Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Strahd von Zarovich Released Into Creative Commons (Kinda)

In the 5.1 SRD that just got released into the Creative Commons is a bunch of IP including Count Strahd von Zarovich, the Feywild, the Shadowfell, the City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire. The beholder is also specifically referenced by name in the Deck of Illusions, and Mind Flayers and Slaad are also referenced--at least by name--repeatedly in the document.

Here's a link to the content released to CC.

WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons. So, what's happened? The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a...

www.enworld.org

What does that mean? Under OGL v1.0a terms like this were generally designated as ‘Product Identity’ and were unavailable for use. The CC license has no such provision. This means that those using the OGL cannot (still) use terms designated as PI, but those using the CC can use the full content of the document released under it.

Only the names of these creatures and places are contained in the document--so you can't use Strahd's image or stat block or description, nor can you use those of the beholder, etc. But it does appear that you can refer to these items.

 

[Alzrius]

Seriously, though, I doubt this was a mistake. WotC has teams of people checking this stuff. I think they know they really stepped in it and this is kind of an olive branch.

Personally, I'm of the opposite belief. This really looks like they just removed the first two pages or so of the existing 5.1 SRD, with the OGL listing and the Product Identity and OGC declarations, and slapped on a CC License before kicking it out the door as fast as they could once they got the go-ahead.

 

[Reynard]

I mean, this is basically what Stranger Things did with their Mind Flayer.

I'm pretty sure Stranger Things was not released under either the OGL or the CC BY.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Get ready for Phyrexians and Eldrazi.

I know there are people who get upset about this, but as a non-MTG player, I would be perfectly happy to get an MTG monster book.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Today is a fantastic day for D&D as a folk tradition.

True story: a friend once texted me about a gay romance novel involving Strahd that had somehow gotten up on Amazon (and was quickly taken down).

Looks like that's permissible now.

I don't think it's particularly clear that a mention of a character in creative commons allows free use of that character as characterized in other copyrighted materials. Copyright protection against characters being used in other works seemed like an area with thin and ambiguous legal precedent when I was in law school, and one that overlaps significantly with trademark law. An actual lawyer, rather than a recovered former lawyer like me, could give clearer guidance. Note that the title "Curse of Strahd" is still protected under trademark law.

Also note that despite "DUNGEON MASTER" being referenced throughout the SRD, WotC has an actual registered trademark to that.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Seriously, though, I doubt this was a mistake. WotC has teams of people checking this stuff. I think they know they really stepped in it and this is kind of an olive branch.

Or some cool cat at WotC decided to pull a fast one and deliberately released a bunch of stuff before the IP lawyers could react.

 

[Steampunkette]

Or intentionally making sure that the anti-open gaming faction will have a harder time of it next time this fight comes up (hopefully not for another generation).

I'm not giving them that... This is pretty clearly a mistake.

The 5.1 SRD was designed to be used with the OGL, which specified that named entities and other stuff was part of Wizards' IP. But the CCBY4 did not.

It looks like they just copy-pasted everything without considering it in their hurry to make things "Right".

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do love that we went from "Lets all band together to make sure 3pp and there employees don't loose there income" to "lol wotc employee gonna get fired"

 

[MonsterEnvy]

In the 5.1 SRD that got slapped into the CCBY4 is a bunch of IP.

Count Strahd von Zarovich is referenced. The Feywild. The Shadowfell. The City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire are -all- referenced in a single passage.

The BEHOLDER is specifically referenced by name in the Deck of Illusions.

They just dropped IP into CC. And cannot take it back.

This does not matter, the actual creature descriptions and stat blocks don't appear just the names. And the names don't do anything on their own.

 

[niklinna]

True story: a friend once texted me about a gay romance novel involving Strahd that had somehow gotten up on Amazon (and was quickly taken down).

Looks like that's permissible now.

I was about to ask if it was written by Chuck Tingle, but that's way too mundane for him.

 

[S'mon]

It mentions that Strahd is a vampire, and that Mind Flayers have psychic attacks and are aberrations, that slaadi and aboleths are aberrations too.

It's not JUST the names, there's at least a few details that slipped in there too.

Cool, so that is now in the Creative Commons. AFAICS you can now write "1d3 mind flayers live here" in your OSR dungeon. But you cannot publish "The Bumper Book of Mind Flayers" if it makes substantial use of WoTC's copyrighted expression, ie your mind flayers can't be (much) like theirs.

