Does WOTC have the right?

[Angellis_ater]

Under copyright law principles, I have always believed it is true that we can make D&D compatible products all day long. Maybe not exactly the same products, but there is no doubt those products could be made under existing law with or without any license from Wizards.

Beware the day someone based in, for example, Germany who has a different take on copyright laws, decides to not only do this, but under the OGL. Suddenly, the sandbox painted OGL looks inviting again and not only will Wizards have lost almost ALL interest in "their" sandbox, but their old one is inviting people back in.

Dangerous times ahead, for all involved.

So that I do not look ludicrous:
//quote removed//

 

[GRIMJIM]

[decided to remove]

Clark

Shame, since even according to Wizard's own FAQ they seem to admit that.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f

 

[Angellis_ater]

I honestly think that information is important enough to be said, even if Clark felt that perhaps it wasn't in his best interest to have his name attached to it. I've said it for him.

If there is one thing I do NOT fear - it is corporate lawyer5/warrior5 type individuals.

 

[Orcus]

Andreas,

I decide to remove that post. I would really appreciate it if you would edit your post to remove my comments. (the second big block, not that first quote).

I dont want anyone to misinterpret my legal musings as a hostile attitude to Wizards. I dont have a hostile attitude to Wizards at all.

I am 100% supporting. I just think that people might misinterpret that quote.

Could you please remove my quote from your post?

Clark

 

[Angellis_ater]

Sure, but it IS a shame - people NEED to hear this. Be reminded that we ARE giving up rights we already have to ensure a safe playground both for us AND them.

Would you mind me saying something that is almost the same?

 

[Orcus]

Thank you.

I just dont want anyone thinking I am anti-Wizards. I'm not. I'm pro-Wizards, pro-GSL and pro-"safe harbor." I would hate to see our hobby descend into all that mess again.

Clark

 

[nytflyr]

I dont want anyone to misinterpret my legal musings as a hostile attitude to Wizards. I dont have a hostile attitude to Wizards at all.

Clark

didnt sound hostile to me. As a layman, looking at precidents (like the monopoloy case) I have always thought you didnt need their permission, except in the cases of trademarks and patents, since you cannot copyright a system.

 

[Orcus]

Sure, but it IS a shame - people NEED to hear this. Be reminded that we ARE giving up rights we already have to ensure a safe playground both for us AND them.

Would you mind me saying something that is almost the same?

I'd rather not, if you dont mind. And I appreciate your professionalism in honoring my requests.

I just want to say this: lets all remember that EVERYONE (Wizards included) benefits by us all staying in the "safe harbor."

Clark

 

[Bacris]

didnt sound hostile to me. As a layman, looking at precidents (like the monopoloy case) I have always thought you didnt need their permission, except in the cases of trademarks and patents, since you cannot copyright a system.

And I think it's a good point to make, even if only a "you know, this is a possibility, even if it's one nobody here wants to do"

Keeping things in perspective, IMO, isn't a bad thing, as long as it's done in a professional manner.

Now, that being said, yeah, I would be consulting with a copyright / trademark lawyer before I ever got into the boat of "well, I'll just do it without a license, nyah!" And I'd much rather go with a safe harbor approach and still hold out hope that the GSL will allow me enough flexibility to do what I hope to do with RPG writing. Only time will tell, I suppose.

 

[Tazawa]

Clark, I am very surprised and very interested in your take on this. I am not asking for legal advice, just your opinion.

Let's say for a moment that a prior d20STL publisher (in good standing, not in breach) decides not to move to the GSL.

When the d20STL ends (in June) will those publishers be required to make any changes to any existing product bearing the d20 logo? Assume both PDF and print products exist.

I wish I had seen this yesterday to add it to the list of questions going to WotC. It's an interesting question.

From my reading of the current version of the d20 STL, Wizards can't terminate the license in June--there's no clause in the license allowing them to do so.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, they could issue a new version of the license with a termination date. But they haven't done that yet. If they do, they should be careful that the termination terms are reasonable or they may have trouble making them enforcable.

If you believe that Wizards has somehow retained the right to terminate the license (as I'm sure they believe), they still have to inform the licensees in an appropriate manner. I have a hard time believing that a message on a internet message board or a website announcement would be considered appropriate. They would likely have to gather up all of the d20 STL confirmation cards and send each licensee a formal termination letter.

Short answer, no I don't think you have to make any changes to pre-existing d20-logoed product. But I think it would be good advice to make reasonable efforts to comply with Wizards' requests, as long as those requests don't cause you hardship. This isn't to comply with any legal requirement, but to maintain good business practices and show yourself to be a trustworthy partner for future liscensing opportunities.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not a lawyer but I've dealt with a fair number of contracts through my job, including the termination of complicated contracts.