New and Revised Licenses

moosher12 wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance.

So, Paizo, your Performance check to convey your license was 15 below the community's Will DC, even with the Very Easy modification granted by the OGL event. I'm afraid that was a critical failure. The community is in outrage. Would you like to use a Hero Point?

I get this is intended to be comedic... but I would hardly attribute "Very Easy" to anything associated with the OGL event.

I'm honored for the reply, but Very Easy was to the community's Will DC, as Paizo is relatively respected. It certainly would not have been easy to do what you're doing, and you lot did a fantastic job earning our respect. I think you posted your bit before I had updated my message. But I don't think it was ill intent. The execution I don't think that was the best, but that's why we have Hero Points, right? Our chance to correct course and get it right. Even the greatest of heroes can roll low from time to time.

Paizo has my benefit of the doubt. Mark's efforts to answer questions and Jonathan's message above are good enough for me to comfortably wait and see. I'm sure it's stressful for those impacted by this but I'm hopeful Paizo will find a reasonable solution that works for the community if it can be found.

Something like this can easily have a bunch of unforeseen complications and knock-on effects. Glad they are listening and it's understandable they need some time to come up with a solution.

My point was that the original non-Paizo publication method for newbie writers and artists willingly identified itself as a fan project, despite the immense professional-level labor being dedicated to it, and it did so because it was working within a copyright space it did not have any claim to own.

Then there's my confusion, since even after working on about half of Wayfinder's run, third-party publishers who used the OGL and PCL filled those roles more than Wayfinder to me. Paizo's RPG Superstar contest also predated Wayfinder, as did its PFS open call before that, and both spawned non-Paizo communities toward helping people succeed in them.

But the bigger theme to me was its community, and I think the Community part of the Community Use Policy is kind of what's gotten lost here. Wayfinder, PathfinderWiki, translation projects (which I'm happy to see be be reassessed here), campaign journals that had no desire to monetize or grow their reach, conversion projects, and many of the affected tools were and are communities first and products second.

Infinite has its own communities, and you and I are also both part of some of them. They're great communities. But the scope of what they do is honestly quite a bit smaller than Wayfinder's alone, much less what the CUP allowed, and the restrictions on it mean it's very much a community Paizo controls, rather than one under its own direction that happens to enjoy Paizo products.

Nowadays, Pathfinder Infinite has greatly increased fan access to the setting and enabled fans to actually (try to) profit off of their work, which is super cool.

As much as I like Infinite, it hasn't greatly increased fan access to the setting. In some cases like access to official artwork, the CUP expanded Infinite's limits. Projects like the wiki's map are impossible on Infinite.

It has certainly encouraged people to participate by allowing for compensation, but the only things on Infinite that were prohibited under the CUP were the prices.

I don't consider "fanwork" to be derisive language, but it does still describe the fundamental interaction of working within someone else's world--particularly when, as in the case of the non-PFI works we've been talking about, you have no professional or monetary relationship to the owners of the property.

I think this understates some of the relationships that CUP projects had to Paizo professionally, particularly CUP-era AoN, PathfinderWiki, and the mapping project. These are resources that Paizo staff have openly used as reference materials for their jobs.

But it was also good that CUP projects weren't required to have a financial relationship or exclusive distribution, as Infinite does.

Could someone publish the rules text of their product for free on their blog, then link to their rules-free PFI-published document that has all the flavor?

The Infinite agreement explicitly prohibits derivative works from being distributed outside of Infinite.

(b) Except for short promotional excerpts used to promote your Work, you may not display, recreate, publish, distribute, or sell your Work (or derivatives thereof) outside of the Program administered on OBS websites or through other platforms or channels authorized or offered by the Publisher.

Also, anything you mention in the Infinite product is automatically and irrevocably granted to OneBookShelf and Paizo. You would no longer control any User Generated Content ("the original or derivative copyrightable elements included in your Work, such as proper nouns (characters, deities, locations, etc., as well as all adjectives, names, titles, and descriptive terms derived from proper nouns), characters, dialogue, locations, organizations, plots, and storylines") that you'd want to use outside of Infinite.

(c) License to all User Generated Content in your Work. Effective as of the date we first make your Work available through the Program, you grant us the irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification, or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, The Publisher, and other third parties to use the User Generated Content.

I wouldn't touch that scenario without a lawyer's advice.

It has certainly encouraged people to participate by allowing for compensation, but the only things on Infinite that were prohibited under the CUP were the prices.

And that's what I was referring to--it expanded fan's commercial access to the setting. I appreciate the thoughtful replies, but I feel like you're nitpicking my wording a little bit here and not reading me in the best of faith.

