|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm noticing that the D20 Pathfinder SRD site is putting an individual Section 15 after all of it's entries.
Yes, we maintain two Section 15 entries. One is within our "master" OGL which has a line item for every product we include content from (as well as every product those products reference etc.) AND we include JUST the one line item for the product in question on each individual items page (indicating the source of that item/feat/spell/whatever.)
The one we include on each page isn't really required as part of the OGL but we do it to help make sure people can more easily know where stuff comes from etc.
|
Actually, and John can correct me, the site also has a full section 15 which applies to pretty much all pages, we just include those specific shortened section 15s to denote what specific source was used for the page.On another note:
I'm noticing that the D20 Pathfinder SRD site is putting an individual Section 15 after all of it's entries.
Hence:
Faerie Dragon, the Mountain Lion, The Thassilonian Specialist, and Fearless. All of these have the section 15 reference right below them so you know what your referencing for your Section 15.
Yeah, I saw it. It's an ocular nightmare. But the reason why i just mentioned that John puts an individual section 15 on every page so you can copy it. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see, Paizo are reducing the size of their section 15 in their products by not bothering citing copyright for anything they own themselves and by ignoring the recursive element with respect to anything owned by anyone else which is not actually being used in the actual product.
Eminently sensible, but neither action is compliant with the OGL.
(And I bet they didn't pay a lawyer a penny before they did it ;-) ).
Richard
Or they are doing this because they paid a lawyer a penny, and got the answers they needed.
That, or they called the people who designed the OGL and asked them how things should go.
It's also worth pointing out that, should someone drag you into court over your own lack of compliance with the OGL, "Paizo doesn't comply," will get you nothing but laughed at by every officer of the court within earshot.
Look, Rich, this thread started with a simple question on your part, to which you got a simple answer. I'm not trying to pile on here, but producing work that relies on the OGL without consulting a trained professional about the legalities of the OGL is asking for trouble; contract lawyers live to take over-confident layman down a notch; Haven't you seen The Paper Chase?
|
|
Look, Rich, this thread started with a simple question on your part, to which you got a simple answer. I'm not trying to pile on here, but producing work that relies on the OGL without consulting a trained professional about the legalities of the OGL is asking for trouble; contract lawyers live to take over-confident layman down a notch; Haven't you seen The Paper Chase?
Thank you, Hitdice, for stating that the Wealthy is still keeping the poor out of the Publishing Business.
Look, it's better to follow John's example. I'd use d20PFSRD as your reference point and just copy the section 15 from the pages your using to your word processor to Section 15 until you can afford to pay for some advice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see, Paizo are reducing the size of their section 15 in their products by not bothering citing copyright for anything they own themselves and by ignoring the recursive element with respect to anything owned by anyone else which is not actually being used in the actual product.
Eminently sensible, but neither action is compliant with the OGL.
(And I bet they didn't pay a lawyer a penny before they did it ;-) ).
Richard
Having asked this very question inside the hallowed halls of Paizo, you'd actually loose that bet. They did ask their lawyer before doing it.
In essence, if you own the copyright on the rules in question, you don't have to cite the section 15 list of products, just the standard:
System Reference Document. Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Copyright 2009, Paizo Publishing, LLC; Author: Jason Bulmahn, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams.
Your Product Here. Copyright 2012, Awesome Games; Author: Jack Awesome.
It's not hard, it only adds a couple minutes worth of work, and covers your behind just in case someone wakes up and is having the worse day possible and they decide to stick it to everyone with a bad OGL.
And let's not forget that if you're using the PRD, Paizo can revoke the license, but more importantly, if you violate the OGL, it's WotC you'll be dealing with. Will they go after you? Probably not. But I buy car insurance even though I don't plan on getting into an accident today, because not everything is under my complete control.
The OGL exists to give us a safe haven and just like you don't tell your dying grandmother that the sweater she just knit you is the worst article of clothing you've ever seen, don't start off your publishing venture pissing all over the standard practices that have been developed over the past 10+ years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you violate the OGL, it's WotC you'll be dealing with. Will they go after you? Probably not. But I buy car insurance even though I don't plan on getting into an accident today, because not everything is under my complete control.
