WotC Could D&D Rights Be Stripped From WotC?

[LuisCarlos17f]

Now I remember the gazer from the videogames "Dragon's Dogma" and "Dragon's Crown". They are too similar to the famous D&D beholder.

White Wolf could publish Ravenloft for the 3rd Ed, and Dragonlance by Margaret Weis Productions. It is easier to start from zero, pay for other franchise, or offer your work to be hired as subsidiary and then you enjoy the power of the brand.

 

[Dausuul]

The Forgotten Realms is the most likely example for this as Ed Greenwood would have a solid case to do this given the historic deal he had over the Forgotten Realms, he has solid case.

What? No. This is just as nonsensical as the original post. You cannot reclaim a copyright that never existed in the first place.

"Forgotten Realms" is not a copyrighted work any more than "Dungeons & Dragons" is. Both are trademarks owned by WotC, which WotC slaps on a whole bunch of books and boxed sets and things. Each individual book is a copyrighted work, but they are almost entirely works for hire (thus not eligible, per @lowkey13) and very few of them were written by Greenwood anyway.

Now, Greenwood wrote some FR novels back in the day, and if he did not write them as works for hire, he might be able to reclaim copyright to those specific novels. But "Forgotten Realms," the trademark, belongs to Wizards of the Coast, and so do all the books Wizards of the Coast hired people to write in FR. Greenwood cannot claim any of that.

 

[Mistwell]

It’s been released under the OGL more than once. Even if in some bizarre unlikely series of events somebody managed to convince a court that they had more right to the trademark than Hasbro has, the game would continue.

That's not quite what I think he's arguing. I think what he's arguing is all the rules and descriptions and trademarkable names and trade dress and everything were invalidly transferred from Gygax to TSR. Which would mean TSR didn't have the right to transfer something they didn't actually own to WOTC. Which would mean WOTC didn't have the right to issue an open gaming license for something they didn't actually own. Which would mean everyone using that open gaming license didn't have the right to use any of that content for something they didn't actually have a valid license for, etc..

I think he's saying it all unravels. Everything.

Which is a really good sign this is not, and never will be, a thing. Courts don't tend to destroy entire industries over "Party X had more power than Party Y while negotiating this contract 50 years ago" type things.

I feel pretty confident the rights were validly transferred, and that even if there was some question about that at the time those questions were resolved long ago, and even if those things didn't happen then Hasbro would just settle the matter with the Gygax estate rather than just letting it all revert back to the Gygax estate.

So I see zero chance this could be an actual thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't see D&D going anywhere and I suspect the Hollywood things are just a shakedown.

Just thought it was interesting and thought how it would apply.

I don't think the OGL could be revoked if in an unlikely scenario this did happen. AFAIK even if the rights did transfer it wouldn't invalidate anything WotC did since they legally did have the rights at the time.

 

[Mistwell]

No. To the extent he's saying this, he's wrong.

Which is my next sentence? That you cut?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In an extreme case WotC might lose the copyright to some of the early D&D publications they currently own. This would not in any way affect their ownership of the D&D trademark or the copyright of any D&D products published after WotC aquired TSR.

As a side not, it would be quite strange if a court found that TSR had illegaly exploited Gary Gygax back in the 70's, considering that Gygax was running TSR at the time.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Harzel]

No. To the extent he's saying this, he's wrong.

He read an article in the Hollywood Reporter (I linked to it). It's about a very specific provision of copyright law, 17 USC 203 (I quoted the opening above- you can read the whole thing if you want to google it, and it contains my favorite word ... stirpes!) that Congress added in the late 1970s.

So then, this law has no teeth - just a beak and only 2 HP. Oh, wait...

 

[Mistwell]

Because he's wrong, but for a different reason.

I didn't give a reason. At least, none of the nature you're using in this context. He's wrong for a variety of reasons. The reason you're giving isn't the only reason he's wrong. Let it go man. This is going to be a silly debate if you want to dig into the nitty gritty of the many reasons he's wrong given we both agree this is not a thing.