WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[Umbran]

BeyondLurker: Listen, guys, ...

Mod Note:
Taking potshots at people might make you feel good, but it is unconstructive and unbecoming.

Moreover, it tends to make discussions acrimonious - and so it gets you the hairy eyeball from moderators. So, how about going forward, you refer to what people say, rather than the people themselves, hey what? Thanks.

 

[pemerton]

Just wondering — what are basing this assertion on? Is there a legal precedent? Because it doesn’t make sense to me that it’s legal to use one thing from the OGL but if you use many things, it stops being legal.

If I publish a story about an evil ring that, among other magical properties, turns its wearer invisible, I am probably not infringing any JRRTesque copyright.

If I publish a work that word-for-word replicates LotR, I am infringing some JRRTesque copyright.

Somewhere in between those two possibilities is the relevant boundary of what is or is not infringing.

 

[Reynard]

If I publish a story about an evil ring that, among other magical properties, turns its wearer invisible, I am probably not infringing any JRRTesque copyright.

If I publish a work that word-for-word replicates LotR, I am infringing some JRRTesque copyright.

Somewhere in between those two possibilities is the relevant boundary of what is or is not infringing.

Plus there is also parody in there to consider (see: Bored of the Rings).

 

[Emrico]

If I publish a story about an evil ring that, among other magical properties, turns its wearer invisible, I am probably not infringing any JRRTesque copyright.

If I publish a work that word-for-word replicates LotR, I am infringing some JRRTesque copyright.

Somewhere in between those two possibilities is the relevant boundary of what is or is not infringing.

If you want to see just how close someone can get with a VERY derivative story and still not get sued, check out The Iron Tower Trilogy by Dennis L. McKiernan. It is pretty much LOTR with the serial numbers filed off. I still can't believe he didn't get sued for it.

Plus, it's just freaking awful (which may actually be why he didn't get sued).

 

[Voadam]

So even if it made Gary Gygax really mad that other people were using TSR ideas without paying for them, there wasn't a whole lot they could do unless they started crossing that line into either trademark or copyright violations. (Which is why putting any kind of compatibility notice with D&D on your product was a big no-no that TSR actively sued over, and why Wizards created the d20 System Trademark to advertise compatibility, and why every 5e-compatible OGL product today puts something about "Compatible with the fifth edition of the world's biggest fantasy roleplaying game" on their cover instead of actually saying the name of it).

Trademark is to make sure that the mark protected thing is ID'd as the thing and things that are not it are not labelled as the TM, so others can't use the name as part of the name of their own products. You can make things that are for use with a TM'd thing though, or that are compatible with TM'd thing, or that are similar things to the TM'd thing and market them as such and not violate Trademark law protections. Check out generic medicine saying compare with Benadryl or such.

The OGL prevents such indications of compatibility with Dungeons & Dragons as a specific name because one of the OGL terms is not indicating compatibility with a TM without a separate license from the TM holder.

TSR and WotC wanted to prevent such TM compatibility claims on products and the OGL was an effective way to keep D&D the brand off the covers even if they could still say "for the 5th edition of the world most popular fantasy RPG" and such.

Without the OGL WotC can potentially face a lot more products that are labelled on their cover "Compatible with OneD&D Dungeons & Dragons TM" or "For use with OneD&D Dungeons & Dragons TM"

There are separate blurry issues with copyright and derivative works, but the trademark stuff is fairly limited and straightforward.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So what makes something a "D&D" movie anyway?

Take Lord of the Rings, have Arnold show up as Conan, put random tentacles on Shelob, Have everyone die to the point that the Proudfeet clan, Radagast and the Witchking are the ones to finally destroy the ring.

 

[Jer]

Take Lord of the Rings, have Arnold show up as Conan, put random tentacles on Shelob, Have everyone die to the point that the Proudfeet clan, Radagast and the Witchking are the ones to finally destroy the ring.

Everyone speaks in a different accent. Someone tells a Monty Python joke at an inappropriate rime.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, so the conversation you came into was someone asking what sort of compromise between 1.0a and 2.0 could be achieved that might be acceptable to folks. I suggested that since WotC wants control over movies, computer games and VTT, that the new OGL be written as irrevocable and grant people the ability to use written works, PDFs and social media platforms as they did under 1.0a, but reserve movies and video games to WotC. I'm unsure about VTT. I personally don't want WotC to be the only VTT out there, but it seems likely that they won't budge on that.

You then replied to me that the OGL(without specifying which one) allows that. So I responded with the clarification that 1.1 wouldn't allow it, though they've since walked back the social media portion.

Yes, and so I’m at a loss as to the point of such a reply since…they’ve walked that back.

Obviously I’m not unaware of that, so it’s irrational to read the post and reply as if I am.

 

[MrGrenadine]

If I publish a story about an evil ring that, among other magical properties, turns its wearer invisible, I am probably not infringing any JRRTesque copyright.

If I publish a work that word-for-word replicates LotR, I am infringing some JRRTesque copyright.

Somewhere in between those two possibilities is the relevant boundary of what is or is not infringing.

But nothing in the OGL is WotC’s IP! It‘s not a novel.

Even if I published a word for word copy of the OGL and sold it—none of that text is WotC’s, and it’s perfectly legal.

 

[Matt Thomason]

But nothing in the OGL is WotC’s IP! It‘s not a novel.

Even if I published a word for word copy of the OGL and sold it—none of that text is WotC’s, and it’s perfectly legal.

I'm assuming you mean the SRD here.

The specific text of the SRD is, in fact, WotC's copyrighted intellectual property. It is IP they have licensed to us under the OGL, that we can reuse, mix, and republish under that license, but it is still technically theirs. If you were to use it without a license, you could be sued for copyright infringement.

(The specific text of the OGL is also WotC's copyrighted intellectual property, for what that matters, but again is licensed under... itself, actually, in a somewhat scary recursive manner that causes my mind to bend in upon itself when I think about it too hard.)