Unearthed Arcana SRD - SCANNED

[MerricB]

As I read it, it is suggested as a team project.

The team would remove PI from the scanned document.

Unfortunately, first of all they'd have to be sent the scanned document - and that is illegal, because it still contains PI.

They could be sent the document if the PI was first removed...

I believe this is known as a "Catch 22" situation.

Cheers!

 

[SSquirrel]

As I read it, it is suggested as a team project.

The team would remove PI from the scanned document.

Unfortunately, first of all they'd have to be sent the scanned document - and that is illegal, because it still contains PI.

They could be sent the document if the PI was first removed...

I believe this is known as a "Catch 22" situation.

Cheers!

I believe Merric has the correct read on the situation. Obviously otehr people have alredy done it, but haven't posted it for various reasons, including being asked not to by WOTC members, unofficially I believe from the original thread. People WILL do this eventually and YES emailing the scans with PI in them is illegal but so what? He's trying to send the copies he makes to _1_ person who will do the step of removing PI material. He's not posting the whole thing and then suggesting that everyone who downloads it remove the PI themselves.

I think sharing it with the one person who will proof it is the lesser evil compared with scanning it up, pictures and all, and putting it up for download via bit torrent or kazaa. Besides, the final product will be pur OGC, and while this may not be the SPIRIT of what WOTC planned w/the whole d20 movement, it sure as heck fits the letter of the law. In the end anyway *grin*

Hagen

 

[Aristotle]

/agree

To keep it legal the original author would have to take care of all of the closed content on his own. A group could maybe get away with it if they kept all of the content in one location and did all of it together offline, but sending the scanned pages (with closed content still present) would be a violation of the license (and piracy).

I won't pretend to be a lawyer or to know how WotC handles legal issues, but thats risky ground to be walking on. At best they won't do anything. At worst your computer get seized (as do those of anybody they have reason to believe you sent copies to) and maybe you end up in court.

My Advice: use email encryption.

 

[johnsemlak]

Just out of curiousity, how much work would removing the PI from the original scan involve? It sounds to me like if the original poster does this next, everything would be ok.

 

[Gez]

Yep, if you invert step 4 and 3, and remove the IP and closed content parts first thing after the OCR, then the draft could be distributed and the proofreading could be done as a team effort.

BTW, it's "fool-proof" not "full-proof."

 

[Swiftbrook]

Unfortunately, first of all they'd have to be sent the scanned document - and that is illegal, because it still contains PI.

I'm not a lawyer but .... Why is this illegal if I own a copy of UA?

Just out of curiousity, how much work would removing the PI from the original scan involve? It sounds to me like if the original poster does this next, everything would be ok.

I don't think very much. 99% of the content of UA is OGL stuff. Only a few items were listed as closed. In my reading, even the side bars, house rules, etc are OGC.

5) HTML coding and structuring

I've got some of this done.... the basic structure set up like the one at www.systemreferencedocuments.org (ie 'Sovelior & Sage' ). I'm willing to do much more.

-Swiftbrook

 

[MerricB]

I'm not a lawyer but .... Why is this illegal if I own a copy of UA?

"No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission." -- from the UA copyright page. There are also the copyright laws to consider.

In theory, you can't even reproduce a copy of UA for your personal use. Why do you think that Wizards print "Permission is given to photocopy for personal use only" on their character sheets?

You may only reproduce a work under the Fair Use law.

For more on copyright:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/

Now, assuming that making a copy for yourself is fine (a big ask, but I think we might be able to get away with it), and sharing it with others that have the book is still fine (again, risky... please see a lawyer), then you have to have proof that the others own copies of UA...

Oh, joy.

Cheers!

 

[Rasyr]

Technically, it is illegal to share out any Work to which you do not have the copyrights to. The law considers this an infringement upon the rights of the original copyright holder.

As mentioned above, if the original poster makes a good faith effort to remove all of the PI from the document before sending it to the next person, then they *should* be covered (don't forget to include a copy of the OGL when you send it).

However, there is also an argument that the "team" who is working on this project might be considered a single entity for the purpose of this project, and thus the sharing of the files between the team members would not constitute a copyright violation. It is important to note that this is a very "IFFY" argument, and that you should most definitely consult a lawyer before trying this approach.

 

[pennywiz]

As I read it, it is suggested as a team project.

The team would remove PI from the scanned document.

Unfortunately, first of all they'd have to be sent the scanned document - and that is illegal, because it still contains PI.

They could be sent the document if the PI was first removed...

I believe this is known as a "Catch 22" situation.

Cheers!

Exactly.

Psion, hong, Lord P. - See above.

johnsemlak & Gez - Yup. That's my understanding, too.

 

[pennywiz]

Technically, it is illegal to share out any Work to which you do not have the copyrights to. The law considers this an infringement upon the rights of the original copyright holder.

As mentioned above, if the original poster makes a good faith effort to remove all of the PI from the document before sending it to the next person, then they *should* be covered (don't forget to include a copy of the OGL when you send it).

I don't see the term "good faith" in the OGL but it certainly makes sense that if it was done in this manner no one would complain. But not only PI. All non-OGC needs to be removed, leaving only OGC.

However, there is also an argument that the "team" who is working on this project might be considered a single entity for the purpose of this project, and thus the sharing of the files between the team members would not constitute a copyright violation. It is important to note that this is a very "IFFY" argument, and that you should most definitely consult a lawyer before trying this approach.

I agree that this seems like a rationalization. It's a slippery slope. One could, by this rationale, claim the entire D&D community is part of the "team" and pass documents around perpetually with no deadline set on when the final OGL'd work would be finished.