"Poaching" OGC

[Vigilance]

Okay, just so I'm clear, by saying "100% OGC," we mean no PI attached to it, like a particular name of a spell, right?

Right.

In my case, out of a 100+ page book, we protected the name, Modern20.

That's it. That one title.

Edit: I think, before declaring that sort of thing dumb, you need to look at the reasoning behind it.

In the case of Modern20, we're hoping it will catch on as a legit alternative to d20M.

We *want* people comfortable borrowing bits of the rules.

I suspect Freeport is a similar situation.

The fact that it appears on world maps like the Pathfinder world, *helps* Freeport.

 

[Ranger REG]

We *want* people comfortable borrowing bits of the rules.

And by "people," you mean publishers and designers. Gamers are going to hoard whatever rules suitable for their own game, be it copyrighted, PI'ed, or not.

I know, it's one of those statements that garners a "well, duh!" replies.

 

[Vigilance]

And by "people," you mean publishers and designers. Gamers are going to hoard whatever rules suitable for their own game, be it copyrighted, PI'ed, or not.

I know, it's one of those statements that garners a "well, duh!" replies.

Well sure. The OGC doesn't really mean anything to someone who never intends to build upon it, even if you just want to post an improved feat or something.

But for someone using a book in their own game? The OGL doesn't matter at all.

 

[Roudi]

Just to give a significant example...

If I were to take the entire game text of Modern20, unmodified, put it into a new PDF document under the name BetterModern, and sell it... then I would be poaching.

Arguably, even if I modified it in an insignificant fashion (such as, changing the names of the classes, feats, skills, etc), I would still be poaching.

The OGL does not prevent this. From the legal standpoint of the Open Gaming License, so long as my Section 15 had the correct listing and I did not impinge on any protected material, my un-creative attempt to cash in on Modern20 would be uncontestable.

My point was that, if I did something like this, I can guarantee that two of the major PDF vendors would boot me off their sites faster than I could say "natural 20". I might be able to get away with this kind of poaching through the print market, but I have a good feeling that word would travel through the industry soon enough and I'd find myself eating my print investment like so much crow.

Poaching is an industry concern, not a consumer concern. If a consumer acquires game material through illegitimate means, that's piracy, not poaching, and is an entirely different topic of discussion.

 

[Ranger REG]

So in the case of Modern20, how much OGC would you permit fellow third-party publishers to support your product line, and how much would be crossing the line of poaching?

 

[Roudi]

Was my example not good enough? Or is there still confusion about the exact nature of poaching?

If a publisher reprinted large sections of OGC without significant additions or contributions (barring some sort of compilation of OGC), then the material is poached.

"Support" implies that the OGC being used is being, well, supported... expanded upon or utilized to further other game material.

For example, if I were to do "Jobs20" featuring a reprint of Modern20's occupation system with additional material included (such as new occupations, additions to the occupation system, etc), that would be a support product, and would not be poaching.

The term "support" also implies a compatibility with the source product, whereas poaching creates competing products with the same material.

 

[GMSkarka]

It kinda depresses me that common courtesy needs to be explained.

 

[Urizen]

Right.

In the case of Modern20, we're hoping it will catch on as a legit alternative to d20M.

We *want* people comfortable borrowing bits of the rules.

I think it's cool you want people comfortable with the usage of your ogl material!

But... without any way of actually being able to claim compatability with M20, it's hard for other publishers to create material specifically geared for the M20 system and be able to SAY that without opening ourselves up to a lawsuit.

Since we can't actually claim compatability with M20 because you have (understandably) copyrighted the logo, there's not any really good way to differentiate between an OGL M20 product and an OGL D20 modern product.

I for one would like say, a license, allowing third party publishers to purchase limited rights to the M20 logo (like True20), for X number of products per year.

It would certainly help build recognition of M20, which is good for everyone.

As it stands, there just isn't any way to say "hey this is an M20 product!" without breaking the law.

 

[Urizen]

Was my example not good enough? Or is there still confusion about the exact nature of poaching?

If a publisher reprinted large sections of OGC without significant additions or contributions (barring some sort of compilation of OGC), then the material is poached.

"Support" implies that the OGC being used is being, well, supported... expanded upon or utilized to further other game material.

For example, if I were to do "Jobs20" featuring a reprint of Modern20's occupation system with additional material included (such as new occupations, additions to the occupation system, etc), that would be a support product, and would not be poaching.

The term "support" also implies a compatibility with the source product, whereas poaching creates competing products with the same material.

It's sort of moot though, because as I understand it, you couldn't call it "Jobs20." That's an infringement on their IP.

So your book, while using M20 material, would, albiet on the surface, still look like any other Ogl D20Modern product. Unless you had a legal way to claim compatability with M20 it doesn't matter if you actually used their ogc, because the average customer is going to think it's ogl D20 modern content anyhow.

Sure, you'll have to cite Modern20 in the section 15, I suppose you could say "Hey, check the section 15 of our ogl license in the back to see which modern-based system this product is designed for" and that might work.

 

[Urizen]

Actually, I've been thinking about this and I believe I'm wrong about being able to use a title like "Jobs20."

A precedent has been set with other game titles such as "True20", "simple20", "quick20" and now "Modern20."

Theoretically, you could put out a Modern20 supplement without the M20 logo and call it "Jobs20" because it isn't really a proprietary term.

I guess that's one way third party publishers could publish M20-based supplements. So long as they are very specific in their product descriptions there shouldn't be a problem indicating what the content of the book is based on.

I_think_that's right. I'm no lawyer though.