Fifth Element
Legend
Presumably related to ettin (meaning giant), which is related to jotunn (meaning giant).
Loremaster Article: To GSL or not to GSL?
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Heh, Ashoreth, Isis, Ishtar, Eostre, Easter, and East.
Some words have legs!.The Auld Grump
rogueattorney
Adventurer
I'm an attorney. (See the user name I gave myself nearly ten years ago when I was young and still impressed with myself for making it through law school.) Though not an IP attorney by practice, I do consider it a bit of a hobby.
There are a number of issues that this thread brings up I'd like to comment on.
The Games & Law article posted by DMMcCoy was interesting, but it glosses over a couple of things.
First and foremost, it glosses over the sheer volume of D&D knock-off products that came out in the '70s and '80s. I'm not talking about the "near-D&D's" out there like Tunnels & Trolls and the 1st edition of Palladium FRPG. Rather, I'm talking about the plethora of outright D&D supplements that were published by third parties. The Afterglow web site was the best web resource for these products, but it has long since been lost to the Internet aether. Afterglow2 is nowhere near as comprehensive or informative and hasn't been updated for almost 5 years, but at least gives you an idea of the volume I am talking about. That there was only one lawsuit that we have all heard of out of this (Mayfair) says something about the actual risk involved in publishing "generic" D&D supplements.
Second, the article misses one of the big points that came out of both the Mayfair and GDW litigation... That TSR, when faced with being unable to litigate the other party out of business, PAID THEM MONEY TO STOP COMPETING WITH THEM.
So, what it comes down to is risk. As to that, I can only repeat what I've told many a client, "Anyone can sue anyone for anything; the only question is whether they'll be successful." A basic question for anyone when considering a business venture is, "What happens if I get sued?" and in that respect game publishing is not unlike any other endeavor out there. To that end, all you can do is to be informed of what your rights are and insulate yourself from risk as best you can. (Insurance, incorporation or limited liability, and most importantly - TALK TO AN ATTORNEY - don't take advice from anonymous Internet message board posters.) Frankly, I think there are far more legally risky industries out there than game publishing. For example, if you are a landlord, it's not a question of if you'll ever be sued by a tenant, but when.
I think small rpg publishers and more importantly potential small rpg publishers are still living under the "chilling effect" caused by TSR's near-constant saber-rattling of 12 or 15 years ago, in which TSR earned the well-deserved sobriquet, "They Sue Regularly." However, I think history shows that when the publisher stood up to TSR, TSR lost, and that TSR's blustery nature did a lot more harm to themselves than good.
I think OGL is an interesting "deal with the Devil" in that you get express permission to use the SRD terms so long as you don't claim that your product is compatible with any trademarked game (i.e., D&D). From a cynical point of view, it almost seems like an open threat to sue people who claim compatibility with D&D. More generously though, I think the OGL went a long way towards getting more small game companies out there putting out art, and without it I don't think you see the OSR products I've been spending too much money on for the last 5 years or so.
As for the GSL, I feel much the same way about it that I did for the d20 license. It all depends on how important it is to you that you have that "is compatible with..." language on your product, Coming at the question from the point of view of a consumer who long ago lost any interest in what TSR or WotC considered "official" or "approved for use with..." that little blurb and symbol on the product has no weight for me whatsoever. But then, it's quite likely that I'm not among the audience anyone considering using the GSL is trying to sell the product to.
To sum up, while I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer and am not giving anyone legal advice. If anyone is interested in exploring the legal issues of their particular situation, please consult an attorney in your particular jurisdiction as laws differ from state to state and from country to country.
There are a number of issues that this thread brings up I'd like to comment on.
The Games & Law article posted by DMMcCoy was interesting, but it glosses over a couple of things.
First and foremost, it glosses over the sheer volume of D&D knock-off products that came out in the '70s and '80s. I'm not talking about the "near-D&D's" out there like Tunnels & Trolls and the 1st edition of Palladium FRPG. Rather, I'm talking about the plethora of outright D&D supplements that were published by third parties. The Afterglow web site was the best web resource for these products, but it has long since been lost to the Internet aether. Afterglow2 is nowhere near as comprehensive or informative and hasn't been updated for almost 5 years, but at least gives you an idea of the volume I am talking about. That there was only one lawsuit that we have all heard of out of this (Mayfair) says something about the actual risk involved in publishing "generic" D&D supplements.
Second, the article misses one of the big points that came out of both the Mayfair and GDW litigation... That TSR, when faced with being unable to litigate the other party out of business, PAID THEM MONEY TO STOP COMPETING WITH THEM.
So, what it comes down to is risk. As to that, I can only repeat what I've told many a client, "Anyone can sue anyone for anything; the only question is whether they'll be successful." A basic question for anyone when considering a business venture is, "What happens if I get sued?" and in that respect game publishing is not unlike any other endeavor out there. To that end, all you can do is to be informed of what your rights are and insulate yourself from risk as best you can. (Insurance, incorporation or limited liability, and most importantly - TALK TO AN ATTORNEY - don't take advice from anonymous Internet message board posters.) Frankly, I think there are far more legally risky industries out there than game publishing. For example, if you are a landlord, it's not a question of if you'll ever be sued by a tenant, but when.
I think small rpg publishers and more importantly potential small rpg publishers are still living under the "chilling effect" caused by TSR's near-constant saber-rattling of 12 or 15 years ago, in which TSR earned the well-deserved sobriquet, "They Sue Regularly." However, I think history shows that when the publisher stood up to TSR, TSR lost, and that TSR's blustery nature did a lot more harm to themselves than good.
