More info about this OSRIC thing?

PapersAndPaychecks said:
Depends on the precise content, but probably yes, I'm afraid.

The clause about wholesale republishing of the rules is there for several reasons.

First, the OSRIC rules are free in .pdf and will be sold at cost in print, and I intend that they should remain so. I don't want anyone else republishing the rules and lining their own pocket when I'm distributing it free.

Second, I don't want to see OSRIC "revised" by anyone except me, because I'm comfortable with its legal status at the moment, but even a small "correction" by a well-meaning fan could potentially put me deeply in legal trouble.

Actually, it depends on what he means by the question, Stuart. If you want to simply print and sell the OSRIC document, you can do that without permission, and if you're doing it in print you can add your logo to the existing ones. But you're not allowed to change anything else in the document.

A DMG-type book could be done without permission, but would only be able to use the term "compatible" if done without permission. If it were to indicate any sort of officiality (like calling itself the "OSRIC GMG," it would need permission to use the trademark that way.

It's not so much about not lining pockets as it is that there shouldn't be multiple versions of OSRIC floating around. If publishers are to use this as a free resourse, they need to be able to identify the "official" version rapidly on the net as their "correct" reference tool. Complete variant versions out there in profusion could submarine the whole project by confusing a new potential publisher.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

John Stark said:
...
You cannot legally publishing using the C&C system. They own that trademark, and have put trademarks on certain parts of their products, that would require you to get their permission to use C&C as a publishing vehicle, and most likely they would end up owning your work and paying you a pittance for it.
....

Do you have any justification for making these claims?

Do you know what rates TLG pays people who write modules for them? Authors who have worked for Necromancer Games and Goodman Games are writing C&C material for TLG. I would thus assume that TLG is willing to pay authors at comparable rates to NG and GG (both established d20 publishers).

Furthermore, it is not clear to me why one could not get TLG's permission to produce material for C&C without giving TLG control over what you produce. TLG does not own or have 'control' over the two modules that Goodman Games has produced for C&C.

James Mishler (an author who has written for Necromancer Games, and a major contributor to their Wilderlands products) will be producing new material for the Wilderlands setting for C&C, with a new company of his own creation. He has permission to use C&C for his products from TLG, but (as far as I can tell) has complete control over the content of his products. (For more infor: http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm40.showMessage?topicID=380.topic .)

I can certainly understand why someone would prefer to write something for OSRIC instead of C&C (viz. a preference for OAD&D rules over C&C, and/or a desire to avoid paying for TLG's permission to use C&C). But I very much doubt that one could expect to make more money self-publishing something for OSRIC over writing a C&C product for TLG. And it certainly is not impossible to retain control over one's products when writing for C&C.

Sorry for the tangent, but your comments regarding TLG seemed both unjustified and snarky.
 

PapersAndPaychecks said:
Second, I don't want to see OSRIC "revised" by anyone except me, because I'm comfortable with its legal status at the moment, but even a small "correction" by a well-meaning fan could potentially put me deeply in legal trouble.
The document itself, I can understand.

But anyone who use your document for their product (free or chargeable) for distribution should be able to Use (by definition; Section 1(g), OGL 1.0a) OGC therein, and that may mean making "small" correction (or modify by definition of Use in OGL 1.0a) and cite your document as their root source (Section 15, OGL 1.0a).
 

PapersAndPaychecks said:
Depends on the precise content, but probably yes, I'm afraid.

The clause about wholesale republishing of the rules is there for several reasons.

First, the OSRIC rules are free in .pdf and will be sold at cost in print, and I intend that they should remain so. I don't want anyone else republishing the rules and lining their own pocket when I'm distributing it free.

Second, I don't want to see OSRIC "revised" by anyone except me, because I'm comfortable with its legal status at the moment, but even a small "correction" by a well-meaning fan could potentially put me deeply in legal trouble.

And how does this work?

Earlier in the thread, you indicated that you were "constrained by the OGL", which I take it means you published the content as OGC under the OGL.

Under the terms of the OGL, no terms may be added to the distribution of open game content. If the entirety of the document is OGL, you CAN'T tell someone else they can't republish wholesale; that's a violation of section 2.

If it does not, in fact, mean that, I wonder what the point is. If sizeable and/or sections are PI, there there is no need for such a restriction, because the PI and traditional copyright restrictions apply.
 

Psion said:
And how does this work?

Earlier in the thread, you indicated that you were "constrained by the OGL", which I take it means you published the content as OGC under the OGL.

OSRIC is certainly published under the OGL. The vast majority of it is also OGC, but some items are specifically listed as Product Identity (see the document for details).

In practise, anyone could republish the non-copyrightable parts of OSRIC anyway, irrespective of other considerations, and an awful lot of it is non-copyrightable game rules.

But, for example, what you couldn't do is use the word "OSRIC" (which is trademarked and not OGC) to describe any system apart from this precise set of rules or a subsequent revision of it.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to reproduce the OSRIC document, you're completely welcome to download the whole thing and host it, email it to friends, distribute it via peer-to-peer networks, or otherwise transmit it in any way you wish.

Just please don't modify the document to produce an alternative complete ruleset without asking my permission.

I wouldn't withhold permission unreasonably, I assure you.

Psion said:
Under the terms of the OGL, no terms may be added to the distribution of open game content. If the entirety of the document is OGL, you CAN'T tell someone else they can't republish wholesale; that's a violation of section 2.

The entirety of it isn't. There's an OSRIC Open License which governs the distribution of the parts of the document that are Product Identity.

Edited to add: I hope that this also answers Ranger REG's post above.
 

Akrasia said:
Do you have any justification for making these claims?

Do you know what rates TLG pays people who write modules for them? Authors who have worked for Necromancer Games and Goodman Games are writing C&C material for TLG. I would thus assume that TLG is willing to pay authors at comparable rates to NG and GG (both established d20 publishers).

