BOEF OGL Violation?

[S'mon]

Expect the RIAA to raise their own army and invade you.

Didn't they already do that?

 

[jdavis]

Expect the RIAA to raise their own army and invade you.

Then you can get a benifit concert and apply for a foriegn aid package to help you rebuild, so it could work out fine in the end.

 

[kenjib]

You are right that Valar has not released anything under the OGL yet, so it doesn't apply. The OGL says 'you agree not to indicate compatibility' not 'you must never have indicated compatibility in any prior release' - ie on my reading even if it were held to apply to works that did not themselves incorporate the OGL (which I don't think can ever be the case, but I'd need to study the OGL more & check US case law) it only affects post-contract works, not previously released works.

That is interesting. If what you are saying is correct, then I really hope that other d20 publishers start taking full advantage of this as well. Until a product is officially released, they can plaster "Dungeons & Dragons" all over the place - web sites, advertisements in Dragon Magazine, you name it. They can even leave the statements up on their web sites long after the product is out as long as the pages were published prior to the product.

Hey, in the end it's Anthony Valterra that has to deal with the headache, so he reaps what he sows.

 

[The Sigil]

That is interesting. If what you are saying is correct, then I really hope that other d20 publishers start taking full advantage of this as well. Until a product is officially released, they can plaster "Dungeons & Dragons" all over the place - web sites, advertisements in Dragon Magazine, you name it. They can even leave the statements up on their web sites long after the product is out as long as the pages were published prior to the product.

Hey, in the end it's Anthony Valterra that has to deal with the headache, so he reaps what he sows.

Ultimately, this is what it WILL come down to.

The reason d20 publishers are watching this so closely is that every one of them would dearly LOVE to start plastering "D&D" on everything but the products themselves.

By and large, d20 publishers have tried to be respectful of WotC's Intellectual Property w/respect to D&D - for example, "slaad" and "beholder" were taken out as monsters, but there are still references to them in other parts of the SRD - a belligerent publisher *could* use that to "shoehorn" identical stats for slaads and beholders back into Open canon. But the publishers in general have not looked on this as the thing to do. But if the "head" of the D&D division at WotC suddenly starts doing stuff that, let's face it, is of dubious legality at best and disrespectful to WotC's IP at worst, expect the rest of d20 publishers to have no compunctions about following suit - after all, it will be exceedingly hard for AV to come down on someone for IP infringement when they can point to his own company, his own products, and his own works as an example of "prior art" for their own infringement.

--The Sigil

 

[S'mon]

That is interesting. If what you are saying is correct, then I really hope that other d20 publishers start taking full advantage of this as well. Until a product is officially released, they can plaster "Dungeons & Dragons" all over the place - web sites, advertisements in Dragon Magazine, you name it. They can even leave the statements up on their web sites long after the product is out as long as the pages were published prior to the product.

Hey, in the end it's Anthony Valterra that has to deal with the headache, so he reaps what he sows.

Er, in the absence of the OGL they're bound by normal trademark law. If they're using the D&D trademark, which they don't own, 'in the course of trade' (maybe not in a press release) to indicate the origin of non-WoTC products, they are likely to be violating WoTC's trademark rights. Normally trademark violation requires some element of likely customer confusion/deception though (it's not a monopoly right, although US anti-dilution provisions extend the scope of TM protection), at least under UK law.

So, leaving aside the OGL, you can legally indicate that a product is written to be rules-compatible with Dungeons & Dragons. But if you do it in such a way that the customer is likely to think the product is published by, or authorised by, the D&D TM-owner (WotC/.Hasbro) you're violating their trademark. So you better have pretty clear disclaimers.

Then there's copyright issues - TSR used to claim they had copyright in such terms as 'armour class' and 'hit points', I believe WoTC still claim that they have copyrights in monsters like mind flayers and drow (and I'd say they _do_ have copyright in at least the stat blocks of those monsters, as well as descriptive text).

This area gets really messy - generally no one wins from protracted court battles over the exact scope of IP rights. I think the OGL was an inspired way to avoid this messiness, and I applaud its intent.

 

[Orcus]

If I'm going to get quoted, I will copy my primary comment here. What you should know is not so much whether there is a violation, but the mechanism by which this is allowed. Is WotC saying I can use such comments in my ads? I would love to know that. This product is a bit different because it may be OGL only and not under the d20 license, which has a specific prohibition against ad references. The OGL simply has section 7. Anyway, here is one of my comments:

"Actually, you just hit on one of my big concerns. I dont know if you guys care about the OGL issues here, but you might have noticed that the press release uses the term "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" and also references other trademarked terms. This is of course a HUGE potential violation of the OGL. There are only two possible situations (neither of which seem understandable):

1. The release violates the OGL, which seems strange since AV is the guy involved in ensuring compliance with the license from WotC's end; or

2. WotC gave permission for them to use the phrase "compatible with D&D", which would also be strange since they have distanced themselves from the product.

But then you all might not be as interested in that stuff as I am being both a lawyer and a d20 game producer."

Clark

 

[Orcus]

[auote]after all, it will be exceedingly hard for AV to come down on someone for IP infringement when they can point to his own company, his own products, and his own works as an example of "prior art" for their own infringement.[/quote]

Bingo!

Plus, I would find very interesting any interpretation that excludes advertising. All one would have to do is take down any ad the second the book is released and voila! no violation. All I want to know is if that is how they are interpreting their own rules. If so, fine. I am happy to do the same. But I want to know if this is allowed because of how they interpret the rule (and how they can enforce it against us) or because of permission.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

By the way, I never claimed this would be an issue that anyone would care about generally. Only us d20/OGL producers.

Clark

 

[Aitch Eye]

Has Monte Cook ever commented on whether he's gotten permision to mention D&D in his press releases? This quote from the press release for BoHM seems to sidewise imply compatability:

"As a senior game designer with Wizards of the Coast, he co-created the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons (the basis of the d20 System) and authored the Dungeon Master's Guide, The Book of Vile Darkness, and a d20 version of Call of Cthulhu."

http://montecook.com/mpress_BOHM_PR.html

 

[kenjib]

Er, in the absence of the OGL they're bound by normal trademark law. If they're using the D&D trademark, which they don't own, 'in the course of trade' (maybe not in a press release) to indicate the origin of non-WoTC products, they are likely to be violating WoTC's trademark rights. Normally trademark violation requires some element of likely customer confusion/deception though (it's not a monopoly right, although US anti-dilution provisions extend the scope of TM protection), at least under UK law.

So, leaving aside the OGL, you can legally indicate that a product is written to be rules-compatible with Dungeons & Dragons. But if you do it in such a way that the customer is likely to think the product is published by, or authorised by, the D&D TM-owner (WotC/.Hasbro) you're violating their trademark. So you better have pretty clear disclaimers.

Oops. I meant to say "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons." I'm sorry. I guess I typed that up too fast.