Hypothetical: I ignore OGL 1.x

[trancejeremy]

I am thinking about doing this, as I have probably a dozen OSR projects that are anywhere from 10% to 95% done, and since I use a lot of converted content from Pathfinder and Tome of Horrors, 1.1 isn't even an option, really.

The problem is, where do you distribute your work? DTRPG has like 90% of the PDF market (maybe higher) and they are pretty much in kahoots with WOTC. Itch.io?

 

[clearstream]

If I had to guess, my guess would be that on the balance of probabilities, they'd probably ignore you. But they could sue you. It's a strategy question for them. They may be right now planning a flurry of Cease & Desist letters to anyone publishing under OGL 1.0.

I think essentially ignore is likely, too. @Reynard described their business model as mail order. It's hard to imagine a mail order product being above the bar for commercial relevance to Hasbro. However, I think they might send a C&D simply in order to a) reserve their rights, and b) avoid inadvertently diluting their rights as may become relevant to other future cases.

 

[S'mon]

DTRPG has like 90% of the PDF market (maybe higher) and they are pretty much in kahoots with WOTC

I don't think Roll20/drivethrurpg are feeling a lot of love towards WoTC right now.

 

[S'mon]

I think essentially ignore is likely, too. @Reynard described their business model as mail order. It's hard to imagine a mail order product being above the bar for commercial relevance to Hasbro. However, I think they might send a C&D simply in order to a) reserve their rights, and b) avoid inadvertently diluting their rights as may become relevant to other future cases.

In Trade Mark law you do have to do that. Not in copyright though.

 

[clearstream]

In Trade Mark law you do have to do that. Not in copyright though.

Wouldn't the totality of their IP under the (putative) license include trademarkable elements?

 

[S'mon]

Wouldn't the totality of their IP under the (putative) license include trademarkable elements?

Well they say themselves, at least impliedly, that the SRDs do not contain claimed trademarks. And they've let everyone use that OGC freely for 22 years. So it would be really weird for them to now claim trademark infringement against someone using their SRD material.

So, no. AFAICS they cannot sue for trade mark violation here.

 

[pemerton]

Well they say themselves, at least impliedly, that the SRDs do not contain claimed trademarks.

An exception: this SRD <https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf> opens with a statement of product identity, and then goes on to say that "All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

Most of the stuff in the PI declaration is not found in the SRD, but at least one bit of it - umber hulk - is. I have a hard time seeing how that might have become a WotC trademark, but they don't seem to be excluding that possibility.

 

[S'mon]

An exception: this SRD <https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf> opens with a statement of product identity, and then goes on to say that "All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

Most of the stuff in the PI declaration is not found in the SRD, but at least one bit of it - umber hulk - is. I have a hard time seeing how that might have become a WotC trademark, but they don't seem to be excluding that possibility.

I can't find Umber Hulk in the SRD? The U monster section only has Unicorn.

 

[Ondath]

I can't find Umber Hulk in the SRD? The U monster section only has Unicorn.

The Umber Hulk is definitely not in the SRD. Source: It was a pain my bum when I had to add it to my Roll20 monsters by hand when I could simply drag-and-drop the SRD monsters.

 

[Jerik]

The SRD 5.0 does not include statistics for the umber hulk, but it does mention it twice: in the spell entry for Guards and Wards (one of the components is "a small amount of umber hulk blood") and in the description of Tremorsense ("Many burrowing creatures, such as ankhegs and umber hulks, have this sense.") Given that they apparently intended to preserve the umber hulk as product identity (hence the lack of monster entry), I'd guess this was just an oversight.

I don't see why it's surprising that they'd consider the umber hulk a WotC trademark, though. It's just as much an original D&D monster as the beholder and the mind flayer.