D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D

[overgeeked]

There are already a few hundred threads to talk about how the OGL works.

This thread is meant to be about Creative Commons.

If someone wants to open a compare and contrast thread, please do.

#

Compare and contrast the CC and OGL in this other thread, please.

D&D 5E - Compare and contrast CC and OGL

Do you want to discuss the differences between the Creative Commons and OGL? Here you go.

www.enworld.org

#

Since yesterday...wow...yesterday. What a week. What a month. What a year. Slow down 2023, you're drunk. Since WotC released the 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons (here's the PDF) a lot of people have been talking about CC, the CC-BY 4.0 (the specific license WotC released 5.1 under), and how it all works. Given that most threads about all this are splintering into CC talk, it seemed like a good time to start a thread about CC specifically. So here goes.

Here's a list of resources for people to check out:

When we share, everyone wins - Creative Commons

CC is an international nonprofit organization that empowers people to grow and sustain the thriving commons of shared knowledge and culture we need to address the world’s most pressing challenges and create a brighter future for all. Together with our global community and multiple partners, we...

creativecommons.org

About CC Licenses - Creative Commons

Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law. From the reuser’s perspective, the presence of a Creative Commons license on a copyrighted work answers the...

creativecommons.org

Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Best practices for attribution - Creative Commons

wiki.creativecommons.org

Creative Commons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

#

Releasing content under CC is permanent and irrevocable.

Considerations for licensors and licensees - Creative Commons

wiki.creativecommons.org

Remember the license may not be revoked.​

Once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright and similar rights, even if you later stop distributing it.

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

What if I change my mind about using a CC license?​

CC licenses are not revocable. Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights. As a licensor, you may stop distributing under the CC license at any time, but anyone who has access to a copy of the material may continue to redistribute it under the CC license terms. While you cannot revoke the license, CC licenses do provide a mechanism for licensors to ask that others using their material remove the attribution information. You should think carefully before choosing a Creative Commons license.

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

What happens if the author decides to revoke the CC license to material I am using?​

The CC licenses are irrevocable. This means that once you receive material under a CC license, you will always have the right to use it under those license terms, even if the licensor changes his or her mind and stops distributing under the CC license terms. Of course, you may choose to respect the licensor’s wishes and stop using the work.

#

Once a month CC has office hours with their legal team if people have questions. Next one is 17 Feb 2023 at 10:00 PST. Uses Zoom.

Open Office Hours with CC's Legal Team - Creative Commons

Come join CC’s legal team for open office hours. Everyone is invited to meet with General Counsel Kat Walsh and Counsel Yuanxiao Xu to discuss legal issues related to CC licenses, CC0, and open sharing in general. We’ll start off with a few minutes talking about CC and some current topics and...

creativecommons.org

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, because I goofed hard and told a bunch of people (thankfully, only in private Discord conversations) that the license was CC-BY-SA when it is only CC-BY, no "share-alike" requirement:

What, exactly, does CC-BY entail in terms of the adaptation creator's work? Consider the following, assuming I have written a book (novel-form, not game-form) using content under the 5.1 SRD CC-BY license:

1. Do people need to seek my permission to make adaptations from new content in that book that isn't contained in the 5.1 SRD? E.g., could I separately make allowances for certain kinds of adaptations and not others?
2. If someone wanted to make a movie about the unique content in my book, and not just the content already available in the 5.1 SRD, would they need to contact me and get permission?
3. Would I be able to tell an NFT-maker to coitus off if they tried to make NFTs of the characters in my book?
4. If a neo-Nazi, homophobe, bigot, or similarly feces-cranium type tried to exploit my work for whatever disgusting reason, would I be able to indicate in no uncertain terms which indiscreet parts of their anatomy they could insert their efforts into?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If you incorporate CC-BY content in your work, that does not give anyone any rights to use your work in any way that's not already allowed by Fair Use.

 

[Reynard]

So, because I goofed hard and told a bunch of people (thankfully, only in private Discord conversations) that the license was CC-BY-SA when it is only CC-BY, no "share-alike" requirement:

What, exactly, does CC-BY entail in terms of the adaptation creator's work? Consider the following, assuming I have written a book (novel-form, not game-form) using content under the 5.1 SRD CC-BY license:

1. Do people need to seek my permission to make adaptations from new content in that book that isn't contained in the 5.1 SRD? E.g., could I separately make allowances for certain kinds of adaptations and not others?
2. If someone wanted to make a movie about the unique content in my book, and not just the content already available in the 5.1 SRD, would they need to contact me and get permission?
3. Would I be able to tell an NFT-maker to coitus off if they tried to make NFTs of the characters in my book?
4. If a neo-Nazi, homophobe, bigot, or similarly feces-cranium type tried to exploit my work for whatever disgusting reason, would I be able to indicate in no uncertain terms which indiscreet parts of their anatomy they could insert their efforts into?

If I understand it correctly, you are not required to release your original work under CC-BY (or anything else). the only requirement is that you provide attribution for the SRD.

 

[overgeeked]

If you incorporate CC-BY content in your work, that does not give anyone any rights to use your work in any way that's not already allowed by Fair Use.

Correct. For something to be released under the CC-BY license the owner of that must release it under a CC-BY license.

So if you make a game using the CC SRD 5.1 you must include the attribution, but only that content which you specifically release under a CC license is covered by that license. Your whole work is not automatically released under CC-BY. That's not how it works.

 

[Reynard]

Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement? If there is no "share alike" requirements, doesn't it incentivize publishers to create compatible, derivative works that they DO NOT themselves have any reason to release under CC?

 

[overgeeked]

I'm searching around and adding resources to the OP, so check there first. A lot of this stuff is specifically covered by Creative Commons websites.

