D&D 5E Creative Commons and D&D

[EzekielRaiden]

I hate to say it, but I fear that the answer is yes.

I foresee a balkanization coming, where products are released under the OGL, ORC, and CC, and it becomes harder for publishers to reuse each other's content, as products published under one license can't have their material (easily) reused under another.

Balkanization was unavoidable as soon as the ORC was proposed, because not everyone will want to go with it. We were guaranteed to get at least 3, and realistically more like at least 4, distinct camps:

1. Those sticking with WotC and whatever OGL it came up with. Critical Role was probably going to be stuck here, regardless of their feelings on the matter, because they'd already hitched their cart to WotC's horses.
2. Those switching to Paizo's ORC and hoping to create the new community core.
3. Those refusing to participate in any of these licenses and trying to go it alone
4. Those refusing to recognize WotC's "de-authorization" of OGL 1.0a and thus sticking with the old license regardless

And there's room to argue for more too (those using OGL 1.0a without actually using any of WotC's licensed content, those already pushing for a Creative Commons structure e.g. building off of Dungeon World.)

The balkanization was a foregone conclusion the moment WotC announced their desire to alter the OGL, because that was going to incense Paizo and lead to ORC. We may as well celebrate that the core notions of D&D are now indefinitely accessible and thus even if WotC goes belly up, no one can try to vault it or hoard it like a dragon.

 

[Dreamscape]

There’s a link in the OP a out this. It might not answer all your questions, but it covers some. Especially the adaptation section. Note you don’t have to license your new work under the CC unless you want to, but you still have to attribute the CC.

Yes, I've looked through the CC guides. While images and the like are quite clear, text is a bit more vague in the guidance. The most I can find regarding indicating text modifications is that example, but I would assume something more practical than calling out every instance of copied-and-pasted CC text vs. modified CC text would be allowed within the terms of the licence. Clearly it's not reasonable for (for instance) a novel based on the SRD to have that disclaimer recurring on every page throughout the book.

Regarding onward licencing, I'm wondering more along the lines of creating a product using CC BY 4.0 text and then publishing the whole thing under, e.g., CC BY-SA. Is that possible? I assume so as I haven't found anything saying you can't, but I'm just wondering if there is some more discussion of that somewhere. I have come across various statements that different CC licences are not very/at all compatible, but nothing definitive.

Perhaps it's time to ask the source!

If this happens I will eat my hat.

What kind of hat is it?

 

[Cadence]

Yes, I've looked through the CC guides. While images and the like are quite clear, text is a bit more vague in the guidance. The most I can find regarding indicating text modifications is that example, but I would assume something more practical than calling out every instance of copied-and-pasted CC text vs. modified CC text would be allowed within the terms of the licence. Clearly it's not reasonable for (for instance) a novel based on the SRD to have that disclaimer recurring on every page throughout the book.

You do not have to call it out everywhere.

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Best practices for attribution - Creative Commons

wiki.creativecommons.org

Regarding onward licencing, I'm wondering more along the lines of creating a product using CC BY 4.0 text and then publishing the whole thing under, e.g., CC BY-SA. Is that possible? I assume so as I haven't found anything saying you can't, but I'm just wondering if there is some more discussion of that somewhere. I have come across various statements that different CC licences are not very/at all compatible, but nothing definitive.

Perhaps it's time to ask the source!


What kind of hat is it?

Scrolling down in the link below to the Adapter's License chart. You can put your work that adapted things from CC-BY under CC-BY-SA. It doesn't have any affect on the original CC-BY things.

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

 

[overgeeked]

Using the provided example as a template what people would need to do is include this at the front of their work:

“This work, “[New work name]”, is adapted from “[Original work name]” by [original autbor], used under CC BY 4.0.”

Or just follow what’s written in the new SRD and include this at the front of the work:

“This work includes material taken from the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD 5.1”) by Wizards of the Coast LLC and available at Systems Reference Document | Dungeons & Dragons. The SRD 5.1 is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.”

That’s it. No need to list product identity or open content. Your stuff stays yours. If you want to release it as CC, you can. If people want to use the CC content from your work, there’s the link to the original source and they’re free to use and adapt that at their whim.

 

[see]

Does releasing the 5.1 SRD under CC-BY undermine the Open Gaming movement?

