That didn't enter into it at all. Mostly, it was a lot of work reformatting our old print files for POD and the number of folks buying them wasn't enough to keep the program going. Additionally, there was a change in how Adobe inDesign handles TrueType (or maybe it was OpenType) fonts between the versions we originally laid the books out on and the one we or DTRPG would have to use today, and this was leading to some quality control issues that weren't easy fixes. So, POD has been put on hold until demand for it increases or we find a different workflow that justifies the opportunity cost of working on 10+ year old products versus new stuff.
Surprise! This will be an October release! :) The audiobook, which is still in production, will not be moving up to an earlier release date, and may, in fact come out a few weeks after Godsrain shows up in bookstores other than Paizo.com. We will have a product page and release date for it as soon as a few production-based elements are clarified.
That, and the remaster core books are less than a year old. It doesn't make sense to discount them so deeply when they're still in their natural peak sales window. Retailers don't like it when we offer brand new stuff at extreme discounts and undercut their ability to move the product on their shelves. We'll have plenty of opportunities to include remastered titles in future bundles.
"All four" is probably not the best way to describe it since there are many many more. "All four" in this case means all four who appear in the Godsrain novel and not meant to imply that there are only four iconics. The collection will also include additional material about Nahoa and Samo, who make guest appearances in the novel, despite not being the primary adventuring party.
Also, was Nahoa transformed into a nephilim by that experience, or was he always one? I seem to recall him being described as a nephilim in previous posts. Both iconics from War of Immortals are nephilim. And yes, this story recounts when and how Nahoa became one. Samo was a nephilim at birth.
Please see the following Paizo Announcements Forum post regarding the transition date for OGL content on Pathfinder and Starfinder Infinite.
Please see the following Paizo Announcements Forum post regarding the transition date for OGL content on Pathfinder and Starfinder Infinite.
In light of the recent confusion surrounding our July 22 announcement regarding Open Game Content and Pathfinder and Starfinder Infinite changes taking place on September 1, we have postponed the date of this transition to October 1, 2024. In the coming weeks, we plan to provide more information on changes to the Infinite publishing agreement and offer guidance to creators who wish to continue the publication of Pathfinder First Edition and Starfinder First Edition content on the platform. Thank you for your patience and support of the Pathfinder and Starfinder Infinite communities.
Digital files are not covered by the Fan Content Policy, which is intended to allow for the limited sale of physical merchandise or the monetization of streaming content held behind a paywall. You can print your designs and sell those minis (directly to your customers, in limited quantity, as outlined in the policy) but not sell the STLs themselves.
I noticed there is no "Starfinder Second Edition" compatibility logo in the compatiblity logo downloads. Will such a compatibility logo become available once the Starfinder second edition is final or will/does the Pathfinder Second Edition compatibility logo serve that function? We will release a Starfinder Second Edition compatibility logo when there's a Starfinder Second Edition for a third-party product to be compatible with. Expect that next summer in the lead-up to the new edition launch in August.
Is the eBook going to be available from the Google Play store? (Or library services like Libby/Overdrive?) Yes, it should be. We are in the process of setting up wider eBook and audiobook distribution channels for this book and our back catalogue, and all three of those should be among those available to readers. For Libby/Overdrive, you'll need your local library to buy a copy to lend, of course, but it will be available for them to do so.
Hopefully those "more pressing issues" also include a first errata pass for Player Core 2, which had quite a lot of issues popping up since its release, like the exact duration of Flash of Grandeur and the like. :) There are other threads where discussion of errata are more appropriate. The team working on our products and the team working on our licensing are completely separate. Let's try to keep the discussion here on topic, please.
One quick thought. I know you said the FCU will have no changes but be in parallel... However just to make things absolutely clear that it will be blocking nothing -and the CUP is what handles things instead- would it perhaps make sense to either strike Requirement 2? Or at least modify it to mention the Community Use Policy as another thing you would use instead of the FCU? We will be going into the FCP and making updates and revisions now that it no longer needs to do (most of) what the CUP does as well as the new things it does that the CUP never did. Our priority was getting the CUP back up and in effect so that content creators didn't have to worry about the fates of their existing projects. I don't have a timeline on clarifications and changes to the FCP at this time, but we will be working on those next. In the meantime, the FCP still does all the new stuff the CUP doesn't (like allow for monetization of content), so creators who have already started on projects based on those permissions can continue to do so.
