OGL Questions for all OGL Users

[reanjr]

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.

By informal, I meant no written contract. A gentlemen's agreement. Those are legally binding. Just hard to prove.

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.

Whose word, exactly, would you take? Are you only going to listen to a lawyer? How about only a copyright lawyer? How about only one who has 12 years experience and can submit a resume complete with accolades? Maybe you should clarify "someone that actually knows what they are posting about" because I'm looking through the US Copyright law right now for further information. And as far as I can tell, I am correct on that allowance.

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.

I apologize, you are correct; fair use covers citation only, though it protects individuals using quotes as inspirationals as much as it does reviewers.

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.

FACTS

One thing I do know is that copyright does not protect ideas, but only the presentation method of such.

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.

As you can see, the D20 system is "open" by default. Copyright has no protection over something like that (though patent law does).

Additionally, differences between patents and copyright:

Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be.

Also, on names (as I was originally referring, such as Faurun, Thay, etc.):

Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.

I can find nothing that protects Wizards from having third party developers create works that are compatible (including instructions for compatibility).

I'll see if I can dig up the actual appropriate legal code a bit later (summaries of law can sometimes be misleading).

[edit] Interesting note: the current form of the OGL does not protect a publisher from Patent law. If Wizards were to patent the d20 system, they could sue every single d20 publisher out there into oblivion. Alternatively, they could use it as leverage to force publishers to do what Wizards wishes or suffer the consequences of a Patent suit. This is a huge issue with the GPL (created by Richard Stallman) upon which the OGL was based, and the reason the CPL (created by IBM and heavily used by commercial software companies, including Microsoft) was created.

 

[pennywiz]

By informal, I meant no written contract. A gentlemen's agreement. Those are legally binding. Just hard to prove.

That didn't escape me. The point is that I doubt there is a single person in such an organization who has the authority to informally, or otherwise, dole out such a privelege. The mechanism by which such permission can be fostered is through a licensing agreement. "Hasbro" isn't a nickname for some guy anyone could just call and say, "Hey, buddy! Mind if I drop the word on some gamers that my stuff is compatible with D&D even though I have no licensing agreement?" If someone in WotC is covertly allowing some companies to profess compatibility while denying it to others without a licensing agreement then they would be abusing their authority and heading for trouble. Such an "informal" "gentlemen's agreement" (as you say) would be jeopardizing the trademark and I highly doubt anyone at WotC or Hasbro would do such a thing.

Whose word, exactly, would you take? Are you only going to listen to a lawyer? How about only a copyright lawyer? How about only one who has 12 years experience and can submit a resume complete with accolades? Maybe you should clarify "someone that actually knows what they are posting about" because I'm looking through the US Copyright law right now for further information. And as far as I can tell, I am correct on that allowance.

Huh? Whose word would I take about if they have a licensing agreement? Why do you assume that just because I won't take your assumption as fact that I require a lawyer with a resume?

How about someone who works for either of the two companies or someone who has gotten the word directly from someone who works for either of the two companies, who could actually verify if Monte has garnered a licensing agreement, or someone who has seen in writing on some product that they have a licensing agreement?

That's what "someone that actually knows what they are posting about" means. This ain't rocket science.

If such an agreement exists then it stands to reason that there will be some people who know about first hand or who might be in a position to know about it second hand and be able to speak to the issue with actual knowledge. Just because I won't take your assumptive conjecture as proof doesn't mean the only alternative is that I require a team of lawyers to spell it all out for me. I'm just looking for someone who actually knows and not willing to bow to your guessing.

FACTS

Is that so? Please, I ask you again not to keep posting such things. In Hal's case, (even I know) because he has entered into the OGL as a contract the restrictions within it supercede some of the rights he had prior to it in exchange for some rights he could only gain by entering into it. The points you are making regarding copyright law and how they relate to his situation are moot.

 

[pennywiz]

[edit] Interesting note: the current form of the OGL does not protect a publisher from Patent law. If Wizards were to patent the d20 system, they could sue every single d20 publisher out there into oblivion. Alternatively, they could use it as leverage to force publishers to do what Wizards wishes or suffer the consequences of a Patent suit. This is a huge issue with the GPL (created by Richard Stallman) upon which the OGL was based, and the reason the CPL (created by IBM and heavily used by commercial software companies, including Microsoft) was created.

I don't even know where to start with this one. I'll leave it to someone else and just say, "Please, stop." It's like a runaway episode of Ask Dr. Science!

 

[reanjr]

Huh? Whose word would I take about if they have a licensing agreement? Why do you assume that just because I won't take your assumption as fact that I require a lawyer with a resume?

I don't assume that. I was just trying to understand what sort of "proof" (for lack of a better word) you were looking for.

How about someone who works for either of the two companies or someone who has gotten the word directly from someone who works for either of the two companies, who could actually verify if Monte has garnered a licensing agreement, or someone who has seen in writing on some product that they have a licensing agreement?

That's what "someone that actually knows what they are posting about" means. This ain't rocket science.

Well, what I was speaking about copyright in general and not of this specific case. I was attempting to make the point that a license agreement may not even be necessary for something like this (for OGL, D20 has additional restrictions that would prohibit this). I don't think that fact was rocket science, either.

