Crippled OGC Questions

[The Sigil]

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: Buying the d20 liscense permissions and applying for the OGL liscense.

I'm a little confused by this. I was under the impression that the d20 license provided for use of the d20 logo free of charge, provided you followed the d20 STL. I also didn't know you had to apply for the OGL license - you could just use it free of charge and without "telling anybody."

Just confused as to your response means.

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.

I think your way of doing business as it relates to contacting other companies to re-use their OGC is a very nice way of doing it. I think there's nothing wrong with you discussing the standards you hold yourself and your company to. And as far as your stance on your re-use of others' material, I applaud you.

However, I think your views on "protecting your own PI" are a little bit odd. Then again, I think *most* companies who make a big deal out of protecting a lot of PI are a little bit odd. When it goes past product names, company names, and possibly a few iconic characters (that means less than a half dozen), it reminds me of Gollum huddled in the dark whispering, "my precious."

I understand that you may have future uses for your characters - however, making them "not PI" does NOT in any way open you up to trademark infringement down the road (I found it odd that you cited that as a reason not to open your characters). Why not? Because anyone who uses your OGC character must abide by the terms of the OGL - which includes the requirement of keeping that character as OGC (derivative of OGC work must be OGC). Once you've opened it up, nobody else can EVER lock it down later and sue you.

I have been one of the oldest - and probably loudest - proponents of, "PI only what you absolutely HAVE to in order to protect your company's name" - IOW, PI your name, your company's name, your setting's name, but don't PI every character's name. I think Jim Butler of Bastion Press summed it up nicely when he commented to me, "Hollywood isn't going to be banging down the door offering me a million dollars for the right to my stuff. Why then try to close it?" (or words to that effect).

Finally, as has been suggested earlier, do not think of spell mechanics as "yours." That spell with the PI name on it is not YOUR truck with YOUR name on it. It's a model truck you assembled out of WotC's parts THEN stuck your name on it. Somebody else copying your spell verbatim then slapping another name on it is not stealing your truck - rather, it's looking at your truck, then making their own truck out of WotC's parts. When they drop your name into Section 15, they are in effect crediting you as the "engineer" who "designed" the truck - but they made the truck themselves, following your specs. It's their truck now.

Note that I diligently update my Section 15's in my products - in fact, I always update it BEFORE including material from a new source.

The following is NOT directed at you personally, but is a rant in general.

I guess I'm just getting to the point where I'm sick and tired of hearing about writers and publishers that publish under the OGL frothing at the mouth and screaming, "MINE! MINE! MINE!" The spirit of the OGL is sharing, not keeping stuff. My purchasing decisions reflect that - publishers that PI spell names, monster names, and so on no longer get my dollars, no matter how stellar their product might be. Publishers that do not resort to draconian PI designations do get my financial support... even if their products aren't as "good" as those who close down their products.

Gaming wants to be free - maybe not free as in beer, but definitely free as in restrictions. I recognize you're in this for the money - but I keep hearing about "people could rip my stuff off wholesale and re-sell it!" Folks, it's been three years and I have yet to see ANY product - including 100% Open ones - being ripped off wholesale (except for the SRD) under the terms of the OGL (there are lots of copies floating about on P2P services, but that's NOT done under the auspices of the OGL). Let's pull our egos out of the clouds and look around. *Nobody* wants to rip off your stuff wholesale. Other publishers just want to have an easy time re-using bits and pieces here and there. Even though it's nice, they don't want to have to ask permission for every little thing.

There is an old zen adage, "that which one cannot live without is not owned, but is the owner." I am *not* owned by the gaming content I have created, because I can live without it. All I want is a little credit for my work... and if you're feeling nice to me, a free copy.

*end rant*

If anyone, I'm among those who ought to be complaining about the misuse and misappropriation of their Open Game Content. It is well-documented that Mongoose cut-and-pasted the Sonomancer class that I created into their Ultimate Prestige Classes book WITHOUT giving me proper content in their Section 15. This IS the equivalent of claiming it as their own. Was I hurt by this? A little bit - it robbed me of the opportunity to show off to my friends - "hey, look! My stuff is in a d20 hardback!" Mongoose has since apologized, promised to add my name (along with others' whose stuff they used) into the Section 15 of their next printing, and send me a copy with my name in it (I *am* still waiting on that one).

