Vapourware WOTC restricting content creation in new OGL - Paizo launches competing OGL - lol cancelled

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

It's a fruit that identifies as a vegetable.

What's the difference?
Both are non-meat like fish or chicken.

 

[Stella Brando]

Ketchup as a vegetable was the Reagan administration, right?

 

[RaggleFraggle]

I've been talking about the fluff this whole time. If I wrote a novel about evil drow elves with black skin and white hair, who live underground, worship spiders and demons, practice slavery, organize in a matriarchy, and dress in BDSM fetish wear, then I'm definitely gonna be worried if that opens me to litigation by Hasbro.

Don't do it, then.
Make your elves into shitskinned chicken worshippers who practice pseudo-equality cult and dress in dangerhair wigs and you're golden. Fantasy, after all, is about dreaming up new things, not an endless regurgitation of illithid porn.

Can't use gnolls? Call them kynokephaloi. This word has a wider background than hyenamen from Imoen porn.

And who the hell cares about the color of the dragons? The only good color of the dragon is dead!

Fucking zoomers. Creative generation my ass.

For the record, I'm not a zoomer. I've been thinking on this stuff in order to cover my ass. I think the exercise is useful in helping me be more creative and think outside the box.

Now I understand why some of the game books I played as a kid had "brain slayers" instead of mind flayers.

"You want to get sued?" to quote Grounds-keeper Willie.

Back in the early 2000s there were a bunch of attempts to create open content analogues of the D&D iconic monsters. Here are a few examples (all from the same book):
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/phrenic-scourge/
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/monstrous-humanoids/ophiduan/
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/aberrations/evil-eye/

tbh I think they're more interesting than their inspirations.

 

[Acrux]

For the record, I'm not a zoomer. I've been thinking on this stuff in order to cover my ass. I think the exercise is useful in helping me be more creative and think outside the box

I don't think you need to worry about it too much. For instance, there was a book trilogy in the 90s called The Deed of Paksenarrion that was basically an AD&D game written out as novels. There were drow in that book, I think maybe just called dark elves - that were obvious analogs; sadistic, spider worshipping, etc. Those are still in print and no lawsuit was ever filed.

 

[Demo.Graph]

For the record, I'm not a zoomer.

These days we all are.

 

[Caim]

I love how he even remembered to bring snacks into the battle just in case.

Not like he gets rations as part of his starting inventory.

He does, it's just that his rations are his party members.

It's a high lethality campaign, but not in the way you think.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

formulas are not subject to copyright but the expression of them can be and that's the edge where people litigate.

The exact formula expression can't be copyrighted otherwise you make a monopoly. What is copyrightable as the exact expression of the wording used for non-mathematical formulas is. This example from the AD&D 2E PHB paladin description.

The paladin is a noble and heroic warrior, the symbol of all that is right and true in the world. As such, he has high ideals that he must maintain at all times. Throughout leg-end and history there are many heroes who could be called paladins: Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad are all examples of the class. However, many brave and heroic soldiers have tried and failed to live up to the ideals of the paladin. It is not an easy task!

Only a human may become a paladin. He must have minimum ability scores of Strength 12, Constitution 9, Wisdom 13, and Charisma 17. Strength and Charisma are the prime requisites of the paladin. A paladin must be lawful good in alignment and must always remain lawful good. A paladin who changes alignment, either deliberately or inadvertently, loses all his special powers—sometimes only temporarily and sometimes forever. He can use any weapon and wear any type of armor.

That's copyrighted due to the form of its expression i.e. wording. Now compare that to a rewritten version.

The paladin is a righteous and valiant warrior, embodying all that is good and true. They uphold high standards and ideals, and examples of paladins can be found in legends and history such as Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad. However, becoming a paladin is not easy, as many brave soldiers have struggled to meet the expectations of this noble class.