If such an agreement exists then it stands to reason that there will be some people who know about first hand or who might be in a position to know about it second hand and be able to speak to the issue with actual knowledge. Just because I won't take your assumptive conjecture as proof doesn't mean the only alternative is that I require a team of lawyers to spell it all out for me. I'm just looking for someone who actually knows and not willing to bow to your guessing.

Wikipedia is a wonderful example of hordes of information disseminated almost exlusively by people who don't know what they are talking about. It is a useful and popular tool, nonetheless. I was giving insight from my own knowledge and experience in an attempt to be helpful.

Is that so? Please, I ask you again not to keep posting such things. In Hal's case, (even I know) because he has entered into the OGL as a contract the restrictions within it supercede some of the rights he had prior to it in exchange for some rights he could only gain by entering into it. The points you are making regarding copyright law and how they relate to his situation are moot.

And that is why I originally said that it was my interpretation of the Product Identity clause of the OGL that it does not refer to works which the product is not derived from. OGL is a copyleft and much of it has little to do with restriction, but in the removal of restriction.

 

[reanjr]

I don't even know where to start with this one. I'll leave it to someone else and just say, "Please, stop." It's like a runaway episode of Ask Dr. Science!

Don't keep up much on IP law do you?

 

[barsoomcore]

Hey, pennywiz, I'm watching this conversation and having trouble figuring out what it is you're hoping to accomplish.

If you're trying to stir up debate around some issue (OGL in general, OGL violations, THIS OGL violation, Monte Cook's behaviour), then I have some advice for you:

Stop insulting people who care to join said debate, otherwise you very quickly won't have any debate at all. Constantly and abrasively telling people their contributions aren't appreciated is a sure way to get EVERYONE to stop contributing.

I understand you want to keep things focused on the issue you're interested in, and that's great. But the way to do that is to ignore the sidetracks people throw up and continue to respond only to the stuff that addresses whatever it is you want to talk about.

Not everybody is going to agree with you as to what the central point of this thread is, and not everybody is going to agree as to what is or isn't directly relevant to that point. If you insist on insulting anyone whose idea as to what's relevant differs from yours, why would anyone want to take part in the conversation?

Perhaps you have some other intention with this thread. My apologies if I'm failing to understand it.

 

[Nellisir]

Isn't it precisely against the Open Game License for someone to state something like this?

Context dependent.

Does Monte have an "independent Agreement" with WotC to "indicate compatibility or co-adaptability" with their trademark?

Not a blanket one, no.

Does the restriction only apply to what someone can do within the licensed work and not elsewhere?

Yes, if you include promotional material under "covered work".

Is it only disallowed in the licensed work and in advertising, and therefore fine for someone to go around to various message boards and make the claim?

So long as the claim isn't made as an advertising statement. Monte's statement of compatibility was directly related and relevant to the topic of conversation.

I've seen some companies who find cutsie ways around restrictions by making alternate statements (Compatible with the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game) and that always bothered me (though I guess it is technically legal) but without a licensing agreement is this also against the OGL?

Not that statement, no.

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

That they won't get away with it for long. Blatant, btw, is subjective. Give examples.

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?

No. But some companies do have members with easier access to the inner working of WotC/Hasbro, and are able to gain permissions faster and with less effort than others without said access.

Nell.

 

[pennywiz]

I understand you want to keep things focused on the issue you're interested in, and that's great. But the way to do that is to ignore the sidetracks people throw up and continue to respond only to the stuff that addresses whatever it is you want to talk about.

OK.

(etal)

Thanks, Nellisir.

 

[Nellisir]

Thanks, Nellisir.

Common sense, abbreviated sentences, deductive reasoning: $20/hour.

Sounding important: priceless.

Nell.

 

[BSF]

Once somebody has written anything that uses the OGL and/or the D20STL, does everything they say automatically become an official statement regarding their product(s)?

If somebody were to meet Phil Reed and say "You know, your PDF's look like they could work with D&D, is that true?" Is Phil allowed to answer them? Does he have to encapsulate his answer with a myriad of disclaimers? Or can he answer the question quickly and succinctly with a yes? Is it possible to engage in normal conversation regarding your products' usage once you have published anything?

Is the intent of the OGL to quash any references to D&D anywhere near your product once you have used the OGL? Or is it an intent to prevent third parties from using the Dungeons & Dragons trademark as part of their marketing?

I don't know what the intent was. I don't know how a judge would rule if it ever went to court. But it does seem a little silly to prevent third party publishers from being able to discuss their products in conversation without having to encapsulate everything you say in disclaimers all the time.

I suppose the second part of the question is whether Monte was utilizing general conversation or if he saw a marketing opportunity to try to associate Arcana Unearthed with Dungeons & Dragons and decided to post to Meta in an effort to increase his marketing exposure while sidestepping the OGL.

If we give Monte the benefit of the doubt, and we assume that normal conversation is even allowed under the OGL, then it might be beneficial to look at a few different things. Check Monte's thread with the questionable post. Then check this thread about AU and contrast it with this thread about HARP. If the question of conversation and intent is important in whether you can discuss Dungeons & Dragons in any association of your product, then I think Monte's intent then becomes important. Perhaps his wording was ill-advised since somebody could try to make this out as a marketing endeavor. But I do think it would be rather sad if a publisher could no longer discuss their product and any compatibility with D&D in a conversational manner by the terms of the OGL.