(MM2) WotC violates the OGL...

[The Sigil]

Having picked up the MM2 yesterday, I found this a bit amusing.

I understand that WotC is not obligated to follow the 5% OGC rule when using the d20 logo.

But they are as bound by the OGL as everyone else. When they borrowed OGC creatures from the Creature Collection, they crashed and burned.

Mistake 1: They did not update their Section 15 of the OGL. It lists only the Open Game License. By the terms of the Open Gaming License, it must include the Section 15 of the work. Clearly, those creatures were derivative of material from the System Reference Document, so the SRD should have been referenced. While it is possible that they obtained the creatures directly from Clark, without the CC mentioned in the Section 15, I think they probably should have included that as well.

Mistake 2: They declared the entire contents of the creatures OGC. In the CC, the creatures' names are NOT OGC. I don't doubt that Clark gave WotC writtern permission to USE the names. But unless they also have written permission from Clark to do so, they just declared something OGC that they have no right to declare OGC. If they DID get permission from Clark, they probably should have done a better job making it clear that they have it.

I'm REALLY disappointed in WotC hammering on everyone else to "get OGL-compliant, dammit" and then drop the ball so grievously on the very points they scream at everyone else to adhere to (ESPECIALLY Section 15).

Now, here comes my question:

Can Clark use WotC's own lawyers to force WotC to comply with the OGL?

--The Sigil

 

[Xeriar]

Names cannot be copyrighted

Only trademarked. Unless S&S trademarked the names, which would be weird and silly, they have no real legal protection.

 

[The Sigil]

Names cannot be copyrighted

Only trademarked. Unless S&S trademarked the names, which would be weird and silly, they have no real legal protection.

True. But the issue was not that the names are not copyrighted. Read what I wrote again. It wasn't that they USED the names, it was that they declared them as Open Game Content.

The issue is that the names were declared in the CC as Product Identity... also known as "SPECIFICALLY NOT OPEN GAME CONTENT SO YOU CAN'T CALL IT OPEN GAME CONTENT AND YOU MAY NOT USE IT WITHOUT OUR WRITTEN PERMISSION (ESPECIALLY) IF YOU USE THE OGL."

IOW, the CC book says, "these are NOT Open Game Content." The MM2 says, "these ARE Open Game Content" - in direct violation of the terms of the Open Game License, which says that in order to declare something as Open Game Content, you must have the legal right (read: you must be the copyright owner or have the express written permission of the copyright owner) to do so.

Copyright is not an issue here. Compliance with the Open Game License itself is the issue.

--The Sigil

 

[Knight Otu]

As for the names: The creatures are called the Razor Boar and the Scorpionfolk. These are not the names in the CC, where they are called Iron Tusker and Sandmasker, respectively. So unless they also made the original names OGC, there propably is no problem on this side.

As for "hammering" other people to be compliant, the only example I am aware of would be PCGen. In most cases, he people were given a gentle nod into the right direction. IIRC.

 

[Grazzt]

Mistake 2: They declared the entire contents of the creatures OGC. In the CC, the creatures' names are NOT OGC. I don't doubt that Clark gave WotC writtern permission to USE the names. But unless they also have written permission from Clark to do so, they just declared something OGC that they have no right to declare OGC. If they DID get permission from Clark, they probably should have done a better job making it clear that they have it.

WotC changed the creature's names. The names in the MM2 are not the same as the ones in the Creature Collection (which are not OGC).

 

[Ranger REG]

What the HELL?!?!!

Monster Manual 2 contains an OGL?

My God, it IS the end of the world.

 

[Grazzt]

Names cannot be copyrighted

Actually...

However- if you argue that the names are to be considered part of a literary work then they would be subjected to US Copyright laws.

Form FL108 states the following:

"Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the game-board or container, may be registrable"


(But the OGL and copyright law are two different things...)

 

[Grazzt]

What the HELL?!?!!

Monster Manual 2 contains an OGL?

My God, it IS the end of the world.

Just the stuff they borrowed from the Creature Collection.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: (MM2) WotC violates the OGL...

WotC changed the creature's names. The names in the MM2 are not the same as the ones in the Creature Collection (which are not OGC). WotC did it right.

So they did... didn't have my CC around when I made my first post.

They still botched S15, though.

--The Sigil

 

[Moon_Goddess]

Oh well, section 15 is the most botched thing out there, It doesn't really surprise me they got it wrong.