Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The other snake in the grass: the Wizards Fan Content Policy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caerdwyn" data-source="post: 8920899" data-attributes="member: 7040161"><p><strong>tl;dr</strong> there's another Wizards document out there that needs to be stamped out.</p><p></p><p>A heads-up to all who have been following the Open Game License debacle... pay attention to the OTHER potential problem: the Fan Content Policy.</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy[/URL]</p><p></p><p>Yes, Wizards/Hasbro have backed down on the OGL and SRD 5.1. That's great! It never should have gone this far, but here we are. However, there is a "back door" that is still out there which can potentially be used to harass competitors and critics, or to seize fan work without compensation. That is the Wizards Fan Content Policy (FCP).</p><p></p><p>I have my own reading and interpretation which concludes that most of it was never enforceable or is legal junk to begin with:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"We ask." It's good to want things, but asking does not mean you get what you want.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's not an agreed upon license.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">With the SRD 5.1 now in Creative Commons, the FCP is in many ways in direct conflict with that, and loses.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some of it is just restarting "trademarks are a thing". Yep. That's not a policy, trademark infringement is a law. FCP is irrelevant.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Same for implying "officialness" or endorsement. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf" target="_blank">That's already covered by law</a>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">That bit about "we can take your stuff for free"? Without agreed-upon compensation, that's also <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact" target="_blank">against the law</a>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">And about a "right" to take down any videos, reviews, etc. they feed like? Nope. Illegal seizure, especially given the now-present CC-SA-4.0 license, basic intellectual property law, and public statements made by WotC all acknowledge that they can't take that stuff down. It's just hot air, and <a href="https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_are_penalties_false_copyright_infringement_claims" target="_blank">abuse of copyright claims</a> can land them in hot water.</li> </ul><p>Wizards/Hasbro needs to be told to take that FCP down. It's a garbage document that has no teeth other than to intimidate. Do we look intimidated?</p><p></p><p>We have millions of master rules-lawyer DMs used to people trying to get away with shenanigans.</p><p>We have tens of millions of min-maxers who know how to look to grant themselves Advantage in a rules system.</p><p>We have many, many real-world attorneys who play the game and who are paying attention to this.</p><p></p><p>And Hasbro/WotC? You're under the microscope. You're on probation. You've made a positive step which I and many others acknowledge, but if after all this you still think you're clever, think again. You're not <em>owed</em> forgiveness, and a second abusive scandal will be the nail in the coffin that destroys the value of D&D forever. Your investors and shareholders will not be pleased. Speaking of which:</p><p></p><p>I also am aware that Paramount <strong>is not happy that you've ruined their investment in "Honor Among Thieves"</strong>. Their attorneys are looking at your behavior too, and I'd bet a copper to a GP that there are mutual-obligation, legal detriment and non-performance clauses in the contracts between Hasbro and Paramount that cover actions that badly harm the viability of the project. <em>Personal opinion: I think it's likely that Paramount applied a lot of pressure to Hasbro to knock it the F off when publications like Forbes and Motley Fool started discussing (and thus widely amplifying) OGL upset and calls for boycotting of the movie.</em> P.T. Barnum's assertion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" just ain't so, even in this circus.</p><p></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p>I, however, am not an attorney. I am a DM of 45 years' experience, a QA engineer of 33 years' experience, an author of commercially-successful fiction who has successfully used the legal system to defend my own intellectual property, and a department head that read, approves, rejects, and signs contracts on a daily basis. I'm not coming in completely cold here, but would like to hear from IP specialist attorneys as to whether the FCP ever had any real relevance or what, by simply stating "We can has Policy", what power Hasbro can simply assign to itself without others' consent, and how to proceed to dismantle the FCP as a potential sleeper-cell.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caerdwyn, post: 8920899, member: 7040161"] [B]tl;dr[/B] there's another Wizards document out there that needs to be stamped out. A heads-up to all who have been following the Open Game License debacle... pay attention to the OTHER potential problem: the Fan Content Policy. [URL unfurl="true"]https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy[/URL] Yes, Wizards/Hasbro have backed down on the OGL and SRD 5.1. That's great! It never should have gone this far, but here we are. However, there is a "back door" that is still out there which can potentially be used to harass competitors and critics, or to seize fan work without compensation. That is the Wizards Fan Content Policy (FCP). I have my own reading and interpretation which concludes that most of it was never enforceable or is legal junk to begin with: [LIST] [*]"We ask." It's good to want things, but asking does not mean you get what you want. [*]It's not an agreed upon license. [*]With the SRD 5.1 now in Creative Commons, the FCP is in many ways in direct conflict with that, and loses. [*]Some of it is just restarting "trademarks are a thing". Yep. That's not a policy, trademark infringement is a law. FCP is irrelevant. [*]Same for implying "officialness" or endorsement. [URL='https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf']That's already covered by law[/URL]. [*]That bit about "we can take your stuff for free"? Without agreed-upon compensation, that's also [URL='https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract_implied_in_fact']against the law[/URL]. [*]And about a "right" to take down any videos, reviews, etc. they feed like? Nope. Illegal seizure, especially given the now-present CC-SA-4.0 license, basic intellectual property law, and public statements made by WotC all acknowledge that they can't take that stuff down. It's just hot air, and [URL='https://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/what_are_penalties_false_copyright_infringement_claims']abuse of copyright claims[/URL] can land them in hot water. [/LIST] Wizards/Hasbro needs to be told to take that FCP down. It's a garbage document that has no teeth other than to intimidate. Do we look intimidated? We have millions of master rules-lawyer DMs used to people trying to get away with shenanigans. We have tens of millions of min-maxers who know how to look to grant themselves Advantage in a rules system. We have many, many real-world attorneys who play the game and who are paying attention to this. And Hasbro/WotC? You're under the microscope. You're on probation. You've made a positive step which I and many others acknowledge, but if after all this you still think you're clever, think again. You're not [I]owed[/I] forgiveness, and a second abusive scandal will be the nail in the coffin that destroys the value of D&D forever. Your investors and shareholders will not be pleased. Speaking of which: I also am aware that Paramount [B]is not happy that you've ruined their investment in "Honor Among Thieves"[/B]. Their attorneys are looking at your behavior too, and I'd bet a copper to a GP that there are mutual-obligation, legal detriment and non-performance clauses in the contracts between Hasbro and Paramount that cover actions that badly harm the viability of the project. [I]Personal opinion: I think it's likely that Paramount applied a lot of pressure to Hasbro to knock it the F off when publications like Forbes and Motley Fool started discussing (and thus widely amplifying) OGL upset and calls for boycotting of the movie.[/I] P.T. Barnum's assertion that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" just ain't so, even in this circus. [HR][/HR] I, however, am not an attorney. I am a DM of 45 years' experience, a QA engineer of 33 years' experience, an author of commercially-successful fiction who has successfully used the legal system to defend my own intellectual property, and a department head that read, approves, rejects, and signs contracts on a daily basis. I'm not coming in completely cold here, but would like to hear from IP specialist attorneys as to whether the FCP ever had any real relevance or what, by simply stating "We can has Policy", what power Hasbro can simply assign to itself without others' consent, and how to proceed to dismantle the FCP as a potential sleeper-cell. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The other snake in the grass: the Wizards Fan Content Policy
Top