Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Deleted member 7015506" data-source="post: 7788905"><p>This is a very interesting topic. But since I am no native english speaker, several questions turned up for me while reading this whole affair (and please forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes). Hopefully I state my opinions in a way, so no misunderstandings arise. </p><p></p><p>1) As I understood, the whole argument revolves around the question if the stat blocks presented by Fyrlock are an infringement of copyright due to the fact, that </p><p></p><p> a) they were not published under the OGL (or proper 5E license), which would perhaps make </p><p> the whole affair obsolete, if the published stat blocks would not violate terms stated by said </p><p> licence(s) </p><p></p><p> b) Fyrlock did put a own copyright sign/tag for his stat blocks on the published stat blocks, which </p><p> implies in my personal view, that he made them up from scratch (at least, that is how I </p><p> understand copyright) and thereby infringing/violating copyright laws, since the original stat </p><p> blocks were the basis for his own and not his own generic work</p><p></p><p></p><p>2) If I got things right, then game mechanics and rules in general cannot be copyrighted in any way, no matter what they are, except for content that is considered Product Identity. So integrating monsters like the Mind Flayer, Beholder, Slaad and Kuo-Toa for example is an infringement of copyright, since they are Product Identity of the publishing company (in this case WotC). So my questions are:</p><p></p><p> a) Why can something be considered/treated as PI, which falls under the copyright rules and </p><p> underlying mechanics on the other side can not be copyrighted. As I personally see it, both are </p><p> creative (= unique?) works, that are not less subject for copyright protection than a fiction novel </p><p> for example.</p><p></p><p> b) Wouldn´t the original ruleset already be considered unique (= creative), since perhaps not </p><p> their different parts but the whole set/combination of them make for a unique product falling </p><p> under the copyright law? Personally spoken, if somebody talks about AC, HD and Saving </p><p> Throws, I immediately think of D&D. Therefore that is a kind of PI (at least in my opinion).</p><p></p><p>3) Is the visual presentation of game mechanics/content copyrightable or not? If the answer is yes (which I think is here the case, since the creativity behind this presentation process is unique), then a similar (albeit modified version) presentation might lead to confusion about the origin of the product in question. And this might lead unwary people to the assumption, that the product in question published by Frylock is 100% genuine and not the work of WotC in any way. In how far those modifications to the original stat block is sufficient to make it unique (= no infringement of copyright laws) would be interesting to see.</p><p></p><p>4) What is the difference between copyright and product identity? The mentioned monsters are “considered” (quote from the wikipedia entry of the Mind Flayer) PI by WotC. So as I understand it, PI is what makes a product unique/recognizable on the market. On the other hand PI can´t be copyrighted? And how do you legitimate PI (by a kind of patent act/bureaucracy, official procedure etc.). Very confusing for me (Let me make that clear at this point: No I don´t have any intention on going to war with WotC over that or question the validity of this aspect/statement or whatever you want to call it). Could the official stat block be considered PI and therefore a violation of PI be assumed? And as a side note: Game mechanics and rules can´t be copyrighted, but is a stat block a mechanic/rule or something different? Isn´t it rather a collection of creative imaginary values that may be interpreted individually (= house rules) and therefore are unique via the compilation of several more or less independent aspects into a single block?</p><p></p><p>5) If a license is published/made public it can be revoked, right? Why is the OGL considered unrevokable? As I understand it, the OGL is only viable in connection with the SRD, which results in the OSR/retro clone products being possible to be published (as long as you don´t violate mentioned PI). So if somebody violates a license in such an open and (IMHO) aggressive way (as is perhaps this case here), couldn´t that lead to the mentioned revoking of the OGL as mentioned by others, since WotC might see a possible threat to their products as a whole? Or is this unrevokable aspect based within the text of the OGL itself by not stating a kind of expiration date or procedure for revoking it in case the license publisher wishes to do so?</p><p></p><p>BTW for me the statement, that the OGL is nonsense/non-valid (no quotation here), is a very drastic statement. </p><p></p><p>6) If Frylock wouldn´t have placed his own copyright tag under the product in question and added an approbate license (OGL or 5E, whatever would be approbate here), then as I understand it, the whole affair would not have happened. So my stupid question is here: Why pose something as your own and make a big wind about it when notified about it, when there are possibilities to avoid that and still publish your work? To prove that everything in the gaming industry can be copied for free except for graphics and exact wording perhaps?