D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Morrus]

As an example of why something akin to an OGL is handy, it occurs to me that ENWorld is hosting quite a bit of 5e fan created material without a license, so WotC could shut this website down.
While ENWorld doesn't charge for access they do take some money for product, such as for badges and for their AP and game system.
Even if the action is spurious, a Cease & Desist could really hurt the website if also sent to the host as well as Morrus. Which is something WotC has done in the past.

While we're all thinking "we're not doing anything WotC was not alright with in the past", that kind of thinking led to the C+D of Ema's Character Sheets and loss of that resource.

There's still three months (plus) before WotC is reportedly going to release their 3rd Party licence details. That's a long time. A lot of content can be written in that length. Things could get ugly...

A C&D is just a letter. Often just an email. The usual result is a dialogue and a resolution. It's not litigation; it's communication.

 

[Jester David]

A C&D is just a letter. Often just an email. The usual result is a dialogue and a resolution. It's not litigation; it's communication.

Ideally yes, but lawyers still need to be involved and the offending content (read: the site) likely cannot stay up while things are discussed.
See the incident with the webcomic a Rusty & Co. as an example:
http://rustyandco.com/what-happened/

I don't think it's likely, but it's not impossible. Everyone is rushing to make content and post their creations, but the legalities of such are unknown.

I seriously, seriously doubt that. And even if there was a legal basis, it would show a level of sheer bone-headedness that, while many would like to claim otherwise, they haven't shown in the past.

Bone-headed, yes. From the brand team's perspective. The legal department might not care about some fan site dedicated to a niche division of the company infringing on the company's trademarks.

 

[Morrus]

Ideally yes, but lawyers still need to be involved and the offending content (read: the site) likely cannot stay up while things are discussed.
See the incident with the webcomic a Rusty & Co. as an example:
http://rustyandco.com/what-happened/

It's just a letter. It didn't magically take his site down - he complied. It's not a lawsuit or an injunction. It probably sounded stern. I've had one from WotC's lawyers before, too. It got resolved with a couple of amicable email exchanges. Many things can be - WotC aren't actually ogres.

I don't think it's likely, but it's not impossible. Everyone is rushing to make content and post their creations, but the legalities of such are unknown.

They're fairly well known. IP law isn't a new thing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Putting just the Basic Game under the OGL, as that license stands now, would allow someone else to release a Basic ruleset replacing WotC's rules, AND you'll see a rush to do the sorcerer/monk/warlock/paladin/ranger/druid/bard. Plus tieflings and etc. Essentially the number one item on many low-end publishers list will be rewriting the PHB into the Basic Rules. It seems silly, but that's what'll happen. That's not the content WotC wants, though. They want new stuff added on.

WotC wants people to come to their website and download the Basic Rules. That's just good sense. They want to control the spine of the D&D game. I agree that the Basic Game might be licensed in some form, and we can see that the PHB does NOT have a license in it, but it won't be via the OGL. It will be something tighter in scope. Not as tight as the 4e GSL, but a hybrid between the two.

If WotC now is as smart as they were when Ryan Dancey was in it, they won't worry about it too much. He and Russ go into that a bit in this interview, and it turns out that the reaction of the business to this happening was largely, "If you think you can make a profit re-packaging free product I suppose you're welcome to try, and it's no sweat off our back since you've basically just made a brand customer for us."

[video=youtube;ZXLBBp3YDro]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZXLBBp3YDro[/video]

I mean, maybe they've got their head deeper in the sand this time around, but fear of loosing control shouldn't be much of a fear if they're really understanding the power of the OGL. It's not like it's stopped people from buying Paizo books, after all.

 

[Jester David]

It's just a letter. It didn't magically take his site down - he complied. It's not a lawsuit or an injunction. It probably sounded stern. I've had one from WotC's lawyers before, too. It got resolved with a couple of amicable email exchanges. Many things can be - WotC aren't actually ogres.

But his Kickstarter did, as they C+Ded Kickstarter in addition to him. And there have been cases where WotC has C+D the person's Internet Provider who also complied. In that case, your site might seem to magically disappear.

I agree that WotC is likely not needlessly malicious. I quite like the D&D team. But the D&D folk are 5% of the company, and who knows what the legal department's thinking is.

They're fairly well known. IP law isn't a new thing.

