Paizo Paizo Updates Pathfinder/Starfinder Licenses

​

Paizo has announced an update to the third party and fan content licenses for Pathfinder and Starfinder. They are making three major changes:

• The Pathfinder and Starfinder compatibility licenses are being merged into one Paizo Compatibility License. The compatibility licenses allow a this party publisher or creator to use a logo on their product in order to indicate compatibility.
• The Pathfinder and Starfinder Infinite community content publishing platform is being put on hold until Starfinder 2E is released in about a year. More specifically, creators will not be able to publish mechanical content (rules) on the platform, although they can still publish lore, fiction, and art. This is because Pathfinder has now been divested of the Open Gaming License, as will Starfinder 2E, and the ORC license is not compatible with it, so the platform will be updated to use a new license.
• Finally, the Fan Content Policy is a replacement for the Community Use Policy. It's more generous than its predecessor, allowing creators to sell merchandise (dice bags, shirts, plushies, and so on) using Paizo's IP as long as those items are made and sold by the creator and not mass produced or sold en-masse via an print-on-demand platform.

There's more nuance to these changes, of course. You can read them in more detail on the Paizo Blog.

 

[Velderan]

Some would call that backpedaling if it was WotC/Hasbro and not Paizo... I like Pathfinder/Starfinder and have quite a few digital products by them (besides some physical D&D/PF1 stuff), sure they are a lot less corporate the WotC/Hasbro, but that doesn't suddenly mean they can't do 'bad' stuff...

I find it fascinating that when WotC/Hasbro does something like this there's crowds with torches and pitchforks gathered, but when Paizo messes with licenses, it's like one of those ghost towns with tumbleweed rolling past...

Larger audience just makes the people with an axe to grind seem more numerous than they actually are, I guess. There's also the scope of people impacted. WotC tries to revoke the OGL? Most of the industry is impacted. Paizo changes what is permitted under a policy or license, it probably sucks for those impacted but the impact just isn't enough for many to notice.

Plus as @Justice and Rule said, they're smaller so they typically can pivot quicker when something they set out to do isn't received the way they hoped. I've seen Paizo staff working on this stuff actually discussing why things are being done on the PF2e subreddit and seen them acknowledge a criticism as valid. To me at least, it gives a different vibe of being open to customer feedback that a large organization that is part of a larger publicly traded company just can't do.

 

[kenada]

Has Paizo pulled a 'WotC'? Essentially doing the same thing WotC did, trying to pull the OGL...

There are two issues. The first is the Community Use Policy, which is no longer available. Its replacement does not work with OGL content, and the platform where you should publish will also not be available to OGL content. If you were trying to keep PF1 or SF1 alive, doing conversions, etc; you have to strip the setting-specific material out of your work. There’s also an impact on website and tools, but it seems like they’re addressing it.

The other issue is the terms of Pathfinder Infinite preclude using any ORC-licensed content. The ORC AxE tries to claim that it creating a new license was necessary because a “virtuous cycle” is needed to evolve the game, and CC BY was too permissive to create that cycle, but Pathfinder Infinite breaks it. If you want to use setting material, you have to publish on Pathfinder Infinite, but if you also want to use ORC-licensed content (monsters, etc), you can’t.

It remains to be seen whether the ORC ecosystem or the Pathfinder Infinite ecosystem will win out, though I doubt there will be many games using PF2 as a base (because the terms of the 5.1 SRD are much better for those wanting to make their own game and retain control over it).

 

[Nylanfs]

Note, you CAN have a separate license with with the author of said ORC licensed things you want to use on Pathfinder Infinite. Nothing AFAIK in the Infinite license prevents that. And as the original creator they can choose to license their original material out under different licenses.

 

[kenada]

Note, you CAN have a separate license with with the author of said ORC licensed things you want to use on Pathfinder Infinite. Nothing AFAIK in the Infinite license prevents that. And as the original creator they can choose to license their original material out under different licenses.

How? Here is the agreement. To allow someone to use their material, a publisher would have to agree to the terms of Pathfinder Infinite and contribute their material as User Generated Content, making it Program IP. Once a work is Program IP, it can only be distributed on Pathfinder Infinite. There was an exception for OGL content becoming User Generate Content, but new OGL content will no longer be allowed after the end of August 2024. It’s essentially the same as the terms of DM’s Guild.