I think OGL is an interesting "deal with the Devil" in that you get express permission to use the SRD terms so long as you don't claim that your product is compatible with any trademarked game (i.e., D&D). From a cynical point of view, it almost seems like an open threat to sue people who claim compatibility with D&D. More generously though, I think the OGL went a long way towards getting more small game companies out there putting out art, and without it I don't think you see the OSR products I've been spending too much money on for the last 5 years or so.
As for the GSL, I feel much the same way about it that I did for the d20 license. It all depends on how important it is to you that you have that "is compatible with..." language on your product, Coming at the question from the point of view of a consumer who long ago lost any interest in what TSR or WotC considered "official" or "approved for use with..." that little blurb and symbol on the product has no weight for me whatsoever. But then, it's quite likely that I'm not among the audience anyone considering using the GSL is trying to sell the product to.
To sum up, while I am a lawyer, I am not your lawyer and am not giving anyone legal advice. If anyone is interested in exploring the legal issues of their particular situation, please consult an attorney in your particular jurisdiction as laws differ from state to state and from country to country.
Last edited:
Frylock
Explorer
I also didn't mention that murder is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia (§ 18.2-30), Virginia recognizes tenants by the entirety for ownership of real property (§ 55-20.2), and anyone under the age of 18 that will be 18 by voting day is permitted to register to vote early (§ 24.2-403). I'm sorry for any confusion on these issues caused by my article.
These are all interesting topics, but my article didn't "gloss[] over" or "miss" them. My article, which is the true subject of this entire thread, is on a different and narrow issue: Whether the GSL is absolutely necessary, legally speaking, to publish 3PP 4th edition material.
As I've stated earlier in this thread when others brought it up, very little of what you mention, including the unquoted parts about whether it's a good buisness decision, represents the subject of my article. While off topic, the points you raise are certainly interesting and generally relevant -- I also mentioned that my other articles in the series demonstrate the risk of lawsuits quite clearly -- so I don't want to discourage their discussion. I would, however, appreciate that you not accuse me of misrepresenting, misunderstanding, or not giving due consideration to any of these points.
Thank you and good night.
P.S. Under § 40.1-28.6, an employer may not discriminate on the basis of sex as to how much he pays his employees. I don't believe the section entitled "Game Integrity" made that clear.
P.P.S. I'm not really angry; just trying to keep you all honest. RogueAttorney probably meant no offense.
Last edited:
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
Thank you, Bacris. I appreciate you sharing your experience.
Frylock, Bacris pretty much expressed how I feel in better terms that I was able to. Nice means both "safer" and ... "just feels right."
Frylock, Bacris pretty much expressed how I feel in better terms that I was able to. Nice means both "safer" and ... "just feels right."
Frylock
Explorer
Not a problem. My other articles in the series demonstrate that I agree. "Not safe" is a very important concern, and everyone should be very careful when claiming, for example, it's okay to be screwing around with protected content because it's a "fair use." I don't think people should be trying to break new legal ground (or fine tune the edges of what's legal) unless they have a ton of disposable income on their hands.
"You must spread XP around..." *sigh*
Anyway, well said, I very much agree with everything you wrote (except I still like D&D/4e).
rogueattorney
Adventurer
P.P.S. I'm not really angry; just trying to keep you all honest. RogueAttorney probably meant no offense.
After re-reading my post, I realize that I wasn't clear as to which article I was referring to. I was talking about the article linked to in DMMcCoy's post, not yours. Sorry for the confusion. I'll edit my post for clarity.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Frylock:
You may not be naive about copyright law, but you may be so about ENWorld (or the internet).
Thread topics are allowed to evolve, they are not really bound by anything but the basic rules for ENWorld. You probably don't need to constantly say what the topic of the thread is, especially when it may no longer be so. In fact, one might say that doing so in "counter-productive".
Also, those that say something different then what you said in your article may in fact not be "counter-productive".
Finally, I would guess that you have known all along that the real issue is a fear of a suit, or even loss of goodwill, or even not wanting to have to reveiw a product for disputable text, even if such a suit or loss is legally "baseless".
PS: The reason Open Design and ENWorld and whoever have not been sued is that it is not worth it for WotC to do so.
You may not be naive about copyright law, but you may be so about ENWorld (or the internet).
Thread topics are allowed to evolve, they are not really bound by anything but the basic rules for ENWorld. You probably don't need to constantly say what the topic of the thread is, especially when it may no longer be so. In fact, one might say that doing so in "counter-productive".
Also, those that say something different then what you said in your article may in fact not be "counter-productive".
Finally, I would guess that you have known all along that the real issue is a fear of a suit, or even loss of goodwill, or even not wanting to have to reveiw a product for disputable text, even if such a suit or loss is legally "baseless".
PS: The reason Open Design and ENWorld and whoever have not been sued is that it is not worth it for WotC to do so.
Correct. When we say, "keep it on topic" we mean that we don't want to see folks talking about their fantasy football games in the D&D Legacy forum, unless they're talking about a BloodBowl adaptation.
In general, topic drift happens. We may occasionally ask folks to fork off a separate conversation, but that's rare.
There may be some technical points on which we infringe, but we police all of those that might be seen as losing WotC sales. You'd have to go a long way to interpret EN World as anything but an asset for WotC, Paizo, or any other gaming company.
