|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit confused about what might or might not be allowed within the compatibility licence with regards to citations of other Paizo products.
For example, if you look at this amazon link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pathfinder-Campaign-Setting-Monsters-Revisited/dp/1 601254733/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350429531&sr=8-1-fkmr1
- you'll see Mystery Monsters Revisited described under Book Description in a manner which I understand comes under the classification of a "citation".
Would that paragraph break the terms of the compatibility licence if it was in such a product, because it would be termed a reference rather than a citation?
Personally, what I would like to do (although it's not mega-important), is to have a citation along the lines of "Brazen Medusas are described in detail in Mythical Monsters Revisited by Paizo Publishing LLC" but I'm sort of scratching my head about whether that would be ok according to the licence or not.
Richard
My mention, I believe they mean it in this way:
You cannot say what that whatever is from Mystery Monsters Revisited, but you can still use text from there. If Paizo, or any other company, grants you permission, you can use the full name.
|
|
There's copyright law and then there's the spirit of the licence and Paizo's good will. The way I read the compatibility licence it seems to me almost to be more restrictive than copyright law, but I'm keen to maintain a good relationship with Paizo.
My take on these replies is that I could have something like this in my text:
"For more information on Brazen Medusas see [1] (OGL)".
And then in the OGL Section 15 have:
[1] Mythical Monsters Revisited by Paizo Publihing LLC
Is that right?
Richard
|
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Also it's 5am and I haven't had any coffee yet.
The use of the Pathfinder Compatibility License is a legal matter you may wish to get legal advice about before you use it.
The Pathfinder Compatibility License assumes you are using the Open Game License (OGL.) The OGL is a binding agreement agreement for use in the publication of products. If you use it, you are agreeing to its terms, which gives you new options (copying sections of Open Game Product released under the license whole-cloth, including the Pathfinder SRD, which otherwise might violate copyright) and restrictions (not using Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity).
According to the OGL "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content.
So you can't use "product names" as they are "Product Identity" under the OGL. EXCEPT if you use the Pathfinder Compatibility License ("another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity") you CAN use those product names listed in Exhibit B of the license, in the manner that license allows. The ONLY other place you can use the name of ANY other Pathfinder product is where you are required to in your Section 15 of your OGL statement.
So even though your citation might be fine under copyright law, if you use the Pathfinder Compatibility License, and thus the OGL, you can't do it.
|
|
It does sound as if this compatibility licence is a bit of a two-edged sword, then.
Particularly if you consider that most of the content you might want to use from the SRD comes under the classification of "rules", which I understand from reading OSRIC related stuff is not copyrightable.
So am I right in saying that someone could choose to publish a pathfinder compatible module without bothering with the compatibility licence and simply rely on copyright laws, which might actually give you a lot more freedom?
Richard
|
|
So am I right in saying that someone could choose to publish a pathfinder compatible module without bothering with the compatibility licence and simply rely on copyright laws, which might actually give you a lot more freedom?
Richard
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Also it's 8am and I stillhaven't had any coffee yet.
You cannot copyright the actual rules of a game. You can copyright the exact expression of those rules, which is why OSRIC rewrites absolutely everything.
The question of how much of an RPG is rules, and how much is the description of a world setting that might be protected by copyright despite being in a rule-like format has never been tested by the courts.
You can of course publish without the OGL or Pathfinder Compatibility License. The implications of how various game companies will react, and how safe it is to somehow suggest compatibility to trademarked game names, and what the value of the Pathfinder compatibility logo is, are questions beyond the scope of messagebaord advice. Certainly some game companies have successfully done this, while others have been sued or threatened with a suit (not to the best of my knowledge by Paizo -- I am talking about the history of RPG gaming).
I have yet to think it's worthwhile to do an open game system compatible book without the "safe harbor" of the OGL, or a Pathfinder compatible product without the marketing benefit of the compatibility logo, and thus its license. I have even changed products to ensure they were compliant with those licenses when a question arose. Someday I might do either, but I'd double check my legal footing before I did so. YMMV.
|
|
How can you survive so long without coffee?
I'm on my second cup, plus I've had a cup of tea, though it is 2pm here :-)
Ultimately, I am Paizo-friendly, not Paizo-hostile, so I will behave in whatever way the company wants me to.
