D&D (2024) Some Terms Removed From 2024 SRD... But Is 'D&D' Really Supposed To Be In There?

[Chaltab]

Maybe, one cannot misrepresent a product because of trademark, but one can say more clearly the indy content is "compatible with D&D".

That might be ideal. It would help if WotC gave guidance on acceptable attribution here.

I mean technically they did. They say they still want you to use 'compatible with 5e' or '5th edition'.

But it's no longer an explicit part of the license that you can't say 'D&D'.

 

[Lupin]

The CC license doesn't make any distinctions about where you put stuff.

The question is--you either have a license to use that term, or you don't. And if you do have a license, the license itself specifically disallows any additional restrictions -- "You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

The key is that section on patents and trademarks and what it means exactly.

I would love to hear another experienced opinion on it. But I would think that its inclusion pretty much means you can use the text as presented in your own work, but out of caution, I wouldn't replicate that trademarked term beyond the left-in instances.

As I understand it, trademark protections basically hinge on market confusion: is there any risk that the thing you are putting out, and the way you are presenting it, could be mistaken for an official (or someone else's) project? Trade dress and terms all factor into that.

I believe if you are careful about how you mention the D&D name, it would either be upheld as valid usage or at least not be considered worth combating in court by Hasbro/WotC. In my mind—and again, I am anything but a lawyer—a safe use would be a smallish line on your cover saying that it's "Compatible with the 5th Edition of D&D™ (Dungeons & Dragons™)* " And at the bottom of the back cover something like "Dungeons & Dragons™ and D&D™ are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, LLC and are used without permission purely to indicate compatibility. This is not an official product of WotC, etc. etc. etc." I believe this has always been the case except for the limitations on trademarked names imposed by OGL terms. CC-BY, in theory, allows for this kind of usage.

Now, something worth noting: as far as I could tell from searches, WotC does NOT own a trademark for the genericized term "DnD." As long as you don't try to make it look too much like the official logo or too closely mimic their book/cover design, I would think (I am still not a lawyer; none of this is legal advice) you'd be safe to use that term.

 

[Nikosandros]

This is it. I can't say that my book is a first party D&D book, but I can say that my books is meant to be played with D&D or compatible with it.

But isn't that something that's allowed regardless of a license? Plenty of cell phones accessories by third parties explicitly claim compatibility with famous brands.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But isn't that something that's allowed regardless of a license? Plenty of cell phones accessories by third parties explicitly claim compatibility with famous brands.

My understanding is that by agreeing to the license, you are agreeing not to do that. If you do that, then you can't use the license. So what I've been told.

 

[Morrus]

My understanding is that by agreeing to the license, you are agreeing not to do that. If you do that, then you can't use the license. So what I've been told.

That was the OGL, yeah. I don't think there's any such terminology in Creative Commons.

 

[Nikosandros]

My understanding is that by agreeing to the license, you are agreeing not to do that. If you do that, then you can't use the license. So what I've been told.

I thought that was a provision of the OGL. Is it also true og CC?

 

[Yaarel]

I mean technically they did. They say they still want you to use 'compatible with 5e' or '5th edition'.

But it's no longer an explicit part of the license that you can't say 'D&D'.

It is clearer to say, "compatible with D&D 2024", or similar.

 

[Morrus]

This seems relevant:

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Can I offer material under a CC license that has my trademark on it without also licensing or affecting rights in the trademark?
Yes, you may offer material under a Creative Commons license that includes a trademark indicating the source of the work without affecting rights in the trademark, because trademark rights are not licensed by the CC licenses. However, applying the CC license may create an implied license to use the trademark in connection with the licensed material, although not in ways that require permission under trademark law. To avoid any uncertainty, Creative Commons recommends that licensors who wish to mark material with trademarks or other branding materials give notice to licensees expressly disclaiming application of the license to those elements. This can be done in the copyright notice, but could also be noted on the website where the work is published.

The sentence "However, applying the CC license may create an implied license to use the trademark in connection with the licensed material, although not in ways that require permission under trademark law." seems key. I'm not sure it makes things any clearer for me though!

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would assume that this means you can now use the term "D&D," but not the logo?

That would be a risky assumption, because it's not just the logo that is trademarked.

It's the actual combination of those letters and ampersand.

I don't know the answer, but I have heard two lawyers state that the CC license does not override a trademark, so you still should not use "D&D" in your material.

 

[Chaltab]

It is clearer to say, "compatible with D&D 2024", or similar.

It is. But WOTC apparently would still prefer that you don't use the name of the game.