 

[Nylanfs]

Note: I am not a lawyer, specifically I am not your* lawyer, and none of this is legal advise.

That is not entirely correct according to my understanding of copyright, and licenses.
Original data created BY an original author can be licensed under as many licenses as the original author chooses. User Generated Content is NOT mechanics or new systems.

(2c) "User Generated Content" shall be defined as the original or derivative copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as proper nouns (characters, deities, locations, etc., as well as all adjectives, names, titles, and descriptive terms derived from proper nouns), characters, dialogue, locations, organizations, plots, and storylines. User Generated Content shall not include the illustrations, photographs, or cartographic artwork included in your Work, nor will it include any Open Game Content (as defined in the Open Game License) that you include in your Work. Per the terms of this Agreement, you expressly agree that your User Generated Content, once submitted to the Program will become Program IP and useable by other members of the Program as well as by the Publisher as described in this Agreement.

So if there is an OGL or ORC class, race, feat, etc in a 3pp, that is original. The Pathfinder Infinite author CAN make a separate license with the OGL/ORC author for their original material to use in their product. Nothing in the current community content agreement says that isn't allowed. I would have to see the NEW agreement coming out in Sept to make the same statement though.

But at the same time this is mostly a thought experiment at this time, because I see no reason why one would use the Pathfinder Infinite (or Dungeon Masters Guild) market place because of the amount of control you lose over your material. And MOST designers really don't need access to the setting IP.

*Your in this context is the general your, not anyone in particular

 

[kenada]

I don’t think one could use a license to a third party’s material to work around the terms of the agreement. In particular, section 8.c requires the work be yours or you to have full rights to it. I’d definitely suggest talking to a lawyer before trying something like that.

That is not entirely correct according to my understanding of copyright, and licenses.

The terms of an agreement can require you to refrain from exercising certain rights that you would have otherwise.

But at the same time this is mostly a thought experiment at this time, because I see no reason why one would use the Pathfinder Infinite (or Dungeon Masters Guild) market place because of the amount of control you lose over your material. And MOST designers really don't need access to the setting IP.

I doubt many publishing companies would use it, but individual creators will use the platform if it makes it easy to tap into an established audience.

 

[Nylanfs]

I don’t think one could use a license to a third party’s material to work around the terms of the agreement. In particular, section 8.c requires the work be yours or you to have full rights to it. I’d definitely suggest talking to a lawyer before trying something like that.


The terms of an agreement can require you to refrain from exercising certain rights that you would have otherwise.


I doubt many publishing companies would use it, but individual creators will use the platform if it makes it easy to tap into an established audience.

(8c) You are the sole owner of all rights in your Work or otherwise have full right and license to make use of all content in your Work. Entering into this Agreement shall not conflict or interfere with the rights of any third parties.

Ahh, I missed that part where it said you needed full rights. So you are indeed correct.
I wonder if something being CC-BY-SA would also disqualify it being used because you have to credit the original author. Fun legal thought experiment.

 

[kenada]

I wonder if something being CC-BY-SA would also disqualify it being used because you have to credit the original author. Fun legal thought experiment

I wondered the same thing except for CC-BY. Would it be possible to use the 5.1 SRD? I’m not sure.

 

[Nylanfs]

I wondered the same thing except for CC-BY. Would it be possible to use the 5.1 SRD? I’m not sure.

Yes it should be possible, because the CC-BY only requires you to credit the original author, link to the CC license, & indicate that it's modified (because it's being used in a work that isn't the original.

Since it isn't SA it shouldn't run afoul of the "full rights" part of the current, and presumably the future agreement as well.

 

[kenada]

Yes it should be possible, because the CC-BY only requires you to credit the original author, link to the CC license, & indicate that it's modified (because it's being used in a work that isn't the original.

Since it isn't SA it shouldn't run afoul of the "full rights" part of the current, and presumably the future agreement as well.

That’s what I’m not sure about. I interpreted “full rights” to mean also having the right to disallow others from making derivative works outside the store, which you don’t have over the original CC-BY content. The DM’s Guild licensing information page also implies you can’t use it there.