Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Knuffeldraak]

Better not tell that to anyone making a movie based on a novel!

Seriously, you are wrong. Open game content derived from someone else’s open game content is copyrightable. It’s the new portions that are copyrightable.

Look the Original Post of this thread...

 

[Tazawa]

Look the Original Post of this thread...

The OP got it slightly wrong as well. If I wrote Harry Potter 8, I could copyright and sell it if I created original material and had the permission (a license) of the holder of the original works. If I did not have their permission, I would violate their copyright.

 

[Jerik]

Look the Original Post of this thread...

The original post in the thread doesn't say that derivative works can't be copyrighted. It only says you can't legally make and sell a derivative work without permission from the original copyright holder. But if you do make a derivative work—because, for instance, you do have that permission—, you absolutely can copyright the derivative work. And if you were using the OGL, at least prior to this OGL 1.1 debacle, that license gave you that permission.

Tazawa is absolutely correct. Derivative works can be copyrighted—at least the new material in them can be. Heck, the OGL (1.0) itself tells you to add your copyright notice to Section 15. Why would you add your copyright notice, if you couldn't have a copyright on the work?

 

[Knuffeldraak]

The OP got it slightly wrong as well. If I wrote Harry Potter 8, I could copyright and sell it if I created original material and had the permission (a license) of the holder of the original works. If I did not have their permission, I would violate their copyright.

Except it's not an Original Work if it's based or derived off another work. That's where the pitfall is.

 

[Jerik]

Except it's not an Original Work if it's based or derived off another work. That's where the pitfall is.

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure whoever wrote the U.S. Copyright Office explanation on derivative works was, or at least consulted one:

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting “work” and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work.

That is, you can't copyright just a direct duplication of an existing work, but if you add to or modify it you can copyright the version with your additions.

The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work.

You can check the link for yourself. There are detailed descriptions of how copyrights work for derivative works.

 

[kjdavies]

I was talking about Unearthed Arcana, not the Monster Manual II. (Turns out both books happen to have the OGL on page 222. Huh.) The Unearthed Arcana OGL does include the proper copyright notices in Section 15. You're right, though, that the MM2 OGL doesn't—I hadn't checked that one. Maybe that's the botched use of Open Game Content jgbrowning was thinking of.

Probably not a totally weird coincidence, given 16-page signatures. OGL is customarily near the back, 16 pages/signature * 14 signatures = 224 pages.

 

[Knuffeldraak]

The original post in the thread doesn't say that derivative works can't be copyrighted. It only says you can't legally make and sell a derivative work without permission from the original copyright holder. But if you do make a derivative work—because, for instance, you do have that permission—, you absolutely can copyright the derivative work. And if you were using the OGL, at least prior to this OGL 1.1 debacle, that license gave you that permission.

Tazawa is absolutely correct. Derivative works can be copyrighted—at least the new material in them can be. Heck, the OGL (1.0) itself tells you to add your copyright notice to Section 15. Why would you add your copyright notice, if you couldn't copyright the work?

The Original Post says;

- both the original work and any Derivative Works of it are protected by the same copyright

And

- you can't copyright

IANAL, but I'm pretty sure whoever wrote the U.S. Copyright Office explanation on derivative works was, or at least consulted one:

That is, you can't copyright just a direct duplication of an existing work, but if you add to or modify it you can copyright the version with your additions.

You can check the link for yourself. There are detailed descriptions of how copyrights work for derivative works.

I'll have to read on that tomorrow. 2 am is late enough.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

True. Nonetheless, the Kobolds have clarified that they intend to clone 5e as an open rules system:

Kobold Press Announces New Core Fantasy Experiment

Kobold Press Announces New Core Fantasy Game As Dungeons & Dragons moves toward the 50th anniversary of the game, foundational changes are afoot in the tabletop roleplaying game arena. While we wait to see exactly what shape the Open Gaming License might take in this new era, Kobold Press is...

koboldpress.com

thank you I have had so many issue with that site that is good to know

 

[Jerik]

The Original Post says;

- both the original work and any Derivative Works of it are protected by the same copyright

And

- you can't copyright

The original post says nothing of the sort. You're reading things into it that aren't there. (Admittedly, that part of the post is very sloppily worded, so I can see how it could be interpreted that way.)

Third, not only is the SRD protected, but any derivative works of the SRD are protected. ... Copyright protections protect not only the original work, but also any derivative works.

This doesn't mean the derivative works are under the same copyright, nor does it mean that you can't copyright your derivative work. I'm pretty sure all it's trying to say is that since the SRD is copyrighted, you're prevented from creating and selling derivative works without permission—that is, it protects against the unauthorized creation of derivative works.

Again, the OGL 1.0 itself tells you you have a copyright on your derivative work. It specifically directs to you add your own copyright notice to Section 15. Why would it do that, if you didn't have a copyright on it?

I'll have to read on that tomorrow. 2 am is late enough.

You... might want to read that before commenting further on this topic, because it's very relevant. I mean, if the U. S. Copyright Office explicitly says you can copyright derivative works (and it does), I think that very much trumps anything anyone in this thread says, including the OP.

 

[demoss]

Whew, what a thread! In case any of the lawyers are still present, I have a question not yet asked: is there any room for a third-party test case in court in a case like this? All this Anglo-Saxon common law strangeness baffles me completely...

Could a case be manufactured by someone not-Hasbro-or-Wizards that would settle a relevant question about the OGL? Or would that be completely meaningless even if possible?