Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[Mark]

That character-creation sites get closed is nothing new, TSR did it, WOTC did it in 3E and now in 4E it's the same.

Character creation was not allowed under the d20 STL but was fine under the OGL without the d20 STL, so WotC can/could have asked someone to remove the d20 logo but an OGL site with character creation would be permissable provided they were careful to avoid copyright infringement, illegal use of trademarks, and some other stipulations in the OGL regarding compatibility claims and the like. I'm not sure of the exact number of OGL games that have SRD 3.x materials as their base available now that also have character creation rules but they do exist. I am sure other people could chime in with their favorites.

 

[Xyxox]

Character creation was not allowed under the d20 STL but was fine under the OGL without the d20 STL, so WotC can/could have asked someone to remove the d20 logo but an OGL site with character creation would be permissable provided they were careful to avoid copyright infringement, illegal use of trademarks, and some other stipulations in the OGL regarding compatibility claims and the like. I'm not sure of the exact number of OGL games that have SRD 3.x materials as their base available now that also have character creation rules but they do exist. I am sure other people could chime in with their favorites.

Well, section 13 of the OGL may have ended up being the doom of any open content on Ema's site:

13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

 

[Zaukrie]

I'm with the crowd that understands why WotC did it, and thinks they should be doing it. If they don't protect their IP, then when someone really tries to use it to make big money, they won't be able to stop that either. We may all want cool toys from many sources, but WotC owns this IP. I understand the emotion, but I hope over time that people come to the realization that if WotC doesn't do stuff like this, there is no D&D brand.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Based on what I've read here and on WotC's boards, I think they did the right thing.

However, I think a lot of the reaction from us fans is one of fear/dissapointment. The lack of a revised GSL and of a fansite policy means every fansite is flying blind...and third party publishers who want to support 4e won't (Necro, Green Ronin).


I'm disgusted not by this, but by the fact that WotC seems to be actively discouraging (or at the very least, doing nothing to encourage) others to support the new system.

Look for 4e fansites. Find any?

 

[Mark]

Well, section 13 of the OGL may have ended up being the doom of any open content on Ema's site:

13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

It may be something that was threatened but it is something that is easily fixed. I do not know if Ema actually used the OGL or simply had OGC on the website. It's my impression, though, that this was not an OGL issue at all but rather a 4E IP situation. Be careful not to confuse issues about 4E licensed content, such as that under the 4E SRD available for restrictive use under the GSL, and issues about using OGC such as materials opened under the 3.x SRD and the OGL. The latter cannot be rescinded if properly followed while the former can be ended at the discretion of WotC. Two very different things and the OGL section you quoted above probably does not enter into this.

The lack of a revised GSL and of a fansite policy means every fansite is flying blind...and third party publishers who want to support 4e won't (Necro, Green Ronin).


I'm disgusted not by this, but by the fact that WotC seems to be actively discouraging (or at the very least, doing nothing to encourage) others to support the new system.

Look for 4e fansites. Find any?

I suppose, according to section 5.5 of the GSL, 4E fansites that use WotC 4E IP only exist if WotC wishes to turn a blind eye to them.

 

[Mournblade94]

D&D is a protected brand.

Spoken true. That is about all it is at this point.

 

[Xyxox]

It may be something that was threatened but it is something that is easily fixed. I do not know if Ema actually used the OGL or simply had OGC on the website. It's my impression, though, that this was not an OGL issue at all but rather a 4E IP situation. Be careful not to confuse issues about 4E licensed content, such as that under the 4E SRD available for restrictive use under the GSL, and issues about using OGC such as materials opened under the 3.x SRD and the OGL. The latter cannot be rescinded if properly followed while the former can be ended at the discretion of WotC. Two very different things and the OGL section you quoted above probably does not enter into this.





I suppose, according to section 5.5 of the GSL, 4E fansites that use WotC 4E IP only exist if WotC wishes to turn a blind eye to them.

Under the OGL, certain content is considered product identity and cannot be used. If Ema used "Dungeons and Dragons" in any context on the content presented, WotC would be within their rights to terminate the terms of the OGL regardless of the version supported with those terms.

Also, presenting OGC without a copy of the OGL is a violation of the OGL and would terminate the OGL.

In effect, the GSL is mutually exlusive with the OGL. 3PP can do one or the other, but not both as doing both negates both.


Regardless, based upon what people say Ema was doing, the site violated IP wholly owned by WotC. From the sounds of it, that included violations of WotC owned trademarks. If, in fact, there was any violation of WotC trademarks, WotC had no choice at all but to shut down the entire site. WotC must vigorously defend trademarks in all cases and can never "turn a blind eye" to such violations.

 

[Mark]

I hate doing this but you are kinda all over the place in your post so I am going to break it up to respond to separate issues more precisely. Please forgive this tactic.

Under the OGL, certain content is considered product identity and cannot be used. If Ema used "Dungeons and Dragons" in any context on the content presented, WotC would be within their rights to terminate the terms of the OGL regardless of the version supported with those terms.

Not quite. Technically, if someone claims compatibility with a trademark without permission they are in violation of the license and it automatically terminates. WotC does not actually get to terminate it by their choice. WotC can, however, go after someone using their trademark wituout permission whether or not that same someone was doing so while claiming some sort of compatibility.

Also, presenting OGC without a copy of the OGL is a violation of the OGL and would terminate the OGL.

Again, not quite. If the OGL was not in use in the first place then would more precisely be an issue of copyright infringement since (in almost all cases) the copyright is retained by the contributor of the OGC.

In effect, the GSL is mutually exlusive with the OGL. 3PP can do one or the other, but not both as doing both negates both.

(Leaving aside the suspected oxymoron status of "mutually exlusive with" ) Perhaps not in practice. It may well be that even an individual could have two separate companies that individually produced materials for each format, or that a person might be a 3PP in the case of producing material for one but hold the status of freelancer while producing materials for the other. There are some rather big holes in the concept of only allowing 4E support by persons willing to rescind ever support other D&D branded materials. I am guessing we will see this crop up again and also feel that ultimately the fact that WotC can simply disallow anyone from supporting 4E trumps any loopholes that exist. Time will tell.

Regardless, based upon what people say Ema was doing, the site violated IP wholly owned by WotC. From the sounds of it, that included violations of WotC owned trademarks. If, in fact, there was any violation of WotC trademarks, WotC had no choice at all but to shut down the entire site. WotC must vigorously defend trademarks in all cases and can never "turn a blind eye" to such violations.

I don't disagree.

 

[Obryn]

Spoken true. That is about all it is at this point.

Are we going to pretend at this point that pre-4e WotC didn't protect their closed content in a similar way?

I mean, infringement was much rarer since the STL and OGL gave people an easy safe haven. But I seem to remember a big brouhahah over use of mind flayers and beholders in some third-party products, too.

Somehow, I also doubt that WotC would have been fine and dandy with full PDFs of their books on pirate sites.

-O

 

[avin]

I'm sorry to inform you that this site is no more.
Wizards of the Coast asked me to take it down, and I complied.

I'm sorry for all the fans who will miss it - I will miss it, too - but it was the right thing to do.

Time to move on...

Ema.

It seems that whoever is Ema she agrees with Wotc decision.

I've never been there but, as some said, she was using non OGL/GSL content... that was more than expected.

*feeling dirty for agreeing with corporate decisions*