It's here that I think you should reconsider your stance based upon what OGC is.
1. We don't own any OGC material we created if that material is reused according to the OGL.
You are right. We don't. BUT I do own my PI. If I choose to put a PI on something, and grant limited use permission, I can do that.
I explained why I left PI on some of my spells. Even though some people think it isn't right to do.
2. If someone takes our OGC and renames the PI, they are not "stealing" our work as long as they put our book specifics in their section 15. Even if they don't tell us about it. Even if they don't show which material came from where.
Right. But if they take it, redo it, and claim it as thier own, then what?
3. And its not underhanded, unprofessional, un-anything. We've already agreed to that when we published under the OGL. If they contact US they are being "nice" and professional while those who don't contact us are being professional.
True, as long as they give proper credit in the Section 15. I consider it as a good business practice to at least contact the other publisher, producer, writer. I do this, I hold myself to this ethic. I don't expect that everyone else would consider the same thing.
What I referring to is taking something, we'll say a PrC, renaming the PrC itself, renaming the abilities, changing any flavor text, and using some synonyms, and claiming that you wrote this, and developed it yourself, even though it is the exact same thing.
That's not derivative.
Derivative is something like: "Master Archer" that requires some powers or has abilities like the Arcane Archer, but is NOT the same thing.
Just renaming it the Master Archer, changing the name of the powers, and adding new flavor text, is not Derivative.
4. Have you notified WoTC that you're using their OGC and asked for their permission to use it? Its a silly question because you don't have to. No one has to ask us either as long as they follow the OGL.
Actually, I did.
It was called: Getting the d20 liscense permissions and applying for the OGL liscense. Plus sending in the
Confirmation Card
Plus, buying a business license.
And asking repeated questions for permissions to use things that were later marked as PI, or getting permissions to reference books other than the SRD.
When you publish under the OGL you voluntarily give up ownership of your OGC to others who publish properly under the same liscense.
That doesn't mean I have to make everything generic. I can, and I chose to, PI the names of some things.
Business Ethics? You might want to look into that yourself. There is nothing unethical about follow the SPIRIT of a license agreement. Grabbing and reusing OGC is the spirit of the OGL. Asking permission is just being polite.
So we disagree on ethics. That's fine.
If I'm going to grab it, and use it, I'm going to ask. If I get no response, I'll either cut the section, or I will give proper credit in the Section 15.
I won't take something like "Furrowbrow's Instant Coffee" and rename it "Instant Coffee" and then try to pretend that I wrote it.
That's just me.
Stole? If I stole it from you, then you no longer have it. Ah, but you do still have it. So I haven't stolen anything. Nor have I pirated it. And since the OGL is a voluntary contract, in point of fact, by making that spell OGC you are in fact inviting people to reuse it.
OK, let me break this down.
I create something. I use Public Domain or OGL or OpenSource to create it. You come along, reverse engineer what I did, rename and redo it, then put it out in your work, without even giving the
proper Section 15 credit, what did you do?
You may not consider it piracy or theft.
I would feel as if I was stealing something from the author. If nothing else, the work he put into creating it.
So when you published Crimson Contracts you contacted Wizards of the Coast first and told them you were going to use their OGC? ReallY?
Yes, I bought the business liscense, filled out applications, and did the other necessary homework. I asked questions, requested permissions of things I was unsure about, and in general, did my best to avoid violating the agreement. Plus, sent in my little confirmation card, to ensure they could get ahold of me in case of any OGL violations that happened despite my precautions.
Asking is not by definition a hassle. It is however a roadblock to smooth development. By not getting involved with PId names in the first place, that is one less thing to think about when putting a book to bed.
That's fine. I'm not telling you how to run your shop. I'm just saying how I feel about some thing. You feel it's too much of a roadblock for smooth developement, I feel it's part of the price of doing business.