Only humans are eligible to become paladins, who must possess a minimum Strength of 12, Constitution of 9, Wisdom of 13 and Charisma of 17. Strength and Charisma are the most important attributes for a paladin. They must be lawful good in alignment and maintain that alignment at all times. Any deviation from lawful good will result in the loss of their special powers, which may be temporary or permanent. Paladins are proficient in using any weapon and wearing any type of armor.

Same mechanic, but just written differently. The opening paragraph is relaying of historical information which again, isn't copyrightable like you can't copyright data tables, historical facts, and the like.

Eh... maybe.

Again this is not my field of focus, but this specific example would probably come down to the judge. It's not really a hot-button issue anymore, but there is a lot of legal precedent focused around plagiarism, specifically around people obviously and intentionally trying to skirt being successfully sued for it. While I think the position that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted is pretty obviously correct and legally defensible, it still comes down to your judge knowing what the fuck you're talking about. In general, the more niche a case subject is the more likely it is that the judge just won't fucking get it, and I could easily see here the distinction between "mechanics" and "text" getting missed. This is where lawyers come in for these sorts of cases, as our job is essentially to give the judge context for a thing that they probably have never given a moment's thought to before, but one of the unfortunate truths of the judiciary is that sometimes they're bullheaded fucking morons who have already made their minds up about a case before it begins.

 

[JamesDixon]

but there is a lot of legal precedent focused around plagiarism,

You can't commit plagiarism when you rewrite things that are in public domain like my example of the dark elves and paladins. You certainly can't commit plagiarism with game mechanics either since those are not protected by copyright. Only the exact expression used is protected i.e. wording and the entire look of the book. Thus, rewriting things into your own words is protecting yourself from the charges of plagiarism. You can't copyright an idea you should know this.

The listing of historical and legendary figures is in the public domain. Did they act like paladins as per the rules of many games? Yes, that's why other rules systems have paladins and it's not just a D&D thing. If your position were correct then Wizards would have been able to go against 100+ publishers of different rules systems that have paladins in them. Starting with the big one Pendragon.

 

[Delterius]

i summoned the world's greatest sages to the tippy top of mount song in a desperate attempt to answer an age old query: 'how do you get dnd players to play some other system question mark'. the wisemen burned through copious amounts of ink and sent over ten thousand prayers to the heavens. as they came close to a definite answer we received the OGL leak and then they killed themselves. very auspicious.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

but there is a lot of legal precedent focused around plagiarism,

You can't commit plagiarism when you rewrite things that are in public domain like my example of the dark elves and paladins. You certainly can't commit plagiarism with game mechanics either since those are not protected by copyright. Only the exact expression used is protected i.e. wording and the entire look of the book. Thus, rewriting things into your own words is protecting yourself from the charges of plagiarism. You can't copyright an idea you should know this.

The listing of historical and legendary figures is in the public domain. Did they act like paladins as per the rules of many games? Yes, that's why other rules systems have paladins and it's not just a D&D thing. If your position were correct then Wizards would have been able to go against 100+ publishers of different rules systems that have paladins in them. Starting with the big one Pendragon.

You’re missing the point. I’m not disagreeing with your position on the actual legality.

But I have first-hand knowledge that there are a lot of dipshit judges out there, and ultimately they’re the ones who make the decision.

As alarming as it might be, I would say that roughly 1/3 of the judiciary is grossly incompetent and/or corrupt and never should have been appointed. That’s a large enough percentage that it meaningfully affects one’s chances in court with suits like these.

 

[Roguey]

I don't think anyone actually dared to copy the mouse, but Marvel had Howard the Duck which looks pretty similar to all the ducks in Disney comics and Disney never sued them.

Disney actually did file a C&D and as a result Howard the Duck had to put on pants (in-story explanation: his lack of pants was considered indecent exposure by the police).

As revenge, in the 00s his original creator wrote a story where he was mutated into an ugly mouse.

