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.

 

[Haplo781]

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.

You could probably get away with a Medium sized Cthulhu - green, and flabby, with vestigial wings and a mas of facial tentacles. You can't make it purple with four tentacles around a toothy maw.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I'd buy that, yeah.

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.

I don't think anyone is going to get into trouble for it.

 

[FallenRX]

CC-BY does not cover trademarks, explicitly. It's in the license description.
Regardless of their accidental/intentional inclusion in CC-released content

So i think they are good.

 

[Umbran]

Just the names. But given the specific uniqueness -of- those names, it may grant further license...

I don't think that's how it works. And therein may lie why it got out.

You can now use the word "beholder". But the stat block, description, all the lore, isn't in the SRD, and so isn't open. And the description and lore are what really make it what it is.

If you now want to make a race of cyclopses that are called "beholders", that's going to be fine. If you want an antagonist named Strahd, that's fine. But if that cyclops has an anti-magic ray from their eye... well, that's on you.

 

[dave2008]

I'd buy that, yeah.

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.

So your saying your not switching Nedraz out for Yuan-ti?!

 

[Steampunkette]

View attachment 274003
CC-BY does not cover trademarks, explicitly. It's in the license description.
Regardless of their accidental/intentional inclusion in CC-released content

So i think they are good.

WOOFTA! That's a great find and solves the problem entirely!

Noone is at risk of losing their job, and none of this stuff actually enters the Creative Commons. Thank you FallenRX!

So your saying your not switching Nedraz out for Yuan-ti?!

Hell no! My Nedraz are -way- cooler.

 

[Jer]

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

Exactly - it's not like using "Mind Flayer" to describe a psychic aberration of some kind is somehow protected anyway.

The OGL prevented you from using it because it's product identity. But once this stuff went out under a CC-BY Wizards lost their ability to dictate what you can and cannot use in your work even if they hadn't put the term into the document.

 

[Arakhor]

Nedraz are time travellers, for one thing.

 

[dave2008]

Hell no! My Nedraz are -way- cooler.

I think you know I was joking, but I just wanted to be safe and clarify.

 

[overgeeked]

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

Absolutely.