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

[Lord Xtheth]

Dude, do NOT take legal advice from the internet.

I dunno, it kinda looks lagit. I read the copywright laws, People here seem to know what they're talking about.

And if I could afford a lawyer, I'd go get legsal council. Sadly being broke is the reason I want to write and produce adventures in the first place. That and I love doing it.

 

[aboyd]

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.

Uh, no. First the court evaluates if the copyright claim has merit. Then if the case has merit, it looks at the losses when considering punitive damages.

This is a significant difference. It means that if you create something that does not infringe copyright, then even if there IS financial loss it cannot be stopped! The financial loss does not determine whether the claim is valid or not. The financial loss determines whether the court will award cash & prizes.

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.

I doubt even you believe what you just wrote. If you do, by all means, point us to a blog entry where you tell us where to go to meet you to get "copies of the Dragon magazine CD's, for free." We'll see how long it takes for either your site to be yanked off the Internet, or for you to be arrested while you hand 'em out.

DON'T FOLLOW TREEBORE'S ADVICE. GO SEE A LAWYER.

 

[tomBitonti]

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.

(Additional text omitted.)

I'm pretty sure that this is _not_ the case.

My (layman's) understanding is that you have to look more broadly at "harm", defined in this case as financial harm.

I (fuzzily) understand that losing the ability to potentially sell a product is a harm.

Can someone say if undercutting another products is a value? A product that would dilute a market seems to be a potential value to a competing product, so selling that product (as not the copyright holder) seems to me to be a harm. But I'm getting mixed up with monopoly issues and am trying to figure out if this line of reasoning would be allowed.

 

[Treebore]

In order to have copyright infringement you have to also suffer loss of some kind. This is also in the US copyright laws.

Yes, distributing copyrighted materials, even OOP, is by itself a violation of Copyright, but if you read the laws you will see where in order to bring it to court one of the 3 things you have to show is loss/damages.

Basically, if you cannot also show financial damages, its not worth going to court over, because its not worth the courts time to even rule on it.


Again, don't take my word for it, seek professional advice.


Lord Xeth, find and buy the Goodman DCC's made under copyright. They will be a good guide line to show you what you can and cannot get away with. I believe they said, "Compatible with the worlds favorite fantasy game." Or something similar. I don't think they used "4E" because I believe that might be copyrighted. If you have a 4E WOTC book look in the beginning, either on the title page or soon after. In small print they list what they have a copyright and Trademark on, which isn't much. Realize the copyright only refers to "artistic expression" stuff, so when they say the entire contents is copyrighted it primarily means the exact presentation, artwork, and layout design is protected. Not the rules, not the words, etc... They do have control of certain names, such as any specific characters or monsters.

However, this doesn't mean you can't write up a Red Dragon of your own. You just can't use their version, and the more drastically different you write it up, the better. Orcus isn't even copyright. Such names are used elsewhere in many texts. The Orcus WOTC has control over is the artistic picture they did up and the stats they wrote up for him. Plus the way in which they present/layout creatures in the MM. SO if you write up an Orcus, use an original drawing of him that does not copy anyone elses "Orcus", and write up attributes/powers that do not copy/mimic what WOTC wrote, then your fine. Oh, and do not use their same stat block format. Re arrange it.

I do believe they have copyright of "Mind Flayer" and "Beholder", but only when used in the same context of an RPG. Think about it. Read enough horror type stories and you will see "mind flayer", and everyone knows "Eye of the beholder", so the copyright only covers when the word is used as a name of a creature that also fits WOTC's description of a "Mind Flayer" or "Beholder".

However, it is still wise to avoid any conflict when you can. So even when you write him up differently you would still be better off to write it up not only with different powers, but a different physical description and call it a "Flayer of Minds".

 

[Mistwell]

Giving away someones product for free is decreasing their sales and their goodwill value, and hence causes damages. So for example if WOTC could have sold a similar CD in the future, and you giving it away for free decreased the revenue they could obtain from such CDs, you have damaged them. Or if you giving it away decreases their value as a company to be sold in an acquisition, you have damaged them. Or if you have decreased their ability to make their own freebie as a promotional item for their other products, you have damaged them.

Damages is not just "I am making money you could have made". It can also be "I am losing you money you could have made".

 

[S'mon]

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?

No one has ever been successfully sued for doing this.

Personally I would write something like "Includes stats for use with the 4th edition dungeons and dragons rules. Not authorised by WoTC." rather than "4e compatible". Also the standard TM boilerplate:

"All TMs remain property of their respective owners. Used without permission."

I suggest that before you publish anything you cough up for eg the 4e Kingdoms of Kalamar download to see how Kenzer does it, and follow his model.

Edit: If you are going to use monsters straight from the 4e Monster Manual I'd recommend you just give their name and page number.

 

[pawsplay]

The act of simply giving away the product to someone they didn't want to have access to it could be grounds for a suit. That's a kind of harm, too.

 

[S'mon]

Uh, no. First the court evaluates if the copyright claim has merit. Then if the case has merit, it looks at the losses when considering punitive damages.

This is a significant difference. It means that if you create something that does not infringe copyright, then even if there IS financial loss it cannot be stopped! The financial loss does not determine whether the claim is valid or not. The financial loss determines whether the court will award cash & prizes.


I doubt even you believe what you just wrote. If you do, by all means, point us to a blog entry where you tell us where to go to meet you to get "copies of the Dragon magazine CD's, for free." We'll see how long it takes for either your site to be yanked off the Internet, or for you to be arrested while you hand 'em out.

DON'T FOLLOW TREEBORE'S ADVICE. GO SEE A LAWYER.

I am S'mon and I approve this statement.

Although going to see a real lawyer is not always that useful in these cases. Because they can be sued if they advise you wrong, and because the law is an inherently uncertain field, their (expensive) advice usually comes down to 'it depends'. If you want them to draft some standard boilerplate to mimimise liability it's probably a good idea, but you can see that boilerplate legal text just by buying a book that uses it, say an unauthorised guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer etc.

 

[S'mon]

BTW you can legally include monsters that WotC says are 'Product Identity'- PI is not a legal term. Eg you can have a scenario which says "3 Beholders live in this cave". You can have "3 Hobbits live in this cave", for that matter, although it would annoy Tolkien enterprises, who seek to claim a monopoly on the word.

 

[jmucchiello]

Edit: If you are going to use monsters straight from the 4e Monster Manual I'd recommend you just give their name and page number.

If you are going to do that, you may as well sign on to the GSL. For adventure writing, that is one of the GSL bugaboos.

I will also advise folks to talk to a lawyer before taking advice from this thread, my own included and especially Treebore's advice.