Lets just say I have a decent idea of what most publishers pay module writers by the word. ;)

Furthermore, it is not clear to me why one could not get TLG's permission to produce material for C&C without giving TLG control over what you produce. TLG does not own or have 'control' over the two modules that Goodman Games has produced for C&C.

C&C is a trademark of TLG. No one can use that trademark on their product without their permission. That's simply a fact of life. If Goodman is making C&C modules, then they had to get approval for that. And you might note that those writers who did those C&C modules for Goodman worked for them, and thus one corporate entity or another has control over the finished product.

Until TLG starts granting permission to every Tom, Dick, and Harry to slap the C&C label on their module, anyone who wanted to publish one needs their permission, and TLG is certainly within their rights to say no. There may be work arounds an independent author or company might be able to come up with using the OGL, but without TLG's permission, that module will not have C&C on the cover, it will not be able to use the Siege Engine, and various other parts that are protected under TLG's trademarks and copyrights. Thus, TLG has a certain amount of authority about what can and cannot be made for their game. Don't believe me? Try slapping C&C on a product without their permission.

James Mishler (an author who has written for Necromancer Games, and a major contributor to their Wilderlands products) will be producing new material for the Wilderlands setting for C&C, with a new company of his own creation. He has permission to use C&C for his products from TLG, but (as far as I can tell) has complete control over the content of his products. (For more infor: http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm40.showMessage?topicID=380.topic .)

Umm, yeah. You realize that TLG licensed the C&C brand name and rules for this, right? That permission had to be gotten for this deal to go through? That if TLG had told Mishler to go fly a kite, that he'd be out buying string right now?

I can certainly understand why someone would prefer to write something for OSRIC instead of C&C (viz. a preference for OAD&D rules over C&C, and/or a desire to avoid paying for TLG's permission to use C&C). But I very much doubt that one could expect to make more money self-publishing something for OSRIC over writing a C&C product for TLG.

I didn't say that anyone would or should to expect to make more self-publishing, so please don't put words in my mouth. Any venture is a risk of capital, and there is no guarantee of a return.

And it certainly is not impossible to retain control over one's products when writing for C&C.

You might want to check the various official C&C modules that have been published. TLG owns the rights to those, not the authors.

So far, the only avenues I've seen to publish material with C&C on the cover (and specific C&C rules and content under the hood) is to either go through TLG (which means they will retain the rights, not the author), or through another company that has gained a license to make C&C material (which means that company will retain the rights, not the author).

The Trolls are not going to license just anyone to produce material for their game, and licenses cost big money. Someone might be able to retain control of their project by obtaining such a license, but its going to cost and the Trolls must give permission. And that means that, ultimately, the Trolls have a big say in who can publish C&C material, and thus alot of control over anyone who wants to professionally produce game material with C&C on the cover.

Sorry for the tangent, but your comments regarding TLG seemed both unjustified and snarky.

Well, I could say that the C&C crowd are a prickly lot, but what's the point in either of us getting all fired up and defensive about this?

I stand by my original statements. Anyone writing modules for TLG (or any other game publisher these days) is not going to make much for their work (its simply a fact of the state of the gaming "industry"), they won't retain the rights to their work (whether done through TLG or a third party), and they need the Troll's permission to do so in the first place. Technically, even fan-created stuff would need permission from the Trolls before it would be legal, as the profit/non-profit aspect does not matter when it comes to trademarks and the like.

With OSRIC, an author is guaranteed to retain the rights to their work (unless they sell them for some reason), and they need no permission to use the OSRIC rules or the trademark.
 
Last edited:


John Stark:

At the relative "risk" of being considered part of a "prickly lot" let me say that I personally retain the creative rights to materials I have written for C&C. TLG/C&G publishing has rights to their respective game engine and publication and reprinting of any contracted modules/adventure materials for as long as they are in business which is just fine with me. How did I get that? I asked for it in writing.

So your right in a way... I needed and recieved TLG permission to write C&C stuff. True true. However, that whole bit in there that was generalized about not making much or not retaining creative rights and the like is pure bubkis as far as my personal experiences have shown.

I have what I feel is a reasonable and respectful contract which stipulates terms, salary and copywright identity of creative work included in those published adventure materials. I only write for people who can grant me such protection of my creative endeavors.

Since the lions share of written adventures and IP released from TLG to date using the C&C Siege Engine has been produced in house by the authors/publishers of the Siege Engine and C&C (TLG), you would possibly understand that the necessity of such extra product identity and designation outside of the Article 15 licensing notice would be unnecessary. Where additional notice is deemed necessary it is added to the Copywright notice per manuscript and at the authors request. I am sure there are other print publishers out there that do the same, but there are also more than a few who do not, and those do indeed OWN your work lock stock and barrell. In my experience this has simply not been the case in any of my dealings with TLG.

Many people would be surprised to find out that most print publishers do not need to designate the author(s) in their product identity, as most "for print" game work is done on a "work for hire" and "per job" basis as independent outside contract work. Thankfully I have been fortunate enough to work for people respectful enough of my work to name and designate me as author of the published piece, include me as author in section 15 and consistantly pay me for the work I have done.

Thus, to echo Mythmere, please stick to the OSRIC in this thread if you will.

Case
 
Last edited:


PapersAndPaychecks said:
Just please don't modify the document to produce an alternative complete ruleset without asking my permission.

If this is done by following fair use of the Open Game License, then nobody needs to ask your permission at all, right?

Is there any reason why somebody couldn't just do the exact same thing as you did (take the original AD&D rules set and release it under the OGL) with a few things changed here and there? Other than the fact that you did all this work and they didn't, that is.

Cheers,
Cam
 

Remove ads

Top