D&D 5E Is this guy legally publishing 5e stuff?

[MerricB]

My impression of most of the 5e-compatible adventures I've seen is that they have legal issues. Funnily enough, the bigger problems generally come down to using the OGL rather than not using it, because it stops you using a few things (like even mentioning Dungeons & Dragons) that you'd be able to do otherwise.

Cheers!

 

[Mistwell]

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, just commentary based on my understanding of all this stuff. 'Kay?)

Nominative use of someone else's trademark is legal as long as you follow certain rules. KenzerCo did it with 4E; "Kingdoms of Kalamar" said on the cover that it was "For use with 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons."

http://www.kenzerco.com/popup_image.php?pID=625&image=0&osCsid=799cb3ad5edbfe55a5410e3f67ff2d23

The reason most publishers don't do it that way is that trademark and copyright law are nasty tricky beasts, full of traps for the unwary non-lawyer. You have to be real careful that your product can't be construed as trying to pass itself off as "official." If you aren't a lawyer and can't afford to retain one, it's easier to play it safe. (Not coincidentally, Dave Kenzer, president of KenzerCo, is an expert in copyright law.)

It looks like this Hass person is not being careful. Calling them "5th Edition Dungeons & Dragons adventures," rather than "adventures compatible with etc. etc.," certainly seems like it could be taken as an attempt to look official. And if he is indeed ripping off the art as well, he's cooked.

KenzerCo had a special license with WOTC for 3e use of the phrase. There is question as to whether it could be used with 4e, but that special license played a big role in whether it was normative use or not.

In this case - it's not normative use. He just uses the phrase Dungeons & Dragons, with no way to immediately tell he's not WOTC or publishing under a license with WOTC. It's blatant infringement in my opinion.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

He needs to fix the D&D reference to "Compatible with," add disclaimers that indicate he is not implying ownership, trademark or copyright on the product, and he needs to either clearly specify he has secured the rights to use the art he has or remove it and get some cheap royalty-free art packages to use (which are plentiful on rpgnow). Adding the OGL would be smart, but beyond that he is not far from producing a product that at least can stand up to legal muster.

His use of the art, if not paid for and agreed upon by the artists (or whoever holds the rights to the pictures) is his most egregious problem, and smacks slightly of the old Outlaw Press problem....which by the way One Book Shelf did take down all the products for. The improper notation on ownership in the text of trademarks/copyrights is his second biggest problem.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

He needs to fix the D&D reference to "Compatible with," add disclaimers that indicate he is not implying ownership, trademark or copyright on the product, and he needs to either clearly specify he has secured the rights to use the art he has or remove it and get some cheap royalty-free art packages to use (which are plentiful on rpgnow). Adding the OGL would be smart, but beyond that he is not far from producing a product that at least can stand up to legal muster.

His use of the art, if not paid for and agreed upon by the artists (or whoever holds the rights to the pictures) is his most egregious problem, and smacks slightly of the old Outlaw Press problem....which by the way One Book Shelf did take down all the products for. The improper notation on ownership in the text of trademarks/copyrights is his second biggest problem.

Could this guy BE licenced for t he art? I really don't know how tight art is, I mean you CAN hire attests pretty cheap...

 

[Morrus]

Could this guy BE licenced for t he art? I really don't know how tight art is, I mean you CAN hire attests pretty cheap...

I assure you that for the amount raised by his Kickstarters, he did not hire Larry Elmore.

 

[steeldragons]

That is a Larry Elmore Dragonlance piece, cover image of the Dragonlance calendar...1987? '88? '89? somewhere in there. It has been a much reused image for dragonlance products several times over the years and most certainly was copyright to TSR who we can only presume sold it as part of the D&D/DL property to WotC. I doubt Mr. Elmore has an claim to it anymore. But it is most certainly not a free/public use image.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I assure you that for the amount raised by his Kickstarters, he did not hire Larry Elmore.

Yeah, and that's not clipart owned by Elmore anyway. I've spoken to Larry Elmore. He's a great guy, who did give me permission to use some of his art that wasn't in his clipart portfolio for a project I was working on. He's more than willing to work with small time publishers. But that's clearly not the case here.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I certainly don't feel it's my place to do so. Unsolicited advice is often unwelcome.

Yep. WotC can handle it fine on their own I figure if they want to. If they don't and he makes some coin and maybe people have fun with his stuff why should we care?

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yep. WotC can handle it fine on their own I figure if they want to. If they don't and he makes some coin and maybe people have fun with his stuff why should we care?

Just noticed your Sig, shouldn't it be 18/00

 

[SirAntoine]

They should just ask him to change the language if it's a problem, but everyone knows what the other companies mean by fifth edition to the world's most popular role playing game. They have stirred interest in this, and it will increase the game's circulation.