It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

I don't doubt for a moment that Chris has enough respect for creators and enough professionalism that he will contact ahead of time who he is reprinting and handle it very well.

I am certain you are correct regarding how Chris will act. (You know him, I don't).

But I think the point of this thread, at least as far as I see it, is that he is under no obligation whatsoever.
Do you not agree?

 

[Cergorach]

Umm, isn't there already a compromise in place? These things all happen now: creators get paid, distributors charge for access, and consumers buy content.

So, what are you really saying needs to be done?

The problem isn't with small time companies like FFG (no offense intended), but rather corporations that own rights from people who are long dead, that create a whole inbalance to the whole deal.

Someone wrote a pretty good article on it, explaining it far better than i ever could. Go here:
http://www.farces.com/stories/storyReader$414

My personal preference is that i pay for what i like, and not that i pay for what i might like. Also i like to see the money i pay in the hands of the people who put so much effort in their job, be it writer, artist, bookbinder, or retailer, if people do their work lovingly, i love to give them my money...

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

But I think the point of this thread, at least as far as I see it, is that he is under no obligation whatsoever.
Do you not agree?

That depends on whether you mean a legal obligation or a moral obligation.

One may have no legal obligation to do something, but it might still be the right and proper thing to do.

J

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

Well, the Books of Eldritch Might won't be affected simply because the spells in them are not OGC.

That was an awfully long post to make such a simple mistake so early. I must sheepishly admit that it forced me to abandon the rest of the post as a lost cause. (I'll go back to it, though.)

Anything derived from the SRD is open content. You can protect a spell's name; you may even be able to protect its description somewhat; but you can't protect the mechanics.

It is not necessary to specifically designate as open content anything that is derived from the SRD. It is open by default.

I am also very interested to see how this shapes the d20 world. I don't think it is the death-knell for writers as they will still receive payment when their work is published the first time around.

As for Monte, I will continue to support him no matter what-- PDF and print.

Heh heh... Chris failed to mention that the last 50 pages of the 256 page book are taken up by Section 15...


Wulf

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

That depends on whether you mean a legal obligation or a moral obligation.

One may have no legal obligation to do something, but it might still be the right and proper thing to do.

J

First, I am not in any way trying to imply that it is better, or even OK, to not support the current environment.

That said, I don't see how there is even a moral obligation.

D20 publishers get something in that they get access to the market for free. They also have to give away something. Pretending that they don't have to live up to their end of the deal may be real nice and all. But there is no moral obligation to do so.

Open content is free. You have to provide credit in Section 15. That is the only obligation of any kind.

EDIT: I will also continue to support Monte, as well as the entire d20 publishing community.

 

[Paradigm]

Our summer release of SpellDecks is going to include spells from other publishers. It is our experience that our counterparts have typically been enthusiastic about inclusion into the product.

I have no problem with GR including our spells and wouldn't even if we could prevent it. As long as they respect the IP elements of the spells, as which they must and I am sure they will, there is nothing but an advantage to our products being referenced in a product.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?

That was an awfully long post to make such a simple mistake so early. I must sheepishly admit that it forced me to abandon the rest of the post as a lost cause. (I'll go back to it, though.)

Give me just a moment and I'll explain myself. I meant to do that and I don't think it was a mistake (Monte himself has noted to me in an e-mail that this it is quite ambiguous whether/what parts of his spells are OGC, so I think my example is perfectly correct - since Monte himself comments that it's tough to tell what's OGC and what's not, I have no problem using it as an example).

Anything derived from the SRD is open content.

That *is* the way it's supposed to work... but there is a HUGE caveat in my mind. IANAL, but I strongly suspect that a lawyer will be able to make an argument that a specific sample <x> was completely original and not derived from the SRD. Basically, a company can say, "oh, I didn't derive that, that's original work" and it is nigh unto impossible to disprove... IOW, burden of proof rests with the person trying to "Open" the material, not with the publisher, and it's probably an almost impossible case. IOW, I wouldn't dare to try to "re-use" stuff from BoEM without asking Monte first, because I couldn't just use it and prove it was OGC if he decided to sue me for copyright infringement (of course, I would ask Monte first and I hope he wouldn't have a problem with the way I wanted to use it, but you get the general idea).

My guess is that companies are being lazy - or deliberately ambiguous - by saying, "anything derived from the SRD" since it is not abundantly clear EXACTLY what is and what is not derived from the SRD.

In fact, it is quite probable that saying, "anything derived from the SRD" is in fact a violation of the OGL, since the OGL states that OGC must be *clearly* delineated (emphasis mine). I would argue that simply saying "anything derived from the SRD is OGC" is NOT clearly delineated, because it is difficult to tell where to draw the line - where did the derivation start/stop?

This is admittedly a pet peeve of mine with publishers but I think it is a valid point... don't give us a fuzzy definition of what is/isn't OGC... make it so clear that I have no ability to argue with your definition. Put the OGC (only) in a shaded box. Put the statement "all text on this page is OGC." But don't tell me "stuff that is derived from the SRD is OGC" because I don't know exactly what you derived from the SRD - I can guess, but I don't know where the line is.

Take as an example, the spell "lightning cross" from the BoEM. It seems clear that the "stat block" is derived from the SRD, and I will concede that point (I imagine Monte will too). But is the explanation of the spell effect derived from the SRD? What about the spell description? The spell name? Where is the line. Where does the "original stuff" begin and the "derivation" end?

Simply put, if a six-year old can't be given a highlighter and be told, "highlight the OGC in this" and get it right within 5 minutes (assume for sake of argument he can read the text of the book and do all the highlighting instantaneously - the 5 minutes is for him to read and comprehend the "Designation of OGC") with nobody able to argue with what he highlighted, you've done it wrong.