Even more than that, citing someone incorrectly opens you up to a plagiarism lawsuit. For example, if I cite one of LPJ Design's works incorrectly. I could hear from his lawyers. It doesn't matter that he and I have have helped each other in the past. If I cited his work incorrectly, I would be leaving myself open to a law suit and he would be perfectly within in his rights to sue me. Because outright copying someone else's work and reproducing it in your own is plagiarism. Correct use of the OGL is the only thing that stops those kinds of law suits from happening. (That and Louis is a good guy who would never sue me. Right Louis?)
The OGL makes plagiarism legal when used with other OGL works. It was designed to prevent another T$R situation when TSR was suing companies for making material compatible with AD&D 2E. Its a safe harbor as long as you play within its mildly constrained waters. Leave those waters and you can end up in a hurricane.
Look, Rich, this thread started with a simple question on your part, to which you got a simple answer. I'm not trying to pile on here, but producing work that relies on the OGL without consulting a trained professional about the legalities of the OGL is asking for trouble; contract lawyers live to take over-confident layman down a notch; Haven't you seen The Paper Chase?Thank you, Hitdice, for stating that the Wealthy is still keeping the poor out of the Publishing Business.
Look, it's better to follow John's example. I'd use d20PFSRD as your reference point and just copy the section 15 from the pages your using to your word processor to Section 15 until you can afford to pay for some advice.
I'm not looking to derail the thread, but, yes, starting a business requires capital; if you think that's "the wealthy" keeping people out of any particular business rather than simply the monetary investment required, then we'll just have to leave it at that.
My point with the above post is, you can pay an evil, overpaid lawyer for an hour of his time (at which point he will be working for you, and explain the OGL to you to whatever degree you find necessary) or you can try to half-ass your way through the legal system. Which one of those sounds like something a successful business would do?
Just to take your example, UE refers to a Yeti form Tome of Horrors Complete. Are you saying that if I reference an item from UE which has nothing to do with a Yeti, I still have to reference the Yeti?Yes.
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I had related hypothetical for something I'm doing: If I was only going to be using the Core Rule Book, under the OGL I'd still need to individually list the copyright notices that the Core Rule Book lists, in addition to the copyright notice for the CRB?
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I had related hypothetical for something I'm doing: If I was only going to be using the Core Rule Book, under the OGL I'd still need to individually list the copyright notices that the Core Rule Book lists, in addition to the copyright notice for the CRB?
Bingo. You got it sir.
Thanks for that confirmation :D
|
|
Look, Rich, this thread started with a simple question on your part, to which you got a simple answer. I'm not trying to pile on here, but producing work that relies on the OGL without consulting a trained professional about the legalities of the OGL is asking for trouble; contract lawyers live to take over-confident layman down a notch; Haven't you seen The Paper Chase?Thank you, Hitdice, for stating that the Wealthy is still keeping the poor out of the Publishing Business.
Look, it's better to follow John's example. I'd use d20PFSRD as your reference point and just copy the section 15 from the pages your using to your word processor to Section 15 until you can afford to pay for some advice.
I'm not looking to derail the thread, but, yes, starting a business requires capital; if you think that's "the wealthy" keeping people out of any particular business rather than simply the monetary investment required, then we'll just have to leave it at that.
My point with the above post is, you can pay an evil, overpaid lawyer for an hour of his time (at which point he will be working for you, and explain the OGL to you to whatever degree you find necessary) or you can try to half-ass your way through the legal system. Which one of those sounds like something a successful business would do?
Well, there's always legal insurance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even more than that, citing someone incorrectly opens you up to a plagiarism lawsuit. For example, if I cite one of LPJ Design's works incorrectly. I could hear from his lawyers. It doesn't matter that he and I have have helped each other in the past. If I cited his work incorrectly, I would be leaving myself open to a law suit and he would be perfectly within in his rights to sue me. Because outright copying someone else's work and reproducing it in your own is plagiarism. Correct use of the OGL is the only thing that stops those kinds of law suits from happening. (That and Louis is a good guy who would never sue me. Right Louis?)
