D&D General What Actually Is Copyright Protected In The SRD?

[teitan]

WotC enjoy copyright in respect of the SRD, and have asserted their trademark rights also via their declaration of product identity. And everyone who uses the OGL accepts those claims, and expressly acknowledges the copyright.

I don't understand what you're saying about the Monster Manual. But I'm pretty confident that WotC will have a copyright notice included in every copy.

You’re obviously not understanding what I am saying. I’m saying people don’t pay attention and, this has happened in the past, published with Wizards IP in their products. In the D20 days with the STL Wizards was quick to issue C&D. 5e, without that STL it has been a lot more wild, Wild West in publishing 3pp support. The SRD… again… does NOT contain IP as indicated by the OGL. By design. The terms and rules in the text of the SRD is released for use by anyone who accepts the terms of the license. There are materials released under the OGL that WOtC does not own or even created, such as Toughness Saves for Mutants & Masterminds, which is OGC from Green Ronin. Rules are not IP. Some of the materials added to the SRD come from those 3pp such as the 5e saving throw system lifted from Trolllord Games, which was not designated OGC when they released C&C and is in fact IP as part of their Seige System. See the problem yet?

 

[teitan]

No idea but usung Kotor as an example is bad I don't know the details of any licencing.

If you're not violating WotC IP you may be violating Biowares instead and they're owned by EA which is even bigger than Hasbro.

Either way you're still hypothetically screwed if push comes to shove in an OGL less world.

And KoToR had a recent rerelease and there's a remake in the works as well (or was).

There wasn’t any licensing. They built it off the infinity engine and used 3.x because the current Star Wars game at the time was from Wizards and used the 3.x rules. They didn’t advertise it because they were BioWare and they had the Wizards licenses for video games and used the same Infinity Engine structures for Neverwinter but modified to take advantage of the DM tools. Then they used the infinity engine to build Dragon Age when they lost Baldur’s Gate and it was very KOTOR.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But I don't think the Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular classes where part of the Infinity Engine, or Neverwinter Nights, or the OGL. Those where lifted directly from Star Wars D20 (Sentinel was original to the game).

 

[pemerton]

There wasn’t any licensing. They built it off the infinity engine and used 3.x because the current Star Wars game at the time was from Wizards and used the 3.x rules. They didn’t advertise it because they were BioWare and they had the Wizards licenses for video games and used the same Infinity Engine structures for Neverwinter but modified to take advantage of the DM tools. Then they used the infinity engine to build Dragon Age when they lost Baldur’s Gate and it was very KOTOR.

I don't see how the two bolded bits fit together.

But assuming the second one is correct, that fits with what I said to @Paul Farquhar upthread: there was a licence in place. There is no basis I can see for inferring from the existence (past or present) of that game that WotC does not enjoy IP rights in respect of various aspects of the D&D game system.

The SRD… again… does NOT contain IP as indicated by the OGL.

This claim isn't true. You can see for yourself at this link:

Here's the section 15 statment:

System Reference Document 5.0 Copyright 2016, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, James Wyatt, Robert J. Schwalb, Bruce R. Cordell, Chris Sims, and Steve Townshend, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.​

The whole text of the SRD is copyrighted in favour of WotC. The SRD also contains product identity, called out in a statement at the front of the document, which WotC claims to enjoy trademark or similar rights over.

There are materials released under the OGL that WOtC does not own or even created, such as Toughness Saves for Mutants & Masterminds, which is OGC from Green Ronin.

Yes. Green Ronin owns the copyright in that text. It is obliged to do so (or to enjoy a licence over the text) by section 5 of the OGL, before purporting to publish it as OGC:

If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.​

Rules are not IP

That claim is too simplistic. And even where rules or processes are not themselves protected by copyright, the text in which they are stated can be. The text of the SRD is copyright WotC. The text of M&M is copyright Green Ronin. Etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

But I don't think the Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular classes where part of the Infinity Engine, or Neverwinter Nights, or the OGL. Those where lifted directly from Star Wars D20 (Sentinel was original to the game).

Well they had a direct license apparently.

 

[teitan]

I don't see how the two bolded bits fit together.

But assuming the second one is correct, that fits with what I said to @Paul Farquhar upthread: there was a licence in place. There is no basis I can see for inferring from the existence (past or present) of that game that WotC does not enjoy IP rights in respect of various aspects of the D&D game system.

This claim isn't true. You can see for yourself at this link:

Here's the section 15 statment:

System Reference Document 5.0 Copyright 2016, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, James Wyatt, Robert J. Schwalb, Bruce R. Cordell, Chris Sims, and Steve Townshend, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.​

The whole text of the SRD is copyrighted in favour of WotC. The SRD also contains product identity, called out in a statement at the front of the document, which WotC claims to enjoy trademark or similar rights over.

Yes. Green Ronin owns the copyright in that text. It is obliged to do so (or to enjoy a licence over the text) by section 5 of the OGL, before purporting to publish it as OGC:

If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.​

That claim is too simplistic. And even where rules or processes are not themselves protected by copyright, the text in which they are stated can be. The text of the SRD is copyright WotC. The text of M&M is copyright Green Ronin. Etc.

