| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 01:26:49
Ok...so I can't get a solid grasp on something.
The 3.5 D&D Open Gaming License:
Is it, or is it not, still available for use?
Also, is there anyone here who knows well the ins and outs of Gaming Industry laws and pitfalls here in the U.S.?
I'm pretty good at corporate law on a basic level of making sure I don't step on toes and don't get kicked in my nethers...but I'm lousy at the exploits and stuff like that.
I'd really welcome an in depth discussion about what can and can't be published by "people" concerning the Realms. Now, in this I'm not talking about for profit concerning the Realms...but exactly what is allowed to be published for "free" about the Realms. Also, what can be published for profit that is not related to material, ideas, and etc. owned by WotC.
So... |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 20:18:12
-Very Interesting.
BRIMSTONE  |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 19:52:22
Here is part 1 & 2 of Monte Cook's take on it, and he was one the ground floor of the whole d20 OGL/SRD thing.
Part 1
Part 2 |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Nov 2008 : 03:18:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That little detail has not stopped some authors/companies from coming down hard on fansites. And while it would be logical for WotC to leave you and other fans alone, many of the decisions they've made in the last year or so strike a lot of people as lacking any logic.
Very true.
I'm sure if they decided to do a 'Trail Map' of FR like they did in the "good ol' Days", they would ask me to cease and desist, because I would certainly be interferring with that.
Since that's an extrtemely unlikely event, and RB has already stated that he doesn't see any new continental map coming out for 4e FR (just smaller regional ones to accompany articles, like Brian's Cormyr one), I think if anything I'm doing them a huge favor (with the 4e ones, at least).
Of course, your whole point was that companies do this regardless of how it effects them, and WotC hasn't been making the most sensical decisions of late, sooooo... point taken. 
Either way, I've already positioned myself to move into a new realm if need be - I just need to get my own server now. 
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 16:31:30
-This is all of the stuff that you can use, legally, without any hastle from WotC: http://www.d20srd.org/ |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 15:34:21
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Yes, they could ask me to stop, but I don't see them doing it, since what I do generates interest in the setting - a setting I do not money from... they do.
That little detail has not stopped some authors/companies from coming down hard on fansites. And while it would be logical for WotC to leave you and other fans alone, many of the decisions they've made in the last year or so strike a lot of people as lacking any logic. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 08:46:21
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And yet, they leave him and it alone, and some designers even 'pitch-in' with suggestions from time to time.
Well ... they could, of course, put a lid on it at any given time, if they feel they have to.
quote:
Netbook projects are an important aspect of the fanbase - just take a look at Brian James' Grand History of the Realms, and what WotC did about that, and you'll get a good idea of where they stand.
My gut feeling is that as long as there is not that much 4E FR material out, they will not stop people from adding to the existing lore or rules set. It keeps customers and friends happy, while the Wizards have time to analyze the success of 4E, what people want and how to tackle both. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 06:55:57
There are three, maybe four Netbook projects all currenlty being juggle over on the WotC boards - ALL of them are based in pre-4e lore and mechanics, and we are doing it right on their own boards, and they've yet to tell any of us to stop.
Considering how far along Dagnirion's Elves of the Realms Netbook is, and the quality of the material therein, and the incredibly SIZE of the thing (it just keeps growing), if they were going to feel 'intimidaed' by anything, it would be that.
And yet, they leave him and it alone, and some designers even 'pitch-in' with suggestions from time to time.
Netbook projects are an important aspect of the fanbase - just take a look at Brian James' Grand History of the Realms, and what WotC did about that, and you'll get a good idea of where they stand.
Edit: LOL
I just realized I was mentioned (I hadn't read the whole thread before responding). Yes, they could ask me to stop, but I don't see them doing it, since what I do generates interest in the setting - a setting I do not make money from... they do.
Also, I consider it a hobby, and certainly not a business, so I would continue to make maps if they asked me to stop... just not of FR.
Now, do you think they would want me making FREE maps that generate interest in an IP THEY own, or do you think they would want me to go elsewhere and generate interest for some other company's IP?
I also make no claims to anything on the maps - not even the names and locales I come up with myself - ANYTHING I place on one of my Forgotten Realms Maps I consider WotC property - thats why I post them at WotC, just to make sure they have legal claims to all of them.
As far as I'm concerned, even the 'art' is theirs, except for a few icons I created myself (but they're welcome to those, too).
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 06:40:06
As long as it wasn't related to FR or their IP, then yes he could, if it was, then they could do something about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
But not the scenery so to speak...