I have a pack of ninja lawyers on speed dial and I have a itchy trigger finger.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
richard develyn: Lots of the posters in this thread aren't just random players lik myself. You have here several of the heads of well-respected 3PP telling you that if you aren't willing to consult with a lawyer, then you should forget about becoming a 3PP yourself. If you don't listen, then it's all on your head.
Well, there's always legal insurance.
Look, Rich, this thread started with a simple question on your part, to which you got a simple answer. I'm not trying to pile on here, but producing work that relies on the OGL without consulting a trained professional about the legalities of the OGL is asking for trouble; contract lawyers live to take over-confident layman down a notch; Haven't you seen The Paper Chase?Thank you, Hitdice, for stating that the Wealthy is still keeping the poor out of the Publishing Business.
Look, it's better to follow John's example. I'd use d20PFSRD as your reference point and just copy the section 15 from the pages your using to your word processor to Section 15 until you can afford to pay for some advice.
I'm not looking to derail the thread, but, yes, starting a business requires capital; if you think that's "the wealthy" keeping people out of any particular business rather than simply the monetary investment required, then we'll just have to leave it at that.
My point with the above post is, you can pay an evil, overpaid lawyer for an hour of his time (at which point he will be working for you, and explain the OGL to you to whatever degree you find necessary) or you can try to half-ass your way through the legal system. Which one of those sounds like something a successful business would do?
Off-topic, but:
|
richard develyn: Lots of the posters in this thread aren't just random players lik myself. You have here several of the heads of well-respected 3PP telling you that if you aren't willing to consult with a lawyer, then you should forget about becoming a 3PP yourself. If you don't listen, then it's all on your head.
I'm CG I'm afraid :-)
I'm happy to become a 3PP without going anywhere near a lawyer. I'm sorry if this offends the establishment, and I have listened to what people have to say, but:
a) I don't believe there is anything that a lawyer could tell me about this line of business that I cannot readily figure out for myself and
b) I intend to follow my own convictions rather than allow myself to be intimidated by the convictions of others.
It's as simple as that. I'm sure there are some people who will look at me as if I've just decided to tight-rope walk over the niagra falls without a safety net but I simply see things differently. I think that the OGL and the Paizo Compatibility Licences are very clear, and that includes clause 6 which I am certain allows me to include the OGL as a separate document as long as it is, clearly, part of the package of Open Game Content which I am distributing.
As I've said before, if Paizo objects to this, I will change, because I am keen to maintain a good relationship with them, but that has nothing to do with the OGL.
I think it's quite sad, actually, that there are people on this forum who are so frightened by the law that they don't feel comfortable going into business without employing lawyers. I'm in the UK, and maybe things are different in the US, but although I think that lawyers are there for certain purposes, I certainly don't think you have to use them all the time.
I have actually had quite a lot of dealings with lawyers both professionally and personally. My divorce, for example, took 6 months, and I have given technical advice to government legal department when I worked as a consultant for them over legal disputes with their IT suppliers.
When you go and see a lawyer all he does is give you his advise on how he things a dispute would turn out if it went to court. Courts, generally speaking, work on sensible logical grounds, so if you ask him something obvious you're going to get the answer you expect. There's not much point using them in this case. You can't sue your lawyer if he turns out to have got it wrong. There is no insurance here.
Similarly, if you go to your lawyer and ask him something complicated, then you may well find different lawyers give you different answers. None of them know for certain. It's all just opinions which don't become facts until they're tested in court.
And most of the time these disputes don't go to court because it costs money, and an organisation is only going to sue you if they think there's a very good chance that they will win and that the net effect to them will be financially beneficent (and if all that is is the money they can get from you, then they'll make sure you've got that money (or some insurance) before they do it).
There is a middle ground where legal advise is useful, particularly if you think there may be certain terms or precedents that you should know about, or when you feel common-sense hasn't given you an answer though there may be an answer to be found, but most of the time, even if you're running a business, you don't need lawyers.
I think that being perpetually worried about being sued is also a bit debilitating. Sure, if a policeman comes to your house and you're standing there with an axe in one hand and your mother in law's decapitated head in the other, he isn't going to write you a letter. But if you're pretty sure that what you're doing isn't illegal then you shouldn't go around worrying that any minute now someone is going to take away everything that you own just because you didn't consult a lawyer the last time you bought a bus ticket. The law is there to protect the innocent, not to surround every commercial interaction with so much mumbo-jumbo that only the wealthy can ever run a business.