I also think it very unlikely that Paizo would sue 3PPs over this kind of stuff unless it was pretty blatant and commercially aggressive.
I can't say I like the clause about Product Identity because it's just too woolly. Sure, Golarion is product identity, but what about the Brazen Medusa I mentioned earlier? I could see teams of lawyers spending $$$ arguing over that one. At the end of the day if I want to use one I'll just go ahead and do so, and if Paizo asks me not to I'll call it a Snake-Bodied-Medusa instead, and maybe apologise at the beginning of the module for having to be so anal. I can't imagine that happening. Furthermore, if anything, the "artistic" concept of a Brazen Medusa belongs to Ray Harryhausen.
Maybe I'm missing a point here, though. What does "clearly identified as Product Identity" actually mean? For example, hydras in Mythical Monsters Revisited have an interesting form of reproduction. Is that product identity? What about the fact that they live in symbiosis with small vermin? Or just the fact that they live in swamps? My feeling is that the section "Hydras on Golarion" is product identity, but nothing else (given how many gaming systems through the years will have featured Hydras there could be some questions about originality).
As far as the citation is concerned, I had interpreted Vic's response as being positive on this. In other words, as long as my reference note is in section 15 of the OGL, this was ok. I'm not that fussed, to be honest, I just think it provides a better experience for the reader and, even, a bit of free advertising for Paizo's products.
Richard
Chief Technical Officer
|
Owen is correct—the OGL gives you access to things that you can't safely access without the OGL, and in exchange, it provides some restrictions potentially preventing you from doing things that you very likely *could* do without the OGL. It's safe to say that pretty much everybody who has ever published under the OGL—at least, the ones who actually took the time to understand it—have decided that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
And you can always just ask, when i wanted to reference owen's Genius Guide to the Time Thief, I just asked, when I wanted to reference KQ issue # whatever I ask wolfgang, the OGL does allow for independent 3rd Party agreements which is what the PCL is.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I can't say I like the clause about Product Identity because it's just too woolly. Sure, Golarion is product identity, but what about the Brazen Medusa I mentioned earlier? I could see teams of lawyers spending $$$ arguing over that one. At the end of the day if I want to use one I'll just go ahead and do so, and if Paizo asks me not to I'll call it a Snake-Bodied-Medusa instead, and maybe apologise at the beginning of the module for having to be so anal. I can't imagine that happening. Furthermore, if anything, the "artistic" concept of a Brazen Medusa belongs to Ray Harryhausen.
Maybe I'm missing a point here, though. What does "clearly identified as Product Identity" actually mean? For example, hydras in Mythical Monsters Revisited have an interesting form of reproduction. Is that product identity? What about the fact that they live in symbiosis with small vermin? Or just the fact that they live in swamps? My feeling is that the section "Hydras on Golarion" is product identity, but nothing else (given how many gaming systems through the years will have featured Hydras there could be some questions about originality).
Though the OGL contains a default statement of what's Product Identity, it also allows publishers to make their own declarations in their own products, so what you really need to look at is the individual statements in each of the products you wish to draw from. Normally, these are our declarations:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open
Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
(Elements that are in the public domain or have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content,
as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be
reproduced in any form without written permission.
(They do—rarely—vary from that, so you should always check each product you wish to draw from.)
I can go looking of course, but would you happen to have a couple of examples to hand of books where your product identity/open content statements have varied?
|
|
Vic: this is becoming a lot clearer.
(I see what you mean about taking time to understand this)
Let me just take my Brazen Medusa as an example to see if I've got this totally straight.
There is a specific one called Eygras defined in Mythical Monsters Revisitted (MMR), and that is Product Identity and therefore off limits.
However, I could have my own Brazen Medusa in my OGL compliant module, and indeed quote anything I want from MMR about it or anything else from that book as long as it's not Product Identity.
If I want to (or do I have to?) I should cite MMR, as a source for the information I have used, in section 15 of the OGL in my product.
Have I got that right?
Am I also right in saying that the module that I publish under the OGL licence is also itself OGL and that anything within it could be quoted by somebody else in their product unless I choose to protect it by defining it as Product Identity?
Richard