 

[JamesDixon]

but there is a lot of legal precedent focused around plagiarism,

You can't commit plagiarism when you rewrite things that are in public domain like my example of the dark elves and paladins. You certainly can't commit plagiarism with game mechanics either since those are not protected by copyright. Only the exact expression used is protected i.e. wording and the entire look of the book. Thus, rewriting things into your own words is protecting yourself from the charges of plagiarism. You can't copyright an idea you should know this.

The listing of historical and legendary figures is in the public domain. Did they act like paladins as per the rules of many games? Yes, that's why other rules systems have paladins and it's not just a D&D thing. If your position were correct then Wizards would have been able to go against 100+ publishers of different rules systems that have paladins in them. Starting with the big one Pendragon.

You’re missing the point. I’m not disagreeing with your position on the actual legality.

But I have first-hand knowledge that there are a lot of dipshit judges out there, and ultimately they’re the ones who make the decision.

As alarming as it might be, I would say that roughly 1/3 of the judiciary is grossly incompetent and/or corrupt and never should have been appointed. That’s a large enough percentage that it meaningfully affects one’s chances in court with suits like these.

Fair enough. I misunderstood your point, so I appreciate you clarifying.

 

[Dorateen]

Reminder, there are Drow in Grimoire. And if wotc ever tried to go after Cleve, they would have to bury what's left of their lawyers with a teaspoon.

Spoiler

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[perfectslumbers]

• No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

D&D is ruined guys. Hasbro jannies are going to censor everything now

 

[Delterius]

i thought their strongest argument was to somehow sue from that american city where everything is funded by megacorps and verdicts tend to be 50% in favor of them for some reason

 

[JamesDixon]

I hate to be that guy but here's a cross post of me going over the new OGL. Enjoy.

Reading the new OGL.

As I said above, content more clearly associated with D&D (like the classes, spells, and monsters)

Can't be copyrighted as it is game mechanics. That falls under the public domain.

You'll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or hurtful content is published using the covered D&D stuff.

So they're now claiming monopoly status. I wonder how the state attorney generals and the SEC feel about it.

We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content

Unenforceable since in the US there is the First Amendment which means that all speech that doesn't advocate criminal acts is protected speech. Using the US court system to go after third party creators for their expression of the first amendment rights is a monopoly and generally illegal.

We will continue to support VTT usage for both OGL creators and VTT operators.

I guess a lawyer told them that they can't copyright mathematical formulas and steal people's code that is copyrighted.

You own your content. You don't give Wizards any license-back, and for any ownership disputes, you can sue for breach of contract and money damages (versus holding up products other players are waiting for while we sort it out).

This is meaningless since they can't license out public domain items like game mechanics, spells, and monsters. This also means you can't sue them either for breach of contract as this is a non-enforceable contract.

No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.

Unenforceable since this isn't an enforceable license due to them trying to control the copyright of public domain items. The license has no effect.

Now onto the actual OGL 1.2.

The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content.

They can't claim copyright to public domain items like game mechanics. This is unenforceable. You're better off just rewriting the rules in your own words and tell Wizards to fuck right off.

Our copyright rights in the other content included in this System Reference Document are licensed to you under the Open Game License 1.2.

Again this is public domain stuff and they can't license it to you. It's the same as me renting your house to others.

Use of D&D content in virtual tabletops is allowed on the terms of Wizards’ Virtual Tabletop Policy.

Unenforceable due to the law of first sale with books. You can use them in any medium you wish since you physically own it. They can't allow you to use your toilet in your home as they don't own it.

Use of D&D content in streaming, fan art, cosplay, and other fan content is permitted as described in Wizards’ Fan Content Policy.

This is the poison pill. You're better off creating your own shit and telling Wizards to sit on it and rotate at 15,000 rpm.

CREATOR PRODUCT BADGES. For content published under the OGL 1.2, you may use one of following badges in the manner specified in the Creator Product Badge Style Guide. So long as you comply with that guide in using the badges, Wizards licenses you under the OGL 1.2 to use such a badge on any of Your Licensed Works.

Finally something that they can allow you to use which is their trademarks. This is the only thing that is legal in their entire OGL. If you want to use their trademarks then you have to comply with their demands. My response is to tell Wizards to fuck off and die.

