"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Henrix]

I'll just repost Ryan Dancey's comment from the ogf-d20 list, as reposted here in this tread on RPG.net (just as I did in the other thread on the Generla forum):

I'm pretty unhappy with the decision to alter the d20 System Trademark License to include post-publication content limitations.

In my opinion, the current version of the d20 STL is not a license I would be comfortable using in a commercial work unless I was able to secure a release from Wizards prior to publication exempting me from the content clauses. The potential for abuse (accidential or intentional) of the new clauses renders the "safe harbor" established by the D20 System Trademark License moot.

By altering the risk equation that must be considered by each party to the D20 System Trademark License in such a manner, in my opinion, it may now be more risky for a publisher to publish with the D20STL than without it. Thus the changes severely undermine the value proposition of the license as a whole.

Prior to these changes Wizards of the Coast was insulated from the contents of 3rd party d20 products through its inability to assert a review or approval right over such contents. By insisting on such a right, Wizards of the Coast has just made themselves liable for defamation, slander, trade secret, copyright, patent, and trademark litigation which would otherwise have been limited to the original publisher.

In addition, they've put themselves into a terrible PR position. Prior to these changes, Wizards of the Coast could refuse public comment on the contents of any product using the D20STL, claiming no prior knowledge nor approval responsibility for distasteful work. Now they will be forced to explain either a) why they support a work containing distasteful content, or b) when they'll be forcing the publisher to institute a recall of that work.

The net result of this change will be more work for Wizards of the Coast (with no related revenue), more danger of a public communications nightmare, less D20-logoed product, and an increase in the effort devoted to creating (and the value of) a publisher-sponsored D20 trademark replacement not controlled by Wizards of the Coast .

All those problems have been incurred to gain the ability to stop one product from commercial distribution to a limited audience. And in the end, Wizards of the Coast probably won't stop the release of that product. All they'll stop is the publisher's use of the words "Dungeons & Dragons" and a logo the size of a postage stamp.

Essentially, Wizards gets nothing for this change but heartache.

This is what happens when emotion gets in front of rational business management. And, in my opinion, it is an extremely unfortunate choice.

I hope you'll join me in asking Wizards of the Coast to reconsider its stance on this matter and retract this change to the d20 System Trademark License.

Ryan S. Dancey
Founder, Open Gaming Foundation

This article may be copied and republished provided the entire contents remain intact.

 

[Ranger REG]

Yep...pure [American apple pie] actually. They release the BoVD, then try and make it where other companies can't release similar products. I'll have to contact my lawyer about this and see if there is anything I can do to get around it.

You mean to tell me that the BoVD is porn material? Wow. I have to go pick it up right away. But you better not be lying, if it is in the form of a mature "Oprah-Lifetime" approach about the problems of sex and violence that is associated with evil.



Honestly, I'm much more concerned about how Wizards is going to enforced those clauses, and if they fail to do so, the degree of liability if a third-party d20 product is connected to a wrongful death lawsuit of a grieving mother whose son is murdered or committed suicide because of that product (hypothetically).

It would have been a lot easier if they enforce a Disclaimer stating that Wizards is in no way endorsing nor promoting products by third-party publishers using their trademarked logo.

 

[MythosaAkira]

Add in the morality clause and that it may be retroactive...many a book may be pulled depending on what they feel is against the new clause, I guess I was not clear to take issue 1 add this in it and you have the potential for some bad mojo

Sorry, does that clarify my thinking?

I hadn't considered the idea it could be retroactive; is that possible? I.e.; does it matter when your product was published, it must adhere to whatever is the current license?

<insert standard "IANAL" disclaimer here>

Hmm...from the Guide:

"These instructions supercede any previous instructions for the use of the Licensed Articles and determine the way in which they are to be utilized."

...and from the License:

"9. Changes to Terms of the License
Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or revisions to this License without prior notice. You will conform in all respects to the updated or revised terms of this License. Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number."

OK, I see your point far more clearly now

 

[Vaxalon]

The goal in this change is to get rid of the DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS that appears in LARGE print on the cover of the Book of Erotic Fantasy. As long as the book is published under the d20 license, Valar Project -HAS- to state that it

requires the use of the
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS
Player's Handbook, Third Edition,
published by Wizards of the Coast

which they do QUITE prominently on the cover. By pulling the d20 license support, Valar can no longer publish the BOEF under the d20 license (but can do so under the OGL), and thus cannot include this discalimer at the top of the product.

If all they wanted to do was remove the LARGE PRINT "DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" from the cover, then the change regarding the print size would have been enough; they want to remove the BoEF, and any products like it, from D20 entirely, which is why they included the decency clause.

I agree with Ryan that they are opening themselves to legal liability with this. I can't imagine that their legal department liked this.

Aaron, have you had a look at this?

 

[Vaxalon]

The decency clause is gone.

They've already posted version FIVE of the licence:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20licensev5.rtf

 

[Ranger REG]

Am I alone in requesting for an "electronic town hall meeting" to discuss the change in the d20 Trademark License. It should give Andy Smith and the Wizards of the Coast Legal Team to instruct us as to what is acceptable and what is not.

Also to provide feedback by third parties who may be affected by the change.

 

[ES2]

As just a customer to most of you guys I think this change to the d20 license sucks rocks!! Is WotC this afraid of one single book to totally risk screwing with the entire thing or what? Talk about a bunch of crap.

I can remember purchasing a few books during the first year of d20 that had nude pictures of demon women, nipples showing beneath clothes, things like that, so I guess all these books will now have to be burned or whatever.

On a positive note: All they are doing now is driving more and more people to print their books using just the Open Gaming License, in which people don't need the WotC PHB to D&D, and that is something we all should cheer about. I think that's positive anyways.

WotC needs to get their heads out of their you know whats. On the other hand, let them shoot themselves in the butts like TSR did because of crap like this.

 

[MythosaAkira]

It's still in there

They've already posted version FIVE of the licence:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20licensev5.rtf

Version 5 is what I quoted in the first post of this thread.

 

[Nathal]

WotC needs to get their heads out of their you know whats. On the other hand, let them shoot themselves in the butts like TSR did because of crap like this.

It does remind me of TSR's old, silly "Code of Conduct" for their products; a sort of "Disney World" set of ethics for their writers to follow. Next thing we'll see is the D20 license forbidding the word "demon" because it might offend mothers. Sheesh. Was TSR somehow resuscitated by (un-grandma friendly epithet removed -Henry) Lorraine Williams, its IP bought back from Hasbro? One has to wonder.

 

[Michael Morris]

It's Letter writing time folks!!

Start sending email to custserv@wizards.com EVERY DAY and let them know how you feel about this issue if you want it changed. WotC will respond to customer complaints I hope. In any case, sending email never hurt.