Perhaps my questions will soon be answered when Paizo releases its fan site policies in about a month or so, but perhaps someone out there can help elaborate on my poor understanding of the OGL.
Does the OGL prevent a person from changing and SRD material and making it their own. (i.e. Pathfinder RPG races have all been altered. Can Pathfinder claim any type of a copyright over their race statistics?
While researching content for my proposed fan site Pathfinder Portal, I found this site PFOGL that has all the Pathfinder resource information I was planning to add. This site contains all the full text descriptions of the material as presented in the Pathfiner RPG Beta book. Can all this information be reproduced like this, or could there be some copyright / trademark infringements in doing so?
Although the answer to the above question might answer this one: there are new feats that Pathfinder RPG has added to the game -- are these considered product identity which would thereby prevent anyone from reproducing the material (such as in a fan site) without permission?
Perhaps my questions will soon be answered when Paizo releases its fan site policies in about a month or so, but perhaps someone out there can help elaborate on my poor understanding of the OGL.
Does the OGL prevent a person from changing and SRD material and making it their own. (i.e. Pathfinder RPG races have all been altered. Can Pathfinder claim any type of a copyright over their race statistics?
While researching content for my proposed fan site Pathfinder Portal, I found this site PFOGL that has all the Pathfinder resource information I was planning to add. This site contains all the full text descriptions of the material as presented in the Pathfiner RPG Beta book. Can all this information be reproduced like this, or could there be some copyright / trademark infringements in doing so?
Although the answer to the above question might answer this one: there are new feats that Pathfinder RPG has added to the game -- are these considered product identity which would thereby prevent anyone from reproducing the material (such as in a fan site) without permission?
You probably should get an answer from a Paizo employee, but as far as I know all of the rule information for the Pathfinder RPG is OGL, which means it can be reprinted on a fan site without permission.
Chief Technical Officer
|
First of all, let's not confuse copyright and OGL. Paizo owns the copyright to everything we create. The OGL does not change that.
The OGL provides a nice mechanism for copyright holders to allow other people to use some of their copyrighted material, so long as it's used in compliance with the OGL.
The OGL also allows us to specify which parts of each product are Open Game Content (stuff that we're allowing OGL publishers to use) and which are Product Identity (stuff that we're not allowing OGL publishers to use).
For our OGL products, we specify the following:
- 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, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
- Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d).
In short, our setting is generally PI, and our rules are generally OGC.
I'm not satisfied with ... (a bunch of stuff)
You really want the book to be color coded for OGL content? I'd rather the priority for the layout be based on artistic merit, myself. The OGL has been out for years and 3PP seem to have a reasonable understanding of it. The product identity clause seems quite clear. I would suggest that if you have serious aspirations for using Pathfinder OGL in a publishing project, you obtain independent legal advice. If your intention is for a fan site, wait for Paizo's fair use policy to be made public.
|
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identif ied 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, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open
Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d).
Seems pretty clear to me as it is. If it's about Golarion, it's not open. Everything else is.
Just look at the d20srd site for precedence: skill descriptions are always considered part of the rules, but things like the flavour text of the races, example characters and the like are not. Of course, Paizo's openness may be slightly different, but I really don't think that any 3rd party publisher is going to care about and make use of the flavour text for elves when they're writing up a dungeon crawl or some such.
|
I'm not satisfied with this response. I think Paizo currently fails to clearly specify which parts of the Beta rules are Open Game Content and which are not. The OGL says they must. I like the OGL, and I'd like to see Pathfinder succeed, so I really hope this problem is fixed.
Ummm you have to be kidding right?
Quoted from the first page of the Beta:
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, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents 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 might be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20
System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
Ummm essentially they just clarified every single thing you could possibly need to know. Unless it is necessary to get out a crayon and highlight every single line in the book, I think they have done their job. It is now up to the reader to do his/her job.
As my cleric likes to say "Cure spells don't fix lazy."
As my cleric likes to say "Cure spells don't fix lazy."
LMAO
Oh I like this one, I like it alot!
As my cleric likes to say "Cure spells don't fix lazy."