So he could make maps of different lands of an original sort and they could do nothing is my hope.
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 06:16:37
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I agree that they own the names, etc, since it is their IP and that they could ask him to stop.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
The style of Markustay's maps is, in my opinion, not protected as property of WotC, but the content is: so, regardless of the style Markustay is using, since he depicts Forgotten Realms, they can order him to cease and desist at any time.
But not the scenery so to speak...
So he could make maps of different lands of an original sort and they could do nothing is my hope. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 06:06:21
I agree that they own the names, etc, since it is their IP and that they could ask him to stop.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayunken-vanzan
The style of Markustay's maps is, in my opinion, not protected as property of WotC, but the content is: so, regardless of the style Markustay is using, since he depicts Forgotten Realms, they can order him to cease and desist at any time.
|
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 05:31:34
The German Telekom has tried to protect the magenta of their "T"-symbol and sent cease and desist orders to anyone they thought is violating their property ...
The style of Markustay's maps is, in my opinion, not protected as property of WotC, but the content is: so, regardless of the style Markustay is using, since he depicts Forgotten Realms, they can order him to cease and desist at any time. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 04:48:15
Another related topic: Maps.
Markustay makes AWESOME maps of the Realms; but is the "style" of those maps exclusive property of WotC? Meaning the symbols, landform designs, and etc...
Not meaning the places and names of course; but the abstract beneath. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 04:46:48
Thanks guys.
The intelligent side of me told me they couldn't copyright a shape...but these days you just can't tell what a company might do to try and inhibit someone else from making a buck at their expense.
The paranoid side of me told me that lawyers in big "O" companies would bundle me up and throw me in a sea of red tape til the end of my life...
Paranoia wins out on me sometimes. LOL |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 03:25:58
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
What about the "D20" mechanic. They don't truly own rights that would prevent other companies of using a D20 as the core mechanic in a different game do they? I realize that may be common knowledge to some folks...but I am not sure on it and thought I would ask point blank.
Related to that...what about other shaped dice...are these all free of copy-right or some such?
The d20 license refers to a specific ruleset built around the 20-sided die. None of the standard dice types can be copyrighted or registered or anything, since they're standard geometric shapes. What can be licensed is particular ways of using those dice.
RPGs both before and since have utilized the 20-sided die in their own systems. "D20" is the name given to the system used by 3rd Edition D&D and anyone they allowed to use that ruleset. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 03:04:55
The d20 mechanic is part of the OGL, as long as it's material from the system reference document.
I have no idea the shape of the die, I don't think anyone owns those, especially a six sided die since a six sided die has existed for centuries. :) |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 02:48:08
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
Indeed, the OGL can't be revoked and it is out there till people stops using it. That said, the official d20 license has since been revoked or will be if it hasn't already. That license allows people to use the d20 logo and say that this material is official material. The OGL doesn't allow that.
FR material, btw, is not part of either of these since it's WOTC's IP, which is why I'm still concerned about the 4e fan policy because even publishing material online is STILL publishing it even if it is "self" published. WOTC could tell all of us, on Keep, to cease publishing online material for FR.
That last part is exactly what I am afraid of...
The Ixinos netbook I'm putting out is not some grand product; but it is the sort of stuff that would continue to support earlier "versions" of the Forgotten Realms that I'm worried would piss off someone at WotC.
Last thing I want is some corp. bad-breath guard dog barking at me about undermining their new product by supporting older products they don't want people to like/use any longer...regardless of the fact that my contribution would be rather trivial and have no real effect on their bottom line.
As for other things:
What about the "D20" mechanic. They don't truly own rights that would prevent other companies of using a D20 as the core mechanic in a different game do they? I realize that may be common knowledge to some folks...but I am not sure on it and thought I would ask point blank.
Related to that...what about other shaped dice...are these all free of copy-right or some such? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 01:47:51
Indeed, the OGL can't be revoked and it is out there till people stops using it. That said, the official d20 license has since been revoked or will be if it hasn't already. That license allows people to use the d20 logo and say that this material is official material. The OGL doesn't allow that.
FR material, btw, is not part of either of these since it's WOTC's IP, which is why I'm still concerned about the 4e fan policy because even publishing material online is STILL publishing it even if it is "self" published. WOTC could tell all of us, on Keep, to cease publishing online material for FR. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Nov 2008 : 01:34:54
The Open Gaming License cannot be revoked by WotC or anyone else, so you can still publish games under it. Much like Paizo, Goodman Games and others have continued to do. |
|
|