Did I want to "take Mongoose down?" No... I just wanted them to fix their mistake so we could both move on. Did that incident stop me from producing more OGC? No. Did that incident make me lock up more stuff as PI? No. I'm not "owned" by gaming content I created.

Think about that - here is someone who HAS been burned by the OGL and by people not following it and yet still believes in it. I figure if I am still willing to dedicate myself to producing Open Game Content (not "Content" but "Open Gaming Content") it's not that much to ask of those who HAVEN'T been burned.

Not looking for kudos, not looking for applause, just pointing out that of all the people that worry their stuff is going to be "taken" and "used" in the wrong way under the OGL, I'm one of the few that has actually experienced it. I challenge those who are worried about re-use of their own material to make such a claim. So I'm not demanding that people make their stuff Open in ignorance of the potential consequences. Instead, I'm asking people to make more stuff more open so we can all share a greater common pot from which to easily draw... without having to worry about reading legalese or asking permission from a hundred people. I want to spend my time making Content, not being a compliance lawyer on the side. Stop being owned by content you created, and just let it go.

For the record, nobody has to ask me about using any content I create - you're all more than welcome to use it. I don't have the time nor inclination to track where my OGC gets used. That's why I designated it as OGC. I don't want you to have to ask - just take it. And if you feel like it, do me the courtesy of sending me a copy of what you do with it. If not, no big deal.

--The Sigil

 

[Knightfall]

Wow, this is such an informative thread. I am learning tons about the OGL and OGC and what to do and what not to do.

And to The Sigil, great comments. It's people like you who make the d20 System, and OGL work.

Cheers!

KF72

 

[jgbrowning]

Originally posted by The Sigil
Let's pull our egos out of the clouds and look around. *Nobody* wants to rip off your stuff wholesale. Other publishers just want to have an easy time re-using bits and pieces here and there. Even though it's nice, they don't want to have to ask permission for every little thing.

--The Sigil

That's basically my belief. I think I write good stuff, but honestly, its only a book about a game. My ideas are great, but they're sure not as good as sliced bread.

I can understand wanting to cover yourself more when you're a company that has employees who have children, mortgages etc.. but most of us out here are small part-time operations. We're one or two people who do this because we can make a little money doing it and because its nice to do things you like.

Sorry to hear about the big mess with mongoose, Sigil. Didn't know about it.

joe b.

 

[The Sigil]

Sorry to hear about the big mess with mongoose, Sigil. Didn't know about it.

Not a big mess, just a case of Mongoose making a mistake. Most of the problematic inclusions (with Section 15 non-credit) were things from the FanCC's Netbook of Classes. When I (and others who were members of the NBoClasses team) got in touch with Mongoose Matt, he apologized, said he would get the Section 15 changed, and agreed to send us each a copy. Matt is a good guy, and with all the books Mongoose puts out, I sometimes think he just has way too much stuff to keep track of and not enough hours in the day to keep track of it all.

It was no big deal to me... though I know a few people wanted it to be so... but I did want to make sure that I got credit in the book... so I could show off to my gaming buddies.

--The Sigil

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

OK, the whole thing I was talking about was this...

I left some spellnames PI.
If they do what everyone keeps mentioning it's not theft, and listing the proper information in Section 15, that's fine, even though I prefer that they asked, so I can keep records and inform them on erratta, expansion, or anything else they might want to know.

I didn't accuse him of bad ethics. He believes slightly different than I do. That's not bad. It's different. I was just trying to lay down: "You believe differently than I, that is fine."

I'm not saying: "Don't ever use my stuff. It's my precious!"
over and over it was stated: "As long as they list you in thier Section 15, it is not stealing."
That's what I'm saying.

Some how or another, this turned into a near rant, and a near flame war.

Let me sum it up, real simply...

I PI'd some of the spell NAMES.
I PI'd some of the events, places, and fiction.

I don't claim to own the mechanics. I understand that anything created based upon the SRD or any OGC mechanics is not mine.
I DO claim to own certian names and works of fiction.

I would prefer if people contacted me before reusing my stuff, so that I can inform them of updates, erratta, etc. I contact everyone I can. I do this for different reasons.

Apparently, people feel I called Joel unethical.

We were talking about how you thought that a guy who takes your OGC (your spells in particular) and puts it in his book and then puts your book in his section 15 is "stealing" from you. In fact, you even said it was unethical of Mr. Mucchiello to use your OGC even when he obeys the OGL section 15.

