No 4E Fan Content Allowed on the Intenet?

[The Little Raven]

Note that "create their own material" and "post their own material on the web" are by no means the same thing.

That's true, but making the distinction in reference to this Q&A is just semantic song and dance. The question is explicitly about POSTING content to the web, not simply creating it.

Critical Hits: There’s some confusion about producing game content and putting it up on a blog. The Kit says that adventures, monsters and other game content (even ones that are not for profit) are covered by the GSL, but the GSL says it does not cover websites. Where does that leave someone who just wants to post a new power or something?

They are directly asking about fan sites' ability to post game content they created. This is explicit.

Wizards of the Coast: At this time, fans are allowed to use the assets provided in the Fan Site Kit, and they are allowed to create their own RPG material pursuant to the GSL. Anything beyond that is not expressly authorized by Wizards at this time.

In direct response to the question about fan sites' ability to post game content they created, WotC is explicitly saying that fans are allowed to create (and by extentsion, post, since that's what the subject under question) content that is pursuant to the GSL.

 

[Vartan]

The GSL is specific about what sorts of materials I can and can't produce: I can publish a book or an e-book, and I can put up a website to help me distribute a book or an e-book, but I can't publish new game materials directly to a website.

I could always have a web site where I write about D&D: I could blog about last night's game, or make a forum where my friends and I could talk about our favorite powers, but if I want to use the special powers of the GSL to publish game materials that work with D&D then those game materials must be distributed in a way that conforms to the GSL (i.e., books and e-books, not web pages and blog posts).

 

[Dragonblade]

So it comes down to a simple axiom. Don't post any 4E fan site at all and you're safe from any potential legal action from WotC.

Which is the exact same axiom that would apply to anyone making a fansite for any IP they don't own themselves be it Star Wars, World of Warcraft, or whatever.

 

[Hairfoot]

"Don't ask, don't tell" sounds a lot like "suspend an axe over the necks of enthusiastic gamers".

It's not nice to menace the fanbase with uncertain terms and conditions. It's understandable that Hasbro doesn't want to test the legal limits of its stated policies, but having a legal team peering over the shoulder of every gamer on the net isn't very encouraging of fan-produced material. It seems similar to Hasbro's line on old-edition clones: you can enjoy them only as long as we tolerate you.

Is it unreasonable to view these approaches as a deliberate attempt to control content so that only official, trademarked creativity is allowed into Dungeons & Dragons?

Retaining control over system details is sensible, but how far does the limitation go on trademarked names and ideas? Obviously, it's not OK to put up a site containing lists of feats and powers copied verbatim from a book, but how about a tweaked or new feat with an existing name? What if someone uses "Eladrin" or "Shadow Wizard" or "Greyhawk" in a fan fic?

Gamers often put a lot of time and effort into their own material. Is it acceptable for Hasbro to be able to limit or seize that material without clearly explaining beforehand what's allowed?

Probably a good fighting wine like Melbourne Old-and-Yellow, which is particularly heavy and should be used only for hand-to-hand combat.

While less refined, Chateau Chunder is also reliable.

 

[Hussar]

Well, Hairfoot, it might be seen as vaguely threatening and whatnot, we can only look at the track record.

What actions has WOTC taken against OSRIC? or other retro-clones. There are a bajillion sites out there that violate WOTC IP left, right and center. Posting the entire text of 3e feats from multiple source books, etc. etc.

Other than going after a directly competing website that was charging money (that Italian one whose name I forget), how often has WOTC in the past decade stepped up to take a swing at a fansite?

 

[El Mahdi]

While less refined, Chateau Chunder is also reliable.

What about a nice Chianti? (or is that reserved for human liver).

 

[Hairfoot]

There are a bajillion sites out there that violate WOTC IP left, right and center.

Can you link me to some?

 

[Umbran]

That's true, but making the distinction in reference to this Q&A is just semantic song and dance. The question is explicitly about POSTING content to the web, not simply creating it.

Yes, but it was a question about legality - what licenses allow and what they don't. The answer, then, is not really conversational. The details matter quite a lot.

They are directly asking about fan sites' ability to post game content they created. This is explicit.

Yes. But since when are people restricted to answering the question you asked in the way you want it answered?

My point being that WotC did not clearly answer the question. They did not explicitly say, "You may post content on your websites." That must be inferred from their answer, and inferences are not safe legal territory. If you did something they didn't like, and you got a C&D letter, you could not point to this answer and say, "They said I could do it!" They can very clearly say, "We specifically did not authorize that."

I expect that is intentional, and actually a good thing for both us and WotC.

I give you the analogy to EN World's Rules of conduct. We have very few hard and fast rules - "Keep it civil" is open to a lot of interpretation, and that, too, is intentional. Hard and fast rules have loopholes you can't close, and have to be enforced even when the spirit of the law has not been broken. Vague rules allow both sides to flex a bit and be understanding.

I think it would be better for WotC to frame the issue in such terms, but perhaps the legalities prevent it.

 

[evilref]

Most rpg companies don't have a fansite policy, this would mean that everyone who creates a fansite for that company's game would be vulnerable to being sued and without clear guidelines on what they can/can't do.

Of those who do, some claim that anything you publish (which includes posting it on a website) that is derivative of their material is their property (as in they can take it and use it). At least one claims copyright over all characters you create for their games.

Some few have more lenient policies. WotC's is pretty clear as to what you can and cannot do and how your rights and theirs merge or separate.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Actually, a friend of mine works for an internet service provider, and WotC has sent out one or to CoDs at websites for no discernable reason, such as claiming that having character sheets was something you weren't allowed to do.

Nothing they followed up on, but there are at least one or two lawyers snapping at tennis balls.