I'm glad you got your question answered, but I also wanted to address it because it is very much a FAQ that we get across all channels. The reinstatement of the CUP today means that some of the FAQs we were going to issue to clarify some stuff (like this) got pushed to a "phase 2" status, but such clarification are coming as soon as more pressing issues are handled. It seems that the answer you got is accurate, so I'll let the community continue to be the helpful helpers they are.
This is a great move, but what about 1e content on infinite? Today's announcement and action relate to the Community Use Policy and Fan Content Policy. We are continuing to monitor community feedback to changes to our other licenses and will share what information we can when it is available. Thanks for your patience and dedication to the Pathfinder and Starfinder communities.
Wow, I just saw this thread with messages from over a year ago. Sorry for not responding sooner. It is not legal to reproduce and distribute this book yourself. If you have it in email, you can convert that into PDF or eBook or whatever for personal use, but not release it via Infinite or otherwise. As we ramp fiction back up with Godsrain, getting this story out to more folks is still very much on my radar. It's just never risen to the top priority. Given the attention we're going to be putting on Starfinder in the next year, however, I wouldn't rule its release out.
They're allowed while "Drift" isn't because the Drift is a specific place in the setting. "Vesk" is not a proper noun, any more than "elf" is. When the name of a stat block is a proper noun, that name is Reserved Material. When the name of a stat block (or other rules element like a class) is not a proper noun, that name is Licensed Material. This is largely why we created "OGL-safe" names for all the ancestries in Starfinder when the game launched. "Brethedan" became "barathu," "Eoxian" became "elebrian," and so forth.
Considering that most people (including myself) who are considering sharing free fan content can’t afford to consult an IP lawyer about this, I’d like to clearly ask: is what you just wrote legal advice on behalf of Paizo to its user base or a personal opinion separate from the policies and views of Paizo Inc? None of what I write is legal advice. I am not a lawyer and you are not my client. As I said, we will have an FAQ coming soon that will hopefully clarify this point.
But the Chopper's Isle you linked to is fine, mostly.You said it's fine and then proceeded to describe how it's not at all fine at all. It is 98% fine, hence the "mostly." It just needs to have the OGL added and swap out a map or two. But we're also not going to C&D a 15-year-old web post. And this same type of content (with the mentioned changes) would be 100% fine going forward using the Infinite license (assuming it didn't require the OGL to be published). So claiming that I said "it's not at all fine at all" is really stretching what I said. There are a ton of AP expansions on Infinite now, and I'm sure there will continue to be in the future. And folks will continue to post their own suggestions and alterations in text on Reddit and the Paizo Forums and whatnot.
A forum post is not a publication, and is not subject to these policies. We'll be adding a clarifying FAQ soon, as this is something I keep seeing here and on other discussion channels. The Fan Content Policy (nor the Community Use Policy before it) really covered personal use or discussion of our IP. If you write something and share it in a discord or on a forum or a subreddit, that's all good.
Very much this. Plus, many members of the team who went to Gen Con (including myself) came back with an unwelcome microbial stowaway that further delayed our ability to pick this back up immediately following the show. Thanks to everyone for your patience. We are actively working on FAQ updates and a larger update that we will share as soon as we can.
I don't see the things in that thread being against any policy.I already listed multiple examples. Let me direct link to one of them: Chopper's Isle Most of the links on that thread are dead, at least for the first few posts. But the Chopper's Isle you linked to is fine, mostly. First, it was released under the Community Use Policy, and we're not asking anyone to remove anything that was released under the policy even if new material can't be created under it. But it does use some of Paizo's maps that weren't released into the Community Use Package, or which were but weren't allowed to be altered (like cropped) under the terms of the CUP. It also doesn't seem to include the OGL anywhere, which it probably should since it's using game mechanics. But that's not Paizo's license to enforce. At the end of the day, there's nothing in there that couldn't be made into a PDF and released on Pathfinder Infinite (before September 1, since it's using OGL material). They even have a "download PDF" button (though it's broken).