Gee, what would be unethical about it?
He renames the work. Just quietly drops the Section 15 to into his. Reprints, knowing full well that the completely OGC, non-PI'd version will be reused far more often, ANY work (I used spells for an example, not trying to start any flame wars over anything, honestly) is unethical in my views.
Sure, it's allowable according to OGL, but in my view, it would still be unethical.

Personally, I find your comments odd and a bit rude to him, considering his "Joe's Book of Enchantments" is %100 open material. I don't think his ethics are that questionable.

Since none of it was about "Joe's Book of Enchantments" (which I've never even read nor do I own) or his writing practices, I don't feel I was rude to him. If he feels I am being rude to him, he is free to contact me about it, and I'll ethier explain my viewpoint, and/or offer a public apology.
So he doesn't see things the same way I do. No problem.
I wasn't rude, I wasn't flaming. I was pointing out that our ethics differ.

What disturbs me, is some who have replied feel that I am stating "Never use my stuff, get away from my precious" and have totally glossed over my reasons, my personal business practices and ethics for preferring to be asked.

Due credit is the proper Section 15. If you use something created by someone else, and credit them in Section 15, then you are giving them due credit.

Oh, and sorry, I meant to say "purchased the proper business liscenses and filed for... blah blah blah"
I went back and edited it when I realized it looked like I was claiming the WotC charged for SRD usage.

And yes, I am having a trademark violation problem. Not among gamers, but with something else. Do I feel I need to protect my trademarks? Before the problem started, I would have said no. Now I believe I do need to act to protect my TM's.


Part of what gets me, is instead of noticing that half of what I was talking about, I was claiming as my personal beliefs and ethics, everyone immediately decided to beat it out of me.
Forget it. My ethics say: "Communications, permissions, and procedures." I'm not going to change the way I feel, but I'm certianly not going to insist that everyone act the same way I do.

I don't know Joe that well, and outside of this, we would probably have no problem. He sees things differently than I do. I'm not bashing him, and frankly, I take offense that because my opinion is different than his, I'm accused of rudeness. (But again, that's my problem, not anyone else's)

And honestly, I don't care if it's PI, a cool name, or a new mechanic another company has devised, I will ask permission to reference, include, or build upon it. I feel that it is the right thing to do, and the professional way to behave.
I'm not saying agree or disagree with me, it's just the way I feel.

 

[jmucchiello]

STOP! WAIT! HOLD THE PHONE!!! (The point of miscommunication is at hand.)

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.

When did I (or anyone else in this thread) advocate not giving credit in Section 15?!??

LET ME REPEAT THAT.

When did I (or anyone else in this thread) ADVOCATE not giving credit in Section 15?

We don't disagree on ethics. I never said you should reuse the idea without giving credit. And no one else on this thread said that either.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

STOP! WAIT! HOLD THE PHONE!!! (The point of miscommunication is at hand.)

When did I (or anyone else in this thread) advocate not giving credit in Section 15?!??

LET ME REPEAT THAT.

When did I (or anyone else in this thread) ADVOCATE not giving credit in Section 15?

We don't disagree on ethics. I never said you should reuse the idea without giving credit. And no one else on this thread said that either.

Somehow or another, everyone began thinking that I was claiming that putting the proper information in Section 15 was the same as just renaming the item, changing the text, and claiming it as thier own product.

It started:

Actually you get less credit your way. If I had a need for one of your spells (I haven't seen any of them currently), and I saw that you had PI'd the names, I could just make up a new name, rewrite the spell description and quietly drop your SECTION 15 into mine. Now, there are two spells that do the same with two different names out there. The difference is, now other publishers can use my version. Yours is still tied up in PI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You could. True. I couldn't stop you.
I wouldn't do it. It's called: Business Ethics.

So it is kind of my fault. I guess I was saying "You don't have any ethics, but I do, so nyah nyah nyah!" when what I was intending was: "I have Business Ethics that wouldn't let me do that."
Plus, my example of taking a creation and tearing all of the creator's signatures out of it, and then claiming it is as thier own (which means not giving proper Section 15 credit) is the same as stealing to me, somehow got misinterpeted into something else.
I think it all got mixed up somehow.

Let me reiterate:
Using my PI is fine.
I like when people ask me.
Asking me allows me to keep records and encourages teamwork, and has cool benifits.
I use PI, if you do not choose to use my product because I wish to have some PI, that is your perogative.
I like bunnies.
I think Joe's an OK guy, and his book is probably really cool.
I apoligize if I offended anyone.