Garrett Guillotine wrote:

It has certainly encouraged people to participate by allowing for compensation, but the only things on Infinite that were prohibited under the CUP were the prices.

And that's what I was referring to--it expanded commercial access to the setting. I appreciate the thoughtful replies, but I feel like you're nitpicking my wording a little bit here and not reading me in the best of faith.

I'm sorry if I come off as replying in bad faith; it's not at all my intent.

This entire subject is about the application of very specific terminology to a wide range of projects, and it's easy for me to miss the forest for the trees in the process. Thanks for clarifying what you meant there, because I clearly missed it.

I’d like to add that I very much hope free community conversions are still allowed under the revamped policy. The existing community is a huge value add to the PF2E brand and generates Paizo revenue by promoting sales of PF1E books by PF2E GMs. Limiting free fan conversions to Infinite prevents the crowdsourced collaboration that allowed many of the existing conversions to be created in the first place, and the new ban on OGL material makes converting certain adventures via infinite extremely difficult. An OGL-less WOTR would be essentially an entirely different adventure for example.

I’d like to add that I very much hope free community conversions are still allowed under the revamped policy. The existing community is a huge value add to the PF2E brand and generates Paizo revenue by promoting sales of PF1E books by PF2E GMs. Limiting free fan conversions to Infinite prevents the crowdsourced collaboration that allowed many of the existing conversions to be created in the first place, and the new ban on OGL material makes converting certain adventures via infinite extremely difficult. An OGL-less WOTR would be essentially an entirely different adventure for example.

The reverse (that is upgrading the PF2 APs to PF1 rules) is even more important (because it's so much harder), but is totally forbidden under the new policies.

So few have been done. I was still buying some of the PF2 APs (even though I despise the rule set) for a while, but don't anymore.

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Im afraid me and my group kind of rely a lot on accessibility tools.
While its been mentioned that Pathbuilder is safe (And hopefully continues to be safe), things like Hephaistos enabled some of us to enjoy starfinder, and there wouldnt be as many purchases for campaign books, (at the very least I can speak for myself and my group) and the likes without these tools, if simply just because we wouldnt be able to enjoy these systems without some sorta character sheet tool like those two. And when it comes to things that allow for greater accessibility, nothing is better then community creations, for a variety of reasons that I kinda suck at with wording :(

But yeah, without these tools, We'd have to go back to other systems, which sucks. Pf2e is my favorite system ive played, in well...ever. Nothing's come close. And if stuff like starfinder2e doesnt have hephaistos for managing characters, mechs and vehicles, or have its options on pathbuilder2e, then there isnt really any way me or my group can feasibly enjoy it. Speaking for myself I am considered disabled enough to be on disability support in my country I live in, and I can get overwhelmed easily by things, especially book keeping (Managing stats, etc etc). These tools have allowed me to overcome this stuff to properly enjoy these systems in ways id never be able to if these tools didnt exist.

This is why I was asking questions of Mark about the PCL and the Paizo storefront.

I have no interest in Golarion. And Infinite repels me, in terms of its gating, “fandom”-conversant nature, pricing/cuts and even name.

But I like Pathfinder 2R. As I’ve stated elsewhere, it is a robust, elegant and amazing rpg-engine, that while not perfect or without flaws is my current go-to and the finest system I have ever found for both mechanical and narrative expression of adventure.

And I would like to make content for said system. I definitely don’t want to host it on Infinite. But if I were to “charge” for it, I would host it on Paizo’s website. It would have no Golarion-conversant material, be fully conversant with ORC and abide by the PCL.

I am totally fine with Paizo protecting themselves from OGL entanglements. That has always been a problem, and to be frank, it is simply good business sense to tidy that entanglement up. And good business sense does not always coincide with good communication OR good timing. But you have to understand that Paizo *is* a business. And corporate decisions are not made by the same people on the comms team.

As an aside, I find the distinction between fandom and community very clear. I do find “fandom” to be a slur in my mind. There is a slavish adulation connotation in *my* mind, and my interactions with a lot of superfans and stans on this very forum have only supported this perception *for me*.

A community however is a vibrant collection of various viewpoints, not all positive, and not all supportive. I try to be constructively critical of the publishers in an attempt to move the community of both internal AND external stakeholders to strive for greater good.

On the note of PDF importers for foundry or other future projects, my understanding is that these are nothing more than highly specialized PDF readers and as a result do not need to rely on licensing/agreements/policies. It would be very hard for Paizo to ever restrict the PDF importers without also restricting everyone's ability to read one of their PDFs for "normal" use. And they'd be fools to try it since the PDF importers are undoubtedly selling lots of PDFs.

