GSL-What happens when someone uses my OGC?

[madelf]

No. WotC don't have the right to license your OGC under a new license or allow anyone else to do the same. The only way Bob can use your OGC is by using the OGL and he's expressly forbidden from doing that in any product he is producing under the GSL. Bob would have to contact you and get a separate agreement from you to use your monster in his GSL product if that's what he wanted to do.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure.

6.1 says that if they have "previously published a product under the OGL" then they "may publish a Licensed Product" "that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product."

Since CompanyBob published the open content from CompanyKen in "Castle Deathskull" under the OGL, the GSL says CompanyBob can now publish that same content under the GSL. It doesn't specify that only original content can be converted, it says that "the same" content can be converted.

So they seem to intend that OGL open content should travel freely to a GSL product in the same way it would to another OGL product (although it's a one way trip). Now I don't know if that actually works legally, but that sure looks like what it says.

 

[jmucchiello]

If it ever did that would nix a whole bunch of coversion projects because so many d20 products reference other peoples' OGC in their section 15... the whole point of the OGL/OGC was to "open" the content. How can one have sole ownership of content (other than IP)that has been "opened"?

Oh, well.

That's why it doesn't say that yet. But if pubs start doing funny stuff to get around those restrictions, the response might be messy.

 

[jaldaen]

That's why it doesn't say that yet. But if pubs start doing funny stuff to get around those restrictions, the response might be messy.

I agree... I was just pointing out how messy it could get

 

[jmucchiello]

So they seem to intend that OGL open content should travel freely to a GSL product in the same way it would to another OGL product (although it's a one way trip). Now I don't know if that actually works legally, but that sure looks like what it says.

If it became a sticking point, a quick alteration of the OGL is not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[useridunavailable]

Don't the terms of the OGL explicitly state that any OGC can only legally be republished under the OGL? The GSL also explicitly states that GSL content can't be published under more than one license. Wizards has no right to assert that a GSL agreement into which someone else entered somehow has the ability to invalidate an OGL agreement into which you entered with respect to an earlier product. Your original OGL agreement as it pertains to your IP can only be invalidated by you, not someone else. Wizards of the Coast has no such authority, nor is it granted by the OGL.

 

[Ourph]

So they seem to intend that OGL open content should travel freely to a GSL product in the same way it would to another OGL product (although it's a one way trip). Now I don't know if that actually works legally, but that sure looks like what it says.

WotC doesn't have the right to unilaterally alter the conditions and requirements of the OGL as it pertains to Bob's obligations to Ken and his OGC. The only thing that gives Bob the right to use Ken's OGC is the OGL. The OGL requires that Bob include the OGL in any product that uses Ken's OGC. If he is prohibited from including the OGL in his GSL-based product, he no longer has the right to access Ken's OGC. WotC doesn't have any right to change the conditions of the license under which Bob gets to use Ken's property (and OGC remains Ken's property, despite the fact that he agreed to let Bob use it in accordance with the restrictions set forth by the OGL). In fact, section 10.2 makes this very clear...

Licensee will obtain all required licenses and permissions for its use of Third Party IP in the Licensed Products.

In this regard, the OGL isn't treated differently than any other license agreement. Since the OGL isn't an option, Bob has to get Ken's specific permission to use his monsters by entering some other license agreement.

Does this make updating OGL products that made extensive use of other people's OGC problematic? Absolutely! But there's nothing anyone can do about it, given the restriction against including the OGL in GSL-based products.

 

[jaldaen]

Since the OGL isn't an option, Bob has to get Ken's specific permission to use his monsters.

I think the question isn't about PI (Product Identity), but OGC and how it is converted to 4e. From my understanding you can convert anything to 4e that once was OGC. However, if your product included another company's IP you would have to seek specific permission. The thing is not many people used each other's PI, but a lot of people used each other's OGC.

 

[Ourph]

I think the question isn't about IP, but OGC and how it is converted to 4e. From my understanding you can convert anything to 4e that once was OGC. However, if your product included another company's IP you would have to seek specific permission. The thing is not many people used each other's IP, but a lot of people used each other's OGC.

I think you're misunderstanding a couple of important distinctions.

First, the GSL doesn't even mention OGC it only talks about updating products released under the OGL. So it doesn't (and can't) grant any specific permission to update OGC (either yours or somebody else's).

Second, if you release something as OGC, it still belongs to you, it is still your intellectual property. You are granting people a perpetual, royalty-free license to use that intellectual property as OGC under the terms of the OGL, but you aren't giving up your right to claim it as yours. If someone doesn't use the OGL to publish their book (either because they don't want to or because they are prevented from doing so by other license restrictions), they aren't granted that perpetual, royalty-free right to use your property.

Outside the framework of the OGL, that "open" material you created isn't different than any other property you own. If someone uses it outside that framework they are infringing on your copyrights just as much as if you'd never declared it OGC in the first place.

WotC doesn't have the right to create a new license that just invalidates your ownership or your right to enforce the stipulations of the OGL on anyone using your property. They are a party to the OGL just like Ken and Bob are and don't have any more right to unilaterally alter the agreement than Ken or Bob do.

Part of the process of updating any OGL work to the GSL will be either expunging any 3rd party IP that was originally used as OGC through the OGL or getting special permission from the owner to use it through another license agreement.

 

[jaldaen]

I think you're misunderstanding a couple of important distinctions.

Sorry, I inverted IP and PI... I was meaning PI (Product Identity) as defined by the OGL... darn acronyms

So does this mean a publisher who prided themselves on using OGC IP (now I've got it right) with long section 15s will be having a nightmare with their conversions because they essentially have to get the "okay" of every single company they use OGC from in the product they want to convert to 4e? Wow... that's really going to be a crazy mess, especially considering some of those OGC content publishers are not necessarily 1) still around, 2) going to convert to 4e.

 

[Greylock]

CompanyBob comes by, uses my monsters in their Castle DeathSkull adventure under the OGL.

CompanyBob's Castle Deathskull TOTALLY rocked, and I'm bummed that they decided to go 4.0 with it, meaning we'll never see Return to Castle Deathskull in an adventure compatible with our game. Was Castle Deathskull 100% OGC? I'll have to check when I get home. If so, I might start up my own CompanyGrey and put out a OGC compatible Return to Castle Deathskull.

That is, if jgbrowning hasn't already beaten me to it.