Getting OSRIC/AD&D into FLGS and publishers

[w_earle_wheeler]

That makes no sense. To convert C&C stats to 1e etc all you do is flip the AC so it descends from 10 instead of ascending, and ignore the bit about Primes. To convert BFRPG you also need to flip the AC. OSRIC/LL don't need flipping. Still, compatibility for all these games with 1e/OD&D/BECMI etc is close to 100%.

I think C&C is a good game system, a fun game system. But I believe that its proponents of "easy" AD&D 1e compatibility are exaggerations, and can lead to frustration among consumers. That hurts C&C.

I'm sorry that my experience of converting 1e AD&D adventures to run with C&C RAW has run into opposition with yours. I won't dispute your experience with it, though... I will take your word for it. Perhaps I'm just slower with the conversions than you are.

 

[Umbran]

For an inactive "abandoned" piece of intellectual property, I wonder how long of a "grace period" the law allows for until the copyright expires. This may vary for different jurisdictions.

Copyright is Federal. The rules have changed over time, but they don't vary with location within the United States.

Mark linked to a nice resource above. The exact date the rulebooks would come into the public domain depends on whether the books are considered "corporate authorship" - I expect this is the case, as WotC holds the rights, rather than the Gygax and Arneson. Either way, though, it'd be at least several decades from now.

As I understand it, you cannot "abandon" copyright through inactivity or lack of defense - that's a separate issue that affects trademarks. You don't have to defend your copyright for it to be valid. If you hold a copyright, you can go after an infringing work decades after its publication.

The only person of which I am aware with a legal resume who I have seen cast OSRIC in a negative light legally is Peterson of Necro, and even he has not stated anything definitive that I have read or heard.

He has clearly and unequivocally stated that he feels it is infringing. I've not seen him list exact points why he feels that way.

Is there some second legal source that would go on the record and actually state some more definitive position on if, how and why OSRIC might be legally untenable? If not, I think it would be more fair to just let that bugaboo rest until such a time as something substantial from the IP holders (currently WotC) states otherwise.

Dude, he asked for reasons why publishers might not get into OSRIC. At least one (and, if grodog is correct, then others as well) has stated this as a reason. That's not a "bugaboo" that needs to be put to bed, it is a reason of record. Each publisher makes his own risk assessment.

 

[Umbran]

The notion that OSRIC's legality must be notably questionable until there's a lawsuit over it (which could be never) seems to me bizarre -- especially as I see no reason it should not apply likewise to every OGL product.

The difference between OSRIC and every other OGL product is simple. It has nothing to do with the fact that OSRIC is released using the OGL.

3e was itself released under the OGL. And, with the System Reference Document (SRD), WotC made explicitly clear what content was open. Everyone who follows on there has a clear reference for what is okay.

1e was released under normal copyright. No other license applies until WotC says so. There is no clearly defined and accepted 1e SRD. The people who have created OSRIC have attempted to suck out the system logic (which cannot be covered by copyright), and restate it without use of WotC IP that is covered by copyright.

The question of OSRIC's legality is the question of whether they did scrub out all the WotC IP.

Meanwhile, WotC apparently can withdraw at whim the GSL.

Yes, with a six-month sell-off period. Given that I'm told most product make the bulk of their profits within three months of publication, this seems reasonable.

This is not comparable to the risk of using OSRIC - as I understand copyright law, if you sell something in violation, the copyright holder can not only cease your publication, but also go after a chunk of the money you made off of infringing.

Mind you, it wouldn't make sense for WotC to do that unless you made enough profits to make it economically advantageous to do so. Publishers who figure OSRIC and their own products will remain small-change operations have little to fear.

Honestly, I brought up the legality only for sake of completeness. I think the real barrier to OSRIC getting into wide distribution is that is it a niche of a niche product. Distributors and retailers got bitten kind of badly by having a mass of 3.x material that didn't sell. They've scaled back to things they now have more reason to think will sell - proven publishers working on editions that have a proven share of the market.

OSRIC is neither. That's a big speedbump.

 

[Mark]

FWIW, at various times some other old school publishers have joined Clark in voicing concerns about OSRIC legality/morality/whatever, including Kenzer & Co. and Troll Lord Games.

Do I recall hearing that David Kenzer is a lawyer? Is there a link to some place where he might have posted his feelings on the matter?

