Ryan Dancey Interview and the OGL

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Um...

"Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, Third Edition, Published by Wizards of the Coast"

You CAN say that.

WotC, and Dancey himself in fact, have discussed further additions/revisions to the D20 license that would make it possible to refer to the DMG, MM, and possibly Psi handbook in a D20 product.

The D20 logo isn't the only thing you can use to indicate compliance. It's just the big one. Eventually, most players will see the D20 logo and understand "hey, this is one of those 3rd party D&D things, kewl", so the point becomes moot, but your contention that WotC does not allow you to indicate compatibility with D&D under the D20 license is untrue.

Now, if you are only using the OGL and the D20 srd, but not the D20 license, you can't use either. Even referring to D20 compatibility in this case is a breach of license, so be careful.

You can not put "This is a Dungeons and Dragons product" or anything like that on the cover. That is the point and is relevant to the debate. The quote you provided is allowed, but does not provide any real means of promoting your product as D&D compatible. The quote can only be placed on the cover using the exact wording provided. Unlike, for example Kalamar, where they have a license to use the actual Dungeons and Dragons logo. WoTC giving you the option of providing free advertising to them is very different than being able to promote yourself and BEING a Dungeons and Dragons publisher.

Also, EOL's claim was that, if you are willing to fight through the courts, you can use Dungeons and Dragons without WoTC's permission. So I don't see how a highly limited exception allowed only if you comply with the OGL d20 license, is relevant to that claim.

I'll will stand by my words on these two bases.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Intellectual Property rights is a moot point when discussing D20.

Not WoTC's intellectual property rights. They can retain anything they don't choose to give away in the SRD. Things they have retained include the name Dungeons and Dragons, instructions on how to build a character and how to advanavce a character, among others. Not to mention things like art and specific characters.

And things such as art, characters, stories, proper names, ect, anything can and is declared IP, remain the intellectual property of any d20 publisher.

You can forgo the licenses altogether and try to use derivative work concepts and laws to publish D&D knockoff products, but why? You'll get sued, by hasbro, can you afford that?

Hasbro would be completely justified to sue you. Yes, you can go out and break the law? So what?

Instead you willingly give up a few of your rights and agree not to contest WotC's claims about their ownership of their IP, and use the D20 license. If you follow their rules, they won't sue you. It's what is known as 'safe harbor', and it's more than fair on their part.

If you know what you are getting into before you proceed, you wont get screwed, its that simple.

Right. fair and simple. Play by the rules and WoTC will share with you. You benefit and they benefit.

 

[chatdemon]

The quote you provided is allowed, but does not provide any real means of promoting your product as D&D compatible. The quote can only be placed on the cover using the exact wording provided.

So, by your logic, saying that 'this product requires 2 double a batteries" doesn't imply that your product needs batteries to work?

That is damn stupid.

You can denote compatability with D&D right on your cover, using the phrase they gave you. I don't know why you want to convince people otherwise, but it isn't true. You CAN indicate compatability with D&D. period.

 

[chatdemon]

Not WoTC's intellectual property rights. They can retain anything they don't choose to give away in the SRD. Things they have retained include the name Dungeons and Dragons, instructions on how to build a character and how to advanavce a character, among others. Not to mention things like art and specific characters

EXACTLY. By signing the D20 license, you agree not to challenege WotC's right to do so.

Look, you can go out on your own, and not use the D20 license, and make a D&D knockoff, using all the WotC IP you want. Noone is stopping you. You WILL get sued. By Hasbro. You cannot afford to fight them, right or wrong, so you WILL lose. It's pretty clear.

 

[rounser]

That kind of reasoning should be left at home when doing serious business. If a publisher isn't smart enough to realize this, he will almost certainly fail anyway.

What you consider good business sense doesn't necessarily rule in the real world. I was speculating about a motive for not using the OGL, because some people were saying "I can't understand why anybody wouldn't want to use the OGL".

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

So, by your logic, saying that 'this product requires 2 double a batteries" doesn't imply that your product needs batteries to work?

That is damn stupid.

You can denote compatability with D&D right on your cover, using the phrase they gave you. I don't know why you want to convince people otherwise, but it isn't true. You CAN indicate compatability with D&D. period.

No, what is damn stupid is your efforts to misrepresent my arguement.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

EXACTLY. By signing the D20 license, you agree not to challenege WotC's right to do so.

Look, you can go out on your own, and not use the D20 license, and make a D&D knockoff, using all the WotC IP you want. Noone is stopping you. You WILL get sued. By Hasbro. You cannot afford to fight them, right or wrong, so you WILL lose. It's pretty clear.

OK, and this disputes anything I have said how?