Richard
richard develyn: Lots of the posters in this thread aren't just random players lik myself. You have here several of the heads of well-respected 3PP telling you that if you aren't willing to consult with a lawyer, then you should forget about becoming a 3PP yourself. If you don't listen, then it's all on your head.I'm CG I'm afraid :-)
I'm happy to become a 3PP without going anywhere near a lawyer. I'm sorry if this offends the establishment, and I have listened to what people have to say, but:
a) I don't believe there is anything that a lawyer could tell me about this line of business that I cannot readily figure out for myself and
b) I intend to follow my own convictions rather than allow myself to be intimidated by the convictions of others.
It's as simple as that. I'm sure there are some people who will look at me as if I've just decided to tight-rope walk over the niagra falls without a safety net but I simply see things differently. I think that the OGL and the Paizo Compatibility Licences are very clear, and that includes clause 6 which I am certain allows me to include the OGL as a separate document as long as it is, clearly, part of the package of Open Game Content which I am distributing.
As I've said before, if Paizo objects to this, I will change, because I am keen to maintain a good relationship with them, but that has nothing to do with the OGL.
Edit: The flip side of this is, if you want to produce amateur work, go for it. If you distribute your house rules free charge, no one will ever sue you for that. If, however, you're looking to charge customers for (even virtual) products, you'd be much better off seeing a lawyer.
I think it's quite sad, actually, that there are people on this forum who are so frightened by the law that they don't feel comfortable going into business without employing lawyers. I'm in the UK, and maybe things are different in the US, but although I think that lawyers are there for certain purposes, I certainly don't think you have to use them all the time.
I deleted some of your post, just for the sake of space.
Here's the thing, Rich: If you don't believe there is anything a lawyer could tell you about this line of business that you can't readily figure out for yourself, if the OGL and and Paizo Compatibility license are so clear, why are you asking questions on a forum message board?
Everyone here who's told you to be careful (myself included) is giving you an armchair opinion. Everyone here who's told you not to worry about it is giving you an armchair opinion. Unless you're a licensed lawyer (Solicitor in the UK, I guess, but possibly Barrister) your opinion is an armchair opinion.
If you want to be treated as a professional 3PP, i would suggest behaving as one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can see, Paizo are reducing the size of their section 15 in their products by not bothering citing copyright for anything they own themselves and by ignoring the recursive element with respect to anything owned by anyone else which is not actually being used in the actual product.
Eminently sensible, but neither action is compliant with the OGL.
(And I bet they didn't pay a lawyer a penny before they did it ;-) ).
Richard
We have a copyright lawyer. We even pay him!
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro is an American company. In American legal culture, lawsuit is not a last-resort appeal to high lords of law in order to right wrongs and amend mistakes, it's not a noble attempt to vindicate basic rights and freedoms, it's more of a weapon used to get more money. And it's frequently used by those who have more money to get even more money from those who have less money. Or to intimidate others.
Or, because we're taking American IP law here, there's this funny doctrine of "undefended IP is not worthy of legal protection" in the U.S., so American companies pretty much *have* to take legal action to protect their intellectual property every once in a while, because otherwise the courts over there might refuse to side with them when the needs comes to (say, when somebody actually actively and maliciously exploits their IP).
A drive-by lawsuit against a random guy in the UK who's fiddling with OGL is a great way to achieve that goal. You really want to risk waking up with an American lawsuit in the mail? At that point you will *have* to hire a lawyer, who will charge you far more than one who would advise you how to avoid this situation beforehand. Just like with doctors, lawyers that are hired to *prevent* something from happening are far less expensive than lawyers who are hired to *remedy* something that has already happened.
If you will hire a lawyer *before*, you will need somebody who can understand IP law, licensing and is open to understaning medusas. That's not hard, you might find a lot of young lawyers who will gladly help, and perhaps even understand what this whole role playing is all about.
