D&D (2024) Anyone mentioned that SRD5.2 got no Knight?

[Shardstone]

It is crazy to me that even after a quarter of a century, people still have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an SRD.

It has nothing to do with "concepts." It has to do with literal copying and using of specific text, and derivative content thereof.

The putting "D&D" in the SRD does not threaten their trademark, and them forgetting to put "Knight" in there doesn't have any impact on your ability to include a "knight" in your games/adventure/whatever.

I think the basic Knight stat block was generic enough to be included. It's a minor quibble.

I also think concepts def matter to them. They remove IP names like "Tasha" from spell names like "Tasha's Hideous Laughter," so the IP is def a big thing they're looking to protect.

 

[Umbran]

But yes, if every licensed party was eliminated (remembering that many are corporations, and so cannot be killed in any literal sense) and/or renounced its licensed rights, then WotC would be the only one left who could offer licences. If, at that point, they ceased to make such offers, then that would be that: no one would be licensed to use the text of the SRD 5.2.

They would also have to track down every copy of the material & license in both print and electronic formats and destroy them. Even if they killed everyone, if one day I found a thumb drive with it on there, it would arise and live again, like Captain America free of the ice.

 

[pemerton]

The text comes from the SRD website, so ...?

Sure, but WotC can remove that website and hence cease to make offers on its own initiative. Then all the offers would have to flow from receipt of licensed materials.

They would also have to track down every copy of the material & license in both print and electronic formats and destroy them. Even if they killed everyone, if one day I found a thumb drive with it on there, it would arise and live again, like Captain America free of the ice.

Maybe. I think this depends on your theory of how the offer of a licence is enlivened by receipt. Which is not entirely straightforward, as a legal matter.

 

[pemerton]

them forgetting to put "Knight" in there doesn't have any impact on your ability to include a "knight" in your games/adventure/whatever.

Looking at the stat block at the bottom of p 299 LHS and top of p 299 RHS, it includes the phrase "the knight" three times.

So if someone is reproducing the stat block under licence, I think if they label it "Knight" WotC does not have any argument that the person reproducing the statblock is infringing an unlicensed copyright interest (eg in using that statblock in a particular story about a knight). Because that story - to the extent that WotC enjoys copyright in respect of it at all - is already implicit in what has been licensed, because of the occurrence of that phrase.

I also think concepts def matter to them. They remove IP names like "Tasha" from spell names like "Tasha's Hideous Laughter," so the IP is def a big thing they're looking to protect.

Suppose that someone, under licence, reproduces the text of the spell Hideous Laughter - but that person labels the spell "Tasha's Hideous Laughter". What complaint does WotC have against them?

If the person is a party to the OGL with WotC, then the complaint could be that the person is violating their contractual promise not to reproduce WotC's product identity. (The success of this would depend on some questions of construction of the OGL.)

if the person is not, then what complaint might there be? Let's assume that there is no trademark complaint - ie that the person is not selling something under the name "Tasha's Hideous Laughter" but is simply including that text in a work that is being sold under some non-trademark-infringing name.

Tasha, in itself, is a common enough name. WotC doesn't have copyright in respect of it.

I've got doubts that they have copyright in the phrase "Tasha's Hideous Laughter". That's also a pretty generic phrase of English.

Then WotC might be able to argue that the spell with that name is part of a particular story about a witch called Tasha, and WotC enjoys copyright in that story, and the person is infringing that copyright. But the argument doesn't seem entirely straightforward to me.

Of course I'm happy to hear the views of someone who is a better IP lawyer than me!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

WotC has as much claim to the word “knight” as they do to the word “the”.

 

[pemerton]

WotC has as much claim to the word “knight” as they do to the word “the”.

Sure, but they can copyright a story about a knight just as anyone else can.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure, but they can copyright a story about a knight just as anyone else can.

You can't "copywrite" anything, they can assert or give away the intellectual property rights to a story they created involving the word "the". It's hardly relevant, especially in this situation, where the issue is not using the word knight.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

All this means is that you can't write an adventure, write that Sir Peasantkiller is Knight, and be certain that the DM running the adventure will be able to find the relevant stat block in the 5.2 SRD.

You can however copy the "Iron Golem" statblock from the SRD, change the name to "Knight", and include it in your adventure. Just make sure you copy the right one, or anyone playing the adventure may end up with a TPK at the hands of Sir Peasantkiller.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You can't "copywrite" anything,

Of course you can't, because copywrite isn't a word

 

[pemerton]

You can't "copywrite" anything

True, as @Sacrosanct already pointed out!

they can assert or give away the intellectual property rights to a story they created involving the word "the". It's hardly relevant, especially in this situation, where the issue is not using the word knight.

If I've understood you, then I think you are probably understating the scope of copyright protection for literary works. In this case, though, it doesn't matter, because to the extent that a D&D stat block constitutes a copyrightable story about (say) a knight, the licensed stat block already includes a description of the person in question as "the knight".