Indeed on reflection it perhaps wasn't as good a choice of example for an optional add-on that uses the Lost Omens setting as I first thought it was. There might still be complexity in it needing to link setting-free mechanics with the setting material? I imagine not, as you say it's basically a complicated pf reader, but I'm not entirely sure where it stands to have written a program that links the "Necromancer-God" stats to the "Tar-Baphon" stats. But it's definitely much less legally in question than if I just said something like the Omens+ modules from Team+, for example.

Since our licensing update on July 22nd, we’ve been listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites. Paizo is grateful to these creators and spaces for the immense value they add to our brand and player community. We are committed to adding options to ensure that a range of community projects are protected by the license.

With Gen Con on the horizon, we can’t offer an immediate solution, but we are working to reach one that is both sustainable for Paizo and supports the community we love. As always, thank you for your feedback—we hear you and are working to address your concerns as swiftly as possible.

Respectfully, I'd suggest that the best option to add is the one where you don't remove options.

An immediate solution: the announced changes are hereby paused until we can rethink this. Zero effort required. Just don't do it until you're back from GenCon. Nobody's out here going "no, no, you MUST do this thing nobody knew was coming on the very abrupt date you've announced."

That said, Jonathan, you've been stellar in this thread. Genuinely.

emky wrote:

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Even that wording feels wrong... I'd say "converting" instead, mostly because "downdating" isn't a word!

TOZ wrote:

emky wrote:

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Even that wording feels wrong... I'd say "converting" instead, mostly because "downdating" isn't a word!

Let's try not to make this into an edition wars thing. Let's stay on topic at hand. There's, you know, the rest of the internet, for that.

Straight-up, if Paizo kills Hephaistos, Dyslexic, Pathbuilder, and the other builders, I'm pretty much going to quit playing SF and PF.

[...]

Just to note that this won't affect Pathbuilder AT ALL, cause it have not used the CUP for a long time, cause it asks for money to access some part of the program, thus was not CUP compliant. And thus, the proprietary stuff have been scrubbed off from the rules in there, and it ONLY use the OGL/ORC licenses (the creator doesn't have a special commercial license like Foundry).

TomatoFettuccini wrote:

Straight-up, if Paizo kills Hephaistos, Dyslexic, Pathbuilder, and the other builders, I'm pretty much going to quit playing SF and PF.

[...]

Just to note that this won't affect Pathbuilder AT ALL, cause it have not used the CUP for a long time, cause it asks for money to access some part of the program, thus was not CUP compliant. And thus, the proprietary stuff have been scrubbed off from the rules in there, and it ONLY use the OGL/ORC licenses (the creator doesn't have a special commercial license like Foundry).

(I'll be honest, the fact that so many people never realized that, makes me doubt that the lore stuff is THAT important to the fan-made rule tools. But eh... I'm not working on one so my opinion is probably only worth some grains of salt.)

Honestly, this *is* very important to note. I'm new to Pathfinder in second edition, and don't really know the minutia of different licenses and stuff, so I actually had no idea about the CUP at all before any of this. It really doesn't impact Pathbuilder in the slightest, it can be a little goofy sometimes, with things like "Specific City Lore" in an AP-specific background, if I recall, but by large, I would join my voice that it's not THAT important

Elfteiroh wrote:

TomatoFettuccini wrote:

Straight-up, if Paizo kills Hephaistos, Dyslexic, Pathbuilder, and the other builders, I'm pretty much going to quit playing SF and PF.

[...]

Just to note that this won't affect Pathbuilder AT ALL, cause it have not used the CUP for a long time, cause it asks for money to access some part of the program, thus was not CUP compliant. [...]

(I'll be honest, the fact that so many people never realized that, makes me doubt that the lore stuff is THAT important to the fan-made rule tools. [...])

Honestly, this *is* very important to note. [...] It really doesn't impact Pathbuilder in the slightest, it can be a little goofy sometimes, with things like "Specific City Lore" in an AP-specific background, if I recall, but by large, I would join my voice that it's not THAT important

Add PF2easy to possible kill list.

TomatoFettuccini wrote:

(I'll be honest, the fact that so many people never realized that, makes me doubt that the lore stuff is THAT important to the fan-made rule tools.

I think there's a big difference between player tools and DM tools in this regards. Players, who only use that single app and it provides everything they need means they dont need to worry about the difference in names.

As a DM... I knew from the start things were renamed in Pathbuilder. And I would never use a database that is renamed. The tools I use (Obsidian.md) is all around linking from my notes to other reference notes. Having linked things makes my job as a DM much easier as I never have to look anything up. If the database of notes has different names, then that process breaks immediately.

TomatoFettuccini wrote:

Straight-up, if Paizo kills Hephaistos, Dyslexic, Pathbuilder, and the other builders, I'm pretty much going to quit playing SF and PF.

[...]