If you hire a lawyer *after*, you will need somebody who knows IP law, licensing, is able in international civil procedure AND worse of all, proficient in US law. That's far more expensive. And I'm not sure if you will even get to have your money back if you win the case (not sure if UK even has laws for returning legal fees to the winning side, if they don't, bad news.).
You might fret, consider that silly, elaborate how the continental legal system in oh so superior in every possible way to that silly Yankee shenanigans, but at the end of the day, they're the ones who consider lawsuits a business tool.
Look, over the course of the last 24h I've given you advice I would normally charge people for. Please, don't throw that away just because you think that ignoring law makes it go away and leave your "Chaotic Good" existence happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, because we're taking American IP law here, there's this funny doctrine of "undefended IP is not worthy of legal protection" in the U.S., so American companies pretty much *have* to take legal action to protect their intellectual property every once in a while, because otherwise the courts over there might refuse to side with them when the needs comes to (say, when somebody actually actively and maliciously exploits their IP).
This is a very salient point, and one that was discussed at length in my business law classes.
Pretty much: if you don't defend your IP, then you lose the right to defend your IP. This is precisely the reason that Xerox and Kleenex no longer have the right to fight against people using those brand names: they didn't defend them in the past.
If you use an American company's IP incorrectly, not only can they, but they arguably have a legal obligation to take legal action against you.
*That's* why you should talk to a lawyer if you have *any* uncertainty about a US copyright legal document.
Edit: I'll go on to say, Paizo takes legal action all the time. We routinely send out DMCA notices for works that violate our copyright. I informed our employee who handles this of some violations less than an hour ago, and we'll probably have notices out by the end of the day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't sue your lawyer if he turns out to have got it wrong.
This is false, actually. You know why every (American) law blog is plastered with "This is not legal advice"? It's because they are making sure they can't be construed as being in a client/attorney relationship with every yahoo who reads their blog. Clients can and do sue when given erroneous advice. Just like medical doctors carry malpractice insurance, lawyers have to carry legal liability insurance to cover them if and when they make a mistake.
|
|
You can't sue your lawyer if he turns out to have got it wrong.This is false, actually. You know why every (American) law blog is plastered with "This is not legal advice"? It's because they are making sure they can't be construed as being in a client/attorney relationship with every yahoo who reads their blog. Clients can and do sue when given erroneous advice. Just like medical doctors carry malpractice insurance, lawyers have to carry legal liability insurance to cover them if and when they make a mistake.
Actually, that depends basing on country. In the Roman/German tradition (read: Europe minus UK), lawyers are generally liable to their clients only in case of gross malpractice, malicious action, or contract breaches. Losing the case due to being a terribad lawyer usually isn't grounds for liability, unless the lawyer did something unthinkable (say, failed to deliver an appeal to the court on time or didn't pay any mandatory fee or whatever turbo basic mistake).However, every lawyer over here is insured.
Not sure about the UK, then again, in a country where you have laws for being able to legally kill naked Scots using a crossbow only on every third Sunday of a month, you can never be sure of anything...common law, not for the faint of heart.
I did note it was something American lawyers did. But good point, if Richard is consulting a lawyer in the UK, then that's bound by whatever constitutes the attorney/client relationship in the UK, which I am not qualified to even guess at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Brief Aside: When I'm following a thread, I quake in the presence of RB; every time the conversation gets interesting, he shows up and shuts down the thread. But just this once, Lord Byers shows up to participate in the actual conversation. THIS MUST BE THE END TIMES!!
As far as I can see, Paizo are reducing the size of their section 15 in their products by not bothering citing copyright for anything they own themselves and by ignoring the recursive element with respect to anything owned by anyone else which is not actually being used in the actual product.
Eminently sensible, but neither action is compliant with the OGL.
(And I bet they didn't pay a lawyer a penny before they did it ;-) ).
Richard
Are you sure they aren't going back and citing the original source work?
Irrespective - this is a point I'd take very seriously if I were you. You think they're not complying their lawyer thinks they are. That suggests your intuition in this regard may well be faulty.
Gorbacz's points about the need to protect ip and "lawsuit as a US business tool" is another weird Americanism to bear in mind, I think. Plus it was legal advice you didn't have to pay for. How good is that?
