Call me an idiot but...MMII/OGL question

[broghammerj]

Forgive me for I am a humble physician not well versed in the ways of legalize (that's the language that lawyers speak which is not to distant from medical mumbo-jumbo. ) I have several questions surrounding a fabricated scenario related to the use of OGL and MMII/CC. WOTC publishes a module and they decide to use two of the monsters from the CC because they fit well into the plot. (To me this seems to be why OGL exists). WoTC references them properly, etc. Everything is "legal." My understanding from reading previous threads is that the monster info can be used but not the name.

My questions are as follows:

1. What is WotC motivation to release two previously published monsters from a different product and rename them in their own monster book? (Question unrelated to scenario).

2. Is the OGL inherently flawed? This appears to create a situation from which you can use game material (a good thing) but not directly relate it to the name (bad).

DM: "A large fury dog faced humanoid wielding two metal bars connected by chain attacks the group."
Player: "Is that a Flind?"
DM: "I don't know. It doesn't say."

3. Why is keeping the names protected beneficial? ie You have the blue print to the Death Star. You can build Death Stars. You can even sell Death Stars. But you better not call them Death Stars.

4. Whats preventing me from making the super uber "Book of Fantastic Monsters?" A collection of every monster ever made OGL and placed into a 1000+ page tome with leather bound cover for $99.95. It seems ok as long as I rename them.

Thanks for the help. -JB

 

[CRGreathouse]

1. I'm not sure; perhaps showing the validity of the OGL and existance of d20 companies?

2. No. I'd prefer that the companies didn't PI the names, though.

3. See your point #4.

4. Ethics, and the portions of the monsters that are PI. Also, you wouldn't have many descriptions, nor would you have art.

 

[Maraxle]

1. What is WotC motivation to release two previously published monsters from a different product and rename them in their own monster book? (Question unrelated to scenario).

More than likely, someone liked the concept behind those monsters. It also gave them a chance to show off the OGL in practice.

2. Is the OGL inherently flawed? This appears to create a situation from which you can use game material (a good thing) but not directly relate it to the name (bad).

I'd say no. I'll take what they're willing to share. It's their right to protect their intellectual property. If they want to, they can keep the names and the stats to themselves. They are doing us a service by giving us the stats.

3. Why is keeping the names protected beneficial? ie You have the blue print to the Death Star. You can build Death Stars. You can even sell Death Stars. But you better not call them Death Stars.

Intellectual property. If they give out the name Elminster, anyone can write a book about Elminster. They don't want that, and personally, neither do I.

4. Whats preventing me from making the super uber "Book of Fantastic Monsters?" A collection of every monster ever made OGL and placed into a 1000+ page tome with leather bound cover for $99.95. It seems ok as long as I rename them.

Nothing is stopping you. As long as you have the licenses in order, and properly divide what is and is not OGL, you can feel free.

 

[Maraxle]

Re: Re: Call me an idiot but...MMII/OGL question

4. Ethics, and the portions of the monsters that are PI. Also, you wouldn't have many descriptions, nor would you have art.

I disagree with your ethics comment. There's nothing unethical about using the OGL for what was intended. As long as you don't infringe on their product identity / intellectual property, it's all fair game.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Re: Call me an idiot but...MMII/OGL question

I disagree with your ethics comment. There's nothing unethical about using the OGL for what was intended. As long as you don't infringe on their product identity / intellectual property, it's all fair game.

What about books that are entirely OGC? One could post all of the earlier Freeport books, or the Enchiridion of Mystic Music, in their entirety... but would it be right?

Posting the contents of a product, especially a new product, in full would surely depress sales, don't you think?

 

[Nightfall]

Well maybe they just liked what the Creature Collection had done. Though the mechanics weren't entirely right, the CONCEPTS worked.

Iron Tusker certainly is a favorite "creature" of mine, even if they removed it "break weapon" ability.

 

[Maraxle]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Call me an idiot but...MMII/OGL question

What about books that are entirely OGC? One could post all of the earlier Freeport books, or the Enchiridion of Mystic Music, in their entirety... but would it be right?

Posting the contents of a product, especially a new product, in full would surely depress sales, don't you think?

It surprises me that anybody would actually release a product for profit that is entirely OGC. Would it be nice to post the entire thing? No, I don't think so. Ethically wrong? I don't think so either. If they wanted to protect some intellectual property, the could have. If they released it all as OGC, I can only assume that they don't mind if someone repackages it. Would I repackage it? No. But that's because I'm nice.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Call me an idiot but...MMII/OGL question

It surprises me that anybody would actually release a product for profit that is entirely OGC. Would it be nice to post the entire thing? No, I don't think so. Ethically wrong? I don't think so either. If they wanted to protect some intellectual property, the could have. If they released it all as OGC, I can only assume that they don't mind if someone repackages it. Would I repackage it? No. But that's because I'm nice.

OK, so we actually agree.

The question was about reprinting all the OGC monsters, whoich would involve reprinting all of certain pure-OGC monster books (Minions, for example).

Sample OGC designation:

The entire contents of Minions: Fearsome Foes is considered Open Content, except for cover, artwork, and other graphic elements.