Just to note that this won't affect Pathbuilder AT ALL, cause it have not used the CUP for a long time, cause it asks for money to access some part of the program, thus was not CUP compliant. And thus, the proprietary stuff have been scrubbed off from the rules in there, and it ONLY use the OGL/ORC licenses (the creator doesn't have a special commercial license like Foundry).

Pathbuilder is still affected, even if it's not on the chopping block.

The fact that they chose to go the direction of renaming things and scrubbing Community content was a result of the lack of a suitable license. If the right license existed, they could have chosen a different option.

I respect their choice, but not all tools can or should take the same option.

Since our licensing update on July 22nd, we’ve been listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites. Paizo is grateful to these creators and spaces for the immense value they add to our brand and player community. We are committed to adding options to ensure that a range of community projects are protected by the license.

With Gen Con on the horizon, we can’t offer an immediate solution, but we are working to reach one that is both sustainable for Paizo and supports the community we love. As always, thank you for your feedback—we hear you and are working to address your concerns as swiftly as possible.

so why do you have to enforce this change right before the Gencon instead to present it to get feedback and fix it before creating problem all over the world?

Re not much PF1 stuff being on Pathfinder Infinite. I'd never heard of PFI until recently, nor that you can put PF1 material on it; I wonder how many others are the same?

In any case, with the recent announcement, I've got some projects I did a while back. Now that I'm aware of PFI- but with the announcement- I have to be quick to get them up!! Having to learn about creating PDFs, and lots more stuff.

(And thanks Mark, for the reply!)

Okay thanks, I'm still confused but a lot less nervous about the change. Thanks for the quick answers.

TOZ wrote:

emky wrote:

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Even that wording feels wrong... I'd say "converting" instead, mostly because "downdating" isn't a word!

To borrow from the software development world, the term you're looking for is "backporting".

Anyway, for my part, while I hope that some kind of carveout is quickly provided such that tools like Starfinder's Hephaistos aren't forced to choose between going back and scrubbing all the Paizo IP or abandoning the 1e site altogether, it is deeply frustrating that in about a month, 1e players of either edition of the game (who maybe aren't wholly on board with the 2e games) are basically SOL in terms of providing community support (short of the extremely limiting "pure OGL products that are neither Infinite- nor even Compatible-branded")... Or basically illegally smuggling homebrew?

Sure, there's plenty existing material for both games, and I get that Paizo doesn't want to touch the mess that the OGL has suddenly become... But jettisoning the 1e audiences in the process is quite the alienating feeling.

How would this affect material distributed through Kickstarter or BackerKit? Crowdfunded projects are pretty big - Battlezoo seems to always be running them. Would people no longer be able to distribute PDFs to backers through BackerKit or DriveThruRPG? Can RollForCombat not sell PF2 rule versions of their content on their site?

Arita wrote:

TOZ wrote:

emky wrote:

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Even that wording feels wrong... I'd say "converting" instead, mostly because "downdating" isn't a word!

To borrow from the software development world, the term you're looking for is "backporting".

Anyway, for my part, while I hope that some kind of carveout is quickly provided such that tools like Starfinder's Hephaistos aren't forced to choose between going back and scrubbing all the Paizo IP or abandoning the 1e site altogether, it is deeply frustrating that in about a month, 1e players of either edition of the game (who maybe aren't wholly on board with the 2e games) are basically SOL in terms of providing community support (short of the extremely limiting "pure OGL products that are neither Infinite- nor even Compatible-branded")... Or basically illegally smuggling homebrew?

Sure, there's plenty existing material for both games, and I get that Paizo doesn't want to touch the mess that the OGL has suddenly become... But jettisoning the 1e audiences in the process is quite the alienating feeling.

Folk can still make products for 1E, it just can't have setting material in it at all. This isn't a new thing, and is how PF1 products worked before Infinite. If you want an example, look at Legendary Games Adventure Path plug-in series. They just use things like "Goddess of Dreams" instead of Desna.

You will see us use phrases such as “Gothic Campaign” instead of title of the most recent Adventure Path. Or you may see us use the names “The Professor” or “The Professor’s Daughter” or “Immortal Principality” or “Goddess of Valor” instead of the proper names of specific characters or places from those adventures or gods from the world setting. While we can create compatible products under the Open Game License, we still have to be respectful of certain content Paizo owns. Because we want to be very respectful of their content and work in partnership with them we use these “replacement phrases.” Plus, this helps the product have a more general appeal to those who may be running a home campaign that fits the same themes. In any event, we are 100% confident you know what we are talking about and will have no problem making the required connection. So enjoy these pregenerated characters for use in your “gothic Adventure Path,” set in the “small gothic town” helping the “Professor’s Daughter” and cleansing the unquiet spirits in the ruins of the local prison. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

How would this affect material distributed through Kickstarter or BackerKit? Crowdfunded projects are pretty big - Battlezoo seems to always be running them. Would people no longer be able to distribute PDFs to backers through BackerKit or DriveThruRPG? Can RollForCombat not sell PF2 rule versions of their content on their site?

