No 4E Fan Content Allowed on the Intenet?

[Hussar]

Can you link me to some?

Try searching for feats for one thing. Heck, even the Hypertext SRD contains material which violates the OGL. I forget now which, but, I do know it's there.

I know of at least one site that published every feat from pretty much every WOTC book out there - Dandello's Realms Help pages

That HAS to be violating something. But, it's been up for years.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Can you get a specific example?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Can you get a specific example?

Afraid I can't. Vie reasons of his job, he can't give reference to anything specific. You just have to take my word for it, or, well, not, depending, I suppose

 

[Wicht]

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.

Is that true? Specifically which ones do you mean?

I know Piazo has a fansite policy. Furthermore, they are really good about answering questions put to them concerning what is allowed and what is not allowed. Some googling reveals the White Wolf directly links from their site to fansites. Furthermore as I have read criticism of their policy I am pretty sure they have one. Googling also shows that Steve Jackson has an easy to find, easy to read fansite policy. Mongoose seems to have some sort of policy for Travelers...

I could keep googling but perhaps there are specific companies that are meant?

 

[Jack99]

Afraid I can't. Vie reasons of his job, he can't give reference to anything specific. You just have to take my word for it, or, well, not, depending, I suppose

It's funny you should mention that, because my cousin twice removed's lover's bigsister's fiancé works in WOtC's legal team, and he says they have never sent out such C&D letters. The only people getting those have been people charging for WotC IP or otherwise abusing it (such as posting wholesale parts of WotC products).

Of course, I can't give you his name, because obviously, he would lose his job immediately.

Cheers

 

[ki11erDM]

e

...Piazo... White Wolf... Steve Jackson... Mongoose

I am not answering your question, but I wanted to point out one major difference between these companies and WoTC. They are not publicly held (as best as I can determine). You really should be comparing publically held game companies so you get a real dice to dice comparison.

It is one of the simple things that these conversations always overlook at EnWorld. People just don’t seem to understand how different the legal world works for the two groups.

 

[Mark]

I am not answering your question, but I wanted to point out one major difference between these companies and WoTC. They are not publicly held (as best as I can determine). You really should be comparing publically held game companies so you get a real dice to dice comparison.

It is one of the simple things that these conversations always overlook at EnWorld. People just don’t seem to understand how different the legal world works for the two groups.

It's a good point but you should elaborate, please.

 

[evilref]

Is that true? Specifically which ones do you mean?

I know Piazo has a fansite policy. Furthermore, they are really good about answering questions put to them concerning what is allowed and what is not allowed. Some googling reveals the White Wolf directly links from their site to fansites. Furthermore as I have read criticism of their policy I am pretty sure they have one. Googling also shows that Steve Jackson has an easy to find, easy to read fansite policy. Mongoose seems to have some sort of policy for Travelers...

I could keep googling but perhaps there are specific companies that are meant?

Fantasy Flight Games
Chaosium (nothing easily findable)
AEG (nothing easily findable)
Green Ronin (nothing easily findable for M&M other than Superlink or for AGoT)
ArcDream (nothing easily findable)
Archaia Studios Press
Eden Studios (it had one but the link's gone dead)
Eos Press (nothing easily findable)
ICE (nothing easily findable)

I could keep googling, but as I said, most...

 

[Wicht]

e

I am not answering your question, but I wanted to point out one major difference between these companies and WoTC. They are not publicly held (as best as I can determine). You really should be comparing publically held game companies so you get a real dice to dice comparison.

It is one of the simple things that these conversations always overlook at EnWorld. People just don’t seem to understand how different the legal world works for the two groups.

Are there any other publically held RPG companies?

You're point is well taken. Nevertheless, the poster I was responding to was making a pretty broad statement suggesting that WotC was willing to do something (a fan site policy) that other RPG companies were not willing to do. I did not think this was true but the arguement often gets thrown into these conversations. I recall people posting when the OGL/GSL license was being discussed that they didn't see any other comapnies making any of their books open, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. If the poster meant that no other publically held RPG companies had fan-site policys then his point is both probably true and likely meaningless. WotC is the only publically held RPG producer I am aware of.

 

[evilref]

Are there any other publically held RPG companies?

You're point is well taken. Nevertheless, the poster I was responding to was making a pretty broad statement suggesting that WotC was willing to do something (a fan site policy) that other RPG companies were not willing to do. I did not think this was true but the arguement often gets thrown into these conversations. I recall people posting when the OGL/GSL license was being discussed that they didn't see any other comapnies making any of their books open, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. If the poster meant that no other publically held RPG companies had fan-site policys then his point is both probably true and likely meaningless. WotC is the only publically held RPG producer I am aware of.

Please don't strawman my position.

At no point did I say any other rpg companies were not willing to do so. I stated that other companies didn't have one. That's not the same thing at all.

It could be because they have a relaxed position and don't believe it's needed. It could be because they don't wish to make any such policies public. It could be because it's never come up for them.

I find your mischaracterisation of my post to be deeply flawed.