Paizo Reverses Course, Re-Instates Community Use Policy

Paizo announced on Thursday that they are reversing course on the plan to replace the long-standing Community Use Policy with a new Fan Content Policy. The policy change was announced in July that swapped the two policies around for the use of Paizo intellectual property.

From the blog post:

In July, we terminated Paizo’s longstanding Community Use Policy and replaced it with a new Fan Content Policy. This was an error, and we’re taking steps to rectify that today.

We are reinstating the Community Use Policy as it has existed for over 15 years, with a few minor updates and clarifications intended to make using the policy even easier. We have removed both the Approved Products List and Community Use Registry and clarified some elements that were previously in FAQs or simply not addressed (like being able to use our art and logos in black and white products). We have not changed the permissions granted by the policy. The specific language in the Community Use Policy declaration you need to include in your project has changed to reflect a new URL for the policy on paizo.com, and we have added the provision that you provide contact information somewhere on your product in lieu of the now-removed registry. This change will allow existing Community Use Policy projects to continue to operate as they have for over a decade.

We still fully intend to provide additional permissions for community creators to monetize their creations under limited circumstances. For the time being, the Fan Content Policy allows this, and we’re making no changes to that policy today—it exists alongside the Community Use Policy. With the Community Use Policy restored, we can refine the Fan Content Policy to more clearly define what commercial uses are allowed under what conditions and using which elements of our intellectual property. We will make our intended revisions and updates to the Fan Content Policy and let the community know when the new version is available.

Paizo’s community is the foundation of our success, and we deeply appreciate all of the hard work and passion you bring to our spaces. We apologize for this misstep and look forward to a long, bright future for community projects inspired by our work. Thank you for all of your outreach, feedback, and difficult conversations throughout this process. And above all, thank you for being a part of our community.

 

[TheSword]

Putting aside the fact that what WotC did with the OGL was significantly more egregious than what Paizo did in this scenario.

Paizo put something out publicly, immediately opened communications channels with major players with concerns (The pf2 Foundry team, for example), then put out a retraction and correction directly addressing those concerns.

WotC started by trying to hide their change by putting it out in with NDAs and publicly posting erroneous or misleading information, the only direct communication was with people at WotC acting as anonymous sources to journalists, and they doubled-down on their decision twice before finally conceding to community outrage.

So Paizo started with a public announcement… hmm. Are you saying WotC would have been ok if they had just unilaterally announced the change to the OGL to the public at large? I think not.

I’m also pretty sure that WotC reversed their position much quicker than the 30 days it’s taken Paizo to do it. Jan 5th became public. Position reversed between the 13th and 19th.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

What can I say, they won - and so did we.

 

[TheSword]

It's going to take WOTC years to live down what they tried to do to the OGL and other things they've done just in the last couple of years, if they ever can - which I sincerely doubt. They are very close to that swaggering snarky attitude TSR had back in the day, supposedly safe and secure in being the Big Dog, and believing the Big Dog can do whatever it wants.

Paizo has not done anything remotely close so, yeah, they get a pass for the occasional stumble.

One rule for one.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

One rule for one.

Parasocial relationships are a helluva drug.

¯\(ツ)/¯

But based on the evidence of every thread, ever, I doubt it is worth arguing about.

 

[bmfrosty]

The thing is -- when Wizards did this, few people applauded the fact they were listening to people. We forget that that was still when people wanted to tank the D&D movie as payback.

Paizo does it, and it's a case of 'what good corporate citizenship!' There's still plenty of hate towards Wizards over it.

Lol. Not what I dislike them for. I like them for saving D&D from being by random house directly and having died a quiet death, but I dislike them for turning the build metagame of D&D up to 11.

 

[Epic Meepo]

One rule for one.

Headline: RPG Publisher Torpedos Third-Party Content Creators

Internet: Which publisher? I may or may not be mad about this!

 

[EthanSental]

Same paizo that had a union formed due to mgt decisions? Let’s admit both companies make mistakes and have learned from them and neither are dark and nefarious….

From the Paizo union site below…
We recognize that Paizo has experienced some growing pains in transitioning from a handful of people making magazines to an industry leader, and a large proportion of those difficulties stem from management not always being able or willing to listen to the workers, delegate, or trust the experts they hired to do the correct things. If Paizo leadership is as reasonable and cooperative as we hope they will be, then union representation will be able to ensure the commitments that management is theoretically already prepared to make, as well as to safeguard them in the future.

 

[Velderan]

Headline: RPG Publisher Torpedos Third-Party Content Creators

Internet: Which publisher? I may or may not be mad about this!

Me: Which license and does it impact anything I buy or use? I may or may not be mad about this!

 

[SteveC]

I'm happy for this but I think people need to realize the differences between Paizo and WotC as a company before saying "hey, why do they get credit for this?" Paizo has a lot of credit built up with me. I can go online and essentially get the entire game. Not a stripped-down SRD, the entire game. I give them money because they make a product I like, and I buy some things they make, and don't buy others.

When I initially heard about this change, I was not happy. I expected that it was going to change, however. And it did, quickly.

 

[Staffan]

Headline: RPG Publisher Torpedos Third-Party Content Creators

Internet: Which publisher? I may or may not be mad about this!

This was related to the Community Use Policy – basically a license saying "As long as the stuff you do is free-ish and reasonably non-offensive, we're not gonna sic lawyers on you for promoting our stuff." That's a bit different from a license that several companies are using to run reasonably profitable businesses.