You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us:

(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief.

(b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.

This is them stating that they will steal from your copyrighted original work and you can't do shit about it.

WHAT WE OWN. We own Our Licensed Content and reserve all rights not expressly granted in this license.

They don't own the copyrights to game mechanics and monsters. To claim otherwise is copyright misuse.

YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT. You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available.

(a) You must clearly indicate that your Licensed Work contains Our Licensed Content under this license either by including the full text of this license in your Licensed Work or by applying the Creator Products badge in compliance with the then-current style guidelines.

(b) You may permit the use of your Content on any terms you want. However, if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license, you must include in the Licensed Work the attribution for Our Licensed Content found in the preamble to the applicable SRD, and make clear that Our Licensed Content included in your Licensed Work is made available on the terms of this license.

This is false as they have already stated that they can steal from your content and republish it with modifications. They also said that they own game mechanics in violation of many court cases and US law.

No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

Another poison pill where you must abide by their political position at all times. They can force you out of their events etc... with this.

(b) Termination

(i) We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).

(ii) We may terminate your license if you breach any other term in this license, and do not cure that breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach.

Point 1 is interesting because they are claiming to have copyrights to game mechanics and are classifying it as intellectual property. Yet, the US Copyright Office and the courts have ruled repeatedly that you can't copyright public domain items like game mechanics, spells, and monsters.

Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.

This is a fuck you I get out jail free card. Meaning that if someone challenges their claims of copyright over public domain items that they will remove the license to avoid going to court. This tells you that they know this license won't hold up to scrutiny by the US Copyright Office or the federal courts.

Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Class Action Waiver. This license and all matters relating to its interpretation and enforcement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and any disputes arising out of or relating to this license will be resolved solely and exclusively through individual litigation in the state or federal courts located in the county in which Wizards (or any successor) has its headquarters, and the parties expressly consent to the jurisdiction of such courts. Each party hereto irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action with respect to such a dispute.

They actually can't have a state court hear this since under the Constitution of the United States all states agreed that the US federal government handles trademarks, patents, and copyrights. The states do not have jurisdiction there. By mandating the case to be tried there will invoke a hardship for third party creators that live out of the state. I can readily see the US federal court in Seattle agreeing to move the case to a court that is local to the party being sued by Wizards as they have a financial burden imposed on them by a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Review by Counsel. You should seek advice of counsel to make sure you understand this license. You agree that you had the opportunity to do so.

This is the only smart part of the clause. Go to a copyright attorney and let them look this over to watch them laugh.

Now on to the VTT part.

So displaying static SRD content is just fine because it’s just like looking in a sourcebook. You can put the text of Magic Missile up in your VTT and use it to calculate and apply damage to your target. And automating Magic Missile’s damage to replace manually rolling and calculating is also fine. The VTT can apply Magic Missile’s 1d4+1 damage automatically to your target’s hit points. You do not have to manually calculate and track the damage.

Good they couldn't enforce copyright on code that does automation. It's far outside of what they can claim as it is copyrighted code and the mathematical formulas can't be copyrighted without making a monopoly.

What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game.

They can't do shit about animation of a magic missile that is created by a third party as Wizards does not own the copyrights to it. The creator of the automation does. The NFT bit is smart since it's the sale of jpgs of other people's content, but the NFT has no copyright associated with it. It's just binary on a spreadsheet saying that you own this without actually owning it via copyright.

We’ve never licensed visual depictions of our content under the OGL, just the text of the SRD. That hasn’t changed. You can create a creature called an Owlbear with the stat block from the SRD. You cannot copy any of our Owlbear depictions. But if you’ve drawn your own unique Owlbear, or someone else did, you can use it.

That's them admitting that they don't own the copyrights to game mechanics for a creature that's from folklore. You just can't use their artwork, which is copyrighted, for your games.

If you are a VTT owner or operator who supports OGL products on your platform, you have the same obligations for VTT content that any other website owner or operator has for copyrighted content under the DMCA.