 

[Cadence]

Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement? If there is no "share alike" requirements, doesn't it incentivize publishers to create compatible, derivative works that they DO NOT themselves have any reason to release under CC?

Could people with the OGL 1.0a just put the new stuff under product identity? Or are there things they can't do that with under 1.0a?

 

[overgeeked]

Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement? If there is no "share alike" requirements, doesn't it incentivize publishers to create compatible, derivative works that they DO NOT themselves have any reason to release under CC?

I'd say no more than the OGL did. There was no obligation under that to release anything as OGC. Same with this. If publishers want to release content they will. No change in that regard.

 

[overgeeked]

So, because I goofed hard and told a bunch of people (thankfully, only in private Discord conversations) that the license was CC-BY-SA when it is only CC-BY, no "share-alike" requirement:

What, exactly, does CC-BY entail in terms of the adaptation creator's work? Consider the following, assuming I have written a book (novel-form, not game-form) using content under the 5.1 SRD CC-BY license:

Do people need to seek my permission to make adaptations from new content in that book that isn't contained in the 5.1 SRD? E.g., could I separately make allowances for certain kinds of adaptations and not others?

Yes. Because you still own your content. Your content is not released under the CC-BY unless you specifically do so. CC-BY is not "viral" in that sense. The CC-BY-SA, however, is.

If someone wanted to make a movie about the unique content in my book, and not just the content already available in the 5.1 SRD, would they need to contact me and get permission?

Yes.

Would I be able to tell an NFT-maker to coitus off if they tried to make NFTs of the characters in my book?

Yes.

If a neo-Nazi, homophobe, bigot, or similarly feces-cranium type tried to exploit my work for whatever disgusting reason, would I be able to indicate in no uncertain terms which indiscreet parts of their anatomy they could insert their efforts into?

Yes.

 

[Reynard]

I'd say no more than the OGL did. There was no obligation under that to release anything as OGC. Same with this. If publishers want to release content they will. No change in that regard.

Under OGL 1.0a, material derivative of Open Content was automatically open content. The effort was in closing content. That is the point of Open Gaming: creating an ever expanding body of work that other creators can use and build upon. If Kobold put out their next Tome of Beasts under CC, they would have no obligation to open any of the content. if they did so under OGL 1,0a, they would have to specifically Close some content (and it is unclear whether they even can close derivative content like stat blocks).

 

[Ondath]

Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement? If there is no "share alike" requirements, doesn't it incentivize publishers to create compatible, derivative works that they DO NOT themselves have any reason to release under CC?

No more than OGL's Product Identity clause undermines the Open Gaming Movement, I'd say. People also released a lot of games under the OGL where they only benefitted from OGC but made no contributions of their own (for instance, Adventures in Middle Earth's Product Identity section includes "new rules, classes, items, virtues, backgrounds, places, characters, artwork, sidebars"!).

People always had the option to use the OGL in a one-sided manner, and CC-BY 4.0 allows the same. Despite that, a lot of people already released TTRPG content under the CC (FATE and a few others come to mind). My only concern with switching to CC is the open works and losing the unique OGL ecosystem, but the license by itself is no more inimical to open gaming than the OGL was.

 

[Reynard]

Could people with the OGL 1.0a just put the new stuff under product identity? Or are there things they can't do that with under 1.0a?

They can, but per the definitions in the license, Product Identity does not include game mechanics. The intent is new game mechanics are automatically open content.

 

[Ondath]

They can, but per the definitions in the license, Product Identity does not include game mechanics. The intent is new game mechanics are automatically open content.

That did not stop a lot of people like Cubicle 7 and Goodman Games to put their new rules under Product Identity.

 

[Reynard]

No more than OGL's Product Identity clause undermines the Open Gaming Movement, I'd say. People also released a lot of games under the OGL where they only benefitted from OGC but made no contributions of their own (for instance, Adventures in Middle Earth's Product Identity section includes "new rules, classes, items, virtues, backgrounds, places, characters, artwork, sidebars"!).

Yeah, this sort of thing always bothered me and it is not at all clear this is not a violation of the license itself. The license identifies what Product identity is, and that definition does not include game mechanics.

 

[Reynard]

That did not stop a lot of people like Cubicle 7 and Goodman Games to put their new rules under Product Identity.

That doesn't mean they weren't in violation of the license. but as far as I know, it has never been tested.

 

[Ondath]

Yeah, this sort of thing always bothered me and it is not at all clear this is not a violation of the license itself. The license identifies what Product identity is, and that definition does not include game mechanics.

Agreed! But since contracts have to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, loopholes can and always will be found. It's the nature of the beast, and given that, I think it'd be pretty hard to prove that DCC or Adventures in Middle Earth violate the OGL. And since that's the case, the OGL and the CC are on equal footing in terms of fostering open gaming.

 

[Cadence]

They can, but per the definitions in the license, Product Identity does not include game mechanics. The intent is new game mechanics are automatically open content.

It says it explicitly doesn't include open game content. Does that mean the stuff that is copied from and derived from OGC? Or did I miss something else? (Could SW use OGL 1.0a and exclude all the things about Jedi?).

 

[overgeeked]

There are already a few hundred threads to talk about how the OGL works.

This thread is meant to be about Creative Commons.

If someone wants to open a compare and contrast thread, please do.

 

[Maxperson]

It says it explicitly doesn't include open game content. Does that mean the stuff that is copied from and derived from OGC? Or did I miss something else? (Could SW use OGL 1.0a and exclude all the things about Jedi?).

You usually can't copyright mechanics, which is why when WotC proposed in 1.2 putting their mechanics into CC a lot of attorneys were like, "They're giving us what we already had."