Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matt Thomason" data-source="post: 8897060" data-attributes="member: 6777331">That was a complicated case - some judgements went for GW, some against.   It looks like they'd obviously listed absolutely anything they could possibly think of, to see what they could get away with, from fairly solid claims to fairly ludicrous ones.  It also didn't involve any type of license, and wasn't as simple as just quoting blocks of copyrighted text because it was expressions of imagery that were not exact copies but were "close to" the GW originals.A case against a 3PP by WotC feels like it would be far simpler (they're either covered in their usage by the OGL because WotC cannot deauthorize it, or they're not if WotC can), unless the 3PP went beyond the SRD and started infringing on non-OGL work such as lifting bits from actual D&D books.  For this hypothetical, I think we're not going beyond a legit SRD/OGL usage and WotC claiming they've de-authorized the licence permitting it.  Although there is the possibility that the license was invalid but that they still did not use enough significant copyrighted material for it to matter anyway. (It could end up being as amusing as the only infringement being the copy of the OGL itself)</blockquote>