WotC Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims

[LordEntrails]

Haven't yet gone and read the blogs, but would like to comment on one aspect that seems fairly evident at this point. If his claim that a stat block can not be copyrighted is held to be correct, then their will be little incentive for WotC to ever publish another 'Monster Manual', since almost everything it it could just be re-distributed without their consent. As well as best sellers on the DMsGuild like 'Monsters of the Guild' would be affected as well.

That would be a harm. Would it be a greater harm than not though? I don't know but I suspect that would be addressed in a court case.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I remember when Frylock's one statblock thread first appeared. Many of these concerns came up and he basically said "I'm a lawyer familiar with copyright, they are welcome to come after me"

I for one am happy to pop some popcorn and watch this one.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Side note, is it odd that lawyer is blogging details and legal strategy for a case where he is the defendant? I would think staying silent and saving it for court would be a better choice.

Yes, if you thought your legal strategy had any chance of success in court. However, you would disclose it if you wanted your case tried in the court of public opinion, in the hope of a large out-of-court financial settlement, where you might suppose it had a much better chance, since that court pre-supposes that all large corporations are Evil and must therefore be In The Wrong.

You might even deliberately create something you knew to be an intellectual property violation (but just contentious enough to generate an argument) in the hope of receiving an out-of-court settlement.

 

[neobolts]

It’s not a case, and he’s not a defendant. It’s just a (fairly polite) email from WotC at this point.

True. WotC isn't guns blazing on this. But I'm assuming based on Frylock's actions that his intent in all this is to make WotC take him to court.

 

[AriochQ]

As well as best sellers on the DMsGuild like 'Monsters of the Guild' would be affected as well.

DM's Guild already has horrible protection for content creators. Anyone can take your material and use it in their product, so long as it is for sale on DM's Guild. They can't repackage it under a different title, but there is no clear line about how much is too much.

 

[LordEntrails]

Yes, if you thought your legal strategy had any chance of success in court. However, you would disclose it if you wanted your case tried in the court of public opinion, in the hope of a large out-of-court financial settlement, where you might suppose it had a much better chance, since that court pre-supposes that all large corporations are Evil and must therefore be In The Wrong.

You might even deliberately create something you knew to be an intellectual property violation (but just contentious enough to generate an argument) in the hope of receiving an out-of-court settlement.

All this is true, but I don't think WotC can really back down on this because the harm in allowing free reign to stat blocks would cause. But, we'll see, probably.

DM's Guild already has horrible protection for content creators. Anyone can take your material and use it in their product, so long as it is for sale on DM's Guild. They can't repackage it under a different title, but there is no clear line about how much is too much.

The protections the Guild has for creators depends upon your opinion. I don't believe it is horrible given the benefits of the platform. But, each creator has to weigh it themselves and decide.

You are right that their is no clear line. But then as evidenced by this article/topic, their is no clear line on copyright either. Nor pretty much any other legal framework that protects creators either. But the Guild does have a line, and from what I have heard, multiple products have been taken down for that reason and others. Maybe you want a mathematical formula for determining what is too much content to pull from other Guild creators, but as soon as any such thing were published, people would figure out how to abuse it.

 

[AriochQ]

Maybe you want a mathematical formula for determining what is too much content to pull from other Guild creators, but as soon as any such thing were published, people would figure out how to abuse it.

I would be satisfied if they had a requirement that you be informed when your material is used by another party.

 

[dave2008]

But the Guild does have a line, and from what I have heard, multiple products have been taken down for that reason and others. Maybe you want a mathematical formula for determining what is too much content to pull from other Guild creators, but as soon as any such thing were published, people would figure out how to abuse it.

I can confirm that when someone attempted to sell versions of monsters I have posted in these forums on DMsGuild. It was reported to me, I then reported it to the DMsGuild and they took down the products.

 

[tomBitonti]

Here's a thing: The stat blocks aren't an exact reproduction, nor is the ability text or attack text exact text copies. I thought that game rules weren't copyrightable, just their expression. Then, if its a game rule that cyclops has 22HP, that is not copyrightable. However, the particular format that one uses to display that information is copyrightable. Similarly, the text which was created for the new stat blocks are copyrightable.
The question would be whether the new expression is too similar to the previous one. (A name like "Illithid" is copyrightable, but a name like "Cyclops", which has been around for a very long time, isn't.)

Then, if there is a game mechanic (rule) which gives a Cyclops 22HP, then that rule is not copyrightable (although "literary, artistic, or musical form" expressions of the rule are). By the "stick figure" argument, saying "A cyclops has 22 HP," even though a literary statement, lacks sufficient creativity, and is not copyrightable. I have no clear sense if this true, and would need to search for precedents to have a better idea.

That being said, one possible weakness of his defense would be that certain defined terms, such as "Multiattack" are creative terms. Note the distinction between the actual rule ("The creature can make multiple attacks.") and the choice of "Multiattack" to label this rule. The choice of label seems to be creative. However, while this might work for "Multiattack", it doesn't seem to work for "Poor depth perception".

Thx!
TomB

 

[Beleriphon]

My thought as a slick corporate lawyer would be to argue every single stat block as an individual entry worthy of copyright and make Frylock prove that it isn't. You know, thousands and thousand of pages of material.

Because some of them might be, I'd also suggest that the individual block might be based on ancient material, but the expression of it certainly is not and it is dependent on the unique expression of other copyrightable material.