Heh. Nice. Kinda fits with the three Forbidden Alignments in my game:
Lawful Stupid (ie, the LG totally overzealous paladin/wannabe that attacks anything that detects as evil regardless of consequences)
True Stupid (ie, the N totally overzealous druid/wannabe that plays both sides of the good/evil fence because "the balance must be maintained")
Chaotic Stupid (ie, the CN totally randomly played character because "CN is the alignment of the insane")
|
|
As my cleric likes to say "Cure spells don't fix lazy."Heh. Nice. Kinda fits with the three Forbidden Alignments in my game:
Lawful Stupid (ie, the LG totally overzealous paladin/wannabe that attacks anything that detects as evil regardless of consequences)
True Stupid (ie, the N totally overzealous druid/wannabe that plays both sides of the good/evil fence because "the balance must be maintained")
Chaotic Stupid (ie, the CN totally randomly played character because "CN is the alignment of the insane")
lol thanks guys. I expected to get major league flamed!
What my cleric ACTUALLY says is "Cure does fix stupid," I just didn't want to say that because I certainly did not want to say the other poster is stupid. That would have been wrong and rude. Not at all what I wanted to say.
But I do love that quote. It works in so many levels. Like when the rogue tried to BACKSTAB a wraith. "Restoration don't fix stupid!" The fighter decides to grapple a mummy "Cure Disease don't fix stupid!" Grapple a mummy! I should just let you get Mummy Rot and then turn you're stupid sorry butt! Backstab a WRAITH... dude I think I'll save my cure spells for someone with an INT ABOVE 3!
Eric Tillemans didn't know if the postings on pfogc.com were legal, so I'm not the only one having trouble with this.
Whoever posted to pfogc seemed to care enough about the descriptions of elves to post the description, despite what Alice Margatroid might think. I'm guessing that the hosters of the various srd websites been allowed to, they would have as well. Similarly, I imagine the publishers of the pocket srd would have as well, if WotC had allowed them too.
The authors of OSRIC claim that, since they've completely rewritten all the spell and skill descriptions, they can declare the new versions to be "language" as part of "product identity", so that no one can print or distribute the OSRIC rules without their permission. They also claim they've had several lawyers go over their stuff, and that it's legal to do this. I have my doubts, but I'd like to see Paizo clearly state this is not their interpretation of the OGL.
I agree that colour-coded text would look ugly. I'd like to see something like "all text from page 5 to page 401" is Open Game Content. For deities and other product identity, appendices could be put at the end. I'd even be satisfied if boxes-of-text were included. My point is that there are many ways that Open Game Content can be clearly separated from product identity.
I like open content. I use open source software. I'm guessing many of you use the firefox browser, which is so good because it's developed as open source. The only reason Paizo is allowed to produce Pathfinder is because WotC decided to release 3e under the OGL. I'm happy to see games being developed under the OGL, but if the system is going to work, then we need open content to be clearly identified. We need everyone to know if they can take the new rules and post them on grandwiki.wikidot.com or publish modified versions.
In fact, there are several available legal interpretations of the concept of language as presented in the OGL definitions.
One, which you say that OSRIC seems to be using, is language-as-content (Ex: "Mr. Senator, can you please provide the specific language used to the court?"). If they did alter the totality of text for each Skill and Spell, then legally speaking that descriptive language can be claimed as PI under the OGL. (If the content of the ideas described by the "new language" remains the same, however, the *copyright* for said ideas would still rest with Wizards, or whoever was the original holder, which could make for some interesting by-play.) Strictly speaking, if Paizo was to employ this rather close-minded and draconian interpretation of language, then (for example) the setting-agnostic description of the Elves found on pfogc.com would not be legit.
By and large, however, the tone of their publications seems to indicate that alterations to the *mechanics* of play would be OGL and Paizo's own unique setting and setting-specific content would remain PI (similar to Wizards with the SRD vs. campaign settings like the Realms or Eberron, but not blocking as much). If this is accurate (and I get the sense that it is) then (for example) the setting-agnostic description of the Elves found on pfogc.com would be fine.
Then there's the literal interpretation (relying on the implied plurality of the definitions bloc) that would mean that any Language (that is a word-collection spoken or written by a group of people, like the English Language, or the French Language, or the Dwarven Language) or Languages presented could/would be considered PI. Clearly if that's the interpretation Paizo holds of "language" in the OGL definitions, then (for example) the setting-agnostic description of the Elves found on pfogc.com are well within OGL publishing limits.