Doesn't that only apply to Trademarks and not to copyright? Two different things with different methods of registration and different requirements for active defense. I see people conflating the two fairly often (normally on the pro-publisher side of things), but my understanding is that under American law they are two different things.
Yes, you're correct. The "defend it or lose it" principle is only for Trademark.
My edit was mostly pointing out that Paizo does actively defend their copyright as well as their trademark.
|
|
Well, I don't think my intuition was wrong, I don't think that it is compliant, but I don't think it matters because nothing of consequence is affected.
Just my armchair opinion, of course.
And I am grateful for the comments and advice that has been expressed in this thread, as I'm sure are many other prospective 3PPs who might be reading this.
And maybe I could ask, in the spirit of general potential 3PP help and advice, if those current 3PPs who did seek legal advice on the OGL could share what their lawyers told them.
I know I'm asking people to pass on information that they've paid for, and I know it might not even apply to me over here across the pond in the land of the naked-scotsman crossbow-hunters, but it might still help potential 3PPs over there, even if all you're prepared to say in the end is that there are legal issues with the OGL which are not obvious and which you need to know about, and that you should budget $200 or $300 (or whatever) on lawyers before embarking on your 3PP business.
Richard
|
|
@Chris Self. I take it you basically work for Paizo, so I think you can provide me with an answer pretty categorically.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, whatever the OGL situation is, if Paizo isn't happy with what I'm doing I'll change it.
So - would you (Paizo) object if I was to sell my PDF only product (through your store, actually) by distributing it in a ZIP file containing the following two documents:
1) The document with all my content in it, compliant to the Compatibility Licence in every way, but instead of having the OGL embedded in it containing a reference for the OGL to the accompanying second document
2) The OGL itself, which would be a large generic OGL with pretty much everything found in the D20 Pathfinder SRD section 15 in it
I might also include in this zip file some separate JPG files with the maps in document (1).
Cheers
Richard
@Chris Self. I take it you basically work for Paizo...
If there is a golem icon by the poster's name, they work for Paizo.
@Chris Self. I take it you basically work for Paizo,
Heh. Yes, I'm a Paizo employee. I'm the Finance Manager. (You can tell employees quite easily on the boards: we have a little Paizo golem next to our names where others have PFS factions.)
so I think you can provide me with an answer pretty categorically.
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, whatever the OGL situation is, if Paizo isn't happy with what I'm doing I'll change it.
So - would you (Paizo) object if I was to sell my PDF only product (through your store, actually) by distributing it in a ZIP file containing the following two documents:
1) The document with all my content in it, compliant to the Compatibility Licence in every way, but instead of having the OGL embedded in it containing a reference for the OGL to the accompanying second document
2) The OGL itself, which would be a large generic OGL with pretty much everything found in the D20 Pathfinder SRD section 15 in it
I might also include in this zip file some separate JPG files with the maps in document (1).
Cheers
Richard
I am not qualified to answer these questions. That's not my bailiwick. You want to talk to Vic Wertz. It's entirely possible that he'll answer here, but you probably want to contact him directly. Don't be surprised, though, if he tells you to talk to a lawyer.
I hope this is coming across in the spirit in which it is intended. I basically agree with you that the world is too litigio-phobic. I just think this is one situation where professional advice is essential. It's well intentioned back-and-forth, not an attempt to "win"...
Well, I don't think my intuition was wrong, I don't think that it is compliant, but I don't think it matters because nothing of consequence is affected.
Just my armchair opinion, of course.
To be clear, my point is that you should be concerned that you might be wrong, not that you're demonstrably wrong.
You thought paizo were not complying with the OGL and were doing so without having consulted a lawyer. Turns out they did ask a lawyer who expressed the view that they were compliant. You still think they aren't compliant.*
I'm not speaking from a risk avoidance perspective - I'm speaking from a "if the expert disagrees with you in their field, you're probably wrong" perspective. (I'm an accountant and the number of people who sit in my office spouting nonsense is quite frightening sometimes. Inevitably, it's because they've read some fragment of regulations or tax law out of context, have ignored established precedent or are relying on erroneous statements of fact from friends of theirs "who do this all the time!"...I suspect general law is even more fraught with potential misunderstandings).
