D&D 5E Dungeonscape no more?

[aramis erak]

In the US, processes are EXPLICITLY not protected by copyright law. Explicit in the law itself, and pretty plain english.
Only the exact wording is protected by copyright. See US Copyright Circular 31 (PDF) - which uses a recipe as example. An RPG is functionally a recipe. Don't use the literal text, don't use the names of distinctive characters from the fluff, and they can't get you on copyright. See also Copyright and Games (webpage). Both links are to the US Copyright office.

There is another issue, tho - that of Trademark. Indicating 5E compatibility may run afoul of that. Trademark also (since the 90's) can be applied to "look and feel"... but that is a dicey situation. If you get a C&D, expect to go broke if you insist on going to court.

And a third issue, but one which isn't relevant - patent. Processes can be patented... but the window for patent on RPGs is long expired.

 

[Morrus]

In the US, processes are EXPLICITLY not protected by copyright law. Explicit in the law itself, and pretty plain english.

We all know. Trust us, the "rules can't be copyrighted" thing has been bandied about here approximately once every 3.5 seconds for the last 15 years to the point that we stab ourselves in the eyes every time somebody mentions it. Believe me when I say your startling CAPPED ITALICS aren't necessary.

Sorry. That was slightly snarky. Sometimes I just think I'm hilarious! YMMV, of course.

We were talking about reproduction of the text from the basic rules, which is copyrighted.

 

[hardvice]

No, that was referring to any possible announcements about open licenses. They have licensed stuff to Trapdoor, Gale Force 9, WizKids, and possibly more we don't know of already (though they just terminated Tradoor's license).

Very true, and what I meant to say but didn't.

Nevertheless, I think it's pretty unlikely that they've licensed anything to small-scale app developers yet. The intention of the no-license-until-it's-all-out statement seemed to be that they only wanted folks they're working closely with working with unfinished rules.

I suppose it's possible someone they didn't already have a relationship with asked them expressly for permission to use the Basic rules and got the go-ahead, but I definitely wouldn't put any money on it. Lone Wolf and others who asked were told they'd have to wait until licensing was announced; I don't see them making an exception to that policy for a smaller, independent developer like Lion's Den.

While we're on the subject, I definitely overstated the case for spell apps, too. I mean, I've crammed all of the 5e spells into SpellbookMaster on iOS (designed for Pathfinder and 3.5, but works fine with 5th), either by copy-and-pasting from the Basic Rules or (*sigh*) typing them manually from the PHB. So it's definitely possible to release a 5th-edition spell app without violating WOTC's copyright to either the Basic or full rules; it just ain't pretty.

 

[pemerton]

In the US, processes are EXPLICITLY not protected by copyright law. Explicit in the law itself, and pretty plain english.
Only the exact wording is protected by copyright.

In general, it is not true that only "exact wording" is protected by copyright.

In the case of rules text, I don't think that would be true either.

A further complication in the case of D&D is that I think it is an open question whether the rule that dwarves get +2 STR is a mere process, or is also a story - a story about dwarves being notably strong. Likewise for many other game elements. (Not all. That a sword does d8 damage is probably a mere process. But that a flametongue gets a bonus against avian creatures? - looks to me like it could be a story about a magic sword that sets feathers alight.)

To the best of my knowledge there has been no litigation that has tried to tease out the precise nature of what is copyrighted in an RPG rulebook. Good luck to the person who goes first!

 

[Dannager]

To the best of my knowledge there has been no litigation that has tried to tease out the precise nature of what is copyrighted in an RPG rulebook. Good luck to the person who goes first!

Heh, one of the issues of novel IP law - you can't really answer the question of what the boundaries of allowable behavior are without opening yourself up to the possibility of ruinous litigation.

 

[aramis erak]

In general, it is not true that only "exact wording" is protected by copyright.

In the case of rules text, I don't think that would be true either.

A further complication in the case of D&D is that I think it is an open question whether the rule that dwarves get +2 STR is a mere process, or is also a story - a story about dwarves being notably strong. Likewise for many other game elements. (Not all. That a sword does d8 damage is probably a mere process. But that a flametongue gets a bonus against avian creatures? - looks to me like it could be a story about a magic sword that sets feathers alight.)

To the best of my knowledge there has been no litigation that has tried to tease out the precise nature of what is copyrighted in an RPG rulebook. Good luck to the person who goes first!

Most of the RPG IP litigation has revolved around Trademarks. Examples include TSR v. Judges Guild and TSR v. Mayfair Games (Which, substantially, TSR lost... the copyright violations were deemed irrelevant to the requested relief, and the trademark violation deemed too minor for recourse). And recently, several Games Workshop v. .... and most of these result in settlements, not trials, and so don't set precedents. Likewise, most of the Copyright litigation in gaming results in settlements. (KenzerCo v WotC, for example, was a clear case of copyright - but it wasn't about the gaming elements. It was expressly about the copyrighted art that TSR had 1st publication rights only...)

Several, however, have established significant precedents in the boardgaming venue. One that's particularly relevant is Allen v. Academic Games... JH Kim has a page discussing it: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/academic.html And note that WotC operates within the purview of the 9th Circuit... and the 9th Circuit handles a disproportionately large number of copyright and trademark cases, and is the most frequently overturned circuit court in the nation.

TSR v. Mayfair is also interesting... mostly, the copyright claims in it were tossed by the court, leaving only the trademark and breach of contract portions.

And, assuming the Certiorari is granted on Oracle v. Google, it's going to be REAL interesting, because if may make even artistic renderings of process uncopyrightable as such. And there's not much outside of law and gaming that is as reliant upon specific wordings as an API...

 

[drjones]

Am I safe in assuming there is no useful information in this thread and just a lot of armchair game marketing/ip lawyering?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

TSR v. Mayfair is also interesting... mostly, the copyright claims in it were tossed by the court, leaving only the trademark and breach of contract portions.

...

Mayfair was a 3rd party D&D gameing company before the OGL or SRD was even a dream. I find it to be the real backbone anyone would use if they wanted to publish anything for a closed game. I also loved there Archmage and Half demon rules and still to this day use Grimours in 3e, 4e, and plan on doing so in my first 5e game

 

[Bugleyman]

Am I safe in assuming there is no useful information in this thread and just a lot of armchair game marketing/ip lawyering?

The information is in the title: WotC has ended its partnership with Trapdoor. No additional information has been forthcoming.

The rest of the thread is people discussing it. Which is what tends to happen on a discussion board.

As for armchair game marketing -- at this point, would it even be possible to do it worse than the real thing? I can't imagine how without resorting to the patently ridiculous (punch everyone who buys a PHB in the face!)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There is also some wishful thinking