While it would be very nice to have a more clear understanding of what Paizo understands the "language" PI to be referring to, if I were them, I would refrain from providing clarification on more than a case-by-case basis, if only to keep any future legal options open to them.
That said, the folks at Paizo are a bunch of really cool froods, and I can't see them getting a bee in their bonnet about the non-Golarian generic content in the beta. Comparing the content presented in the pfogc site to the various SRD sites out there is not a useful comaprison inasmuch as WotC actually published an SRD document that the various sites were just re-presenting, whereas the PF content is designated as OGC within the OGL declarations in the front of the book.
Lastly, since the Paizo declarations use the same language as the OGL itself does, they have in fact satisfied the need to "clearly define" IP vs. OGC as required within the License, since it is the License they must satisfy and not the end-user. In this arena, if one is looking to reproduce copyrighted content, one would be well-advised to consult legal counsel for clarification.
Would Pathfinder's Traits system be considered OGL content or product identity? As they are generally "rules based" and augment the existing core rules system, I suspect that they would be OGL?
Would Pathfinder's Traits system be considered OGL content or product identity? As they are generally "rules based" and augment the existing core rules system, I suspect that they would be OGL?
My very layman understanding would be the idea of traits as a rule system are available, and the basic traits that are available for free from the PDF, are probably all clean to reuse. Campaign specific traits would probably fall under the same area that specific characters and plotlines are in and therefore not be available for reuse.
My generic rule of thumb is if they provide it for free, you are probably ok in referring to it or using it. If it costs you money in any form, you should probably not use it.
That's a good example, and I really don't see how difficult the concept is.
Traits are game mechanics, and it's easy for mechanics to be put in the OGL.
World-based story bits, however, are off limits.
For example, the last Trait in the "Legacy of Fire" book is "Finding Haleen."
Obviously Haleen is a character in the world of Golarion, and it would not be allowed to reprint the trait with her in it or any of the other plot details from the "Legacy of Fire" adventure path.
However, if you were to create a Trait with the same mechanics called "Chasing Amy" or "Desperately Seeking Susan" you'd be pretty much in the clear (except of course with the copyright holders of those other titles).
This is why all the SRD spells and magic items that had character names attached to them now don't. The Handy Haversack is now just a Handy Haversack and the Black Tentacles are now just Black Tentacles.
This is why all the SRD spells and magic items that had character names attached to them now don't. The Handy Haversack is now just a Handy Haversack and the Black Tentacles are now just Black Tentacles.
Well, black tentacles aren't always just black tentacles... especially if you are a wizard that hooked up with someone from 'sins of the saviors'...
|
|
It would seem to me that any of us could go round and round, but no one answer is going to make anyone happy.
If you need to get a understanding of the Pathfinder RPG games OGL content as to what is PI and what is OGL, maybe contactling a legal professional might be your best bet. Paizo isn't really equiped to give you legal advice on thier products.
If you have a product that you wish items from the Pathfinder RPG might be used and you are unsure if the content is OGL, I suggest a email to Paizo might be in your best interest. Messageboard contact doesn't allow for the clearest communication for a matter like this. (Email isn't much better, nut the noise to sound ratio is better).
All in all, I'm sure that you will find much in the PF RPG will be OGL, and worth supporting.
My generic rule of thumb is if they provide it for free, you are probably ok in referring to it or using it. If it costs you money in any form, you should probably not use it.
I would advise that you be very careful with this general rule of thumb.
Even freely distributed materials are copyrighted.
Copyright law in the U.S., and in just about all major countries of the world (YMMV) don't even require official documentation of copyrights - simply creating the material means it is automatically copyrighted by the creator (yes, that's a huge simplification, but I'm only giving one paragraph to the concept, and now I'm done).
If they print the OGL with their freely distributed material, and that OGL says settings are P.I., and you publish (free or otherwise) some new material of your own taht uses those P.I. settings, you may find out that your rule of thumb might have gotten you into trouble.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, but I am an author, and I think I have a fair layman's grip of copyright law, but I'll allow for plenty of room for me to be wrong here.