I mean, this is pretty much the same issue people on Slashdot were discussing a quarter-century ago. Was the GPL better because it stopped people from taking software in the commons and building proprietary products on it? Or was BSD licensing better because it attracted people who wanted to build proprietary products to use the software in the commons, and thus created a bigger community around that software with network effects that favored the commons-based community over the all-proprietary communities?

There's reasonable arguments on both sides, and the diversity in opinions and licensing has persisted in software to this day.

 

[wingsandsword]

We may as well celebrate that the core notions of D&D are now indefinitely accessible and thus even if WotC goes belly up, no one can try to vault it or hoard it like a dragon.

. . .which was already the state of things before WotC tried this "de-authorization" nonsense a month or so ago.

I'd been saying for 20+ years that thanks to the OGL and SRD's, that even if WotC went out of business and D&D went out of print, that the game itself could survive thanks to the OGL.

Then WotC tries a dubious legal strategy which at least casts doubt on it. Them releasing the 5e core at least into Creative Commons partially undoes the damage they started, but not entirely. . .not the least of which is the huge volume of content released under the OGL that now has the idea that WotC might repeat this stunt one day hanging over its head like a sword of Damocles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

. . .which was already the state of things before WotC tried this "de-authorization" nonsense a month or so ago.

Firstly: not for dragonborn or tieflings or mindflayers or beholders or.... And that matters. A lot.

Secondly, there has always been legal ambiguity even with the OGL about whether the "expression" of the rules is subject to copyright. E.g. formulae can't be, but can tables? Now, with the whole SRD just straight up released under CC, I can confidently publish, for example, a novel that uses the word "dragonborn" and won't get slapped with a lawsuit from WotC. (Or a friend of mine, who went by the username "temporalMessiah" on a forum of yesteryear, who is thrilled to know that he can now actually use the names of all the various types of demons who are characters in the novel he is actually working on right now.) The CC license allows ALL adaptations, not just game ones, and that's a huge change.

I'd been saying for 20+ years that thanks to the OGL and SRD's, that even if WotC went out of business and D&D went out of print, that the game itself could survive thanks to the OGL.

I consider the Creative Commons to be a superior safe harbor, for a variety of reasons. Not least because it guarantees something like this can't happen again.

Then WotC tries a dubious legal strategy which at least casts doubt on it. Them releasing the 5e core at least into Creative Commons partially undoes the damage they started, but not entirely. . .not the least of which is the huge volume of content released under the OGL that now has the idea that WotC might repeat this stunt one day hanging over its head like a sword of Damocles.

As I have said several times, this applies to stuff going forward, yes. It doesn't help people who already have work under the OGL. I believe their rapid and unequivocal response to the feedback warrants patience and consideration. That doesn't mean giving up the fight--it means giving them a chance to make a case. Because if you look at my posts, you will find that I was not willing to do that before. This gesture, IMHO, is worth leaning back and saying, "Alright. What's your proposal?" If that proposal is $#!t, we recognize it for what it is and respond accordingly. If it isn't, then it's a step in the right direction and not into a cow pie.

 

[Alzrius]

Firstly: not for dragonborn or tieflings or mindflayers or beholders or.... And that matters. A lot.

I'm pretty sure dragonborn and tieflings were already out there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm pretty sure dragonborn and tieflings were already out there.

The exact nature of what one could do with them was not entirely clear even with that. Again, mechanics vs presentation, when the presentation is rather a large portion of what matters to me. This makes it extremely clear: you can do anything you want as long as you give WotC credit.

And the other parts of the argument remain true (mindflayers being a key example.)

 

[wingsandsword]

Firstly: not for dragonborn or tieflings or mindflayers or beholders or.... And that matters. A lot.

Tieflings were already OGC all the way back to the 3e SRD two decades ago. Dragonborn were added to OGC in the 5e SRD that was released under the OGL years ago.

. . .so those were already open content years before this mess. That wasn't adding anything new.

. . .and while the names "mind flayer" and "beholder" were added to that which was put out in the open through yesterday's CC release, that doesn't mean the entire appearance and description of them from WotC's products was added too, and I'd be careful about just trying to use mind flayers and beholders as-is based on those mentions.

 

[jmhimara]

I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?

For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?

As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?

Doesn't sound right.... This was unambiguous in the OGL because it had a "share-alike" component. OGC had to remain OGC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?

For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?

If their work contains content from the SRD 5.1, then yes, they would need to do that.