</p><p></p><p>If I misinterpreted or misunderstood anything, please correct me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Deleted member 7015506, post: 7788905"] This is a very interesting topic. But since I am no native english speaker, several questions turned up for me while reading this whole affair (and please forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes). Hopefully I state my opinions in a way, so no misunderstandings arise. 1) As I understood, the whole argument revolves around the question if the stat blocks presented by Fyrlock are an infringement of copyright due to the fact, that a) they were not published under the OGL (or proper 5E license), which would perhaps make the whole affair obsolete, if the published stat blocks would not violate terms stated by said licence(s) b) Fyrlock did put a own copyright sign/tag for his stat blocks on the published stat blocks, which implies in my personal view, that he made them up from scratch (at least, that is how I understand copyright) and thereby infringing/violating copyright laws, since the original stat blocks were the basis for his own and not his own generic work 2) If I got things right, then game mechanics and rules in general cannot be copyrighted in any way, no matter what they are, except for content that is considered Product Identity. So integrating monsters like the Mind Flayer, Beholder, Slaad and Kuo-Toa for example is an infringement of copyright, since they are Product Identity of the publishing company (in this case WotC). So my questions are: a) Why can something be considered/treated as PI, which falls under the copyright rules and underlying mechanics on the other side can not be copyrighted. As I personally see it, both are creative (= unique?) works, that are not less subject for copyright protection than a fiction novel for example. b) Wouldn´t the original ruleset already be considered unique (= creative), since perhaps not their different parts but the whole set/combination of them make for a unique product falling under the copyright law? Personally spoken, if somebody talks about AC, HD and Saving Throws, I immediately think of D&D. Therefore that is a kind of PI (at least in my opinion). 3) Is the visual presentation of game mechanics/content copyrightable or not? If the answer is yes (which I think is here the case, since the creativity behind this presentation process is unique), then a similar (albeit modified version) presentation might lead to confusion about the origin of the product in question. And this might lead unwary people to the assumption, that the product in question published by Frylock is 100% genuine and not the work of WotC in any way. In how far those modifications to the original stat block is sufficient to make it unique (= no infringement of copyright laws) would be interesting to see. 4) What is the difference between copyright and product identity? The mentioned monsters are “considered” (quote from the wikipedia entry of the Mind Flayer) PI by WotC. So as I understand it, PI is what makes a product unique/recognizable on the market. On the other hand PI can´t be copyrighted? And how do you legitimate PI (by a kind of patent act/bureaucracy, official procedure etc.). Very confusing for me (Let me make that clear at this point: No I don´t have any intention on going to war with WotC over that or question the validity of this aspect/statement or whatever you want to call it). Could the official stat block be considered PI and therefore a violation of PI be assumed? And as a side note: Game mechanics and rules can´t be copyrighted, but is a stat block a mechanic/rule or something different? Isn´t it rather a collection of creative imaginary values that may be interpreted individually (= house rules) and therefore are unique via the compilation of several more or less independent aspects into a single block? 5) If a license is published/made public it can be revoked, right? Why is the OGL considered unrevokable? As I understand it, the OGL is only viable in connection with the SRD, which results in the OSR/retro clone products being possible to be published (as long as you don´t violate mentioned PI). So if somebody violates a license in such an open and (IMHO) aggressive way (as is perhaps this case here), couldn´t that lead to the mentioned revoking of the OGL as mentioned by others, since WotC might see a possible threat to their products as a whole? Or is this unrevokable aspect based within the text of the OGL itself by not stating a kind of expiration date or procedure for revoking it in case the license publisher wishes to do so? BTW for me the statement, that the OGL is nonsense/non-valid (no quotation here), is a very drastic statement. 6) If Frylock wouldn´t have placed his own copyright tag under the product in question and added an approbate license (OGL or 5E, whatever would be approbate here), then as I understand it, the whole affair would not have happened. So my stupid question is here: Why pose something as your own and make a big wind about it when notified about it, when there are possibilities to avoid that and still publish your work? To prove that everything in the gaming industry can be copied for free except for graphics and exact wording perhaps? If I misinterpreted or misunderstood anything, please correct me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Frylock's Gaming & Geekery Challenges WotC's Copyright Claims
Top