OGL Questions for all OGL Users

[reanjr]

Trust me, this is something I have been thinking a lot about, because I want to find a way to let my customers know how they can adapt my products to their trademarked campaign, be it Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Arcanis, Iron Kingdoms, etc., without breaching the OGL and getting in trouble. So far what I do know is that I wouldn't necessarily post that information in my company website, but on a forum, that might be doable.

I would suggest to you (as a non-lawyer) to not attach any kind of compatibility message with your product to any of those Trademarks unless you have asked permission from those Trademarks' owners.

As far as fair use goes (as I understand it), you could write the following in the text of a book (but not in any sort of public advertisement):

----
Using Dindledods in Faerûn:

If you are setting a campaign in Faerûn, and would like to use the Dindledods in your game, the following information might be helpful.

The Red Wizards of Thay have a history of animosity towards the Dindledods springing from their conflict during the Time of Troubles. Dindledods receive a -2 penalty to all Charisma based checks when dealing with the Red Wizards and vice versa. Often times, a meeting between the two will result in bloodshed.
----

I would strongly suggest consulting a lawyer first, but as I read the OGL, the Product Identity clause is only in regards to any work of which your product is a derivative. As FR material isn't open, you are not deriving anything from it. Therefore, standard copyright laws would apply. Under fair use, you can refer to other products, names, etc. as long as you are not reproducing their work (and you can even do that if it is only a snippet). You cannot, on the other hand, use the phrase Forgotten Realms, as I understand it, because that would be using a Trademark. I would suggest looking at the legalese in the FR Campaign Setting as well before doing something like this. I am only assuming Wizards of the Coast never registered things like Thay, Red Wizards, Time of Troubles, etc.

In short, I believe you can add compatibility with other settings to your product, but you can not advertise such.

Anyone know any better?

 

[DaveMage]

Anyone know any better?

From the d20 System Guide 5.0:
"Except as specifically required or permitted by this Guide you may not use Dungeons & Dragons, d20 Modern, Urban Arcana, d20 System, Player’s Handbook, Wizards of the Coast, or any other Wizards of the Coast trademark in a Covered Product, in its advertising, or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product."

Emphasis mine.

If you reference any trademarked world, you could be in breach of the d20 license and WotC could revoke your right to use it.

If you are using it in an OGL product only, then that may be different, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

 

[pennywiz]

I cannot speak for this particular instance, but I have heard that Monte and his crew got some additional rights from Wizards for Beyond Countless Doorways. I would think it is reasonable to assume that they received special permissin for this, even if it is informal.

I don't think that is a reasonable assumption at all.

I wouldn't assume that even if WotC were a privately owned company with a single owner who actually had the authority to give such permission, let alone a company that was a small part of a large corporation with stock holders that would have serious issues with any individual employee giving any kind of informal permission for misuse of trademarks or intellectual property.

I know that everyone could post with their own personal opinion and guesses about the situation, and you might even be partially correct (though I doubt it), but I am really interested if someone that actually knows what they are posting about might have some facts.

As far as fair use goes (as I understand it)

I'm afraid that you do not understand it. Laws regarding fair use are meant to protect news services and reviewers, not to open a backdoor to those who wish to skirt the laws regarding trademarks, copyrights, or intellectual property. Here's a place to read a bit, though it won't make you or I an expert by any means.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Now, I don't mean to be harsh but, please, don't keep giving advice (Even with the "I am not a lawyer" caveat). I know it is tempting to jump into the discussion with opinions but there is the possibility that someone will take that advice and wind up in trouble. No offense but I'm afraid that you are just confusing the issue.

 

[barsoomcore]

It seems to me that Monte asked a pretty straightforward question, one that I thought was a reasonable question, in pursuit of an answer. I happen to think the answer he got was pretty reasonable, too, but pennywiz has already reprimanded somebody else for getting distracted by the topic of the quoted post, so I'll say no more on that subject.

I guess the question is, at what point do you draw the line between "conversation" (which is NOT regulated by trademark law) and "advertising" (which is). Note that it's perfectly legal to USE trademarked terms -- so long as you identify that it's a trademarked term and who owns the trademark. Newspaper reporters can use "Dungeons and Dragons" in an article without fear of lawsuits. Note the Boston Globe in this article doesn't even mention WotC. Bet nobody sues the Globe.

And definitely in conversation, there is no enforcement of trademark restrictions -- of course that's somewhat because it's impractical to enforce, but also because trademark laws neither were written nor are interpreted by morons.

So the question becomes, was Monte's post conversation (in which case trademark/copyright law doesn't apply) or advertisement (in which case it does)?

Clearly it's not illegal for Monte to say to his friend, "Yeah, AU's basically compatible with D&D -- just switch a bit of the hoohah and add some yadayada." And clearly it's illegal for him to put on the cover of the book "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons". Is it CLEARLY illegal for him to post a question regarding the book's compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons?

I say no, it's not CLEARLY illegal. And therefore erring on the side of "let's all just get along", I say "Who cares? Sheesh, don't we have better things to do?"

 

[pennywiz]

It seems to me that Monte asked a pretty straightforward question, one that I thought was a reasonable question, in pursuit of an answer. I happen to think the answer he got was pretty reasonable, too, but pennywiz has already reprimanded somebody else for getting distracted by the topic of the quoted post, so I'll say no more on that subject.

