DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
Then you might be using their IP in a way that they don't want you to.
D&D Fan Site Toolkit
- Thread starter davethegame
- Start date
Then you might be using their IP in a way that they don't want you to.
Fifth Element
Legend
You keep using that word, etc, etc.
Unless you're using a different definition of the word than what's in the dictionary, I can't say that I follow you.
ryryguy
First Post
Regarding the issue of posting adventures on a web site... would the following work?
I have one site that uses the fan site kit for logos, trade dress, etc. This is "ryryguy's official D&D fan site."
I have a second site that does not use the fan site kit. It's pretty much just a collection of my free adventures published as PDF's in accordance with the GSL. This is "ryryguy's free adventure depot."
On the kit-based "official site", I put links to the "adventure depot". I can hype the adventures, give capsule summaries, sample art, maybe even post stat blocks of a cool monster from one of the adventures (assuming stat blocks are allowed under the kit license, which is a bit unclear).
While I can't use the fan kit stuff on the "adventure depot", I can still have common elements on the sites, like a "ryryguy" logo. (Maybe the adventures in the depot wouldn't have to be free - there's nothing stopping a fan-kit site from linking to RPGNow with reviews of the product there, is there?)
Would this work? (IANAL... and I don't know if there's some legal definition of what constitutes separate sites that would have to be honored.)
It's still a bit annoying that there is no license, apparently, which would allow somebody to post adventures in "wiki" form, with links between connected rooms and so forth. That could be a really convenient way of presenting adventures, worth exploring. Could WotC actually be considering such to be some threat to their business? Or is this just unintentional, falling through the cracks of the available licenses?
I have one site that uses the fan site kit for logos, trade dress, etc. This is "ryryguy's official D&D fan site."
I have a second site that does not use the fan site kit. It's pretty much just a collection of my free adventures published as PDF's in accordance with the GSL. This is "ryryguy's free adventure depot."
On the kit-based "official site", I put links to the "adventure depot". I can hype the adventures, give capsule summaries, sample art, maybe even post stat blocks of a cool monster from one of the adventures (assuming stat blocks are allowed under the kit license, which is a bit unclear).
While I can't use the fan kit stuff on the "adventure depot", I can still have common elements on the sites, like a "ryryguy" logo. (Maybe the adventures in the depot wouldn't have to be free - there's nothing stopping a fan-kit site from linking to RPGNow with reviews of the product there, is there?)
Would this work? (IANAL... and I don't know if there's some legal definition of what constitutes separate sites that would have to be honored.)
It's still a bit annoying that there is no license, apparently, which would allow somebody to post adventures in "wiki" form, with links between connected rooms and so forth. That could be a really convenient way of presenting adventures, worth exploring. Could WotC actually be considering such to be some threat to their business? Or is this just unintentional, falling through the cracks of the available licenses?
frankthedm
First Post
Main Entry: edict
1 : a proclamation having the force of law
2 : order, command <we held firm to Grandmother's edict — M. F. K. Fisher>
ryryguy
First Post
Oh, I thought part of the fan kit license was that you could not post adventures there. I must have misunderstood.
I guess the disgruntlement (to the extent that there is disgruntlement) is that you'd still have to abide by the GSL for that, and people were hoping for something different and looser for free adventures?
Fifth Element
Legend
Yes, precisely. There is no edict here. There is a license agreement, which you are free to use or ignore. If you choose to ignore it (and not use the related materials), it does not apply to you. It is therefore not an edict, because you can choose whether or not it will apply to you.
Xyxox
Hero
What it comes down to is each person with a fan site has to ask themselves a question.
"Is it worth adhering to the terms of this license in order to use these images?"
My guess is that in nearly all cases, the answer will be no.
As to an actual fan site policy, my guess is the Hasbro legal team will not publish one ever. It's too restrictive for them. They'll let copyright law stand as is and take any issues they determine are worth it to court. Better to operate without actually saying anything in regards to fan sites than to give away any of Hasbro's rights via an externally published policy.