Again, folk *can* still make Starfinder 1E products, just not with Paizo proper names.Sincerely: What the hell does that even mean? It's hard to appreciate how much of Starfinder is Paizo-owned proper nouns. I myself didn't get the full picture until I started reading the 2e playtest document. Can you still call the core race of warlike lizard aliens Vesks? Can you refer to a Solarian? What about other crucial game mechanics like Drift Engines? "Vesk" and "solarian" are not proper nouns any more than "human" and "wizard" are. Both are available as Open Game Content under the OGL and now as Licensed Material under the ORC. "Drift" remains off-limits, because it's a place as much as Absalom Station is, but you can use "hyperspace" as a replacement, just as we provided as guidance in our OGL Product Identity declarations for the duration of Starfinder First Edition. And "precog" is just as much Open Game Content as it ever was.
We want people to be able to play our games in whatever language they want, and if tools like Archives of Nethys in other languages would make that easier for people to do, we encourage that. As I've said before, we're reviewing our options in providing support for international communities. Anyone can contact our licensing department and inquire about establishing a commercial license. See the "Commercial Licenses" section at the bottom of the Paizo Licenses page for more information on what we look for in commercial partners. And, again, please be patient with us as we gather information to share, which includes more for international community projects that operated under the CUP.
Hi if I want to start a website were people can share homebrew AP and onshots they have written with a possibility of selling them as long as the material is within the regulations with the licenses is that okay? If they are using the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings or other material that isn't licensed via the OGL or ORC, then such APs and one-shots need to be released on Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite. If they're using a different setting or no setting, then they can function as you describe under the OGL/ORC and (if you so choose) the Paizo Compatibility License. But these policies are meant to apply to published content, not general discussion, so if it's a forum where people are just tossing around ideas for campaigns or homebrew material, that's not something we're interested in policing.
We're going to be adding FAQ information to clarify what existing CUP sites that may need maintenance or other technical updates that don't fundamentally change the content or functionality need to do to be compliant with the FCP. If I put those up on a website for everyone in my little home group to read, am I running afoul of the updated rules? Home group play is covered under personal use and isn't really something this policy is intended to govern.
(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? We were never good at keeping Exhibit B up to date, and in the end, it didn't really serve the needs of the brand(s) to limit which of our books someone could reference. If you are directing people to one of our books in your OGL/ORC product, that's a win for us. The removal of Exhibit B was intentional, and does, in fact, mean that you can now reference any Paizo publication by name in your products. ((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? In this case, the requirement to refer to the edition as "Pathfinder First Edition" is in any statements you're making about the game edition. Book titles should still be referred to by their actual titles. This is to ensure that people aren't substituting inconsistent shorthand like P1, PF1, P1e, etc. into their Compatible products in place of the trademarked names we want them to be using in exchange for the right to use the logos in the first place.
If I can ask for clarification on specific Foundry modules, where does this leave the Starfinder 1E system (I'm not sure if that has the same special license as the PF2E system), and the Pathmuncher module (which contains as part of its code a mapping from the ORC-compliant names in Pathbuilder to names containing Paizo IP as they are found in the Foundry)? I'm not personally as familiar with specific modules as other members of the staff who deal with them more directly, but the Starfinder First Edition system would be covered under the same license that allows FoundryVTT to host and maintain the Pathfinder system. The latter one also sounds like it's fine, because it's interacting with the Paizo IP that already exists in the (fully licensed) system, not introducing them itself. We are in contact with the Foundry team and we/they will be issuing more clarifications once time (and the ever-approaching march of Gen Con) allows.
I wish the FCP would extend Videos to tutorials and not only .. liveplay It extends to all videos, save for, I guess a full feature film or something using our world and characters. A tutorial, like reviews, falls pretty squarely into the realm of Fair Use anyway. A live-play, however, involves a TON of proprietary characters and events and other elements that aren't as clearly covered by Fair Use, which is why they're called out specifically. I will look at this section and see if we can clarify it, either in the license or the FAQ.
