Fan sites to keep the edition alive?

[Jester David]

Did I sign some GSL without knowing it? OGL limited you more than US copyright law it just enabled somebody to use certain specific ip and trademarks while limiting you more in other ways.

It's a bit funky. The Fan Site Kit says to use the GSL for any content on your website, but the GSL explicitly only covers PDFs as electronic products.
So if you're generating you have to stick to what is permitted via US copyright law. Which means no trademarks, IP, and the like. Which includes (but is not limited to) terms such as "Dungeons & Dragons", "Player's Handbook", "Dungeon Master", "Dragonborn", "Eladrin", and the like. Monsters and power statblocks also have to look different, as that's WotC's trade dress.

While you cannot copyright game mechanics, the actual written rules are copyrighted. So you'd need to rewrite every single rule and rephrase it. And it'd be a good idea to consult a lawyer to find out where the line is; i.e. how many words you can use in a row. If terms like "basic melee attack" are generic enough or not.

 

[Garthanos]

Which includes (but is not limited to) terms such as "Dungeons & Dragons"

Trademark law does not prevent one from referring to something using its name... it prevents you claiming your product is theirs I can claim my Product with suitably large text is Garthanos House Rules in a title and use subtext "for use with Dungeons and Dragons" or "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" without infringing there trademark because I am not confusing the products. Much as a news article can refer to it because they are not claiming theirs is WOTCs product. Trademark is not about copyright and preventing others from referring to your product ... its about product identity.

While you cannot copyright game mechanics, the actual written rules are copyrighted. So you'd need to rewrite every single rule and rephrase it.

Not sure why I would post something already existant but yes if I wanted to post the standard rules for martial practices I would have to rewrite the presentation of the concepts.

 

[Garthanos]

The laws for this stuff are actually quite reasonable and not actually the hammers folk seem to think they are.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

RPG.net has improved markedly over the past year or two and 4E threads there often do well.

Agree that there's 4E discussion but very strongly disagree that it's gotten better. I left earlier this year after 10+ years of membership because it's gotten so awful and I wouldn't go back on a bet.

 

[Jester David]

Trademark law does not prevent one from referring to something using its name... it prevents you claiming your product is theirs I can claim my Product with suitably large text is Garthanos House Rules in a title and use subtext "for use with Dungeons and Dragons" or "compatible with Dungeons and Dragons" without infringing there trademark because I am not confusing the products. Much as a news article can refer to it because they are not claiming theirs is WOTCs product. Trademark is not about copyright and preventing others from referring to your product ... its about product identity.

You could make a compatible product yes, but not a replacement. So you could add supplemental material at most.
However, you can't use the Trademarks of a company in your advertising, or as a competitive product.

Look at Pathfinder. You'll be hard pressed to see them refer to "Dungeons & Dragons" or "D&D". Instead they refer to "the 3rd edition if the world's oldest rolepaying game."
Check out the PF Core Rulebook that says:
Based on the original roleplaying game rules designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and inspired by the third edition of the game designed by Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, and Peter Adkison.

And "confusing the products" can be vague. If lawyers can make a case that your book of house rules could in any way be conceived as mistaken for actual rules then it's a problem. I've seen 3e fan projects shut down for refering "samurai" and "ninjas" as those could be mistaken for the official versions published by WotC. WotC's lawyers decide what is confusing products as you have to prove otherwise. It'a much easier to prove guilt in civil court where there's no "innocent until proven guilty".
That's if they don't go right to your ISP with a shutdown request.

 

[Garthanos]

You could make a compatible product yes, but not a replacement.

If I were making replacements it would be completely mine because personally I probably couldnt resist. ;-p

 

[Garthanos]

cant delete posts.... grrrr.

 

[Garthanos]

If lawyers can make a case that your book of house rules could in any way be conceived as mistaken for actual house rules then it's a problem.

Huh?
The only reason a certain company was able to be sued when they referred to there products as compatible with D&D was because they had a contract with TSR which they broke when doing so it wasnt because of trademark infringement.

Could even explain why PF folk are so cagey...

 

[Jester David]

Huh?
The only reason a certain company was able to be sued when they referred to there products as compatible with D&D was because they had a contract which they broke when doing so it wasnt because of trademark infringement.

Copy error when rephrasing my sentence. I meant "house rules mistaken for actual rules".
I.e. could someone conceivably mistake your house rules for actual rules of the game? Would it be possible for some unknowing person to see the rules and come to a false conclusion regarding the game? If yes then it's something that will potentially shut down.

Assuming it isn't considered a "derivative work"
The US Copyright Act Section 101 sez: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. The rules with minor changes sounds like "editorial revisions" to me.

 

[Garthanos]

The rules with minor changes sounds like "editorial revisions" to me.

I have seen something like that and it rather made me cringe (it was outright copyright violation) with minor adjustments not a similar production or new presentation at all. Though there are now other things being made out there on the interwebs which I would say one can reasonably call their own products inspired by the 4e design.

I am not actually in to static... not even a static cast of my favorite D&D so far but something that took the concept of 4th edition and went further with it now that I might get behind.