 

[jgbrowning]

Gee, what would be unethical about it?
He renames the work. Just quietly drops the Section 15 to into his. Reprints, knowing full well that the completely OGC, non-PI'd version will be reused far more often, ANY work (I used spells for an example, not trying to start any flame wars over anything, honestly) is unethical in my views.
Sure, it's allowable according to OGL, but in my view, it would still be unethical.

This brings up several points that I was trying to talk about. I don't consider this a flame war, merely an exchange of idea. Now if you bring up my momma and her combat boots.... that's another matter...

"will be reused far more often" -- Well, you made that choice when you PI'd the name of the spell. You're basically saying that you want people to ask you for your permission to use your spells. You demonstrate two contrary impluses here. You want to control the name of the spell in all its incarnations and therefore reap the benefits of that spell (fiscal and personal) that arise because it is published under the OGL while at the same time you want to make sure people don't simply rename it and "claim" it as their own.

When you PI the name you effectivly reduce your total effect because your "personal touch" has been removed via the PI. Sure you "own" the name of the spell. Big whoop te doo. Its a pain in the butt to get permissions to use PI, so a lot of publishers will merely bypass your attempts to "control" your OGC via a PI'd name.

When other publishers use your OGC and rename it you've lost many of the benefits you could have gotten by their resuse of your material. Effectivly, you're stabbing yourself in your back in the hopes that one day, your PI will make you a lot of money.

example: You have a book called Sinistar's book of evil spells. Many of those spells have the name Sinistar in their title. As these spells get reused, most of them will maintain the original name because publishers don't change things unless they have to. Now whenever someone knows the spell "Sinistar's death ray" they'll associate the name with your book, were they ever to see it. This could, theoretically give you a sale you wouldn't have had had you PI'd the name Sinistar.

The above scenerio applies to amost all d20 publishers. Very few of them have any real "brand" value attached to a spell name or monster name or any other such crippled OGC. One could argue they'd could have better success were they to open such stuff, but I don't have enough information to make a good argument on that end. I'm sure someone here does, if they want to spend the time to do it.

What disturbs me, is some who have replied feel that I am stating "Never use my stuff, get away from my precious" and have totally glossed over my reasons, my personal business practices and ethics for preferring to be asked.

I haven't glossed over any of it. I'm merely saying that your reasons for protecting your material have a detrimental effect on many of the advantages you have through using the OGL. Since you don't have any PI that has any monatary worth (nothing against you, almost no one is this business does have fiscal PI) you're limiting your exposure by crippling those who want to use your OGC. Also, there are a few, and I would say probably a growing number of consumers that are concerned enough about OGC to make that one of their purchasing decisions, all be it one low on the totem pole.

My ethics are almost exactly like yours. I'm making a new PDF that contains a lot of OGC. I'm asking permission from each publisher because I like to do it that way. *see thread http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47354 for the low down* But that's just me.

The only time I can see using OGC being unethical would be the malicious use of OGC in an attempt to fiscally harm another publisher. IE. If i took the entirely of Joe's book of enchantments and reprinted it and sold it for $2, thereby undercutting throwing dice games.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Let me reiterate:
Using my PI is fine.
I like when people ask me.
Asking me allows me to keep records and encourages teamwork, and has cool benifits.
I use PI, if you do not choose to use my product because I wish to have some PI, that is your perogative.
I like bunnies.
I think Joe's an OK guy, and his book is probably really cool.
I apoligize if I offended anyone.

You didn't offend me. I hope you'll consider my above post when determing what you want to PI. Sometimes PIing something is more detrimental than beneficial.


joe b.

 

[The Sigil]

Let me reiterate:
Using my PI is fine.
I like when people ask me.
Asking me allows me to keep records and encourages teamwork, and has cool benifits.
I use PI, if you do not choose to use my product because I wish to have some PI, that is your perogative.
I like bunnies.
I think Joe's an OK guy, and his book is probably really cool.
I apoligize if I offended anyone.

I think emotions may still be running high from the BoEF threads. I wasn't offended by you, just hoping you understood the consequences - good and bad - of your decisions. I think Joe B. has pointed out some consequences of your choice of PI use - some good, some bad. I hope you will consider those consequences.

I do like your practices RE: others' OGC and think it's a nice touch to ask. I'm not thrilled with your PI designations, but that is neither here nor there so long as you understand the effects joe has outlined above.

And I'm not a big fan of bunnies myself.

--The Sigil