I don't think you should just capitulate or try and emulate what other people are doing based on secondhand accounts of legal advice. I think you should be concerned that your adherence to an abstract principle might be clouding your judgement as to what your obligations are.
I think publishing under the OGL is a situation (like getting a divorce) where a lawyer is going to bring a wide perspective, knowledge of precedent and consideration for due process to bear - in a way that is likely to be far superior than an amateur.
* I'm basing that on this comment from you: "Eminently sensible, but neither action is compliant with the OGL." I know you later said you thought they were compliant - another alarm bell, I'd suggest!
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Richard,
I can't tell you definitively how to use the OGL correctly, and neither can anyone else at Paizo, nor can any other publisher. That's Wizards of the Coast's license, and they're the only ones who can say whether or not your interpretation of it agrees with theirs. (An attorney could provide you with advice on the matter, of course.)
Short of that, I'd just say (in an I-am-not-a-lawyer sense) that the wisest course is just to do what everyone else who hasn't been sued over the last 12 years is doing; if you want to forge your own way, you're on your own.
Because we are not arbiters of the OGL, that means we won't decline to sell your product based on how you interpret the OGL. The sales agreement you sign with us basically ensures that if there's a legal problem with your product, that's your liability, not ours.
|
|
Which is why there are groups like QuestionCopyright.org and Economics professors like Dr. Levine who are questioning if 90 years for a Corporate Copyright is too long. Some of them even come to the conclusion that Copyright itself is an Abomination to Human Progress.It's 95 years. I find a lot of these groups a pain; I do a lot of work for Wikimedia Commons and Project Gutenberg, and would, at the very least, like to roll back the 20 years taken from us by the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act. But it seems like if you bring it up with a politician, you're instantly grouped into the "hate copyright" group.
You'll change you're tune when you find that a Concept ("Forever") is attached to the Copyright law minus an actual span of time ("day.") What is forever - 1 day sound to you?
Forever can be interpreted by any legal entity to be any span of time from two days to 800 years.
|
|
Richard,
I can't tell you definitively how to use the OGL correctly, and neither can anyone else at Paizo, nor can any other publisher. That's Wizards of the Coast's license, and they're the only ones who can say whether or not your interpretation of it agrees with theirs. (An attorney could provide you with advice on the matter, of course.)
Short of that, I'd just say (in an I-am-not-a-lawyer sense) that the wisest course is just to do what everyone else who hasn't been sued over the last 12 years is doing; if you want to forge your own way, you're on your own.
Because we are not arbiters of the OGL, that means we won't decline to sell your product based on how you interpret the OGL. The sales agreement you sign with us basically ensures that if there's a legal problem with your product, that's your liability, not ours.
Best advice you can get on the matter.
And I am grateful for the comments and advice that has been expressed in this thread, as I'm sure are many other prospective 3PPs who might be reading this.
And maybe I could ask, in the spirit of general potential 3PP help and advice, if those current 3PPs who did seek legal advice on the OGL could share what their lawyers told them.
I know I'm asking people to pass on information that they've paid for, and I know it might not even apply to me over here across the pond in the land of the naked-scotsman crossbow-hunters, but it might still help potential 3PPs over there, even if all you're prepared to say in the end is that there are legal issues with the OGL which are not obvious and which you need to know about, and that you should budget $200 or $300 (or whatever) on lawyers before embarking on your 3PP business.
I don't know if you have access to the tome of horrors complete, but there's a couple of pages related to using open content from that book which might be useful.
It comes with the inevitable "this is not legal advice" caveat, of course, but you might still find it interesting and/or relevant.
|
|
There are two issues here.
First of all, I find it difficult to believe that working in an entirely OGL/Pathfinder-Licence compliant way necessitates a lawyer - at least, just to deal with those two documents, rather than all the other issues surrounding going into business. I would hope that anyone who has gone through this path before, and there must be many who have, will share what they've learned, so that other prospective 3PPs don't have to go through the same pain, or be too frightened about the legal issues surrounding these documents to become a 3PP in the first place. I know that there are many who think there are too many 3PP products already out there, however I think the right way to filter that down is by market forces, rather than frightening potentially creative individuals from ever putting pen to paper.