As I said, that's a topic for the other thread. Too many threads get highjacked by people who just want to say... or don't mean to change the subject but... The option to poast on that subject is additionally facilitated by my having left a link to follow for those with a mind to discuss the subject further. Thanks for being understanding and posting so extensively about your dropping of the subject.

I guess the question is, at what point do you draw the line between "conversation" (which is NOT regulated by trademark law) and "advertising" (which is). Note that it's perfectly legal to USE trademarked terms -- so long as you identify that it's a trademarked term and who owns the trademark. Newspaper reporters can use "Dungeons and Dragons" in an article without fear of lawsuits. Note the Boston Globe in this article doesn't even mention WotC. Bet nobody sues the Globe.

And definitely in conversation, there is no enforcement of trademark restrictions -- of course that's somewhat because it's impractical to enforce, but also because trademark laws neither were written nor are interpreted by morons.

So the question becomes, was Monte's post conversation (in which case trademark/copyright law doesn't apply) or advertisement (in which case it does)?

Clearly it's not illegal for Monte to say to his friend, "Yeah, AU's basically compatible with D&D -- just switch a bit of the hoohah and add some yadayada." And clearly it's illegal for him to put on the cover of the book "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons". Is it CLEARLY illegal for him to post a question regarding the book's compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons?

Allow me to back up to the tiop of this quoted passage by repeating "I guess the question is" because I guess the question is whether or not a person who clearly represents a company can outright say that his company's product is compatible with a trademarked property of another company, and if that person can say so on the internet in a location that the person knows will potentially reach a large portion of his company's target market. Conversation? Only if you also think that a conversation includes someone using a bullhorn in, for instance, a football arena.

Let's face it, email was also an option, but that isn't really the point anyway.

It just happens that this time it was Monte and I am sure there are plenty of other companies that do the same thing. Or are there? Would, or has, any other company that makes OGL products posted to EN World that they are "completely compatible with D&D"? I'm not sure that I remember such a case.

I say no, it's not CLEARLY illegal. And therefore erring on the side of "let's all just get along", I say "Who cares? Sheesh, don't we have better things to do?"

Thanks for taking the time from your "better things to do" to post.

 

[jmucchiello]

Trust me, this is something I have been thinking a lot about, because I want to find a way to let my customers know how they can adapt my products to their trademarked campaign, be it Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Arcanis, Iron Kingdoms, etc., without breaching the OGL and getting in trouble. So far what I do know is that I wouldn't necessarily post that information in my company website, but on a forum, that might be doable.

Actually, you've ruined your ability to do this right here. If holders of those trademarks wanted to ruin you, they could sue you for violating the OGL and use you post quoted above as proof that you intend for people to associate your material with their trademark. Case closed. You lose.

Take ghostwind's advice and never mention those campaign settings and you materials in the same message again.

[fakequote] So why can Monte imply compatibility with D&D in the same forum? [/fakequote]

Because he still has friends at WotC and because WotC would probably not want to deal with the publicity attached to suing a well-respected member of the industry (who happens to have written their own DMG).

[Bizarre sidetrack] I can just imagine the defense being the D&D was being used as a generic term for fantasy role-playing. And WotC starts putting the words Dungeons and Dragons Brand Role-Playing Game on every press release and book to avoid the scotch tape/kleenex tissue/xerox copy problem. Seriously, how many times have you heard people use D&D to just mean role-playing and not just the specific RPG? [/bizzare sidetrack]

 

[barsoomcore]

I guess the issue, if you think there was a violation, is what do you want done about it?

I mean, yeah, it's in violation of the license, just like his statement to his buddy is clearly in violation. Like I said, it's not CLEARLY illegal -- what's a bullhorn to you may be a whisper to someone else -- but I agree you CAN interpret it as illegal. You can also, I suppose, interpret conversational statements as illegal. People generally don't because there's not much you can do about it in any case.

Have you asked the moderators to delete the thread? That seems the obvious route to take, if you feel there's been a serious violation.

 

[barsoomcore]

Thanks for taking the time from your "better things to do" to post.

Never said *I* had better things to do. Just wondered.

Apparently, the answer to my question, "Don't we all have better things to do?" is, "No."

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

On a related topic, how do people who use the OGL feel when someone else blatantly ignores restrictions in the license?

Are some companies who use the OGL on a different level than others and therefore able to do things that others are not, or get away with OGL infractions that others are not?

It sounds like you're a lot surer of what the restrictions in the license mean than I am. From the standpoint of someone who sees significant grey areas in both the provisions of the license and the way it's likely to be enforced, I appreciate companies & people who try different things, probe the boundaries, and set precedents. It'd be foolish to assume that because they "get away with" something that everyone else will in every circumstance, but each user of the OGL helps define the landscape by their actions and I'm always interested in seeing what others are doing.

 

[reanjr]

From the d20 System Guide 5.0:
"Except as specifically required or permitted by this Guide you may not use Dungeons & Dragons, d20 Modern, Urban Arcana, d20 System, Player’s Handbook, Wizards of the Coast, or any other Wizards of the Coast trademark in a Covered Product, in its advertising, or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product."

Emphasis mine.

If you reference any trademarked world, you could be in breach of the d20 license and WotC could revoke your right to use it.

If you are using it in an OGL product only, then that may be different, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.

I was only referring to OGL. But that clause leads me to believe my interpretation is correct, or it wouldn't be in there to deny the right for a D20 product.