D&D Fan Site Toolkit

[ProfessorCirno]

They do, of course, since it's their trademarks.

But I think you're considering the word "disparaging" in isolation from the other two used. Taken together, it's a pretty clear indication of what they won't accept, as Umbran pointed out.

Unless, of course, you're objecting to the "libelous" and "dishonest" parts, in which case I can't help you.

The libelous and dishonesty parts I'm not complaining about. Again, I'm not saying WotC is evil. Just...kinda thick right now.

The GW comparison is amusing as, when I linked this to other people, their immidiate responses were all "Sounds like something GW would do."

 

[Estlor]

It occurs to me that this isn't a fan site policy so much as it gives you the opportunity to talk about the PHB and post an image of it's cover without WotC having to deal with whether or not that's okay or if they have to go protect their intellectual property over it.

I mean, seriously... why get bent out of shape over it? Don't like the rules? Don't download the package and use their trade dress on your website. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy against us?

 

[ggroy]

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy against us?

Conspiracies make for great entertainment.

 

[catsclaw227]

In my opinion, all this anger is much ado about nothing. You can develop fan-made adventures and post them on your site using the GSL, you can post a fansite and talk about the products and share your chars and adventures, etc (like a campaign blog), but if you want to use the fan-site trade dress, you can't be a jerk about what you say regarding WOTC.

I mean, really, its NOT that bad...

WOTC does something to "open things up" a bit (and, yes, its just a baby step) and everyone goes all godzilla beacuse it wasn't the utopian, open-ended license that everyone expects. And what people expect is subjective, anyway.

 

[filthgrinder]

I think instead of immediately jumping on the WoTC is EVIL AND WRONG! bandwagon, let's look at this from a different point of view.

They have provided a kit full of their images, artwork, logos and branding. They say, look, some people want to put D&D fansites together, and they would like to use our logos, branding, and trade dress. Logos, branding, and trade dress are EXTREMELY valuable assets. So we need to come up with a policy to let people use them, WITHOUT harming the brand.

So let's look at some of the "complaints". "OMG YOU CANT PUBLISH ADVENTURES!?!?!" So what WotC is basically saying is, you can use our branding and trade dress for a site, but we don't want you to use the branding on an adventure, because that you seem like you are passing off your product as "official" when we have absolutely no control over the quality and content. People putting out crappy adventures with the official D&D tradedress can effect the D&D brand.

The other is "offense content and slanderous statements on the products". Basically the same thing. They don't want you to use their official logos and artwork to create a fan site and then slam the product. Someone who doesn't follow this stuff 100% happens across a site with all the D&D official images and logos and see comments slamming the products will get turned off the product, that hurts the brand. WotC doesn't want to help you hurt them.

I think alot of people just like to hem and haw about how WotC is evil and this is a horrible descision and write really angry posts. People really just need to sit back, take a breath, chill, and be cool. Call up some of your friends, get together, and play some D&D. Have fun, have a great time, and don't worry so much.

 

[Umbran]

I'm just saying that this lisence is really, really, really dumb and like the complete opposite of what people have been asking from WotC for the past YEAR.

I think your hyperbole does you and your position a disservice.

If people have been asking for the real opposite, a license that says, "You may use content that WotC spent money and effort developing to make fun of and insult WotC," well, I think they are being unreasonable.

If "people" aren't asking for that, then you are not clearly stating what they really are asking for. If you intend to speak for others, you should at least take a bit more care in representing them, hm?

And be realistic. No license ever really clearly spells out exactly what may and may not be said, because language and human communication is too flexible. They'd have to cover every case anyone could ever think of, and the license would be unusable if they did so.

Worry about the spirit and intent, not the letter of the law, especially for a fan site, which shouldn't be making you money or the like anyway.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I'm still trying to digest all of this. Like many here, I'm pretty disappointed. After all, how many of us have written D&D rules, adventures, etc. to post on a website?

Some other questions I would like to see clarified...

1. E-commerce - Does this include selling D&D 4th edition products as an Amazon associate? What about novels tied to one of the D&D worlds?

I don't see the harm in this, as you're supporting the sale of WotC's products. What if any funds that come from that go right back into the cost of the site? Still, by the wording of this policy, that's all a no-no.

2. What about sites that include rules other than 4e? What if I use rules for a prior edition, or what if I create True20 conversion rules?


Am I missing something else here?

 

[Ashtagon]

Thing is, this is technically a licence, not a general policy. As such, the rules within it only apply to you if you accept it. If you don't accept it, the standard fair use and copyright laws still apply.

By accepting it, you gain the right to use some piccies. You lose the right to make disparaging remarks about WotC on your site (they explicitly note you also lose the right to make libellous and dishonest comments, but that's one you never had anyway). You also give up the right to post certain kinds of fan-created content.Some may regard that as a fair exchange. They can accept the licence.

Personally, I'll wait for one that is more in-line with what I'm allowed to do anyway. I'm not going to sign my rights away for a few piccies.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think your hyperbole does you and your position a disservice.

If people have been asking for the real opposite, a license that says, "You may use content that WotC spent money and effort developing to make fun of and insult WotC," well, I think they are being unreasonable.

If "people" aren't asking for that, then you are not clearly stating what they really are asking for. If you intend to speak for others, you should at least take a bit more care in representing them, hm?

And be realistic. No license ever really clearly spells out exactly what may and may not be said, because language and human communication is too flexible. They'd have to cover every case anyone could ever think of, and the license would be unusable if they did so.

Worry about the spirit and intent, not the letter of the law, especially for a fan site, which shouldn't be making you money or the like anyway.

Allow me to clarify - it's not the details of the license that's the opposite, it's that it's a license period. There were a lot of questions about what was and was not allowable on a fan sight, and this answered...well, almost none of them.

It does let us know that adventures and modules are never allowed though, so that's...an answer, I guess?

 

[Mercutio01]

You can develop fan-made adventures and post them on your site using the GSL

Now, that may be the intent, but that is not what the GSL actually says. It expressly forbids websites, as I quoted above. It does say adventures can be in single download digital book format, but the website itself is forbidden under GSL.

Say I create a website "Mercutio01's free adventures for 4E." That website's forbidden under GSL. The actual adventures might be okay, but the website is not. Now, the policy for websites is the fansite policy, which forbids my created adventures. I could link to where there are free adventures from WotC or other publishers, but I couldn't host my own on that site. So the website would be okay, so long as there are no adventures hosted there.

Seems like a Catch-22 to me.

But again, I very well could be reading it wrong.