Massive Open Content SRD

[jmucchiello]

Yeah, but in a lot of cases, I would argue their trademarks really aren't that valuable to begin with.

While I agree that trademarks of characters and places are really worth anything for most* publishers, the most important trademark you are going to run a foul of in an index of this kind is the publishing company's name. They are most certainly trademarked and of value and thus must be protected by the company.

* Problem with most is, you never know what might become a phenomenon. What if Midnight became a huge success with movie, book and toy tie-ins? Suddenly, all the names of people and places in Midnight have great value. While TDG publishes as 100% OGC, any setting we publish will PI all the names, places, themes, etc therein because, you never know what might take off. (Although I might forgoe PIing the poses. )

 

[Mark]

... could be a way to build awareness and increase sales.

This is another one of those myths that always makes me cringe. If someone is really interested in helping increase the sales of a product or building awareness, they can do so directly by telling everyone about it or writing reviews. Stripmining the OGC from products isn't really about trying to help the original publisher. Let's drop that bit, please, as it seems disingenuous, even if some few people actually want to believe it.

 

[DaveMage]

While I agree that trademarks of characters and places are really worth anything for most* publishers, the most important trademark you are going to run a foul of in an index of this kind is the publishing company's name. They are most certainly trademarked and of value and thus must be protected by the company.

* Problem with most is, you never know what might become a phenomenon. What if Midnight became a huge success with movie, book and toy tie-ins? Suddenly, all the names of people and places in Midnight have great value. While TDG publishes as 100% OGC, any setting we publish will PI all the names, places, themes, etc therein because, you never know what might take off. (Although I might forgoe PIing the poses. )

That's true. It's more along the lines of the fact that some close the content on simple feat and spell names that don't even have a proper name in them. I really don't see that there could be much lost value in someone else using that.

The name of a company and the campaign setting is certainly worth protecting, as are its major characters, but incidental characters and things like that - well, not so much methinks.

 

[Mark]

I'm not saying that publishers who don't share their content aren't doing it "legally" or "right". They certainly are from a legal perspective

That's the only perspective the license can address and the license specifically states that additional conditions or restrictions are not allowed.

I use the term "spirit" because in the few legal classes I have had, the theory comes up that there is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law".

Laws are different from contracts.

What I do have a personal issue with (and it's important to point out that this is a separate issue from the original topic of this thread), is that some publishers are more open than others with regard to their OGC. This is not saying they don't have the RIGHT to limit their OGC that, but rather that I am disappointed with the decision. I'd rather have publishers use each other's work and/or improve upon it as was one of the intents of Open Gaming to begin with (see Ryan's interview).

How much a publisher releases as OGC has no effect on how much other publishers will use and/or modify. They are two separate topics.

 

[Yair]

Be specific. Blanket accusations do no one any good. Who has kept closed material that should be open and what is the material that should be open? Make sure you are right, though, when you are making accusations. Consider it your first foray into the world of being legally correct while under the microscope with the rest of us who do it for a living.

Actually, NOT being specific is more proffessional, and will not get you sued. If you are truly interested, however, and since I'm not proffessional - consider for example the following declaration from Soul Harvest by Khan's Press (which does not cover the bonuses per level for Evil characters in the setting, amongst other things):

Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby
designated Product Identity: All campaign world names and setting information, proper names of NPC’s, all other material not identified as Open Game Content below, and all artwork remain the work of the writer or artist, and may not be used without permission, except for review purposes.
Designation of Open Game Content: All feats, classes, prestige classes, spells, magic items, and monsters are considered Open Game Content. Format used under the Open Game License.

I wonder if such content is in some kind of Limbo, and if soif it's an OGC plane

There is a difference between "a law" which is meant to cover a general situation or set of circumstances and "a contract" which is a legally binding agreement that is meant to cover specific circumstances and define circumstances beyond the need for interpretation. I do not believe that is something peculiar to America.

There is a difference, but it isn't germane to the issue. A contract is a set of rules, just like a gentlemen's club rules or the contitution of the USA. The concept of the "spirit of the law" where I live (IMHO) applies to contracts, monopoly game rules, or any rules system whatsoever. Even D&D (for example: the fact that you can't take any action when dead is, IIRC, not explicitly stated in the rules, but it sure is in their spirit).

Fewer trees, with fewer lemons on them, with more spots on the lemons that would need to be extracted (PI), and all of the other things that tend to annoy other publishers who might then utilize less and less of other people's material, etc. It's a slippery slope of legal obfustication that I'd rather not contemplate. Yet, what is the upside? Freely distributed OGC for the sake of freely distributed OGC? How many will benefit from whatever gets accomplished compared to how many might be harmed by the backlash? Heck, I don't know and it really won't change the way I do things bvut I'm just a one-man operation and not personally responsible for large swaths of OGC year after year like some publishers who could actually be harmed by such widespread (though, granted, possibly legal) redistribution of the OGC they R&D product after product.

Ehh.... I'm not going to ruin the industry here. Really, even if the entire content of every product will be released nearly instantenously, I'd be surprised if a significant reduction in sales will manifest. I would be more concerned about piracy than free extracts (not that you can do much about either). Some limited resource that puts out stripped down versions of the original old-news products (often missing key sections that are not open, cool art and design, and so on) is not going to destroy the market.
It will be useful for a small percentage of the already-small percentage that is extensively on-line and uses the internet significantly. As that small portion of the market includes me, I am interested in pursing the idea.