Putting in "material derived from the SRD is OGC" is lazy, irresponsible, redundant, and largely useless, IMO.

You can protect a spell's name; you may even be able to protect its description somewhat; but you can't protect the mechanics.

Why can't you protect the mechanics? If I have created a new mechanic that is not covered in the SRD, does it automatically become OGC? Perhaps I introduce a new energy type, "steam," which does heat damage but inflicts half damage on creatures with the fire subtype as well due its "wet" nature. The new "steam" descriptor is obviously a mechanic. Is it original work (and therefore I don't have to make it OGC) or is it derivation (and therefore automatically OGC)? I can make the argument that it is either one, therefore it is ambiguous, and the "derived from the SRD" is NOT a useful designation of OGC.

It is not necessary to specifically designate as open content anything that is derived from the SRD. It is open by default.

True, but again, burden of proving that is derived is a royal pain in the arse. Won't beat this horse further.

I am also very interested to see how this shapes the d20 world. I don't think it is the death-knell for writers as they will still receive payment when their work is published the first time around.

Agree.

As for Monte, I will continue to support him no matter what-- PDF and print.

At this point, Monte happens to be my one exception... his stuff is of such superior quality that I would buy his stuff (at least the stuff that catches my interest) even if it were "all pronouns and prepositions are OGC."

Heh heh... Chris failed to mention that the last 50 pages of the 256 page book are taken up by Section 15...

*ROTFLMAO*
That was brilliant! This is also a potential caveat with "later generations" of d20 collections, I might add. As an example, look at the Fantasy Netbook Community Council's Netbook of Feats (an ENWorld Hosted Site)... the Section 15 itself on that sucker is a page or two long... if you use just ONE feat from this, you have to include the whole Section 15. Now multiply that a few times and you see that the Section 15 can get out of control in a hurry if you don't go back "to the original source" to get your material...

Which restores to original authors a bit of clout, I guess...

"No, I won't provide the original to you with a small section 15 (i.e., just my work and the SRD in the Section 15) unless I get a free copy of your book... look, I'm sorry, but you'll just have to instead include the whole 10 pages of the Section 15 from the compilation where you found it instead... yes, my providing you an original copy would make it into one line to enter into Section 15 instead of 10 pages... think about the cost involved in printing those extra 10 pages every time instead of just giving me a free copy of your book... I thought you'd see it my way... send the book to me at..."

--Spencer "The Sigil" Cooley

 

[Pramas]

Hmmm, maybe I should say a few words.

I think other posters have covered many of the things I would have said, but let me add this. We were very careful when choosing what spells to include to use sources that have been available for quite some time. It was never our intention to "steal sales" from anyone, but to create a useful accessory for gamers. These days, 80% of sales from most d20 books comes in the first three months. None of the OGC we used comes from books that have come out in the last three months EXCEPT material taken from our own books.

I would also like to say that I have always made an effort to "play nice" with other publishers and to live up to the spirit of the OGL. Green Ronin has released the entirety of many of its book as open content, a marked contrast from the strategy some other companies take, claiming everything under the earth and sky as PI.

It is also my intention to properly credit the folks who designed the spells we use. We are not required to do that beyond Section 15 of the OGL, but it's the right thing to do. I've always been a big believer in credit where credit is due.

I believe the Pocket Grimoires are going to be a great addition to the d20 marketplace, and I don't think they will render any products obselete. If you have any further questions about the Pocket Grimoires, I'd be happy to answer them.

 

[Nikchick]

Kenjib, you might be interested to know that since Chris did his chat we've actually been approached by other publishers who have *offered* their material for inclusion in the Spell Compendiums.

I know others have already posted, but I'd like to reiterate that I don't think anything we're planning to include in the Spell Compendiums is going to hurt the sales for other publishers. Let's say Company A puts out a 48-page adventure that includes, among many other things, one spell. Does including that one spell in the Spell Compendiums make Company A's book no longer worthwhile? I don't personally think so. More importantly, now Company A's spell is more easily accessible and more likely to be used by Joe Gamer, who might not have even seen the spell before, embedded in the particular adventure as it was. The creator's work can now be used by a wider audience. Additionally, we've done our best to compile errata and offer cleaned up versions of these spells which might never otherwise see revision beyond postings on scattered websites.

I hope this helps put some of your fears and suspicions to rest.

Nicole

 

[The Sigil]

Good to know...

Hmmm, maybe I should say a few words.

I think other posters have covered many of the things I would have said, but let me add this. We were very careful when choosing what spells to include to use sources that have been available for quite some time. It was never our intention to "steal sales" from anyone, but to create a useful accessory for gamers. These days, 80% of sales from most d20 books comes in the first three months. None of the OGC we used comes from books that have come out in the last three months EXCEPT material taken from our own books.

Glad to know my guesses on the economic way things work (80% of sales in first three months) as a non-marketing person going mostly on common sense/instinct were mostly right.

I would also like to say that I have always made an effort to "play nice" with other publishers and to live up to the spirit of the OGL. Green Ronin has released the entirety of many of its book as open content, a marked contrast from the strategy some other companies take, claiming everything under the earth and sky as PI.

I know you have and do... that's why I buy a lot of Green Ronin stuff.

It is also my intention to properly credit the folks who designed the spells we use. We are not required to do that beyond Section 15 of the OGL, but it's the right thing to do. I've always been a big believer in credit where credit is due.

Another reason I love this community... the vast majority of them do the morally right thing, not just the legal required thing.

I believe the Pocket Grimoires are going to be a great addition to the d20 marketplace, and I don't think they will render any products obselete. If you have any further questions about the Pocket Grimoires, I'd be happy to answer them.

I'll have to start saving my lunch money.

--Spencer "The Sigil" Cooley