Well to avoid this poison pill just don't support D&D as a VTT. Leave it to the community to handle it. Not like they can do anything about someone putting pdfs into say Tabletop Simulator and never putting them on the workshop. Your uploaded items are protected by Steam.

Well there's my take on this.

Bonus material:

1. Follow the law of the land. It’s your Fan Content, so you are solely responsible for ensuring that your creations don’t violate the laws of your region, country, plane, or dimension. In addition to this Policy, your use of any Wizards’ IP must also comply with Wizards’ Terms of Use and Code of Conduct (together, the “Wizards Terms”). If there’s a conflict between anything in this Policy and the Wizards Terms, the Wizards Terms win. Those agreements include important legal terms (such as limitations of lability, indemnification, and dispute resolution), so please review them carefully.

That's from the fan content policy. Amazing that they demand that you follow the law, but they can say fuck the law at the same time.

Bonus bonus material from the Fan Content Policy. Enjoy a good laugh.

Wizards IP includes the cards, creatures, books, games, gameplay, pictures, stories, logos, animations, artwork, plots, locations, histories, characters, graphics, files, text, and other materials published by Wizards of the Coast.

Creatures and game mechanics can't be copyrighted. Gameplay would fall under fair use as the game requires you to play it. It is also transformative of the work, especially if you are using your own world.

They can't claim animations when someone else makes them.

General plots are ideas and cannot be copyrighted. The details of said plot of who, where, and other parts of the story that are IP are copyrighted. The general plot cannot. Otherwise you wouldn't have soap operas all across the world repeating the same plotlines.

 

[J1M]

It makes a lot of sense that our good friend is James Dixon is a lawyer, he seems like someone who could argue whether tomato is a fruit for an hour. I once had an Australian teacher who would call such people "bush lawyers."

Tomato is a fruit you fruit.

All fruits are vegetables. Vegetable is "edible plant".

 

[J1M]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This
means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective
date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license.
Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you
published that content.

Well, that's a non-starter. Wizards should really fire whoever is secretly working for Paizo on their executive team.

Proper OGL allowed for videogames, but this expressly prohibits them. Wizards wants to negotiate royalties for each game.

 

[mediocrepoet]

It makes a lot of sense that our good friend is James Dixon is a lawyer, he seems like someone who could argue whether tomato is a fruit for an hour. I once had an Australian teacher who would call such people "bush lawyers."

Tomato is a fruit you fruit.

All fruits are vegetables. Vegetable is "edible plant".

You are both a fruit and a vegetable.

 

[pakoito]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This
means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective
date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license.
Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you
published that content.

Well, that's a non-starter. Wizards should really fire whoever is secretly working for Paizo on their executive team.

Proper OGL allowed for videogames, but this expressly prohibits them. Wizards wants to negotiate royalties for each game.

I'm a corporate shill, but under all the legalese crap this feels more in line with most licensing contracts around. Now, to the main problem.

The VTT bit in the Annex about "wot if vidya" is disingenuous and pairs with 1(b) to disallow anything D&D that's not a piece of paper. The whole thing reeks of a relicensing to establish a VTT monopoly with its own marketplace; while also require licensing for video content, videogames, plays, pantomimes or onlyfans cosplays.

It's smart because on the surface it stops the beef with other book publishers, which will have to bring their content to Hasbro's VTT monopoly with a 30% "store cut" anyway. It's just not in the license anymore.

It's door-in-the-face, from "we'll take 30% of all your books" to "you keep your books, but give us 30% if you sell them at our store (and we'll own the only store because c'mon, we let you keep your book profits)"

 

[Stella Brando]

All fruits are vegetables.

All bears are toys.

 

[Stokowski]

All "female" posters are alts.

 

[Fedora Master]

Why does every thread where James turns up descend into autism hell?

 

[JamesDixon]

Why does every thread where James turns up descend into autism hell?

Are you crying because of my posts or what man?