Now I'm really confused. You just told Hephaistos that they have to remove all the OGL content. But now they're grandfathered? The OGL and CUP are two different things. We have no say in what someone does with OGL content because we don't control that license, and it's irrevocable. I said that Hephaistos would need to scrub Paizo's IP from their tools to be compliant with the FCP, but that existing CUP stuff would be grandfathered in so long as it stays in the state it was in when published under that license. (The CUP included language that said that changes to or cancelation of the license wouldn't necessitate the removal of CUP content, just the cessation of publishing new material under the old terms.)
Also. We know that Foundry has a special license to host Pathfinder, but what about Foundry *modules* for Pathfinder, like those that help with gameplay automation and accessibility? Are any of those going to land in hot water just for making the game easier to run? Because these modules are a HUGE reason why people use PF2e on Foundry in the first place. If you restrict them, you are going to make a lot of people very upset. As I said in a response to an earlier, similar, query, the core of the Pathfinder system (including both rules and lore) is maintained by the Foundry team (and a cadre of hardworking volunteers) and is covered under a commercial license with Paizo. A module that adds accessibility, quality of life, or just fun gizmos to that core system are all fine. Most of them are rules-related, like automating mechanical effects or processes, and would be covered entirely by the OGL/ORC anyway. This will be addressed in the FAQ in the near future.
… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business. 100% this. At the time, Paizo was publishing content under the OGL using the 3.5 rules, and recognized that if people were going to buy and play these products, there needed to be an in-print rules system that was getting ongoing support. Because tying your brand to another company's core rulebooks that are going to become harder and harder to find as time goes on is not the way to grow your fan base. And while the first version of Pathfinder could have just been a word-for-word reprint of the 3.5 SRD, the fact that "the patient was already open" made for a great opportunity to tinker with mechanics that the previous 9 years of using them had revealed to be less than optimized. The fact that a large majority of the gaming community was uninterested in moving on from the 3.5 core game they loved, and chose Pathfinder over 4E, was merely good fortune. But gamers love edition wars and the narrative has taken on more of an oppositional tone than reflected reality since the earliest days of the Pathfinder playtest. C'est la vie.
For what i've understood you are near the only change is that you can still use the Cup until august 31 No, the CUP is replaced by the FCP immediately. Any existing material posted under the CUP can remain up indefinitely, but if it's updated or expanded upon, those parts will need to comply with the FCP. So a static CUP document—like, say a conversion guide for a specific adventure, made 2 years ago—can remain forever. It was made in compliance with the license that existed at the time of publication. If it's a living document that is going to have new additions put in it, then when the next addition is made, it also needs to ensure the entire document is now compliant with the FCP, not just the new parts. We will be adding information to the FCP FAQ that guides users through the process of updating older CUP content be FCP compliant, including clarification that we understand these changes can't happen immediately, and that a good faith show of effort to update existing resources is all we ask for. The August 31 date is the cutoff for the last OGL product someone can release via Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite. i cannot risk to put out an srd for it, because if i fail down to remove one term that paizo has copyrighted and i don't KNOW It they can take down all my work. As the one who would be sending out requests for changes, let me assure you that we would only resort to a full takedown request if you refused to work with us if we point out individual instances where you're not compliant. For example, if you accidentally included a proper name in a feat or spell or whatever, we'd just ask you to change that element. But I also request that you wait for us to put the translation permissions back into the license, as they were removed unintentionally, before passing final judgment on how much risk is involved in your project.
Mark: Where is this FAQ that you are referring to? Each of the individual licenses has an existing FAQ linked at the top of its page. We will be updating these with answers to new questions that have arisen since Monday, but I don't have a specific date when you can expect those, largely because we're all headed to Indianapolis for Gen Con in 2-3 business days. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to address questions in this thread.
The type of FoundryVTT module you're describing shouldn't be affected by this, because they're adding new features or automation to the system that's already in place and fully licensed to include both Paizo's mechanics and setting IP. A module that added a whole bunch of new setting content and rules that wasn't already part of the system would likely not be covered by the license.