The second issue is whether to accept the OGL modus operandi as it stands or whether to push away at the edges. Of course it's much safer to do what everyone else has been doing for the last 12 years, the danger is stagnation and lack of improvement. I have no problem with the OGL apart from the recursive nature of section 15, which I think eventually could render the thing unusable (particularly with print products) and useless, in any case, as a form of accreditation (which I very much believe in). I have come across three ways of solving this problem: (1) Paizo's solution of removing anything they own copyright to and ignoring the recursion after that, which they've had legal advice on, (2) shrinking the font size to the point of bare-legibility, which I don't know if there's been any legal advice on, and I wonder how far you can take it, (3) (for PDF only products) separating the OGL out onto a separate file, which Paizo has done themselves in the case of documents distributed on a one file per chapter basis, but which again I don't know if they've had legal advice on.
Given that Paizo themselves have indicated that they do not personally object to method (3) above (and I'm grateful for their answers, as I'm grateful to everyone else who has participated in what I think has been a very interesting and civilised discussion), I'm edging towards that solution myself. I'm not going to talk to a lawyer, but I might write to WotC. I doubt WotC will answer because I doubt they're interested in the OGL these days (you never know, though, given the re-thinks on D&D). In the end, if I'm not personally satisfied that it's safe to do this, I wont do it.
Richard
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a third issue: You're letting your distaste for lawyers all but damn your business to failure before it's even begun. Starting up a business really requires legal advice far beyond simply getting advice on the OGL. If you're really that disinclined to seek professional legal advice, I would say that you shouldn't even remotely consider starting your own business.
I don't have a dislike of lawyers.
I'm already director of an IT business which has been trading for 2 years and which makes minimal use of lawyers.
I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree with it.
Richard
To be blunt, this ISN'T trading, this is publishing with its own set of legal rules. I hope you all the best in your business endeavors, but I think you are going the wrong way about it and add more trouble and hassle then needs to be. Just my opinion.
|
|
To be blunt, this ISN'T trading, this is publishing with its own set of legal rules. I hope you all the best in your business endeavors, but I think you are going the wrong way about it and add more trouble and hassle then needs to be. Just my opinion.I don't have a dislike of lawyers.
I'm already director of an IT business which has been trading for 2 years and which makes minimal use of lawyers.
I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree with it.
Richard
Just remember that those rules were being established since Mary Tudor and Queen Anne. And just to point out, they are 200 years apart. I'm trying to point out that publishing in Europe goes back to Gutenberg, and the rules of publishing go back to Mary Tudor that first established them; and Queen Anne who allowed the Company of Stationers to continue.
Given that Paizo themselves have indicated that they do not personally object to method (3) above (and I'm grateful...
To clarify: the option of providing separate file downloads (for the intent of offering customers an alternate download option), does not mean that the OGL statement is offered as a separate file. We do not split the OGL into it's own separate document for any of our downloadable products. Additionally, we cannot/do not offer any company or publisher legal advice on the interpretation of the OGL.
I'm skeptical they'll answer, but will be interested to see their reply if they do. Fwiw, I don't think it is recursive - I (as a non lawyer :p) think the requirement to include "the copyright notice" doesn't refer to the entirety of the preexisting section 15 but just the copyright information specific to that book being cited.
|
|
Interesting.
Actually, I've gone off the idea of a monolithic licence clause now because Product Identity is more restrictive than copyright.
And the more I look at this licence the crazier I think it is.
I mean, in order to use the Paizo Compatibility Licence, I have to site products whose Product Identity I'm supposed to honour, and the Tome of Horrors copy that I own claims things like "concepts" and "thematic elements" as part of its product identity.
I think all you can do in situations like these is publish your work, in good faith (I'm honestly not trying to steal anything from anyone), and then if some other publisher takes exception with one of your "concepts" (or whatever) then let them write to you.
I'm certainly not going to pay a lawyer the many thousands of £ or $ that it would take to get a rigorous definition of exactly what these sorts of terms might cover.
Richard