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.

 

[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.