I'm not planning on making a resource that will be used instead of purchasing a new product, or that will deliver the full utility of the original. I'm intentionally trying to come up with a scheme that won't do that, while fulfilling my goals.
As I said, I'm thinking.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

This is another one of those myths that always makes me cringe. If someone is really interested in helping increase the sales of a product or building awareness, they can do so directly by telling everyone about it or writing reviews. Stripmining the OGC from products isn't really about trying to help the original publisher. Let's drop that bit, please, as it seems disingenuous, even if some few people actually want to believe it.

I'm personally taking this gamble.

I am hoping that my audience will show some reserve and not essentially republish the entire thing on the web. I am hoping that other publishers won't just rip out the words and republish the entire document. The idea would be to encourage sales about a publisher and a product that are currently unkown.

Far, far too soon to tell, of course. Expect a mopey epic length post entitled "Why, Oh Why?" if I'm wrong.

 

[Yair]

I'm personally taking this gamble.

I am hoping that my audience will show some reserve and not essentially republish the entire thing on the web. I am hoping that other publishers won't just rip out the words and republish the entire document. The idea would be to encourage sales about a publisher and a product that are currently unkown.

Far, far too soon to tell, of course. Expect a mopey epic length post entitled "Why, Oh Why?" if I'm wrong.

Hmmm... If I understood Mark correctly, all he was saying was that OGC extracts weren't a good way to attract customers. As you yourself say you hope your audience won't publish all the OGC (i.e. all the product, in your case) on the web, I don't see where you disagree.
Mark has a point. I like your setting a lot, but actions I've taken to promote it included posting two reviews and talking about it where I thought it's relevant (like now), and posting a link to it from my campaign's website. Not an OGC extract.
I didn't post an OGC extract (and I won't), I don't think that will aid you and I most certainly don't want to harm you. I did publish what I thought was useful for my players to have online, and that's that.

Mark also seems to insinuate that those extracting the OGC don't have the publisher's best interests at heart. I disagree. I want the extract, but I want successfull publishers too.
I don't want to harm any publisher. I do want to have a super-SRD resource at my fingertips. Still working on how to get them both.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Hmmm... If I understood Mark correctly, all he was saying was that OGC extracts weren't a good way to attract customers.

Whoops. You're right.

(Hey kids! Reading is easy and fun! Learn to read today!)

-BG

PS Thanks for the support Yair!

 

[Mark]

Actually, NOT being specific is more proffessional, and will not get you sued.

I disagree. Firstly, because being professional is not what we were discussing. However, being vague, or specific and wrong, can get you successfully sued, whereas being specific and correct is less likely to get you sued, and even less likely to get you successfully sued. As to what is "being professional" in regard to this situation, I'll leave that for others to judge though IMO that shipped sailed for all involved on this subject before this thread was started, as far as this venue is concerned (We're all members of the Dead Horse Club).

If you are truly interested, however, and since I'm not proffessional - consider for example the following declaration from Soul Harvest by Khan's Press (which does not cover the bonuses per level for Evil characters in the setting, amongst other things):

I wonder if such content is in some kind of Limbo, and if soif it's an OGC plane

I don't understand from your example exactly what the problem is. You need to contact the publisher if you don't understand their designation. If the example said "(such and such)" is PI where "(such and such)" is clearly OGC, then I could understand but your example might just be an example of an unclear designation as opposed to trying to keep somethign closed that should be open. Two different things, IMO.

There is a difference, but it isn't germane to the issue. A contract is a set of rules, just like a gentlemen's club rules or the contitution of the USA. The concept of the "spirit of the law" where I live (IMHO) applies to contracts, monopoly game rules, or any rules system whatsoever. Even D&D (for example: the fact that you can't take any action when dead is, IIRC, not explicitly stated in the rules, but it sure is in their spirit).

You're ignoring my above posts. I believe it is quite germaine to this issue. Laws are wider nets cast to cover wider sets of circumstances. Contracts are meant to be specific agreements between two or more parties. You have to agree to enter into a contract whereas laws can be applied to you even in your ignorance. If, by the rest of what you are saying, you mean to imply that a dead person cannot contribute OGC, I'll concede that point. However, you need to consult with an attorney if you are going to enter into a contract, even the OGL.

Ehh.... I'm not going to ruin the industry here. Really, even if the entire content of every product will be released nearly instantenously, I'd be surprised if a significant reduction in sales will manifest. I would be more concerned about piracy than free extracts (not that you can do much about either). Some limited resource that puts out stripped down versions of the original old-news products (often missing key sections that are not open, cool art and design, and so on) is not going to destroy the market.
It will be useful for a small percentage of the already-small percentage that is extensively on-line and uses the internet significantly. As that small portion of the market includes me, I am interested in pursing the idea.

Ruin the industry? Who knows? There are degrees of everything, afterall. I'm already reconsidering how I intend to release things and how I intend to designate content. There may be others thinking along similar lines.

I'm not planning on making a resource that will be used instead of purchasing a new product, or that will deliver the full utility of the original. I'm intentionally trying to come up with a scheme that won't do that, while fulfilling my goals.
As I said, I'm thinking.

What you plan to make and what you wind up with when finished might be different things.

Mark also seems to insinuate...

If there is something I post that you do not understand, ask me to be more clear. I am very specific about what I post, especially on subjects such as this. Someone can be completely self-serving and still not wish harm on another. Someone need not have another's interests in mind, not mean any harm at all, and still manage to do harm.

 

[DaveMage]

Laws are different from contracts.

Yes they are. But I deal with contracts on a daily basis in my job, and I guarantee you that I will terminate a contract in a second if someone continually breaks the spirit of it, regardless if they are following the letter of it. ("Termination at Will" clauses are my friend.)