Goodman NOT going GSL it looks like

[JVisgaitis]

So out of curiosity, who has signed onto the GSL so far?

Us. Violet Dawn will be getting some 4e love.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Us. Violet Dawn will be getting some 4e love.

Daaaaaammmmmnnnnn!

I am so interested in that setting, but 4e is not my playstyle at all. Played it, don't want anything at all to do with it. I own your 3.5e materials. Violet Dawn is a strong non-traditional setting like Athas and has a lot of potential. Shame I won't be able to use any of the mchanics.

Violet Dawn is your standout IP, to hand that over to WoTC who can change the GSL at any time potentially threatening its survival, is something I could never do. I hope it works out for you but would like it if you made the setting OGL compatible instead.


Wyrmshadows

 

[jmucchiello]

OSRIC is the legal way to do 1E compatable module.

That's as valid as saying GSL is the legal way to do 4E compatible adventures. If they are using copyright law to do 4E, they can use copyright law to do 1E and thus not use the OGL at all.

 

[Treebore]

Fair enough. I heard a story about them getting a cease/desist letter from Wizards, but that Wizards never followed up.

A "Cease and Desist" letter in no way proves whether or not something is legal. Its an opportunity for a company to say, "Hey, I think you may be infringing on my rights."

Some times they are clearly right, such as WOTC sending letters out to some companies who had to say, "Crap! We better pulp these right away!"

The letters in and of themselves are not proof of guilt/wrong doing.

Plus WOTC only has/had 3 years to do anything about OSRIC. If that time frame has passed, then OSRIC cannot be touched simply because the statute of limitations has run out.

Anyways, I know certain lawyers around here said they think OSRIC is illegal, however WOTC's inactivity towards OSRIC is far stronger proof that it isn't. Especially since WOTC and OSRIC had legal communication and nothing went to court.

Plus, if it is 3 years past this initial communication, its a moot point. WOTC can no longer do anything about OSRIC itself. They only have 3 years to take action, by law. In the US, anyways.

So if its been 3 years, then anything done via OSRIC is as legal as anything else. In the US.


Also, Goodman Games has NEVER done their 1E products via OSRIC. They did it via copyright and maybe the OGL. I'd have to pull them out to see if there is even an OGL in them.

 

[Alzrius]

So if its been 3 years, then anything done via OSRIC is as legal as anything else. In the US.

It hasn't been. The OSRIC document is copyright 2006.

 

[Treebore]

It hasn't been. The OSRIC document is copyright 2006.

Is OSRIC actually copyrighted? Or did you just mean date of publication?

 

[Alzrius]

Is OSRIC actually copyrighted? Or did you just mean date of publication?

In America, every new work is copyrighted as soon as it's created (with a few exceptions, such as some publications by the federal government); there's no need to apply for a copyright, it happens automatically. While game rules can't be copyrighted, the total body of work still is. Hence, OSRIC is copyrighted.

Also, the credits/legal page says:

Text (c) Stuart Marshall 2006
Illustrations (c) Matthew Finch 2006

Finally, the Section 15 declaration in the OGL says:

OSRIC^TM copyright 2006, Stuart Marshall, adapting material prepared by Matthew J. Finch, based upon the System Reference Document, and inspired by the works of E. Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, and many others.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I love that Goodman is releasing 1E stuff... but why does it have to be a GenCon exclusive? Do most 1E/Old School gamers even go to GenCon anymore?

Yes, the amount of 1e/2e games would probably surprise you.

 

[Thunderfoot]

In America, every new work is copyrighted as soon as it's created (with a few exceptions, such as some publications by the federal government); there's no need to apply for a copyright, it happens automatically. <SNIP>

Ummm, I'm sorry that isn't correct. As a music publisher, if you do not apply for a copyright you are not granted a copyright. And when royalties and money are on the line you had best believe me that there is someone in the steno pool typing those documents up as soon as the product is made available for editing.

Edited ~ After re-reading your statement, I realized I was in error. Your intellectual property is automatically covered, however, burden of proof is upon the creator and therefore, registration is still the best way to ensure enforcement (see my below)

 

[Alzrius]

Ummm, I'm sorry that isn't correct. As a music publisher, if you do not apply for a copyright you are not granted a copyright. And when royalties and money are on the line you had best believe me that there is someone in the steno pool typing those documents up as soon as the product is made available for editing.

You need to check your facts. It's been the policy in America for years that private works automatically have copyright applied to them. You don't need to "apply" for it.

I direct you here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/myths/part1/

The very first myth dispelled is this one:

1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know* otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.

The correct form for a notice is: "Copyright <dates> by <author/owner>" You can use C in a circle instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not needed.

EDIT: To clarify, here's a bit from Wikipedia's article on the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works:

Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration (note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, they continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works).