As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?

Doesn't sound right....

Because it isn't. At least, as I understand it.

 

[overgeeked]

and while the names "mind flayer" and "beholder" were added to that which was put out in the open through yesterday's CC release, that doesn't mean the entire appearance and description of them from WotC's products was added too, and I'd be careful about just trying to use mind flayers and beholders as-is based on those mentions.

Exactly. Only what’s in the SRD was released. Nothing outside the SRD was released. None of the lore or art was released. Nor stat blocks. Yes, the name “mind flayer” and “beholder” are CC. Nothing else.

 

[jmhimara]

If their work contains content from the SRD 5.1, then yes, they would need to do that.

I'm not sure I'm convinced if my derivative work is not under CC. Especially if it's not easy to distinguish what was or wasn't taken from the SRD.

If I release my derivative work under the following license "You can use any part of this work WITHOUT attribution as long as you give me a dollar." Does that apply to the entirety of my work, or just the "original" part? Doesn't seem like the CC-BY license makes that distinction for derivatives.

 

[overgeeked]

I think the CC is overall a much better license than what the OGL was. And generally much easier to use. However, one thing that confuses me about it is: What are the attribution requirements for derivatives of derivatives?

It depends on the derivative. Unless the derivative is also specifically released under the CC license, then it’s off limits. The CC-BY is not a viral license.

For instance, say I create a product based on the SRD 5.1 and release it under a different license (be it open or closed). It is clear that I need to have the proper attribution to the SRD. What about the people creating works based on mine? Do they have to attribute the original, i.e. the SRD 5.1?

If they use the SRD-derived content, yes.

As I understand the CC license, that seems like it would be the case, but wouldn't it be problematic? Say I take the SRD 5.1 and release a virtually unchanged copy under a public domain license (e.g. CC0). Does that mean people can use my version (effectively the SRD) without attribution?

Doesn't sound right.... This was unambiguous in the OGL because it had a "share-alike" component. OGC had to remain OGC.

No. Because despite it being under the CC license, WotC is still the copyright holder. Meaning you don’t own it. You don’t have the right to release it into the public domain. We can use the content under the listed CC-BY license, not further release it into the public domain. CC waives most rights, not all rights.

 

[jmhimara]

You don’t have the right to release it into the public domain.

That was a bad example. What about releasing it under any other license that doesn't require attribution?

 

[Cadence]

That was a bad example. What about releasing it under any other license that doesn't require attribution?

Your using the CC-BY material required that you give attribution, and anyone using your adaptation of it need to give attribution too. You are not allowed to avoid telling people the conditions.

D&D 5E - Creative Commons and D&D

I hate to say it, but I fear that the answer is yes. I foresee a balkanization coming, where products are released under the OGL, ORC, and CC, and it becomes harder for publishers to reuse each other's content, as products published under one license can't have their material (easily) reused...

www.enworld.org

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That was a bad example. What about releasing it under any other license that doesn't require attribution?

You still don't have the copyright--just the ability to make use of it yourself. You cannot license anything from the 5.1 SRD because you have no right to it--just a license to make use of it yourself.

Being able to use something =/= having the copyright to it.

 

[CleverNickName]

Being able to use something =/= having the copyright to it.

And this isn't a new thing. This isn't unique to the Creative Commons license.

This is how copyrights and licenses have always worked, as far as I can tell.

 

[jmhimara]

Your using the CC-BY material required that you give attribution, and anyone using your adaptation of it need to give attribution too. You are not allowed to avoid telling people the conditions.

You still don't have the copyright--just the ability to make use of it yourself.

OK, so that part of what was tripping me up. Seemed that my former assumption was incorrect.

Does that apply to the entirety of my work, or just the "original" part?

It seems that whatever license you apply a derived product, it ONLY applies to your "original" creation, not anything that is taken from the SRD (also mentioned in the CC FAQ, albeit somewhat hidden -- assuming I'm understanding it correctly). That makes sense!

Still though, this introduces some complications for the CC that were not in the OGL. E.,g. if you change something significantly, there can be ambiguity in what is considered original and what is considered "the source." Although perhaps in practice this is not a big deal. Similarly, since you don't have to enumerate what is and isn't taken from the SRD, the burden of that is left on future adapters of your derivative work to comb through the text should they want to make that distinction. Then again, I can't imagine many scenarios where that would be necessary.