He has clearly and unequivocally stated that he feels it is infringing. I've not seen him list exact points why he feels that way.

Do you have a link?

Dude, he asked for reasons why publishers might not get into OSRIC. At least one (and, if grodog is correct, then others as well) has stated this as a reason. That's not a "bugaboo" that needs to be put to bed, it is a reason of record. Each publisher makes his own risk assessment.

It's a bugaboo if some publishers and others are making unfounded accusations and other publishers are using that as their reason for not using OSRIC. Unless there is some specific legal foundation for this shadow that has been cast, it might be wise for people to stop perpetuating it.

 

[Nikosandros]

It's a bugaboo if some publishers and others are making unfounded accusations and other publishers are using that as their reason for not using OSRIC. Unless there is some specific legal foundation for this shadow that has been cast, it might be wise for people to stop perpetuating it.

Exactly, it's becoming a rather tiresome issue. There is absolutely no evidence for this kind of statements and yet they are repeated constantly. Reminds me of certain theories about how 4e is selling poorly...

 

[Ariosto]

Thanks for the clarification, Umbran. It's still pretty vague, though! The whole reason for using the OGL in the first place was to use copyrighted text provided in the SRD. The publishers took expert legal counsel before proceeding.

I don't recall ever seeing anywhere a pointer to any portion of the OSRIC text as allegedly in violation of copyright. Without even a single such concrete citation, the matter remains one of innuendo.

 

[ggroy]

Copyright is Federal. The rules have changed over time, but they don't vary with location within the United States.

I was thinking of copyright laws in different countries.

For example, a number of years ago there was a hullabaloo about the copyright expiring in a few years on early Beatles songs (ie. Please Please Me, Love Me Do, etc ...) in England. If the copyright laws on music hasn't changed much in England, I vaguely recall the copyright period was 50 years. Sir Paul and others attempted to lobby the British parliament to extend the copyright laws, but largely to no avail, the last time I heard anything about it.

Wonder if this 50 year copyright period for music, is common over the entire European Union (EU).

 

[grodog]

Do I recall hearing that David Kenzer is a lawyer? Is there a link to some place where he might have posted his feelings on the matter?

I'm sure I have them saved, somewhere, but they're not handy, Mark (on the old PC, perhaps?). google wasn't a big help, either :/

It's a bugaboo if some publishers and others are making unfounded accusations and other publishers are using that as their reason for not using OSRIC. Unless there is some specific legal foundation for this shadow that has been cast, it might be wise for people to stop perpetuating it.

That was my point in raising the issue of TLG and K&C also aligning with NG's commentary: their support of Clark's statements seemed to be perpetuating the "legal concerns" mindset in the gaming public, despite any concerns raised by WotC on that front, or any concrete evidence being brought to bear in conjunction with these "issues".

 

[Grimstaff]

That was my point in raising the issue of TLG and K&C also aligning with NG's commentary: their support of Clark's statements seemed to be perpetuating the "legal concerns" mindset in the gaming public, despite any concerns raised by WotC on that front, or any concrete evidence being brought to bear in conjunction with these "issues".

IIRC, Clark's point was that OSRIC violated the "spirit" of the OGL, in that the OGL was intended to allow 3rd parties to produce products (adventures, monster books, etc) that encouraged people to buy the core 3E books.

Today, this point is moot, as WotC is no longer selling 3E books. I don't think it was ever a valid concern to begin with: OSRIC adheres more stringently to the OGL than alot of 3rd party products I have in the awld gaming vault here at home. Its even less of a concern now.

 

[Ariosto]

Simply referring to page numbers in OSRIC (or any other book) would be a non-issue. Here's the really fundamental issue, though, whether one uses OSRIC or not:

Suppose I publish a supplement in which I use the same factors for (say) a wolf as those appearing in the Monster Manual. Am I violating copyright by publishing a derivative work, because the selection of those particular ratings constitutes creative literary expression (which can be copyright) rather than game rules (which cannot)?

I think WotC's lawyers could make a case for that, unless the stats were derived from Open Game Content in keeping with the OGL.

If I understand correctly, that is supposedly how such material was derived for OSRIC and other simulacra. If one does not trust their work, then one can either do the work for oneself ... or simply not duplicate "stats".

Something such as "wolves (hp 14, 13, 11, 11, 10, 7)" is fine. A new monster description would also be fine.