Forked Thread: Does your v.3.5 fan site have the OGL attached to it?

[Kerrick]

You only need an OGL if there is OGC used, but I think you already know this and I am just spinning my wheels, so I am bowing out of this conversation.

Aha. I've never seen (or heard of) an actual fansite policy regarding 3.5, so I figured the OGL applied there as well. FWIW, I've got a copy attached to mine, but since it's a) a total conversion of the 3.5 system, and b) all OGC, I kind of need it.

I have seen WotC IP posted on other sites (one place has pretty much all the spells from all the books) and wondered how they got away with it; now I know.

 

[Grazzt]

Mine does (or did). I worked with WotC (back in 2001 or 2002) and used it for the Creature Catalog.

 

[S'mon]

No, as WoTC informally stated a while back, the OGL was intended for publishers, not fans.

Besides, I teach both Contract and IP law (IAAL). I know better than to enter into a complex unilateral contract like the OGL for no good reason. Frankly, I think you are very unwise to have done so.

Edit: You need to understand that it is MUCH easier for a court to find breach of contract than for it to find non-literal copyright infringement. I don't think you understand what you're getting into here. Using the OGL when you are not a real publisher is, IMO, risky, dangerous and foolish.

Of course if you are actually reproducing chunks of the SRD then, yes, you need to use the OGL. Why you would want to do that though I have no idea.

 

[S'mon]

I have seen WotC IP posted on other sites (one place has pretty much all the spells from all the books) and wondered how they got away with it; now I know.

Um, reproducing chunks of text from WoTC books is copyright infringement, pure and simple. Don't do it.

OTOH, if you as a fan are putting online adventures featuring drow, beholders, mindflayers and new prestige classes; WoTC may waffle about 'PI' but as long as you're not literally reproducing chunks of their text or art a copyright claim is highly questionable, and they are not likely to bother you.

 

[Nellisir]

No, as WoTC informally stated a while back, the OGL was intended for publishers, not fans.

Does that have bearing if WotC decides to take, or imply taking, legal action?

Besides, I teach both Contract and IP law (IAAL). I know better than to enter into a complex unilateral contract like the OGL for no good reason. Frankly, I think you are very unwise to have done so.

I'm confused here. I think I understand the OGL pretty well. I don't have anything in violation of the OGL on my website that I know of. I do use material derived from the SRD (game mechanics) on my site. Given the choice between a legal way of handling that material and an illegal way that relies on WotC's good faith, why is it wiser to ignore the legal channel? I'm not trying to be snarky or something, I just honestly don't get it.

Of course if you are actually reproducing chunks of the SRD then, yes, you need to use the OGL. Why you would want to do that though I have no idea.

Um, houserules? Changes to existing races and classes? Keeping information in one spot rather than spreading it over a multitude of sites? I guess I don't understand why you need the OGL to reproduce SRD material, but it's OK to use stuff that WotC hasn't released at all.

 

[Nellisir]

I should clarify: if you're going to go ahead and use WotC's IP anyways, there's no point in using the OGL. IMO. But if you're not, or don't have to, I think it's a better choice, and friendlier to the gaming community.

 

[Starglim]

In places. Some of my content derives directly from the SRD or other OGC and I've put a copy of the OGL on each of those pages. It's courteous to give proper credit, and good practice for published work.

Other items are entirely my design and text, even if they use formats based on OGC, or, frankly, couldn't be licenced under the OGL because they refer to non-open sources. Thus, I've explicitly said that nothing on the site is open content or licenced by WotC unless so stated.

For commercial publication, I'd be more cautious, and also I think there's a fair expectation that such work should contribute to the community.

 

[S'mon]

I guess I don't understand why you need the OGL to reproduce SRD material, but it's OK to use stuff that WotC hasn't released at all.

There are various ways you can use stuff without infringing copyright in it. Finding non-literal copyright infringement is not easy.

I guess if you are putting a lot of effort into complying with the terms of the OGL, fine. But it's really easy to be in breach of contract, and that is much easier to prove than that your adventure about (say) Beholders infringed any copyrights relating to Beholders.

 

[Nellisir]

There are various ways you can use stuff without infringing copyright in it.

Do most amateur websites utilize those ways?

I guess if you are putting a lot of effort into complying with the terms of the OGL, fine. But it's really easy to be in breach of contract, and that is much easier to prove than that your adventure about (say) Beholders infringed any copyrights relating to Beholders.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that -if- WotC were to go on the warpath (not that they are or will) against amateur websites, they're more likely to target websites trying to play by the OGL than those openly flaunting it, because it'd be easier to prove breach of contract via the OGL than some kind of copyright infraction?

I think we're in pretty hypothetical territory here, so I'm not overly concerned about it, but it's something I'll consider.

 

[S'mon]

Do most amateur websites utilize those ways?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that -if- WotC were to go on the warpath (not that they are or will) against amateur websites, they're more likely to target websites trying to play by the OGL than those openly flaunting it, because it'd be easier to prove breach of contract via the OGL than some kind of copyright infraction?

I think we're in pretty hypothetical territory here, so I'm not overly concerned about it, but it's something I'll consider.

1. Yes, IMO most amateur D&D fansites are not (c)-infringing. It can depend on the judge though!

2. It is very hypothetical. In reality the ISP gets a C&D letter, they pull the plug on the content to avoid liability under the DMCA, it never goes to court. The actual content doesn't matter.