Yes it is. There are only two other pieces of PI in my entire Joe's Book of Enchantment. They are "Joe's Book of Enchantment" and "Throwing Dice Games". I did not PI Saera the elven enchanter, Doral the charlatan, the Circus of the crescent moon run by Mazir Al'Rahaji, the bard/reveler and Lysath Tourant, headlined by Tara the gnome rogue, etc. etc. Why? Because no matter what they mean to me, if I really expected to use them again in a book or something, I could rename them and trademark the new names. As it stands now, I would be utterly flattered to find any of those characters in someone else's works. At some point you have to ask who are you protecting those characters from? Since I have no plans for them, I'm happy to let them go.
You have no plans for them.
That was your choice. You feel you could trademark new names, but why shouldn't I protect names that already have a lot of involvement, and future products/projects feature?
I have many plans for mine.
Now, I have the worry of a name I have used repeatedly, for over a dozen years, on everything from websites to fiction, of being considered stolen from a video game. I have to deal with someone infringing on my Trademark.
Did it upset me?
Your @!&!%!@ right it upset me.
I see no added value in expanding my PI statement to contain your PI when I can keep it as simple as company name and product name. YMMV.
Hmmm, isn't that giving due credit?
You get credit in section 15. The OGC prohibits further credit without additional licensing.
Then that's due credit, isn't it?
So? Just because someone else used NahaJawen in a product it stops you from doing so in the future?
No, it does not stop me, but do I want my creations being affected by other people's perceptions of that work? How was she portrayed? How will people view my further creations after someone else has used my creation? Who will be credited with original creation by consumers? Will I be considered someone who ripped off the person who used my creation? Did it violate the basic premise of the character? How much affect will thier product have upon my future products.
Let me take this back to the beginning. I want your spell. I don't give a blankityblank about your PI name. You see the PI name on a spell and attach great meaning to it.
Yes, I do. Many of these spells have been in my campaign since 1E. There's more reasons than that, like I consider flavor more important than sheer mechanics.
BUT, I am willing to
share my toys. I PI'd the name of the spell, not to keep anyone from using it, but because the spell has a history, and if the spell is going to be reused, I'd like to see it with it's original name.
Maybe you don't understand my full reasoning, that's cool. I understand that you did not feel it necessary to PI your creations, you had no intent to use them again, no future plans.
Mine are fully involved in upcoming and ongoing projects.
I see a spell with a cool effect that has a name I cannot use. Perhaps if you released the spell with an OGC name as well as the PI name?
You can use it. Just give proper Section 15 credit. I'd like it if you let me know you were going to use it, so I can enter into my company records, let you know about any erratta, updates, changes, etc so that you may adjust your product accordingly, but you don't have to.
Why should I release the spell with an OGC name? If it's too much bother to put in proper Section 15 credit, and too much bother for you to even attempt to cooperate with me, all you are really showing (to my perceptions) is a disregard for my work.
It's good enough to reprint, providing you don't have to go through any extra effort?
If it's good enough to reprint, if it's good enough to use, it's good enough for that slight bit of extra effort.
And for your information, I tracked down some of my players from years back, and asked if I could use thier PC names, or not.
Sure, I did not have to, but I felt it was the right thing to do, just like if I was going to use any of your material, I would contact you.
I contacted Monte Cook, I contacted Thunderhead Games and I contacted Ambient (even though I'm one of their imprints, I wanted it official for both our company records) for permission to reprint or reference thier works in Crimson Contracts.
I contacted WotC for permissions for certian PI's for use in flavor texts for several products upcoming.
I contacted Green Ronin on permissions to reference firearms contained in
Ultra-Modern Firearms while writing QuickShots.
Nobody
has to do anything. They can re-engineer what I do, and reprint it as their own. They can say: "It involves PI, I'll never use it." They can give Section 15 credit, and not ask. They can ask.
I just gave my opinions on
why I operate the way I do, my feelings on PI, and my view of business ethics, the standards I hold my company and myself.