Copyright isn’t IP. IP is Driz’zt Do’Urden, the name Dungeons & Dragons or Forgotten Realms. It is titles that indicate a Product Identity not “roll a d20 and add modifiers”. It is not a wall of text. The SRD is copyright but it is not Product Identity because the OGL does not allow use of Product Identity. IP is not Strength 14 is a +2 modifier. An IP is trademarkable. Rules are not trademarkable. The SRD contains nothing that can be trademarked and what could be from Wizards, again, they chose to put in there and not designated as Product Identity. As in “non trademarkable”. They can’t market product called “Drow”. They can’t actually market a product called “Orcus” or even “Demogorgon” because they are mythical beings from religious traditions but they can Trademark Juiblex. They can Trademark Mind Flayer. They can Trademark a Beholder because those things are unique to D&D. They’re Product Identity.

The claim that rules are not IP is simplistic because it is a fact. Don’t confuse IP with copyrights. They are not the same thing.

 

[Lanefan]

They can Trademark Mind Flayer. They can Trademark a Beholder because those things are unique to D&D. They’re Product Identity.

The claim that rules are not IP is simplistic because it is a fact. Don’t confuse IP with copyrights. They are not the same thing.

Some years ago WotC tried (trademarking? patenting? some sort of proprietary claim, anyway) the act of turning a card sideways to indicate a change in what that card represented in play (i.e. tapping a card), to stop other CCG designers/publishers from using that mechanic. I seem to recall that didn't fly due to the idea that rules aren't protectable, but I forget the specifics. As that seems to maybe hold some relevence here, does anyone remember the details?

 

[pemerton]

Copyright isn’t IP.

Yes it is. IP means "intellectual property". The main forms of IP that I'm familiar with are copyright, industrial designs, patents, and trademarks.

IP is Driz’zt Do’Urden, the name Dungeons & Dragons or Forgotten Realms. It is titles that indicate a Product Identity not “roll a d20 and add modifiers”. It is not a wall of text. The SRD is copyright but it is not Product Identity because the OGL does not allow use of Product Identity.

Product Identity is a concept created under contract, by the OGL. Some Product Identity is trademarks. Not all of it is. Some of it is copyrighted. Not all of it is.

And if you actually read the 5e SRD - which you can easily do here <https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf> - you will see that on the first page it identifies those parts of it which are declared to be Product Identity. (An example is "umber hulk", which is found on pp 149 and 260 of the SRD, but is not OGC because designated on p 1 as Product Identity. I don't believe that "umber hulk" is a trademark; and while the phrase itself may be copyrighted, I have doubts that a story about a giant tunnelling insect-headed monster with hypnotic eyes would infringe any WotC copyright - though on these points I'll see if @S'mon is able to offer a second opinion.)

The claim that rules are not IP is simplistic because it is a fact. Don’t confuse IP with copyrights. They are not the same thing.

Are you a lawyer, or legally trained? My impression is that you are not. My profession is teaching law, including private law but not intellectual property. I have researched on some aspects of IP law, however.

@doctorbadwolf started this thread get actual information about how the SRD belongs to WotC from a legal point of view, and what bits of it are copyrighted. Your posts are not helping, because they are full of errors.

EDITed to add: My home jurisdiction is Australia, which means my main expertise is in Australian and English law.

 

[S'mon]

And if you actually read the 5e SRD - which you can easily do here <https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf> - you will see that on the first page it identifies those parts of it which are declared to be Product Identity. (An example is "umber hulk", which is found on pp 149 and 260 of the SRD, but is not OGC because designated on p 1 as Product Identity. I don't believe that "umber hulk" is a trademark; and while the phrase itself may be copyrighted, I have doubts that a story about a giant tunnelling insect-headed monster with hypnotic eyes would infringe any WotC copyright - though on these points I'll see if @S'mon is able to offer a second opinion.)

I concur with your learned opinion, m'lud.

WoTC might someday claim that Umber Hulk is an unregistered trade mark, but it's never been used as a badge of origin by them so I think such a claim would be very weak.

It's quite possible that the Umber Hulk as a detailed concept (not the bare phrase) has copyright protection under US law. Certainly Umber Hulk artistic depiction will. But the idea of "a giant tunnelling insect-headed monster with hypnotic eyes" is not itself copyright protectable IMO.

(For anyone new: I teach IP law and contract in England)

 

[clearstream]

After reading a of this stuff in the past few days, I came to the conclusion than it would probably be possible to rebuild 5e without the 5e SRD if you are careful about your terminology and the specific expression of your rules.

Agreed! Although one factor to consider is the benefit of doing so?

If your stats works differently, just sharing the name of a game mechanic from D&D should not be too much of a problem. Same thing for your action economy: sharing the names is not too bad, but if they work essentially the same as the D&D ones that could be considered as going too far.

Your stats can work identically. How something (e.g. a mechanic) works is very rarely protected. For example, WotC held for a time a patent on the tap mechanic, which they allowed to lapse. What can be copyrighted are distinctive wordings and appearances.

One could use an identical turn / action sequence to DnD, and in many cases label those elements with the same words, without infringing. One useful test would be to see if those mechanics and words exist in other games. So if Strength is a stat that often appears in RPGs (generally) it is not very likely to be upheld as distinctive of DnD. Likewise action, movement, and other such terms.

So just to reiterate, their names are in fact more important in relation to copyright concerns, than how your stats work, which is largely immaterial. Corporations can benefit from ambiguity - the threat and fear of legal action - more than is justified under the law itself. For example, the threat of an encumbrance (say, the risk if not the actuality of legal action) may make a work harder to sell. It's more for that reason that one might want to create clear water between products.