(MM2) WotC violates the OGL...

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah...mostly I would think that the company that came up with the OGL and the SRD would be capable of following their own rules.

They, thankfully, don't get too censoring on those that mess up (e.g.: if this was made by someone else, they wouldn't even notice it), but because they *are* WotC, they are held to higher standards...they should be able to get it right.

 

[Nightfall]

Right, wrong, all I care about is a) They legimized S&SS a little more. (S&SS already HAD legimatacy just got a little more cred to it now.) b) they used Creature Collection 1. Just wish they'd use Creature Collection 2.

 

[Numion]

This thread just goes to show that people are soooo eager to point out WotC's mistakes, even if there weren't any.

If people react this negative to a good intent, WotC shouldn't bother trying to help other firms. (It's clearly not enough that it was WotC that made it possible for these firms to even exist in the first place.)

 

[hellbender]

This thread just goes to show that people are soooo eager to point out WotC's mistakes, even if there weren't any.

If people react this negative to a good intent, WotC shouldn't bother trying to help other firms. (It's clearly not enough that it was WotC that made it possible for these firms to even exist in the first place.)

I heartily agree with this comment. At first the 'crash and burn' was funny to me, then the more I thought about it, the more inappropriate that comment was. 'Crash and Burn'? Come on, even if it was, for the sake of argument, a violation of the OGL, doesn't Wizards get any credit or slack for creating the license in the first place? More like ding and dent anyway.

If you think they are the big bad giant, regard how well WoTC handled and helped the companies that made OGL noncompliant material to comply with further releases without flexing muscle.

The OGL itself is a quantum leap forward in the rpg industry, and if anything, Wizards should be applauded for allowing all of these other fine companies to exist and thrive.

hellbender

 

[PeterDodge]

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...)

Copyright law seems to allow the copyright of names, at least in Canada. For Canadian copyright, as I understand it, it must simply be "a distintive, intellectual property to which the copyright owner has sufficient rights and interest therein to claim ownership of protection rights thereto."

In English: if you made it or bought it, and it is distinctive (as opposed to deriative) then you can copyright it in Canada.

Gotta love canada, eh?

Anyways, I would sympathize with WoTC if I hadn't hundreds, and I do mean hundreds, of good writers get the c/d (cease and desist) order over aforementioned part of the OGL

 

[Dismas]

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.


--The Sigil

I have just opened my copy of Creature Collection and section 15 is incorrect, they have not added a CC copyright notice(It was one of the first products, I am not knocking it). So if Wizards are only referencing the SRD in their section 15 (I have not seen the product) they are not violating the OGL. (IANAL)

 

[mattcolville]

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

I have just opened my copy of Creature Collection and section 15 is incorrect, they have not added a CC copyright notice(It was one of the first products, I am not knocking it). So if Wizards are only referencing the SRD in their section 15 (I have not seen the product) they are not violating the OGL. (IANAL)

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this is how it works.

You publish a d20 product using the OGL
You include YOUR copyright data in Sec. 15

Someone else publishes a product using the OGL.
They use some of your stuff.
They include THEIR copyright data in Sec. 15 and COPY the ENTIRE copyright line from YOUR Sec. 15.

Now, this produces a weird wackyness. If I publish a product and open A, and you include A in your book and open B, and Dave uses your B, he has to include my copyright data, even though none of my stuff appears in his book. Because he has to copy your Section 15, which includes my copyright notice.

If I've got this right, damn, I'm good!

 

[Duncan Haldane]

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

Now, this produces a weird wackyness. If I publish a product and open A, and you include A in your book and open B, and Dave uses your B, he has to include my copyright data, even though none of my stuff appears in his book. Because he has to copy your Section 15, which includes my copyright notice.

Interesting - I hadn't thought of this.

Also I dread to think of what the S15s may look like in a few years time.

Duncan

 

[Nellisir]

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

Interesting - I hadn't thought of this.

Also I dread to think of what the S15s may look like in a few years time.

Duncan

In a few years time, it'll be worthwhile to use the original product, rather than one that's a few generations descended. Also, in many cases it may be difficult to tell what material came from what source, so copying the entirety of S.15 would be the only way to insure some kind of creditation.

Nell.

 

[Orcus]

A few things...

Matt, actually not quite. If the publisher only uses B then he only has to put the copyright info from product B not A, even if B contains A, as long as he doesnt use A. I know the license seems to say otherwise, but that is the accepted interpretation.

As for MM2, Steve and I did come to an arrangment with WotC.

Nightfall, actually, I would be the guy since I am the listed copyright holder of the CC.

As for WotC's Section 15, I havent seen the book, but it would be hard for them to use ours since we did it wrong (and yes, this was due to inexperience and being the first major distributor of OGC because remember the CC came out before the MM and DMG).

Clark