Frylock's Final(?) Post on the OGL

[Umbran]

C. Specifically, Frylock is asserting that because the OGL is invalid as it protects no copyrights, or because it is valid in that it protects copyrights, and because WoTC is requesting that those who enter into the OGL not use material that Frylock is saying is not protected by copyright, this is "copyright misuse" as a matter of law and WoTC cannot enforce any of its copyrights against Frylock.

If he is not part of any OGL agreement, how does what WotC do with OGL even relevant?

I mean, if I screw up a contract with a guy to paint my house, that shouldn't impact my completely different contract with the guy doing the roof, should it?

 

[Morrus]

If he is not part of any OGL agreement, how does what WotC do with OGL even relevant?

I mean, if I screw up a contract with a guy to paint my house, that shouldn't impact my completely different contract with the guy doing the roof, should it?

I’m guessing the sideshow is to add attention to the core issue.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks for explaining all this. It's immensely helpful.

Here's what I'm wondering: Looking at those statblocks, I can see that all the text has been lightly rewritten - it isn't just a copy-paste. Suppose Frylock goes to court and doesn't bring up any of this copyright misuse business: He just says, "My work is sufficiently different that it doesn't violate WotC's copyright." Will all these public screeds be a problem for him?

 

[Parmandur]

Thanks for explaining all this. It's immensely helpful.

Here's what I'm wondering: Looking at those statblocks, I can see that all the text has been lightly rewritten - it isn't just a copy-paste. Suppose Frylock goes to court and doesn't bring up any of this copyright misuse business: He just says, "My work is sufficiently different that it doesn't violate WotC's copyright." Will all these public screeds be a problem for him?

They certainly won't help him.

 

[Dausuul]

They certainly won't help him.

Well, he was talking about a GoFundMe. He might be thinking he can use the screeds to whip up enthusiasm and get donations for his legal costs.

 

[Umbran]

I’m guessing the sideshow is to add attention to the core issue.

I have to wonder. We may be misidentifying what is show, and what is core issue, and the purpose of the uproar.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BookBarbarian]

I've always tried to follow the philosophy: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Glad to know that approach is still sound.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I decided I'd give this another shot, with a flowchart! See if this helps. Again, it's very difficult to decipher the arguments, but here goes:

A. Frylock's copying of WoTC's stat blocks and associated text isn't copyright infringement because WoTC can't copyright the stat blocks and associated text.

This is a difficult argument to make, and this is his "Monster stats are just facts, man" argument.

B. But if Frylock is wrong, and he is violating WoTC's copyrights (as he calls it, a just a mere technical infringement ... ahem), then he still is in the clear because he has an "affirmative defense" of copyright misuse.

This is where we get into Frylock's list of grievances, because copyright misuse is an equitable defense; it is the copyright equivalent of "unclean hands," essentially stating that even though there is copyright infringement, the court will not hold you liable because of the bad action of the copyright holder.

C. Specifically, Frylock is asserting that because the OGL is invalid as it protects no copyrights, or because it is valid in that it protects copyrights, and because WoTC is requesting that those who enter into the OGL not use material that Frylock is saying is not protected by copyright, this is "copyright misuse" as a matter of law and WoTC cannot enforce any of its copyrights against Frylock.

This is the part where he completely loses me; it is well-known that companies have used versions of the OGL in the past to compete with WoTC (ahem, Pathfinder), it is well known that companies can make, and profit from 5e products using the OGL (Adventures in Middle Earth), and it is well known that companies can make 5e products without using the OGL as well, if they want to chance it! So the specter of bad faith and anti-competitiveness that animates the copyright misuse defense isn't present; in fact, I am unfamiliar with any case that has ever come close to this fact pattern, and court routinely uphold much more restrictive licensing schemes. IMO.

So, is this a little clearer?

It's very clear, and I think I largely agree. If any of what Frylock says was actually true, a company like Fantasy Flight Games or Games Workshop would take advantage of it. The reason they don't says a lot about the legal basis Wizard's has.