Collecting community content on SRD creatures

[corydodt]

Does anyone have an opinion, legal or otherwise, on whether or not it would be legal to collect descriptions and art, community-contributed, for SRD monsters?

What I'm imagining is a Wiki page, with all SRD monsters organized in some fashion and probably full-text searchable. Users of this Wiki would be allowed to edit the description of the creature. As you have probably noticed, many SRD monsters completely lack a description, and almost none have any decent descriptions. The community would be able to:

- Add descriptions, from its own imagination. These would include physical appearance, and might reference community, habitat, and game-niche for the creature. Users would be specifically prohibited from plagiarizing any of this material from anyone else's PI and, to the extent possible, technological and sociological measures would be taken to ensure infringing material is removed immediately. And on the other hand, popularity and other benefits would accrue to the best original authors contributing to the wiki. All material contributed would be considered OGC or CC-attribution-sharealike.

- Add art, from its own creative wells. This would naturally be art depicting the creature in question, perhaps in context. Similar to the descriptions, this work would be OGC or CC-attribution-sharealike once uploaded. This is harder to do well; we want to establish a consistent community style, and artists who know how to do that usually expect to be paid to do it. Nevertheless, there's fertile ground here, if we can just figure out to harness it. As an alternative, sites like dunjinni.com (the forums) could be harnessed to contribute some of this material, as that stuff is already freely distributable by the magic of click-through licenses.

If such a site were in place, should I expect to find WotC's lawyers knocking on my door? Or would it be legal?

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Well, I'm not a lawyer at all, but is seems to me that if you are only dealing with monsters in the SRD, you are doing exactly what the OGL intended, so you should be fine. Just make sure you do follow the OGL.

The biggest legal burden, IMO, would be in setting up your site in such a way that all material is properly credited to the authors (maybe they sign rights to you, by submitting). You'll have to decide if new material is OGC, or not, etc. So I think the biggest issue is how to handle the rights of those who submit material.

 

[corydodt]

[...] (maybe they sign rights to you, by submitting). You'll have to decide if new material is OGC, or not, etc. So I think the biggest issue is how to handle the rights of those who submit material.

The wiki would require a signup, user account to edit. Creating the account would display a disclaimer that anything created and submitted would be placed under some open content license (either OGC or CC-attribution-sharealike, my choice, depending on how I judge the merits of those licenses). Posting would also display a shorter version of the same license, so nobody forgets.

The intent is not to own what users create. Instead I want anyone to be able to use that content, publish stuff containing it, write software that includes it, etc. etc. I also want users and publishers to be well aware of that policy. Sites like dundjinni.com have done extremely well establishing this kind of policy up front, creating enough goodwill to attact a high volume of very talented creators.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Instead I want anyone to be able to use that content, publish stuff containing it, write software that includes it, etc. etc.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion.

If this is your intent, you need the OGL. I think if you try to combine the OGL with other open licenses, you are getting into complicated territory.

As you probably know, when material is designated open game content, the author does NOT give up his/her copyright. The material is only usable within the framework of the Open Game License. So, you can't use open game content under any other license without the OGL. For example, you can't take the material for a specific monster from the SRD, add to it, then release the whole thing under a completely different license. You would be violating copyright for the material from the SRD, because outside of the OGL the material is subject to all of the ordinary laws protecting copyright.

You may already know all of this, but this is a common misconception I see. Material that is designated OGC does not become public domain, or fair game outside of the OGL.

 

[corydodt]

[...]The material is only usable within the framework of the Open Game License. So, you can't use open game content under any other license without the OGL. For example, you can't take the material for a specific monster from the SRD, add to it, then release the whole thing under a completely different license.[...] You may already know all of this, but this is a common misconception I see. Material that is designated OGC does not become public domain, or fair game outside of the OGL.

Ah, but this is indeed where we start getting into a gray area. The OGL claims to cover derivative works, but it also applies only to sections clearly marked OGC. Suppose the original monster and statblock were clearly labeled OGC, and the contributed material was clearly labeled otherwise? I'm not completely convinced that the community-contributed material would necessarily be a derivative work, depending on how it was incorporated or connected to the creature. If I asked you to write a story about a Gold Dragon, and then linked one or more instances of the words "Gold Dragon" in the story to the SRD page on someone else's site, I don't think many people would consider that a derivative work. On the other hand, if I tried to interweave community-contributed stats into the OGC statblock for a gold dragon, that probably would be. The idea of this site falls somewhere between those two points.

And to address artwork specifically: I don't believe there is any question of contributed artwork being OGC, even if it's on the same page as the statblock; they're simply not the same kind of intellectual work. (That is, unless the artwork is in some way derived from WotC's artwork beyond what's allowed by fair use--in which case it is still not OGC but merely a copyright violation.)

In conclusion, if it is necessary to make material OGC, I will. It may end up simpler and less confusing if I do that, but I want to maximize the rights of my site's users.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Yep, I think you have a decent grasp of the situation (IMO, as far as i understand what you're trying to do). I think if your point is to make material usable by others, you would be better off making all the legalities straight forward. No one will want to use the material if they have to sort through an interwoven mess of what is or is not OGC, and under which license some material is subject, which it isn't, and which is some combination of licenses.

I think you would make your life easier by using the OGL. You should be able to protect the rights of your contributors. First decide what rights you want to preserve. It's really a simple matter, if your goal is to create a body of work available to others, then all material should be designated open game content, or you can create a separate product identity license. You'd still have to handle each person's copyright separately, or have them assign it to you when it is submitted.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Just another thought, if this is a wiki type of thing, where people can come in and edit other posts, etc, you will definitely want the copyright of text signed over to you by posting. Otherwise, i don't see how you can keep it all straight with edits here and there, maybe just a few sentences added here or there, etc.

Art is another matter, of course, unless people are taking existing art and modifying it too.

 

[corydodt]

This is a good point, and will have to be handled delicately. I don't want people to flinch at the license terms.