You reap what you sow - GSL.

[pemerton]

Both the OGL and the GSL imply a strong statement of ownership. Any statement that says, Only if A, then B, implies that you cannot B without A, regardless of whether or not you wish to participate in A.

Except that this is not necessarily true if the law confers on you a right to B regardless of A.

WoTC's ownership rights do not arise from, nor do they depend upon, any claims of ownership made in either licence. They arise from the operation of intellectual property law.

If you are not a party to the GSL, certainly WotC will not sue you on the basis of the GSL

Which was my point - the GSL confers no obligations on non-parties.

but you can be certain that this doesn't mean that not agreeing to the GSL gives you the right to publish 4e materials -- on a fan website or anywhere else.

Of course not. As I noted, any such rights would arise, and their content depend upon, the general operation of the law of copyrights and trademarks.

Under the OGL, a fan website could fairly easily comply with the terms of the license, and thus never have to (reasonably) worry about whether or not WotC would take action against it.

Although most didn't, for example because they made a great deal of use of product identity of material published under the OGL, and made a great deal of use of WoTC's IP that was not licensed under the OGL (eg names of gods, monsters and wizards).

Nevertheless WoTC did not take action against those websites as far as I know.

OTOH, if WotC wants to "close off" older editions of the game (and both the GSL and the changes to 4e, some of which are simple changes to terminology from 3e -- apparently to imply that they are different from material under the OGL) suggests that it is more than reasonable to believe this is so, then the GSL (unlike the OGL) cannot be used to protect EN World.

This is a significant change, and pretending otherwise doesn't make it so. And simply because WotC isn't seeking to do so at this time doesn't mean it won't seek to do so a week from now, or a month from now, or a year.

This was as true in the past - every time ENworld hosted a thread discussing beholders or Bigby - as it is now.

And because, at that time, the potential for claiming damages will be even higher than it is now, WotC will certainly have an upper hand in making sure that we never hear the full story of why EN World disappeared. It's called "nondisclosure".

This is all, I assume, baseless speculation. But in any event the law generally frowns upon those who rest upon their rights in order to try to increase the size of any eventual award in their favour.

I might also remind you that, earlier in the 4e launch cycle, I actually got a response from a WotC rep on this very issue, and the response was not that EN World was protected.

If I get some time next week, I'll try to find the post in my subscriptions, though if anyone wants to Search for it, that would make my life easier.

I've never asserted that ENworld enjoys any rights under either the OGL or the GSL. Only that it's legal exposure in respect of 4e is no different than in respect of 3E - and in either case, it is depending upon the forbearance of WoTC in enforcing its rights. Such a policy of forbearance is what one might also call a "fan site policy". Apparently one of those is on the way, although we don't know yet whether and to what degree it will continue to involve forbearance.

 

[pemerton]

I am not giving conjecture. As I have insinuated I have researched copyright law and conversed via e-mail with several law professors, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. I am just not a lawyer.

So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.

Treebore, with all due respect, your posts to date do not disclose any particularly sound reasoning in respect of the legal issues involved.

But I'd be happy for you to elaborate. In particular, (i) what is the argument that OSRIC does not tortiously trade upon WoTC's good will in the D&D and AD&D brands, and (ii) what is the argument that OSRIC is not an adaptation (the relevant concept in Australian and, I suspect, UK copyright law) or derivative work (the relevant concept in US copyright law, I believe) of the 1st ed PHB and DMG?

 

[Treebore]

Treebore, with all due respect, your posts to date do not disclose any particularly sound reasoning in respect of the legal issues involved.

But I'd be happy for you to elaborate. In particular, (i) what is the argument that OSRIC does not tortiously trade upon WoTC's good will in the D&D and AD&D brands, and (ii) what is the argument that OSRIC is not an adaptation (the relevant concept in Australian and, I suspect, UK copyright law) or derivative work (the relevant concept in US copyright law, I believe) of the 1st ed PHB and DMG?

As I said, I am not a lawyer. So even if I were to take the time to write up a detailed response it would still be meaningless. You want solid info? Look it up. I started with websites of Texas Universities and went from there.

Since your an Australian, and presumably under UK law, you may want to start elsewhere.

 

[Fifth Element]

So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.

I'm sorry, I thought Clark was a lawyer.

And despite your claims that copyright law is easy to research, I doubt that it is easy to find information useful to this specific purpose. I spend all of my working hours working with a single piece of legislation (the Income Tax Act Canada), have for years, and there are still many bits of it I haven't the first clue about. (By this I mean to point out that I am an expert in the Canadian tax act, and yet there are many things within it I would have to research before providing comment on. And no, googling the tax act and the CTF website would not be good enough.)

To claim that something as nebulous and sticky as IP law is "easy" to research is quite the overstatement I think. Considering there are lawyers who do nothing but IP law, there is no way a layman can spend a few hours with google and arrive at a solid conclusion.

 

[Fifth Element]

Since your an Australian, and presumably under UK law, you may want to start elsewhere.

Such as Australian law perhaps?

Australia isn't part of the UK.

 

[Gilwen]

Such as Australian law perhaps?

Australia isn't part of the UK.

What!? When did that happen?



Please don't flog me.....

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm sorry, I thought Clark was a lawyer.

I do believe that he is, yes, as well as being a successful d20/OGL publisher. Treebore, OTOH, is neither.

 

[pemerton]

As I said, I am not a lawyer. So even if I were to take the time to write up a detailed response it would still be meaningless. You want solid info? Look it up. I started with websites of Texas Universities and went from there.

Since your an Australian, and presumably under UK law, you may want to start elsewhere.

As Fifth Element noted, I am Australian, not British (although Australian law, like much of that in the US although to a greater and more ongoing extent, has its origins in Britain).

But you may have missed my real point - which was also made my Fifth Element. My real point was that, if you cannot give answers to my questions, than your opinion is worth little. Clark's, on the other hand, is worth a bit, given that he is a practising lawyer. I also trust my own legal intuitions more than yours, given that I am a lawyer (though an academic one who is not in practice).

 

[Hairfoot]

Please don't flog me.....

Deal. Just as long as you don't burn any of us at the stake for lack of puritanism or shoot us with one of those guns that are mandatory for everyone over 8 years of age!

 

[Fifth Element]

(although Australian law, like much of that in the US although to a greater and more ongoing extent, has its origins in Britain).

Oh yes, Canadian law is based on British common law as well. Except in Quebec, where the system is based on the French civil code.

Edit: typo. Merde!