Rules compatibility has never been the issue here, as per the ORC and OGL companies like RollForCombat can make all the Pathfinder compatible content they want. As far as I know they haven't put out anything that explicitly uses Golarion IP, and if they did, they wouldn't have been able to monetize it to begin with outside of Infinite (without a dedicated license.)

The big thing is the intersection of rules content and IP. You can freely use the rules of PF2 for any RPG product and monetize it, and with the new FCP you can use and even monetize Paizo IP (such as the Iconics or the Pathfinder Society itself) in certain narrow limits, but outside of Infinite you would be forbidden from publishing any rules content (official or homebrew) that makes use of those things even if it's entirely free.

That means websites similar to Pathbuilder and Archives of Nethys (though these specifically are uneffected for separate reasons) cannot operate while also including accurate proper nouns in rules elements, such as Aldori Duelist or Razmiran Faithful (though they could use their mechanics by giving them a different name, like Pathbuilder does.) It also stops you from making something like a free supplement of NPC stat-blocks for important people in the world of Golarion or an (equally free) adventure investigating Aroden's ultimate fate, unless you publish them exclusively on Infinite. These (I'm almost certain, I'm not a lawyer) would have been allowed under the now-discontinued CUP.

RiverMesa wrote:

Arita wrote:

TOZ wrote:

emky wrote:

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Even that wording feels wrong... I'd say "converting" instead, mostly because "downdating" isn't a word!

To borrow from the software development world, the term you're looking for is "backporting".

Anyway, for my part, while I hope that some kind of carveout is quickly provided such that tools like Starfinder's Hephaistos aren't forced to choose between going back and scrubbing all the Paizo IP or abandoning the 1e site altogether, it is deeply frustrating that in about a month, 1e players of either edition of the game (who maybe aren't wholly on board with the 2e games) are basically SOL in terms of providing community support (short of the extremely limiting "pure OGL products that are neither Infinite- nor even Compatible-branded")... Or basically illegally smuggling homebrew?

Sure, there's plenty existing material for both games, and I get that Paizo doesn't want to touch the mess that the OGL has suddenly become... But jettisoning the 1e audiences in the process is quite the alienating feeling.

Folk can still make products for 1E, it just can't have setting material in it at all. This isn't a new thing, and is how PF1 products worked before Infinite. If you want an example, look at Legendary Games Adventure Path plug-in series. They just use things like "Goddess of Dreams" instead of Desna.

Gothic Adventure Path Plug-In wrote:

You will see us use phrases such as “Gothic Campaign” instead of title of the most recent Adventure Path. Or you may see us use the names “The Professor” or “The Professor’s Daughter” or “Immortal Principality” or “Goddess of Valor” instead of the proper names of specific characters or places from those adventures or gods from the world setting. While we can create compatible products under the Open Game License, we still have to be respectful of certain content Paizo owns. Because we want to

...

Right, I did also misread things somewhat and thought the 'new' Compatibility license would exclude being used along with the 1e OGL material (it's not, that's still on the table, if published via the mainline DriveThru store or another avenue) - though in fairness the table on the licensing page kind of does not make that particularly clear.

It's still a pretty significant regression for the 1e community, though.

For what it's worth, there's a pretty stark difference in tone between Paizo's response to community feedback with new the FCP and WotC's with OGL 1.1. A cynical person might assert that they have to be, considering the ramifications of a similar backlash would have on their company (unlikely as that may be). They wouldn't be wrong, but I would argue that this is exactly in character for Paizo. They do listen.

That said, actions speak louder than words. Paizo may feel they have no choice but to take the losses and move forward. If they do, I can only hope that they explain their reasoning. I don't think that will change the outcome for myself and likely many others, but we'll part on better terms.

This is nothing new for some players that rely on unofficial/fan translation to play their beloved game. You can't kill a community that has already died once.

I'll be honest, I'm privileged enough to not need any of these communities, so I never knew they existed until now. It makes me feel like I need to use what influence I have to support their concerns, whatever that is worth.

I also don't get why someone's fan AP, if they're not charging any money, isn't protected as a transformative work even if it does use Golarion proper nouns. What would happen if someone posted their homebrew Numeria content to AO3?

I assume US law requires Paizo to have made efforts to protect their IP or else lose their rights to it. IANAL, I don't know for sure.

I also don't get why someone's fan AP, if they're not charging any money, isn't protected as a transformative work even if it does use Golarion proper nouns. What would happen if someone posted their homebrew Numeria content to AO3?