Kinda, but licenses and policies change.

In the homebrew section you posted this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...f-the-Coast-Inc-ESD-Conversion-Agreement-v1-0

That refers to a twelve year old licence that explicitly applies only for 3rd edition and using the OGL. .
Maybe WotC still feels the same, maybe they don't.

Maybe they're alright with people using WotC Trademarked terms like "Dungeon Master" or "Dragonlance", updating campaign setting content, monsters, and NPCs. Maybe they're okay with people making their own subclasses and the like. Or posting their homebrew campaign settings with references to WotC IP like Mind Flayers and beholders.

 

[Morrus]

But his Kickstarter did, as they C+Ded Kickstarter in addition to him. And there have been cases where WotC has C+D the person's Internet Provider who also complied. In that case, your site might seem to magically disappear.

I agree that WotC is likely not needlessly malicious. I quite like the D&D team. But the D&D folk are 5% of the company, and who knows what the legal department's thinking is.


Kinda, but licenses and policies change.

In the homebrew section you posted this:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...f-the-Coast-Inc-ESD-Conversion-Agreement-v1-0

That refers to a twelve year old licence that explicitly applies only for 3rd edition and using the OGL. .
Maybe WotC still feels the same, maybe they don't.

Maybe they're alright with people using WotC Trademarked terms like "Dungeon Master" or "Dragonlance", updating campaign setting content, monsters, and NPCs. Maybe they're okay with people making their own subclasses and the like. Or posting their homebrew campaign settings with references to WotC IP like Mind Flayers and beholders.

They're certainly highlighting fan stuff via their Twitter account. The line so far has been "don't reproduce text from the books", which is exactly what that spellbook generator was doing. That's clearly something they don't want happening and if folks see it here I'd appreciate you guys hitting that report button!

 

[Jester David]

They're certainly highlighting fan stuff via their Twitter account. The line so far has been "don't reproduce text from the books", which is exactly what that spellbook generator was doing. That's clearly something they don't want happening.

Ugh.
I mean... I'm following them on twitter and I didn't see that. Likely because for the 10 minutes it was in my feed I was at work or playing with my son or watching YouTube or something...
Twitter is a fun way of reaching fans, but since anything you say is only visible for a very finite window for people who happen to search at that moment, it's not the best way of communicating policy.

It is great to hear that from someone at WotC. I just hope the legal department is aware of that policy. Especially when it's very possible the legal team is larger than the entire D&D team...

 

[aramis erak]

As an example of why something akin to an OGL is handy, it occurs to me that ENWorld is hosting quite a bit of 5e fan created material without a license, so WotC could shut this website down.
While ENWorld doesn't charge for access they do take some money for product, such as for badges and for their AP and game system.
Even if the action is spurious, a Cease & Desist could really hurt the website if also sent to the host as well as Morrus. Which is something WotC has done in the past.

While we're all thinking "we're not doing anything WotC was not alright with in the past", that kind of thinking led to the C+D of Ema's Character Sheets and loss of that resource.

There's still three months (plus) before WotC is reportedly going to release their 3rd Party licence details. That's a long time. A lot of content can be written in that length. Things could get ugly...

There's this neat concept in US IP law... and UK as well, tho' apparently not as strongly... called Fair Use.

Fan created content generally falls under fair use, provided that (1) the IP referenced is credited as to status, (2) no money is being made, (3) you're not devaluing the IP with your fan content.

The abuses by companies such as Games Workshop really are just that: Abuses. As in, if someone could afford to fight them, GW should lose in court, but GW is able to outspend in their psychotic (and unlawful) denial of fair use. Now, I'm not saying they haven't had some legit cases... but they've lost half of those.

And even if WotC decides that they should emulate GW, their owners, HasBro, have a very generous approach to fan sites and fan projects... and would likely zipyank any such overzealousness as constituting bad PR, and being more of a damage than the fan-site. Moreover, WotC as a whole, doesn't even make enough to be a line item discussed at the annual meetings. (And it's still one of the top 5 companies in gaming.)

Now, they're expected to make a profit. HasBro will ruthlessly bury anyone making a serious dent in even WotC's pittance of the overall HasBro pie... but they will tolerate a lot. Just look at the way HasBro remains hands off about commissioned MLP derivative artwork, MLP fan-sites, and MLP derived craftworks. They know not to bite the hand that lines their pockets.