So while I won't offer specfic legal advice, I will advise you to be careful with that rule of thumb because it might not be an accurate simplification of copyright/OGL legislation.
So while I won't offer specfic legal advice, I will advise you to be careful with that rule of thumb because it might not be an accurate simplification of copyright/OGL legislation.
Indeed you are correct: I should have clarified, for the purposes of talking about or explaining how something works on say, a forum, I use the general rule. If I actually want to use a piece of something from copyrighted material in something I'm specifically working on, the general rule changes to "Ask first."
Example:
Someone on another forum asks me how the new Armor Training class ability for the pathfinder fighter works. I feel comfortable talking about it becuase it is offered for free through the beta right now, and is a mechanical aspect that is probably free and clear in OGL/OGC for me to talk about.
However then someone asks me for copies of a map of Sandpoint. Now such a map is provided with the free player's guide to RotR, however I'm fairly certain that it is a specific place and artwork, therefore instead of providing a map I direct them to the paizo site to get themselves a copy of the player's guide. Another instance might be if I wanted to publish an adventure based in sandpoint... I would diffeniently ask first before doing anything along those lines, becuase while the information was provided freely to me, I don't have permission to use it in my own products.
In fact, there are several available legal interpretations of the concept of language as presented in the OGL definitions.
One, which you say that OSRIC seems to be using, is language-as-content (Ex: "Mr. Senator, can you please provide the specific language used to the court?"). If they did alter the totality of text for each Skill and Spell, then legally speaking that descriptive language can be claimed as PI under the OGL. (If the content of the ideas described by the "new language" remains the same, however, the *copyright* for said ideas would still rest with Wizards, or whoever was the original holder, which could make for some interesting by-play.) Strictly speaking, if Paizo was to employ this rather close-minded and draconian interpretation of language, then (for example) the setting-agnostic description of the Elves found on pfogc.com would not be legit.
By and large, however, the tone of their publications seems to indicate that alterations to the *mechanics* of play would be OGL and Paizo's own unique setting and setting-specific content would remain PI (similar to Wizards with the SRD vs. campaign settings like the Realms or Eberron, but not blocking as much). If this is accurate (and I get the sense that it is) then (for example) the setting-agnostic description of the Elves found on pfogc.com would be fine.
The 'language' clause of OGL does seem problematically vague to me:
First of all, OGL pertains ONLY to Copyright, i.e. specific 'language' PERIOD.
Game rules (mechanics or "math") independent of specific implementing wording (itself eligible for copyright) are basically 'ideas' that are NOT patentable or otherwise protectable at all: If it can't be protected in the first place, it's not up to OGL whether to allow or disallow. Computer software is the only category where Copyright AND Patent law is held to apply (and that is a tenuous situation created by the courts in the first place, and likely subject to much change given conflicting rulings on the subject - that's just in the US, many jurisdictions don't recognize software patents at all).
The problem as I see it, is that OGL stating "language" as able to be excluded from the licence is superfluous, since "Language" (or copyrightable content) is the only thing OGL pertains to in the first place. Granting a vague out like this basically means the whole situation devolves to arbitrary case-by-case determinations by the Copyright holder, the only actual effect of the OGL being that if the Rights holder deems OGL to apply to a certain portion of language, it applies for everybody wants to use it.
If the INTENT is for there indeed to be a formula to what is covered by OGL and what isn't, it should be clarified in Paizo's OGL itself, i.e. "everything BUT x y z". Otherwise OGL is meaningless on it's own.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
There wouldn't be questions about traits if Paizo identified which parts of Pathfinder are open content.
Part of me wants to say that it's Paizo's problem if they want to wait until they're sitting on 10,000 newly printed copies of the rules before getting a letter from WotC saying that the Open Game Content isn't clearly identified and that they have 30 days to fix it.
On the other hand, the only reason we have great games like Pathfinder (and True20 and many others) is that WotC decided to allow all gamers to share and modify the explanation of the rules, so it bothers me when companies don't make it clear they're releasing new rules in that spirit.
Paizo does. It's listed in everything they publish as part of the OGL v1.0a.