Generally speaking, transformative uses are, to quote the US Copyright Office, "those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work." (emphasis mine) Fan APs actually DO "substitute for the original use of the work," which is why you can't use "Golarion proper nouns" without a license to do so. You can make fan APs because the rules qua the rules are not copyrightable - i.e. the common observation that you can't copyright game mechanics, only a particular expression of them.

Copyright law sucks and is a huge headache for everybody.

I assume US law requires Paizo to have made efforts to protect their IP or else lose their rights to it. IANAL, I don't know for sure.

Copyrights are a simple monopoly on the use of the work throughout the period of the copyright (which is why preservation of old films is such a pain - in many cases the owner of the copyright of the film literally does not exist anymore and there's no clear heir to those rights). If copyright was lost due to non-use or non-protection it would clear up a LOT of problems in archiving copyrighted material.

Trademarks, on the other hand (which is a weird blanket that basically covers every single possible proper noun in a fictional work that could be economically exploitable) do have to be protected or you do lose them.

@Mark Moreland: Will third party publishers still be able to publish PF1 and SF1 OGL conversant content outside of Pathfinder Infinite/Starfinder Infinite? I mean, Paizo is still currently a storefront for digital third-party PDFs - so a publisher could still, after August, publish PF1 OGL content and sell them here, or elsewhere, anywhere but Infinite?

I personally can't see how they'd be prevented, especially since I'm a publisher AND own a storefront currently selling (and plan to continue selling) PF1 and SF1 OGL products.

And I would like to make content for said system. I definitely don’t want to host it on Infinite. But if I were to “charge” for it, I would host it on Paizo’s website. It would have no Golarion-conversant material, be fully conversant with ORC and abide by the PCL.

There ARE other stores out there actively selling and promoting 1e products fyi. I can think of one right off the top of my head.

Yes John. Me too. You’ve been hosting my handful of Pf1e products for years. And, because some incredibly passionate folks (you; Ambrosia Slaad) took the time to upload all my content to the d20PFSRD, people can access my content for free. Which is entirely only possible in a community where people give up their own time to assist a game they love to be accessible and supported.

I apologise for neglecting to mention you, but after Paizo, you are definitely front of mind!

I keep hanging around even if I'm quiet. I'm still here and in fact right now I'm working on a big batch of new* (new to me) PF1 content from both Bloodstone Press and Legendary Games (specifically, OGL content from The Priest, Copyright 2016, Bloodstone Press, and Ten Exotic Clubs from Bloodstone Press and Mediterranean Races from Legendary Games. (All of those products are also available in my store.)

Since our licensing update on July 22nd, we’ve been listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites. Paizo is grateful to these creators and spaces for the immense value they add to our brand and player community. We are committed to adding options to ensure that a range of community projects are protected by the license.

With Gen Con on the horizon, we can’t offer an immediate solution, but we are working to reach one that is both sustainable for Paizo and supports the community we love. As always, thank you for your feedback—we hear you and are working to address your concerns as swiftly as possible.

Thank you for the speedy reply to the community, and for considering some tweaks. A "Remaster" of the FUP, if you will. I'm optimistic that the results will be positive for the community, and look forward to reading about such changes after GenCon.

I still don't see why the former permissions of the CUP need to be scrapped for the expanded monetization options in FUP to exist?

As a community member, I feel it would be reasonable for Paizo to use the FUP to differentiate between truly free community projects and fan projects that have a non-zero degree of monetization.

If someone's project is truly free, and respects the terms of the old CUP, why has it now become a problem for Paizo? (Other than, say, existing as a potential alternative to some paid offering that a prospective licensee might wish to charge community members for)?

If someone's project is tied to some form of monetization, e.g. Patreon or subscription based features, ads on a website, pushes to donate beyond a coffee-service link on an about-us page, etc), then the new FUP seems more reasonable. Increased options to permit explicit monetization in connection with Paizo's IP, but also increased restrictions and rules to benefit Paizo.

I wonder whether confirming/enforcing a "free means free" rule for the CUP (or equivalent provision folded into a Remastered FUP) would meet Paizo's needs / interests, while also not starting down an [insert egregiously corporate example here] road of trying to stamp out truly free community fan projects?

--
Edited above to recognize that a paid option might well be 'better' than its free alternatives, but that this doesn't detract from the value that the free alternative provides to the community.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

And I would like to make content for said system. I definitely don’t want to host it on Infinite. But if I were to “charge” for it, I would host it on Paizo’s website. It would have no Golarion-conversant material, be fully conversant with ORC and abide by the PCL.

There ARE other stores out there actively selling and promoting 1e products fyi. I can think of one right off the top of my head.

