GSL vs. no GSL Forked From: Where are all of the campaign settings?

[Cadfan]

I'm not an IP specialist. I am someone who's taken IP classes in law school.

And all I'm saying is this- under current law, there's no protection for the mathematical model for the game. But current law exists because of the current business environment, and the law in this area is, in my opinion, very responsive to an underlying concern of making sure that everyone gets along just well enough for business to flourish.

The current business environment doesn't involve many (any?) meaningful attempts by businesses at transparently crafting knockoff versions of games. But if knockoffs took off, or just happened in a few situations where there was a lot of money to be made, I think the legal regime would change.

I think there are enough hooks on which to hang an argument about the processes of games being inherently creative because of the manner in which they artistically and aesthetically create a user experience. I don't think that argument is correct under current law! But I think the argument is plausible in terms of changed interpretations or small congressional revisions to current law. And I think that the process by which computer programs ended up copyrightable, with all of its square pegs bashed repeatedly until they fit in round holes, provides a good example of how this could take place.

Right now, no one is making knock off copies of Carcassonne or Ticket to Ride. Lets say a company came into being that only sold games that were exact clones of existing board games, but with altered titles, artwork, and themes. Does anyone seriously believe that the legal environment would not respond to this change? There's really only three possible reponses. 1. Companies could accept lower bottom lines. 2. Companies could start patenting their games instead of leaving them in legal limbo, resulting in fewer games, particularly from smaller companies, due to increased up front investment, and 3. the law could adjust itself to provide greater protections to intellectual properties in games.

 

[S'mon]

The famous recent knock-off case was Scrabble/Scrabulous, which I think is now settled. But that involved copying the artistic expression of the game, not just the underlying rules. The Monopoly case made clear that rules per se aren't protected and the courts seem to have no intention of protecting them. Otherwise TSR/WoTC could sue the makers of hundreds of RPGs and computer games that copy elements of D&D's system framework.

But anyway, the whole point is regardless of what you can publish under copyright law, the OGL says that you can publish a heck of a lot. It's intentionally a very open license.

Hopefully your professors told you not to confuse copyright law with contract law - TSR/Mayfair, for instance, was a contract case, not a copyright case. Any discussion of what you can do under the OGL should start with contract law, not copyright.

 

[starwed]

Any discussion of what you can do under the OGL should start with contract law, not copyright.

I am definitely not any type of lawyer[1]. But are you sure about that? I know that dealing with the GPL involves dealing not with contract law but with copyrights and licenses.

This was confirmed pretty recently in the US courts. I don't know enough about law to know if the OGL would work the same way, but a lot of casual analysis of the GPL made the contract/license mistake.

[1]Well, maybe a rules lawyer

 

[S'mon]

I am definitely not any type of lawyer[1]. But are you sure about that? I know that dealing with the GPL involves dealing not with contract law but with copyrights and licenses.

The OGL license is a contract. In the case of the OGL it's a unilateral contract, in that you accept WotC's contractual offer by making use of the license. In a normal bilateral contract acceptance is by communication of acceptance to the party making the offer.

Because the OGL is a contract, it creates rights and duties for both parties different from the default situation under copyright & TM law.

Edit: AFAIK the GNU General Public License (GPL) is not a contractual license because it does not create duties on the licensee that they would not already have. In English law terms, they do not have to provide any 'consideration'. The OGL very much does create duties on the licensee - significant duties.

 

[Treebore]

Yep, S'mon has the right of it, except on "harm", and at least here in the state of AZ the loser of a lawsuit pays all fees, including research and lawyers fees. I know this because I am currently involved in a lawsuit. So who pays fees in a lawsuit probably varies state to state. As to "harm" that is directly addressed in US Copyright law. So if financial loss/damage can be proven "harm" is a factor in US COpyright Law. In fact, such loss/damage has to be proven in order to sue over copyright. No financial loss/damage, then no copyright infringement.

Which is why people sharing copies of certain pages out of their RPG books won't ever be sued. Now if you were to distribute those same pages to 40, 100, or 1000 people via the internet, then loss/damage can be proven and your in trouble. This also assumes that the material is actually being actively marketed. If it is not being actively sold on the market, then distributing the copyrighted material would be causing no harm, so is not a offense.

So, as an example, if someone wanted to distribute copies of the Dragon magazine CD's, for free, they could not be sued under US Copyright law. However, if they sell those copies, or WOTC works out licensing issues with Kenzer over Knights of the Dinner Table, and any other "artist" who owns the work they did for TSR, and decides to sell CD PDF collections of their Dragon and Dungeon magazine collections, then the person better stop distributing copies, because then loss becomes provable.

So when you freely distribute OOP books, magazines, etc... you won't be SUCCESSFULLY sued. You distribute books, magazines, etc... that are actively being marketed/sold, then your in trouble. You ever sell anyone elses work, including OOP material, then you are making money off of their work, and can be sued. Successfully.

So for those people who have "free" copies of currently in print RPG material on your computers or on your CD's, you can be fined thousands of dollars and do up to 5 years in prison for each individual copy you are in possession of.


Still, I am not a lawyer, I am only going off of professional advice that I sought, so follow my advice at your own risk. Consult your own professionals to be as safe as possible.

 

[S'mon]

Yep, S'mon has the right of it, except on "harm"

I was just making the point that intention to harm a competing business is not itself a cause of action.

 

[S'mon]

So when you freely distribute OOP books, magazines, etc... you won't be SUCCESSFULLY sued.

Umm, I would suggest that people not rely on Treebore's advice here.

 

[Oldtimer]

So, as an example, if someone wanted to distribute copies of the Dragon magazine CD's, for free, they could not be sued under US Copyright law.
...
So when you freely distribute OOP books, magazines, etc... you won't be SUCCESSFULLY sued.

I think you are seriously confusing civil suits with criminal suits here. It's one thing to sue for damages - quite another thing to just report a crime to the police.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

so, ultimately I CAN produce a campaign book, setting, or whatever. I can write in the book "There are 3 succubi" I can place their stats in said book (So long as I don't follow WoTC's stat block design). I can say in the book, or on the cover "you can use this with the latest Dungeons & Dragons products" or "4E compatable" or somthing along those lines, and I will be safe from being sued?

 

[Cadfan]

Dude, do NOT take legal advice from the internet.