You are absolutely right. In an ideal world, these would be 4 distinct conversations, just as they're 4 distinct licenses. But they're also all sort of touching the same thing because of that last part about their interactions and so forth, so the conversation would bleed anyway. Personally I’m still having difficulty tying the ORC and the PCL together, but I *think* that if, in the old days you published PF1/OGL stuff using the PFRPGCL then nowadays if you want to publish PF2/ORC stuff you use the PCL. And given I don’t want to include any Golarion lore, nor interact with Infinite, I can do so, and sell PDFs here on the Paizo storefront. Part of the reason that particular change took so long was that the old Compatibility License referred specifically to the OGL, because when it was written, we never envisioned a world in which we wouldn't be using that for all our releases. We had to not only combine the licenses to allow for a single Compatibility umbrella to cover all our current games and leave room for future games (like Starfinder Second Edition) but also make sure that it wasn't tying people using the license to some other license. We want as few interactions as possible between licenses, which has been an overarching goal since early 2023, for reasons you can likely guess. As it stands, the only time you should be publishing material under more than one license is with the PCL, because it requires your product to be compatible with one of our games, which would necessitate either the use of the OGL or ORC to publish that material. In the olden days (like more than 24 hour ago), if you were publishing a Pathfinder First Edition book, you used the OGL and the Pathfinder First Edition Compatibility License. If it was a Starfinder First Edition product, you used the Starfinder First Edition Compatibilty License and the OGL. If it was a Pathfinder Second Edition product, you used the Pathfinder Second Edition Compatibility License, which unfortunately required you to use the OGL, so you couldn't use the ORC with it if you wanted to. NOW, you use the rules license appropriate for your product's content, and then pick the logo that best represents what game system(s) it is compatible with via the Paizo Compatiblity License, and you're good.
Just jumping in quick here (and to offer just how complicated things are when it comes to handling what is and isn't OGL content), the version of Aldinach we have in our game is NOT WotC OGL content. This version of Aldinach, based on mythology but significantly changed to fit the role of a demon lord in Pathfinder, was created by Paizo (by me, to be specific) and not WotC.However, if I wanted to create stock art of Aldinach, would the new Fan Content Policy clear the way for me to sell that new stock art with the proper name on DTRPG instead of Infinite? Would the answer be any different if it was on Patreon? Oh no, I fell into a hole! This is why we want to ensure that our content and OGL content are two separate things in as many places as possible. It's inconvenient for us (and even we can get it wrong, as I've shown), and we know it's inconvenient for the community. But once we're on the other side of it, it will be easier for everyone.
Hi i'm actually managing a website similar to aon+ pathfinderwiki, but in italian, if i understood correctly till 31 August 2024, content can still be done with the Cup licenze and will not be subjected to be deleted after. First, nothing released under the CUP has to be deleted. It's grandfathered in. Second, we're going to be looking at the license and how it can better serve our international community in ways the CUP allowed. That will take time, and we appreciate everyone's understanding and patience. As long as you're operating in good faith as we make these adjustments, no one is going to come after you to delete anything.
I think the distinction here is between someone homebrewing content and discussing it in a forum and publishing material. No one expects everyone who ever comes up with a new monster to also include a ton of legal text along with it when they post it online. In fact, if you've made up the monster entirely, and it doesn't use any of our copyrights like god names or nations or individuals, that's your IP—not ours. You get to decide how it's licensed, or if it's licensed at all. So in your example, you're just posting this on a forum. It being a PDF instead of text in the body of a comment complicates it a little bit, but ultimately, you aren't publishing anything. To be absolutely safe, you'd include the requisite ORC or OGL text on the PDF just to be safe (and so someone else who wants to use your homebrew creation in their own publication can do so legally). If you are instead creating stats for a named character that Paizo owns, then your safest bet is to put that free PDF up on Infinite and then link to it in your Reddit discussion. But if you're just spitballing how you'd build the Whispering Tyrant compared to someone else, or trying to get feedback on it before you run it in your game later this week, you're having a discussion not publishing.