"Is it worth adhering to the terms of this license in order to use these images?"
My guess is that in nearly all cases, the answer will be no.
As to an actual fan site policy, my guess is the Hasbro legal team will not publish one ever. It's too restrictive for them. They'll let copyright law stand as is and take any issues they determine are worth it to court. Better to operate without actually saying anything in regards to fan sites than to give away any of Hasbro's rights via an externally published policy.
Of course they aren't going to apply the terms of this policy to any sites not using the kit.
That doesn't mean they won't take recourse if a site infringes on their IP in other legal areas - but thus far all the sites they have taken action against have included published material from WotC books that was being freely posted and openly distributed online.
Now, I definitely agree it would be nice for WotC to release a 'statement of purpose' as to what fan sites they have no problems with. But it wouldn't really change anything - as it is, WotC could go crazy tomorrow and try to shut down every site that mentions the words "D&D." They wouldn't actually be entitled to do so, but many sites would probably get hurt due to not having the resources to handle a legal battle. But the thing is, even if they posted a policy saying "These websites are fine"... they could still go crazy, change their minds, take down that policy, and go after fansites anyway.
For myself, I'm absolutely confident they aren't going to do any such thing. They will go after sites that illegally distribute the actual material in their books. But most fan sites, operating under fair use, filled with fanfiction, artwork, characters, stories, backgrounds, homebrew material, articles, reviews, etc, etc, etc? Shouldn't have any issues. Many of those sites will need to make absolutely no changes to use the fansite toolkit - and similarly, many of them likely won't see the need, and continue operating entirely on their own. Unless they are doing something seriously wrong, WotC isn't going to come after them.
Remathilis
Legend
Wow. Really? For that?
I looked at the "fan kit" and I found a bunch of images...
3 D&D logos
1 WotC logo
6 Eberron images
3 Monster Manual Images
23 Product Covers.
Wow. Thanks WotC. If I was setting up an Amazon Associate's site, I'd have all I need. I guess they think the point of a fansite is to be free advertising for their books and minis. Any really useful art images (pics of the races, maps, holy symbols, monsters) are missing, as are any FR specific art (which really sucks if your trying to show off your LFR inspired campaign.) OTOH, its great for an Eberron-inspired one, as long as you don't specifically reference anythiing Eberron on the site (since all the unique elements of said setting, warforged, shifters, daelkyr, dragonmarks and other campaign-specific elements are not in the GSL-SRD).
Seriously, there's not one image in that "kit" I couldn't get from 10 minutes on Wizard's own site (both the product gallery and the artwork gallery) or a good google-image search. It feels more like a PR pack for a web-reseller (like an Ebay store) than a fankit. You want to make a good D&D Fankit? Release DnDVecna and DnDLolth fonts and the symbols kit for 4e.
Come on WotC, make it LOOK like an effort!
I looked at the "fan kit" and I found a bunch of images...
3 D&D logos
1 WotC logo
6 Eberron images
3 Monster Manual Images
23 Product Covers.
Wow. Thanks WotC. If I was setting up an Amazon Associate's site, I'd have all I need. I guess they think the point of a fansite is to be free advertising for their books and minis. Any really useful art images (pics of the races, maps, holy symbols, monsters) are missing, as are any FR specific art (which really sucks if your trying to show off your LFR inspired campaign.) OTOH, its great for an Eberron-inspired one, as long as you don't specifically reference anythiing Eberron on the site (since all the unique elements of said setting, warforged, shifters, daelkyr, dragonmarks and other campaign-specific elements are not in the GSL-SRD).
Seriously, there's not one image in that "kit" I couldn't get from 10 minutes on Wizard's own site (both the product gallery and the artwork gallery) or a good google-image search. It feels more like a PR pack for a web-reseller (like an Ebay store) than a fankit. You want to make a good D&D Fankit? Release DnDVecna and DnDLolth fonts and the symbols kit for 4e.
Come on WotC, make it LOOK like an effort!
Similar Threads