 

[Jester David]

There's this neat concept in US IP law... and UK as well, tho' apparently not as strongly... called Fair Use.

Fan created content generally falls under fair use, provided that (1) the IP referenced is credited as to status, (2) no money is being made, (3) you're not devaluing the IP with your fan content.

Fair Use in the US applies to:
* Criticism (including parody)
* Review
* News
* Education
* Scholastic research
The UK law seems similarly restrictive, and is aimed at not limited free speech or news.

Making homebrew content is none of those.

Similarly, fan content runs into the problem of Trademarks. Which are not protected by Fair Use and are different then copyrights. This is where the Game Workshop issue came in, as it was not a matter of copyright but trademark.
WotC has a trademark on the term "Dungeons & Dragons" for all purposes relating to video games, tabletop roleplaying games, board games, and the like. You cannot make a derivative or competitive product and make use of that term in much the same way Warner Brothers has a trademark on the term "Superman" for movies and comics. You can advertise your product using "Superman" all you want, as the term cannot be copyrighted and has ties to German philosophers, but using it in certain context is restricted to DC Comics and co.

So even if you tell your own story with your own characters and monsters and make no copyright infringement WotC could shut you down for a trademark violation.

 

[Nellisir]

If WotC now is as smart as they were when Ryan Dancey was in it, they won't worry about it too much. He and Russ go into that a bit in this interview, and it turns out that the reaction of the business to this happening was largely, "If you think you can make a profit re-packaging free product I suppose you're welcome to try, and it's no sweat off our back since you've basically just made a brand customer for us."

Note: Throughout this I use OGL and OGC to refer to such things as they currently exist and as we're familiar with them. Because, if WotC changes them...well, that's exactly what I'm saying.

It's actually less about the Basic Rules and more about the second part. Lets say WotC releases the Basic Rules, and nothing else, as 100% OGC. What happens then? Answer: People remake the PHB. The PHB isn't free product, but 9/10ths of it can be brought forward from 3e-era products, and the remaining 1/10th are mechanical and found in Basic. Put 'em together, and BAM, you've got the PHB as OGC and outside of WotC's control.

Look at it another way. Turn it around. What does an OGL product require? Answer: Identification of OGC content. We KNOW the PHB and Monster Manual have no such identification, so those books can NOT be the source of OGC. What does that leave? The Basic Rules, or an SRD. An SRD would be a duplication of the Basic Rules, except possibly less pretty and with more stuff. That makes no sense. That leaves the Basic Rules. And we're back to where we began.

This is actually a really interesting period for me, and hopefully for anyone interested in a D&D license. Without a license directing or channelling content creation, the 5e fan resources are arguably a pretty cool indication of what the fans are interested in creating. Note that much of it derives from the PHB, not Basic. A license that doesn't encompass the PHB isn't going to be satisfactory.

There's a weird binary perception that WotC must use either the Open Game License or no license whatsoever, which is a completely bizarre thing to believe. Paizo in this regard is not WotC. Paizo. does. not. have. a. choice. I think Paizo is an awesome company, and I love what they do, but they're in bed with the OGL whether they will or nay. Credit to them for embracing it and this analogy is getting creepy so I'm dropping it, but we're talking degrees of acceptance, not negation. WotC isn't locked in like that. They've made one stab at a non-OGL license with the GSL. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from making another. The GSL didn't fail because it wasn't the OGL; it failed because it sucked on its own merits.

I think there will be a license. I do not think it will be the OGL. It's entirely possible that WotC might invoke some kind of non-commercial fan license. Or some kind of electronic-product only license. Yes, companies are still capable of creating work-arounds via the OGL, but either of those would satisfy 50-90% of the audience that actually cares and correspondingly cut down on the number of people who need a work-around. You're not likely to get many first-tier game companies interested in that sort of thing either. No AEG, no Green Ronin, no Paizo, no Fantasy Flight or White Wolf. Whatever the license, it'll need to address material in the PHB as well as the Basic Rules, and future material, with a minimum of effort on WotC's part, and just slapping the OGL on the Basic pdf won't do that. WotC has been pretty damned careful with 5e so far; I think they'll put a similar amount of thought into the license.