You can refer to Mind Flayers, but it doesn't give you any rights to use whatever copyrighted expression of the 'mind flayer' concept WoTC owns (and the law is both vague on this, and varies by jurisdiction) beyond "have psychic attacks and are aberrations", which in itself does not seem detailed enough to be copyright protected.

The big thing about Creative Commons is that it does not limit the licensee's rights the way the OGL 1.0 does, so this is pretty big. In fact I could probably now use the very early Githyanki & Slaad material published by Charles Stross in White Dwarf, at least under UK law, and combine it with 5e SRD stuff licenced under CC.

 

[FallenRX]

yuan-ti is on here too.
Descriptions too.

OOFFFFFFFFFFFF

 

[Alzrius]

I do love that we went from "Lets all band together to make sure 3pp and there employees don't loose there income" to "lol wotc employee gonna get fired"

Uh, no, we have another, much bigger, thread celebrating how big of a deal this is and what it means for our community and other publishers:

WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons. So, what's happened? The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a...

www.enworld.org

This thread is to talk about the content that's been (accidentally, I suspect) released under the CC license. The stuff about someone being fired is hyperbolic in that regard (which doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This does not matter, the actual creature descriptions and stat blocks don't appear just the names. And the names don't do anything on their own.

Well, they do allow you to do a third party product that says "there are three red slaadi in this room (MM pg 274)," which is the most important part. The ability to reprint stats is a "nice to have," not a "must have." And it allows third party folks to stat up purple slaadi or what have you.

 

[Steampunkette]

This does not matter, the actual creature descriptions and stat blocks don't appear just the names. And the names don't do anything on their own.

Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Slaad are specifically referenced as Aberrations and Mind Flayers having psychic powers.

So I could make Slaad and Beholders aberrations of my own description. And Mind Flayers into psychic aberrations. And WotC couldn't sue over it because it's in the Creative Commons.

Strahd von Zarovich is specifically referenced as a Vampire. Can't use Barovia but...

And all the Deities listed who are specifically gods of specific domains? That, too...

 

[Incenjucar]

Yugoloths are mentioned as fiends, though sadly I see no Sigil stuff.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not giving them that... This is pretty clearly a mistake.

The 5.1 SRD was designed to be used with the OGL, which specified that named entities and other stuff was part of Wizards' IP. But the CCBY4 did not.

It looks like they just copy-pasted everything without considering it in their hurry to make things "Right".

Yes, but I think it was quite possibly intentional. Just probably not the intent of the higher-ups who gave the OK.

 

[MarkB]

Today is a fantastic day for D&D as a folk tradition.


I don't think it's particularly clear that a mention of a character in creative commons allows free use of that character as characterized in other copyrighted materials. Copyright protection against characters being used in other works seemed like an area with thin and ambiguous legal precedent when I was in law school, and one that overlaps significantly with trademark law. An actual lawyer, rather than a recovered former lawyer like me, could give clearer guidance. Note that the title "Curse of Strahd" is still protected under trademark law.

Also note that despite "DUNGEON MASTER" being referenced throughout the SRD, WotC has an actual registered trademark to that.

You're not wrong. Look up some of the Sherlock Holmes characterisation issues sometime. Basically, because the estate still had copyright on the later Sherlock Holmes novels, they gated specific characterisations of him - the only version people could freely use was the colder, more clinical Holmes of the earlier stories, and the more relaxed version with a closer friendship to Watson from the later works was strictly off-limits without prior agreement.

 

[Arakhor]

Dispater, like a lot of those Life deities, comes from real-world mythology, so the name (at least) couldn't be locked down anyway.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Slaad are specifically referenced as Aberrations and Mind Flayers having psychic powers.

So I could make Slaad and Beholders aberrations of my own description. And Mind Flayers into psychic aberrations. And WotC couldn't sue over it because it's in the Creative Commons.

Strahd von Zarovich is specifically referenced as a Vampire. Can't use Barovia but...

And all the Deities listed who are specifically gods of specific domains? That, too...

Yeah, still does not mean much.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yes, but I think it was quite possibly intentional. Just probably not the intent of the higher-ups who gave the OK.

I'd buy that, yeah.

Yeah, still does not mean much.

Considering how hard Wizards has clung to their specific IP?

It won't influence my writing much if at all. But someone's probably going to get into trouble. Possibly fired.