Hi Fred, and thanks for the thorough reply. First, I want to apologize if this announcement has been demoralizing for you and your team. I guess the situation is more in the "failed our Diplomacy check" realm than the alternative, since we never intended this to be an attack on anyone. I appreciate your understanding and for laying out the specific ways this will impact your efforts. First, the intent was never to cut off all translation efforts, and we are looking at the various iterations of the license to see when that particular portion the CUP was removed and why. It may take a bit of time, what with needing to go back and forth with our attorneys and most of our team leaving for Gen Con early next week, but we are looking at getting provisions to allow for translation put into the license as soon as possible. They may not be exactly what they were in the CUP, but it is not our intent to prohibit any translation of our material as the current license seems to do. Of the examples you mentioned, the YouTube videos are for sure Fair Use and always were. You can provide guidance on how people play the game or use the forum to discuss the games in any language you want without needing a license from us. The rest likely to get caught up in the new division between non-RPG and RPG material and so we will need to look at that more closely. Would it be a deal-breaker to have those items distributed via Infinite (even for free)? Some of our localization partners sell their non-English books on the site (Ulisses Spiele, for example) and I wonder if that would be a means by which you could continue to produce the intro adventure and other material within the confines of the FCP. As for Pathbuilder renaming content, that's how anyone not using Infinite should be using our Open Game Content (OGL) and Licensed Material (ORC). "Abadar" as well as other Paizo-owned proper nouns should not be there, but I assume it's an oversight. Anyway, I want to reassure, as much as is possible, that we're looking into the translation use-case of the CUP and will endeavor to ensure that as many of these use-cases are still covered under the FCP, even if not all of them.
I was writing an adventure based around the Brainchild, a non-ORC monster, and was planning on releasing it for free. Now I am not even sure if I can reference it (since it isn't ORC). If I can reference it I would need to wade through all this legalese to figure out how to reference it, what licenses to use and where I could release this adventure. First, I guess I need to know if your adventure is going to use any of Paizo's non-rules content? Is it set in Golarion? Does it involve the Pathfinder Society or a temple of Sarenrae or the Whispering Tyrant? If not, and it's just a generic adventure usable in any setting, you can publish it under the OGL and (if you so choose) the Paizo Compatibility License. Such a product could be sold or distributed anywhere you want, except Pathfinder Infinite. If it uses our setting, you'll need to publish it on Pathfinder Infinite. And since the brainchild isn't something that requires the OGL to use (having never appeared anywhere prior to Bestiary 3) you can use it via the Infinite License alone. And since you wanted to release it for free, you can set the product price as $0.00.
However, if I wanted to create stock art of Aldinach, would the new Fan Content Policy clear the way for me to sell that new stock art with the proper name on DTRPG instead of Infinite? Would the answer be any different if it was on Patreon? This specific example is a bit more complex than the generic circumstance because Aldinach, while an ancient Egyptian demon associated with earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters, exists in the Pathfinder setting via the OGL as the demon lord of scorpions. That interpretation of the character is Wizards of the Coast IP, so we can't give you any permission to do anything with it. If you were instead asking about Cyth-V'sug, who originated in Pathfinder, then giving a clear(er) answer is easier. You can only sell the illustration as a hand-made print or other physical item, as the license only grants permissions for physical merch, not digital goods. The intent here is that you can sell these on Etsy for people to hang on their wall or at a local convention from your Artist's Alley booth, but not that you are selling digital art with no cap on units able to be sold. You can sell it as digital stock art on Infinite, but not on DriveThruRPG or other marketplaces. If you have this and other art behind a Patreon paywall, as a benefit to subscribers, that would be permitted, as long as you're selling access to a library of materials and not marketing your Patreon as the "Cyth-V'sug stock art community." The purpose of the Patreon needs to be for you as a creator, not our specific IP locked behind it.
If I were converting Serpent's Skull ultimately to publish in Infinite and I wanted to bring that creature over into 2e, would I need to make up a new name for it in order to include it in the conversion? If it were me, and this is just advice (and not legal advice, at that), I'd just say something like "replace the fey creature in area X1 with a Whozitwhatzit (Monster Core 256)" and then you never use the OGL name while still providing players with the info they need to run the adventure using Remastered rules. There are other ways to handle it, but this is how I'd do it.
Link to PFOA.I also don't see any rules on the linked page. These appear to be campaign journals. This has always been allowed and continues to be so.
|
