Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 144619" data-attributes="member: 2013">Re: Re: Re: It's finally happening - an OGL spell compilation - thoughts from publishers?Give me just a moment and I'll explain myself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />  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).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.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.True, but again, burden of proving that is derived is a royal pain in the arse.  Won't beat this horse further.Agree.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."*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..." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />--Spencer "The Sigil" Cooley</blockquote>

Verification