D&D Fan Site Toolkit

[Serendipity]

Side note - I was wondering when WotC's next hilarious customer service blowout would happen

The temptation to Sig that is almost overwhelming.

 

[kenmarable]

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.

That is a good point. Thinking about this some more, as long as "I don't accept the fan site license nor the GSL, but I still want to have a fair-use based fan site" is a viable option, then I have no problem with it.

It will still have been nice for WotC to produce a policy not a license that could be a nice mutual understanding between WotC and fans of what fair use they would both be comfortable with. (Of course, some people would complain that WotC could change their mind at any moment and sue your mom, but some people will complain about anything. I do think a general policy statement rather than restrictive license would have generated far, far fewer complaints.)

But in light of what Ashtagon said, yeah, fan sites can just continue in the same nebulous grey area we always have.

 

[freyar]

The confusion I have is three-fold:

1) What does this say about fan sites that don't want to use the "kit" of graphics and assorted trade dress? Does

2) As kenmarable asks, what about a site like EN World that doesn't produce adventures or mechanics per se but has plenty of people posting about their homebrew stuff?

3) To continue that line of thinking, what about a site like Candlekeep, whose entire purpose is the discussion of WotC trademarked material? They can't even use the GSL to post fan creations for that, since the GSL doesn't cover settings, just mechanics (which isn't the focus anyway).

So: just continue as usual?

 

[ExploderWizard]

So: just continue as usual?

If you have no interest in using the trade dress, then sure why not? The license itself says that you accept it by using the content of the kit on your site, so don't do that. Produce your stuff and don't let WOTC logo get near it to avoid any confusion.

 

[kenmarable]

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.

The website is the means of distribution, it is not the GSL licensed product. The licensed content is in the PDF, not the HTML linking to the PDF.

Neither license is relevant at all to RPGNow, for example.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

Well, on at least one other forum the immediate response was "It's T$R all over again! The lawsuits are next!" so I'm not sure I'd put much stock in the immediate responses.

 

[Mercutio01]

The website is the means of distribution, it is not the GSL licensed product. The licensed content is in the PDF, not the HTML linking to the PDF.

Neither license is relevant at all to RPGNow, for example.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

 

[Umbran]

Allow me to clarify - it's not the details of the license that's the opposite, it's that it's a license period.

Yes, it is. So if you don't use the content covered by the license (the stuff in the kit), the license does not apply to your site!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Yes, it is. So if you don't use the content covered by the license (the stuff in the kit), the license does not apply to your site!

Yes, I grasp that ;p

The problem is, after a year of people asking for some understanding on what is or is not allowable for a fan site, this has been WotC's response.

 

[Jack99]

Yes, it is. So if you don't use the content covered by the license (the stuff in the kit), the license does not apply to your site!

I think this is the key to everything. People have been acting all day as if WotC had made some TSR-like rules applying to every single blog, fansite or whatnot about D&D. But truth of the matter is, as you say, that if you do not use the license, the "rules" do not apply to your website, and thus nothing has changed since two days ago.

But yeah, as is, it's pretty much useless and they missed a great opportunity - again.