Unless you are saying that the only reason you will lose is inability to fund the defense. You will lose because you would be breaking a very clear and simple law. No amount of defense money will change that.

 

[EOL]

I don't see how anybody's interpretation of the OGL is slightly relevant to the concept of intellectual property.

If you claim that a lawyer told you that you can ignore intellectual property rights, either they are jerking your chain or you are jerking ours.

You leave for a couple of hours and the whole place falls apart....

The fact that a game system can not be copyrighted is completely seperate from the OGL, but the OGL is clearly a response to that.

And in that second statement are you calling me a liar? *boggle* I've yet to here any support of your intimate knowledge of Intellectual Property law?

And as for this:

Oh, and if you take about 10 seconds, you will find that the so-called support you link to clearly states that Dungeons and Dragons is a trademark and can not be referred to.

I never claimed Dungeons and Dragons was not trademarked I said a game system cannot be copyrighted, which it clearly states:

D.05 Can I copyright my gaming system?
In a word, NO! A gaming system cannot be copyrighted.

If your reading comprehension of Intellectual Property Law is anything like your reading comprehension of my posts it's no wonder you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The fact that a game system can not be copyrighted is completely seperate from the OGL, but the OGL is clearly a response to that.

I agree with the first part and see no basis for the second.

And in that second statement are you calling me a liar? *boggle* I've yet to here any support of your intimate knowledge of Intellectual Property law?

I have yet to make any bizarre statement that Intellectual property law can be ignored. History is completely on my side. You are the one arguing that a hypothetical case could occur, that would go against all past precedent in the field.

I never claimed Dungeons and Dragons was not trademarked I said a game system cannot be copyrighted, which it clearly states:

You previously stated this:
"But if you're not abiding by the D20 system lisence then legally saying your D&D compatible (as long as you don't use any trademarks) is a legal statement of fact and though WoTC might win in court on the basis of the derivitive work doctrine they would not win over the fact that you had that statement on the front of your book."

Claiming you could state D&D compatible as long as it was a fact. But because D&D is a trademark, you in fact can not make that claim. You do mention that, but in a way that ends up making your entire sentence self-contradictory.

If you acknowledge that a 3rd party may not produce a product and claim it is D&D compatible without using the OGL/d20L then I have not further dispute with you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.05 Can I copyright my gaming system?
In a word, NO! A gaming system cannot be copyrighted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your reading comprehension of Intellectual Property Law is anything like your reading comprehension of my posts it's no wonder you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, it is your reading comprehension that is failing to meet the task. My position does not require in any way that gaming systems can be copyrighted. Clearly they can not be. But they can be trademarked throughout. Your arguements have been fixated on the irrelevant "copyright" term. It is the trademark issues that the D20L lets you get around.

There have been other fantasy rpgs since soon after the advent of D&D. If copyright law applied, many of those games would have been in violation. But, as it should be, copyright law was not controlling. The other game systems were, however, not compatible with D&D because trademarks would have been violated.

Your quote regarding copyrights is little more than a red herring.

 

[EOL]

Sorry, it is your reading comprehension that is failing to meet the task. My position does not require in any way that gaming systems can be copyrighted. Clearly they can not be. But they can be trademarked throughout. Your arguements have been fixated on the irrelevant "copyright" term. It is the trademark issues that the D20L lets you get around.

There have been other fantasy rpgs since soon after the advent of D&D. If copyright law applied, many of those games would have been in violation. But, as it should be, copyright law was not controlling. The other game systems were, however, not compatible with D&D because trademarks would have been violated.

Your quote regarding copyrights is little more than a red herring.

In all seriousness you have no idea what you're talking about and this has ceased to be even mildly amusing. You seem to be either dismissing the opinions of a trained IP attorney or calling me a liar, why I even continued past that point is beyond me. These five things are true regardless of how much you dance around the fact the the entirety of your IP experience seems to have come from the side of a cereal box.

1- You cannot copyright OR trademark a game system.

2- You could write a book which was compatible with D&D without violating intellectual property law. You would have to be careful of trademarks, but it could be done. (see point D.08 on the link I earlier mentioned)

3- You could then say "This book is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons." As long as "Dungeons and Dragons" was in exactly the same type as everything else, legally that is a statement of fact, just like when you buy Civilization III and it tells you what operating systems it works on. They aren't violating Trademark either unless they use the little four-colored windows icon.

4- The OGL makes point 2 and point 3 alot easier, but if you wanted to do points 2 and 3 without it and you weren't small enough to just be smothered by WoTC or Hasbro in a court of law, then you could.

5- The next time you post on a thread with the central position that I'm lying don't bother, I'll just be skipping over your posts from now on.