It's worth mention - d20pfsrd.com is the reason I (and many others) got started playing Pathfinder and kept playing. Pretty much everyone I knew back when I converted from 3.5e to PF1e was using d20pfsrd.com. You can fault them for every single dollar that Paizo has earned from me, either through online purchases or brick and mortar stores happened because of that website (because Archives of Nethys wasn't great back then). I still use d20pfsrd.com from time to time.

That includes the SF1e and PF2e content as well, and then me introducing my friends to the game and some of them went on join to PFS, the list goes on. And you know, most of those people are nice and respectful members of the community, which turns my joining into a net positive if you think about it. ;)

I keep hanging around even if I'm quiet. I'm still here and in fact right now I'm working on a big batch of new* (new to me) PF1 content from both Bloodstone Press and Legendary Games (specifically, OGL content from The Priest, Copyright 2016, Bloodstone Press, and Ten Exotic Clubs from Bloodstone Press and Mediterranean Races from Legendary Games. (All of those products are also available in my store.)

Hey d20pfsrd.com, just swooping in to tell you that I'd never have started playing Pathfinder without your services. Having it all laid out before me on your srd let me make a well-informed decision to upgrade from 3.5 when I hosted my first campaign.

Twelve years later and I'm still hosting that campaign. Its players have become my closest friends.

Just wanted to thank you.

ornathopter wrote:

I also don't get why someone's fan AP, if they're not charging any money, isn't protected as a transformative work even if it does use Golarion proper nouns. What would happen if someone posted their homebrew Numeria content to AO3?

Generally speaking, transformative uses are, to quote the US Copyright Office, "those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work." (emphasis mine) Fan APs actually DO "substitute for the original use of the work," which is why you can't use "Golarion proper nouns" without a license to do so. You can make fan APs because the rules qua the rules are not copyrightable - i.e. the common observation that you can't copyright game mechanics, only a particular expression of them.

Copyright law sucks and is a huge headache for everybody.

Do they actually substitute? Someone's novel-length fanfiction about Harriet Potter's adventures at Hogwarts after using magic to transition could be said to be substituting the original books - someone might be reading those instead of reading the original - but they are certainly transformative. If someone wants to make an AP that's Iron Gods 2 "What if here Kul-Inkit has taken the throne and you're her inner circle of warriors who must thwart an invasion by out-of-work crusaders from the Worldwound", then that's using Golarion proper nouns, but it's fairly transformative, and doesn't substitute as an official Paizo AP (because it's based on a worldstate or situation they're probably not going to write).

Though, I'm also not a copyright lawyer of any kind, and my understanding is that even the judges who rule on these sorts of cases tend to use pretty arbitrary definitions of what's transformative enough.

So in theory, unless things change, I'd have one month if I wanted to finish that corby bestiary finally? :p (I'm kinda accepting I'm never gonna finish that one since while I did stat it up, I don't know how to properly finish it into pdf product x'D)

It's worth mention - d20pfsrd.com is the reason I (and many others) got started playing Pathfinder and kept playing. Pretty much everyone I knew back when I converted from 3.5e to PF1e was using d20pfsrd.com. You can fault them for every single dollar that Paizo has earned from me, either through online purchases or brick and mortar stores happened because of that website (because Archives of Nethys wasn't great back then). I still use d20pfsrd.com from time to time.

That includes the SF1e and PF2e content as well, and then me introducing my friends to the game and some of them went on join to PFS, the list goes on. And you know, most of those people are nice and respectful members of the community, which turns my joining into a net positive if you think about it. ;)

Hey Artofregicide! Thanks for the kind words! Glad my site(s) have been useful to you over the years! I'm still sitting here adding fresh new PF1 content almost every day and plan to continue doing so until I'm not able to any longer!

Hey d20pfsrd.com, just swooping in to tell you that I'd never have started playing Pathfinder without your services. Having it all laid out before me on your srd let me make a well-informed decision to upgrade from 3.5 when I hosted my first campaign.

Twelve years later and I'm still hosting that campaign. Its players have become my closest friends.

Just wanted to thank you.

Hey ParasiteHouse! Friends met through gaming are life-long friends. Glad I was involved in some small way in the fun you and your friends have had over the years!

So in theory, unless things change, I'd have one month if I wanted to finish that corby bestiary finally? :p (I'm kinda accepting I'm never gonna finish that one since while I did stat it up, I don't know how to properly finish it into pdf product x'D)

only if you want to publish it via infinite, if you want to publish it elsewere no

I appreciate and understand the need for Paizo to achieve a clean and total break from all things OGL but I am nevertheless sad to see Pathfinder First Edition material sunset from Pathfinder Infinite as a consequence of this breakup. I (like many) have been playing PF1 for over a decade and was encouraged by the Infinite program to begin publishing First Edition material for our community in the first place. I've really blossomed creatively during the experience and have received lots of positive feedback from folks on my work.

