BOEF OGL Violation?

[kenjib]

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

I think that's a bit different. It's a list of credentials with no direct relationship to the product. It could just as easily say "created Ars Magica" if the author was Jonathan Tweet instead of Monte Cook.

In Valar's press release the mystery author, and Anthony Valterra specifically, specifically mention compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons in relation to the OGL product.

 

[jdavis]

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

Clark

I think the type of publication the press release is associated with adds a lot to that. This is a product that WotC has come out and said they don't agree with and are opposed to and are distancing themselves from it, but the press release makes it seem like they approve, there are no disclamers or direct statements that this is not a WotC supported product or a WotC approved product and it is written in a way that it implies it is. It almost looks like it was written to cause this type of confusion and it seems to be aimed at mainstream press not gaming press. I could be reading a lot more into it than I should (I don't seem to be alone in this) but it just seems that this is a press release that is sensitive enough that it should of been done where there was no questions about these things. I am not well versed in these type of legal matters at all but as a casual observer and a consumer of gaming products I find this quite interesting not to mention that this press release could have a impact on the industry beyond the topic of the book.

 

[Aitch Eye]

I think that's a bit different. It's a list of credentials with no direct relationship to the product. It could just as easily say "created Ars Magica" if the author was Jonathan Tweet instead of Monte Cook.

But by adding the parenthetical note that D&D was "the basis of the d20 System", he does seem to be doing more than saying "Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons Player's Handbook."

(edited for clarity)

 

[kenjib]

But by adding the parenthetical note that D&D was "the basis of the d20 System", he does seem to be saying that a D20 product is compatible with D&D.

Ah, I missed that detail. Good point!

 

[The Sigil]

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

Point taken, and interesting thought. However, I would argue that it's not as important to the potential discussion as AV's violations are, for the point ("using AV as an example of prior art") I noted earlier. Monte is not an employee of WotC. I have asked myself why he includes these in his press releases and his books though (in the "about the author" blurb) - I'm not sure it's legal by a strict OGL reading. But it's different with Monte than it is with Anthony... because Monte's not THE employee in charge of policing OGL matters.

That's the difference, IMO. The appropriateness/legality of Monte's inclusions is a subject for another thread - because Anthony's instance appears to be headed towards becoming a precedent-setter in terms of interpretation of the OGL. Monte's is not - though with enough attention brought to it, I suppose it could become so.

--The Sigil

 

[Orcus]

By way of information, I was required to get permission from WotC to post Rob Kuntz' publicaiton history in the back of the Maze series. But they gave me permission and I am sure if it was an issue with Monte they gave him permission too. He was the actual designer. Its hard to stop a guy from being able to list his credentials.

Clark

 

[Umbran]

Yes, WotC's statement appears to be saying that they do not approve of the product (and have not granted it any special permissions) but cannot legally stop Valar doing what it's doing.

I don't think so. Saying, "I don't approve of this thing's use with D&D" is not the same as saying, "I don't give permission for you to mention D&D in advertising". Kinda hinges on a small semantic difference between "to approve of" and "to give approval for". The first is talking about what you or don't like, the other what you give permission to do.

Basically, when you read between the various lines, it seems to say, "Officially, we don't like it, but we allow the advertising anyway."

 

[Morrus]

Of course, someone could just, like, ask instead of guessing.... AV's and WotC's email addresses are far from secret.

What's the worst that can happen? They may well say that any discussion, agreement, disagreement or situation between WotC and Valar Project Inc. is none of our business, but it'd do no harm.

 

[ShatteredOne]

Just an observation I made that I didn't see mentioned yet, if this was mentioned, I apologize for bringing it up again, but... Here's the thing.

Wizards of the Coast is in no way associated with the product, "The Book of Erotic Fantasy," referenced recently on (websites). We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game.

Yes, ok, so the OGL says you can't reference other products and Wizards doesn't approve of BoEF, BUT, if the OGL specifically states that you can't claim compatibility with D&D then why this (Emphaisis is my own, of course):

While the OGL license allows anyone, even our employees, to produce products that are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons , Wizards does not approve or control the theme of any third-party D20 product.

If you are not permitted to claim compatibility, then why say in their own release that anyone can make products compatible with D&D regardless of WoTC's opinion on the product? Double Standards come to mind, methinks...

In any event, I think any gamer worth their weight in platinum knows D&D and D20 are the same thing, even if Wizards are the only ones allowed to call it D&D.

[Edit]: Tidied up some spelling.

 

[jdavis]

In any event, I think any gamer worth their weight in platinum knows D&D and D20 are the same thing, even if Wizards are the only ones allowed to call it D&D.

Yes but this press release sort of seemed geared towards non-gamers (mainstream media), and they wouldn't have a clue about the difference if they saw D&D in the release they would just assume it was D&D not D20. Once again I may be reading a lot into this, but this was something that somebody else pointed out in another thread and it made sense in this situation.