\

If you refer to my example regarding the special materials: This was a layman interpretation of your definition - if it would hold in court, is doubtful. Also I've got the impression, that "derivative from SRD" isn't "derivative from law's POV" - this could pose a problem.

Hey all!

Okay I think now that we have established that none of us fully understand the OGC/OGL we should work out exactly what needs to be Product Identity and what should be Open Content. At this point I'm thinking:

Product Identity

- All product and product line names (Immortals Handbook, Immortals Index etc.)
- The 1 1/2 pages section titled A Glimpse at the Kosmos
- The 2 page introduction to Angels
- The 1 page introduction to Brood
- The 1 page introduction to Daemons
- The 1 page introduction to Demons
- The 1 page introduction to Devils
- The 2 page introduction to Dragons
- Monster Descriptions
- Monster Backgrounds
- Monster Tactics
- Monster Adventure Ideas (including any character names, creatures, places or objects therein mentioned)

Open Content

- Size Matters
- Density
- Virtual Size
- Universal Damage
- 1/2 page introduction to Abominations
- Monster Names
- Monster Statistics
- Monster Combat Text
- New Artifacts
- New Feats
- New Magic Items
- New Material (Orichalcum)
- New Spells

Any thoughts on those 2 lists?

I still haven't read the PDF entirely through, so forgive me this question: Are PI + OGC = Bestiary Vol. 1? I assume "yes". Then the most important aspects are "Does the PI include OGC?" and "Does the OGC include PI?" The last question can't be answered from looking at the list alone, so I assume "no" there. But regarding the first I'm wondering, if Monster Tactics can be PI, because they mention spells and special abilities, which are OGC. Does fair use cover this?

 

[Nifelhein]

It seems fine following the standard I have given you, although the introduction to abominations should be made closed content itself, consider any character name to be closed too, so if it happens to be on a spell, specify it too, descriptions being open would be nice, if those you are refering are like the ones we have on the SRD of the MM monsters.

Pointing open content during close content passages is not a problem, although you might want to make the same WotC made in the MM, the passages in italics in a monster write up identifies closed content, the remaining (then specify and speak of spell names and the like) are open content. Also, having product identity somewhere in the middle of the open content is not a problem, just remember to reference that, so if a monster name has a place name you want to keep closed, for example, you might say in the introductory chapter of the bestiary that (insert your list) are close content, as well as (place name), (character name that shows up often), Immortal's Handbook, Immortal's Index, Immortal's Bestiary.

In general consider that your designation has to clearly be understood by what the americans call "citizen Joe", the medium person, if you have any atlas games book, open it, they have open content in a different color background, inside boxes, or with a specific symbol (which is not open, by the way) before and after it.

All images are product identity, the graphic layout and the like too.

And S'mon, I believe that the "there is nothing out of it thing" is the poibnt, they have aimed for just that with this all, WotC has never been nice, they amde a amrket move to seel more of their products, and if you ever do somthing really good, they reprint it, just like they did in Unearthed Arcana with a few mechanics...

 

[Cheiromancer]

It sounds like UK is going to be clearer about what is OGC and what is PI than 99.9% of OGL publishers. I'm getting the impression that some people think this is woefully inadequate, and that he has to be clearer still or else he'll be sued by WOTC.

I think he should do what seems best for the PDF, and, when things turn out to be fine, as they will, use the same designation for the print copy. If in doubt just pick a few significant OGL or d20 publishers (Green Ronin? Mongoose? EN Publishing?) and see how they designate content. Then do the same.

My concern is that fretting about the exact interpretation of OGL license is not making the rest of the IH appear any faster!