OGL Questions for all OGL Users

[HalWhitewyrm]

Very interesting thread. Once in a while it's good to have these sort of conversations that make us rethink the material with which we work to make sure we are up to date on it.

Personally, I agree with what seems to be the general understanding of the limitations of the OGL: OGL-bound product = no claims of compatibility beyond those allowed by the license (d20 System License, etc.); Non OGL-bound exchange of ideas = you may make claims as long as it is not in a clear advertisement. This is all very murky, and I suspect on purpose, to allow breathing room and the benefit of doubt. Plus, can you imagine if they sat down to uber-specify all the cases in which you could and could not do X or Y!

Also, to answer the point raised by Ghostwind and JMunciello, yes, I do realize that stating that my products are generic is the best way to go. I was thinking out loud, so to speak, but JMunciello is 100% right in that I have already set a precedent with my post, even if it was only a thought, not a plan of action. So consider any idea of suggesting compatibility with established trademarked worlds scrapped. I love doing this too much to mess with the legal powers that be.

Now, if one of my customers were to make suggestions based on published worlds...

 

[jmucchiello]

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).

Actually, it's "at what point does the judge at your trademark violation lawsuit draw the line." "Your" opinion has no bearing.

IANAL, but my understanding is that an officier of a company speaks on that company's behalf. When an officier of a company makes reference to its products, IMO, he is using "the company's voice" whether he wants to or not. Now, in a private conversation, this is moot, since the person he is speaking to probably doesn't give a hoot about trademarks. But in a public forum, unless he states explicitly "this is my opinion and not those of company X", anything being said in reference to the company products falls under advertising.

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)?

Remember I'm talking about publishers, owners of the IP. Most people who write for RPGs do not own the material they write and do not use the license, the publisher does.

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?

Technically, Phil should correct the person saying, he writes OGC under the d20 license. Whether or not he would be that pedantic is up to him. Of course he has lots of other possible responses "Do they? Give it a try and let me know what you find out." or "Maybe" or "Your results may vary."

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?

At no time before the license was it legal to use the phrase Dungeons and Dragons in reference to third party material without express written permission of the trademark holder. The OGL does nothing to change that. The D20 license provides permisssion to do so in a limited set of circumstances. So what exactly has been quashed? In fact that part of the OGL is superfluous. It is only there to remind you that the OGL is a copyright license not a trademark license.

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.

But they didn't have that ability before the OGL. And I must say I haven't had any problems with this before. Anyone who asks me about my products finds out they are d20/ogl products. If someone is being assinine enough to berate me with "So that means their D&D compatible, right? right? right? C'mon say it! SAY IT!" I guess I would walk away. Still, nothing lost IMO.

 

[Piratecat]

Pennywiz, this thread - and your hostility - appalls me. There's a rule at the top of this forum which you're blatantly breaking:

Please don't use the Publishers' forums to try to make your competitors look bad.

That's exactly what you're trying to do, whether you're hiding under a pseudonym or not. We won't tolerate it from any publisher. If folks see cases of this rule being broken, please report the post.

We expect publishers here to comport themselves as professionals. If someone has a problem with that, feel free to email me.

Thread closed.