Ema's RPG Sheet Website down...

[dinelendarkstar]

That's kinda beside the point, though. Sure, WotC could be sending C&D letters when they have no legal standing, but that's clearly not the case in this instance. The details we do know are that Ema committed a number of copyright and trademark violations in ways not protected by fair use--primarily using WotC Logos and Artwork, and using great quantities of verbatim text from WotC materials when he could have written his own summaries and descriptions.

To the best of my knowledge, none of those names are a registered trademark. Not that important, though, because you can use trademarked names (but not logos) as long as you do so in ways that don't potentially confuse customers into thinking that you own the trademark or are affiliated with the trademark holder.

Of course, if you enter into the OGL or the GSL, then you're forbidden from using those names as a condition of the License.

If you have not entered into an OGL, GSL, or STL contract in a manner that prevents you from creating such a project, then yeah, it's perfectly legal. Look at all the companies that are creating adventures for 4e without using the GSL--You're doing much the same thing, only with a computer program. Individual words or phrases such as "Dexterity" and "Armor Class" are not protected by copyright. GSL, OGL, and STL contractual obligations might limit your ability to use certain terms or even create certain products. If you're actually creating a commercial product, get legal advice from somewhere besides an internet forum

I would love to invite you (and anyone else that wishes) to join the discussion on this at the HeroForge Forums as well.

HeroForge Software - GSL and HeroForge?

 

[arscott]

You can only use the OGC under the OGL. Any other use of it constitutes a violation of copyright. The OGL specifically prohibits use of certain first person, creature, and place names.

Thus, if you do not adhere to the OGL and abide by all parts of it, you are not licensed to use any of the OGC and are in violation of the copyright on the material.

Just because it's open does not mean it isn't copyrighted.

Well, no. You can only use OGC under the OGL or use it in ways consistent with copyright and trademark law. Copyright doesn't protect names or terminology, so if all that an author wanted to do was use the term "Beholder" in his work, he'd be okay. If he wanted to reprint the Beholder entry from the MM, though, that would be a violation of WotC's copyright. For most stuff in between those extremes, consult an IP lawyer for advice.

So you mean reference some verbatim from the site and indicate that such verbatim offends their copyright property of the book that such verbatim is found. So from what we have known so far about Ema's site this should be about named power's descriptions.

Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement? If yes how could they actually claim it?

WotC could make the claim, but Ema would have a defense--Rules aren't copyrightable. If Ema could convince the court that it wasn't possible to replicate the rules contained in WotC powers without copying from WotC books verbatim, then he'd be off the hook. He'd have a pretty hard time proving it, though. His use of WotC artwork and trade dress in his character sheets is pretty clear indication that he's taken no effort to copy only the bare minimum.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Are you saying that a software based character generator, if all it did was take 4E terms and allowed the user to select them, then based on those selections did any approrate math, and then filled in a form based on these selections, it is OK and doesn't require a license?

Yes.

The only catch is that certain terms used to identify fictional elements (such as Illithid and Tenser's Floating Disk) could be treated as trademarks.

What if the terms used were from outside what the current SRD allows?

It doesn't matter as long as you don't use any SRD material verbatim. The SRD (or rather OGL) is a copyright license, NOT a trademark license. It allows you to copy its text directly and add it to your own work. The license wouldn't even apply if you completely rewrote the SRD, and that rewrite wouldn't be considered a derivative work either, because its a description of rules.

And if OK to do, then what happens when money is charged for it? Does that change the landscape? What if that money is donated? Does it matter?

Nothing, no, no, and no.

Copyright = right to copy. Even with an unregistered copyright, you can still prevent someone from making copies, even if you're usually unable to request financial damages.

I am also very curious about it, because I have been plugging away on a combat manager that should be kosher with the GSL, but I wasn't sure about the Math part. If I only use names of powers, all math is done hidden in code so the user doesn't "see" the formulas or calculations and it only simply processes steps, like initiative, to hit, dice rolling, etc., then it should be OK.

If I am certain of anything legally, it's that you cannot protect math using copyright or trademark law. The only problem is that certain IP rights given by the GSL may depend on other conditions being met, which may include not automating the rules in a program or distributing a character generator.

However, you don't NEED to follow the GSL to do those things, nor to claim your product is for use with 4e. You DO need to follow it if you wish to use the D&D logos.

My understanding (but hey, I'm not a lawyer) is that that would be perfectly OK, so long as you did not "fill in" the form with text (such as spell descriptions or power descriptions) verbatim (or even paraphrased -- I think you'd have to take the "by-the-rules" description of the spell or power and describe it yourself. And, you could charge for it, I don't think that makes a difference.

That all changes if you accept the terms of the license agreement (either one), in which case you agree not to do certain things, some of which I understand are very likely allowed by Copyright and Fair Use.

For example, I'm remembering that one of the clauses of the GSL forbids certain types of software products.

Yes. Well said.

Can someone clarify why you can't use certain monster names and certain spell names? Is it a trademark issue, or a copyright issue?

I'm thinking about Beholder, Tenser, Leomund, among others.

Trademark issue.

Terms used to refer to unique fictional entities are pretty easy to protect. I'd avoid them whenever possible.

Of course, if you enter into the OGL or the GSL, then you're forbidden from using those names as a condition of the License.

If you have not entered into an OGL, GSL, or STL contract in a manner that prevents you from creating such a project, then yeah, it's perfectly legal. Look at all the companies that are creating adventures for 4e without using the GSL--You're doing much the same thing, only with a computer program. Individual words or phrases such as "Dexterity" and "Armor Class" are not protected by copyright. GSL, OGL, and STL contractual obligations might limit your ability to use certain terms or even create certain products. If you're actually creating a commercial product, get legal advice from somewhere besides an internet forum.

Also well said, especially the last bit.

What forums and the like provide is a good base of information on which to ask a lawyer further questions about. So it's rather more useful than going in with a blank slate and asking 'what do I need to know?'.

If you are concerned about possible lawsuits, then the first thing you should do is form a corporation to own the assets. That way, if legal action is brought against possible IP violations, they can't go after your PERSONAL assets. This is exactly what WotC did with M:tG back when they were being sued by Palladium, so if they lost, the M:tG assets would not be lost with it.

Just so this is more clear: in case Ema did not include any fluffy descriptions but just names (power names, feat names, etch such as "iron tide") along with their technical info as found in Wotc's books (such as "slide 1 square", "do weapon damage 2 dice", "spent a healing surge and gain x hps plus your con modifier", etch) do you believe Wotc could claim copyright infringement?

Yes, but such claims being ruled as valid are an entirely different story. Sadly, specific mechanical descriptions are similar enough to software source code (which is protected by copyright to some degree) to cause difficulty. However, if a description is effectively the most concise mechanical one possible, it is highly likely a judge will rule that it is not protected by copyright.

Copyright doesn't protect names or terminology, so if all that an author wanted to do was use the term "Beholder" in his work, he'd be okay.

Wellll.....

Though it's safer than a proper name referring to a fictional entity, using Beholder to refer to a floating eyeball with ten smaller eyes on its head is going to put you in an uncomfortable Jacuzzi®. It's the same as if you used the term Spiderman to refer to a man in a skintight red and blue suit who sticks to walls and shoots webs.

If Ema could convince the court that it wasn't possible to replicate the rules contained in WotC powers without copying from WotC books verbatim, then he'd be off the hook.

Yes.

His use of WotC artwork and trade dress in his character sheets is pretty clear indication that he's taken no effort to copy only the bare minimum.

I suspect the case against Ema was primarily about these kinds of issues.