I will continue to publish First Edition material via other storefronts under the Paizo Compatibility License, which I have a few initial questions for:

(1) I see that the revised license no longer carries an Exhibit B (specific Paizo products publishers can reference by name). Is a revised Exhibit B forthcoming or are publishers now allowed to reference any Paizo product's name in the book text?

(2) The Paizo Compatibility License specifically requires reference to Pathfinder First Edition as “Pathfinder First Edition,” and seperately requires publishers to accurately reference Paizo product titles. How do we do this for First Edition products. E.g., to reference the ACG, is it "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Class Guide" (as it is known on the product page), "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game First Edition: Advanced Class Guide," or something else?

I really think that Paizo needs to re-think it's position on 3pp creators and needs to give them more licensing options.

I mentioned this in another post but it bears repeating to important figures within Paizo's management and executive echelons:

I don't think you understand just how important tools like Hephaistos, Pathbuilder, and Dyslexic's sheets are to Paizo's continued success or are else overestimating Pathfinder/Starfinder's popularity in your hubris.

To be frank: Paizo isn't the only game in town anymore. PF and SF face stiff competition from all corners, and many of those systems are simpler to play and easier to pick up than D20 systems, and most notably, require less community(not "fans": COMMUNITY)-created tools to play the game. D20 has been declining in popularity in favor of less-complex, and again, frankly, less-clunky systems. D6 and D100 systems are gaining popularity while D20 and OSR are declining in popularity. And while Golarion is a neat setting, it's not anything special or unique, or anything that any number of creative people have homebrewed.

Oh, and the irony and hypocrisy of Paizo restricting community(not "fans": COMMUNITY)-created tools on the grounds of protecting its IP is almost too much to bear: the number of badly Photoshopped pieces of existing artwork from other IPs I've seen in Starfinder soucebooks is staggering. I wonder how the owners of the IPs of Firefly, Robotech, Star Citizen, Star Trek, Star Wars, and others would respond to the various Copyright violations Paizo has in its books?

We're well past critical mass; it is almost mandatory for an RPG system, particularly complex, crunchy ones like Pathfinder and Starfinder, to have community tools. If those tools aren't there, it makes it more difficult to get in to the game, and less community support will be forthcoming. Less community support means less buzz. Less buzz means less interest.

It's tools like the above-mentioned ones that make Pathfinder and Starfinder more accessible to new players. Community-created(not "fans": COMMUNITY) class guides help sort the wheat from the chaff, and with thousands of spells, feats, and other variables, Pathfinder/Starfinder has a LOT of chaff to be winnowed out (Ahem - Monkey Lunge, anyone?). Additionally, since Paizo seem to be making their work much denser and less-easy to find relevant rules and the writing quality is seriously declining (seriously, what's going on in your editing department?), these tools only become more important.

Without the collective work from literally hundreds if not thousands of volunteers who help bring some semblance of order to the crazy mess that is D20 gaming, Paizo would not be in its position of being second-highest on the hill that it enjoys today.

I'll say it again: Pathfinder is as popular as it is now BECAUSE of the community(not "fans": COMMUNITY)-generated tools and guides.

Tools like the above mentioned are not just helpful, I contend that they are essential. A huge number of people who play D20 games are adult people with adult responsibilities and demands on their time; eliminating/restricting access to them and their growth will force people like myself to simply abandon Pathfinder/Starfinder for less-complex games where the community(not "fans": COMMUNITY) isn't penalized for being supportive and enthusiastic.

It's not 1970: no one today still uses slide rules when there are calculators you can program and no one is entertained by grinding out minor details anymore.

If you force me to use a slide rule again, I'll simply take up painting and spend my money elsewhere.

While Paizo may own the rights to the name and brand Pathfinder/Starfinder, the community (not "fans": COMMUNITY) make the game successful and accessible.

It seems that Paizo learned entirely the wrong lessons from the OGL debacle.

Paizo profited greatly when Hasbro/WoTC stepped on their dongs.

Looks like Paizo is going to repeat history.

I'm going to vote with my wallet: if Paizo makes the tools I need to play their games unavailable, I'll simply stop playing and find another property to invest my time, energy, and money into.

You need to come up with better solutions than "all-or-none".

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

Look through the starships in SOM: many of them are bad Photoshops of stuff taken from other properties.

Paizo mined just about every scifi IP in existence for not just inspiration, but material to alter.

If Paizo is going to start punishing the community for creating tools Paizo can't profit from, maybe these IPs should be made aware of Paizo's own copyright violations in turn.