Can you cite an example of when Paizo ran into the problem of having 10,000 (or any other number for that matter) of new product that they couldn't distribute due to WotC lawyers? I don't know where your getting this seemingly extreme example.
And Paizo has, from day one, said that they are making the Pathfinder RPG under the OGL and that all products designed for D&D 3.5 will be (mostly) compatible with it.
So, I guess my question is "huh?"
It seems the hang-up is the definition of "Language" in product identity, although I think its inclusion is required and is part of the legal Language in the OGL itself. Paizo can't change that.
If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the Introduction, History & Design Goals, and What's Next sections are not OGL. Some of that PI 'Language' that has no relation to the rules.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm a geographer and only have my good sense to fall back on. That and reading through all those EULAs that are as common as sand these day. Reading what the US Copyright office has to say http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html , I'd stick my neck out saying that any section describing how to use rules, such as examples of combat, would be that 'Language' you're looking for. Combat examples wouldn't really fall under dialogue, plots, storylines, language, or incidents. However they aren't exactly part of the rules either, they are explanations and description of or about the rules.
Again, not a lawyer so I'd use the Phone-A-Friend(tm) option at this time.
If Paizo wants to change the OGL, they can for their own new material.
Basically, any material reproduced verbatim from 3.5/SRD must be licenced under OGL (they can't change this, since it's WotC licencing the material), but anything new they write themselves (include wording changes to identical mechanics - if signifigant enough) can use a different licence.
("OGL 2"?)
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I'm not a lawyer, I'm a geographer and only have my good sense to fall back on. That and reading through all those EULAs that are as common as sand these day. Reading what the US Copyright office has to say http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html , I'd stick my neck out saying that any section describing how to use rules, such as examples of combat, would be that 'Language' you're looking for. Combat examples wouldn't really fall under dialogue, plots, storylines, language, or incidents. However they aren't exactly part of the rules either, they are explanations and description of or about the rules.
This is a good example of a murky area, but you define it well. Also, consider the difference between what's in WotC's 3.5 PHB/DMG/MM and what's in the SRD. The rules are (mostly) all there, but the names of their iconics, and the examples containing them, are missing. Some rules are missing. The deities are missing. Much of the instruction on how to run the game (as opposed to the rules of the game themselves) are not included. They had the benefit of making a standalone document to define what was open and what was not (by process of elimination). Paizo doesn't as they must use a few lines in their OGL in each product to define what within that book is considered IP.
It doesn't matter how he defines it (his definition was great), it matters how the licence defines it. Since Paizo has actual lawyers taking care of it, I presume they'll clear it up.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
it is my understanding of the OGL that OGL material has to be clearly marked in some fashion. a blurb of text doesn't really clarify which is and which is not OGL. are stats and modifiers part of the rules or IP? the mere fact that you have this thread indicates that it is not properly covered.
It has to be indicated, and we've indicated it using the very same verbiage used elsewhere in the OGL.
So when we say Product Identity includes all trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress, and everything else is Open Content, all you have to do is ask yourself if stats and modifiers are trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names, dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress. Since they are none of the above, they are Open Content. (Of course, if a stat block contains a proper name, that proper name is Product Identity.)
|
|
There wouldn't be questions about traits if Paizo identified which parts of Pathfinder are open content.
Part of me wants to say that it's Paizo's problem if they want to wait until they're sitting on 10,000 newly printed copies of the rules before getting a letter from WotC saying that the Open Game Content isn't clearly identified and that they have 30 days to fix it.
On the other hand, the only reason we have great games like Pathfinder (and True20 and many others) is that WotC decided to allow all gamers to share and modify the explanation of the rules, so it bothers me when companies don't make it clear they're releasing new rules in that spirit.
*sigh*
OK... once and for all... they HAVE designated what is open content. Don't be so lazy, use your own brain, I KNOW you have one.
Paizo has designated their open content, just as every single other company has done since the beginning of the OGL.
To expect Paizo to suddenly be held to a higher standard than every other publisher is ridiculous.
If you are incapable of determining what is OGL based upon their very clear instructions you probably should not be designing anything that requires the license in the first place. So, in effect this complaint is dead.
Oh and hey guess what... traits are OGL! Wow that was easy! How do I know that? Because I read their statement of what is OGL!
Give it up...