| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only if you use them. So if you don't use Ultimate Equipment, you don't have to have what's in its OGL in there. But if you do use UE, then you must copy everything in its section 15 into your section 15. Everything. So if you use them all ... that's going to be a LOOOOOONG section 15. Just see my Shadowsfall books to know what I mean.
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.
|
Do you think it might be possible for a PDF only product to stick the whole section 15, or maybe even the whole licence, into a separate file, which could then include all 570 copyright lines in it (taken from d20pfsrd), and just refer to it from your master PDF?
You could call this other file licence-agreement.pdf or something. I've seen it done with software and the like.
Richard
I wouldn't do that without consulting a lawyer first. Green Ronin's True20 had a freaking LONG Section 15. they make the font size like 3 to fit it all on 1 page. Mongoose in their Renegade Wizard/Cleric spell books took about a dozen pages for their section 15.
If its a PDF, you are not constrained by page count. I'd just stick it in and not worry about it.
|
|
I really can't imagine anyone taking me to court over this, and the last thing I'd ever do is talk to a lawyer (they have enough money as it is!)
Anyway, it would seem the precedent has already been set, by Paizo themselves, no less.
If you download one of their core books (for example, Bestiary 3) using the one file per chapter variant, all the OGL stuff is in one file only.
Richard
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really can't imagine anyone taking me to court over this
Ask Fast Forward Entertainment about that.
and the last thing I'd ever do is talk to a lawyer
Then don't be a publisher. Under any circumstances.
|
|
Ok, let's not clash over this.
Like I said, Paizo have set a precedent for distributing a PDF product using many files only one of which has the OGL in it.
It couldn't be more blatant.
For example, the file PZO1120 032-047 Bandersnatch-Catfolk.pdf, contains the description of the Caryatid Column, however the copyright notice for it occurs in this file PZO1120 290-320 Back Matter.pdf
Richard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've given my best amateur advise (disclaimer IANAL). Whatever you do is on your own. Good luck in not getting sued.
|
|
Dale has it spot on here.
If you don't want to comply with the legal requirements of the industry you want to participate in you are knowingly inviting and accepting the consequences.
I have every intention of complying with the legal requirements of the industry I want to participate in. All I said was that I didn't want to speak to a lawyer.
As for needing good luck to not get sued, I will not get into that situation because everything I do will be indisputably legal.
Thank you, however, for your advise and opinions.
Richard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
everything I do will be indisputably legal.
Are you sure? Ask a lawyer to be sure.
|
Dale has it spot on here.
If you don't want to comply with the legal requirements of the industry you want to participate in you are knowingly inviting and accepting the consequences.
I have every intention of complying with the legal requirements of the industry I want to participate in. All I said was that I didn't want to speak to a lawyer.
As for needing good luck to not get sued, I will not get into that situation because everything I do will be indisputably legal.
Thank you, however, for your advise and opinions.
Richard
Yeah, I gotta jump in here. If you want to go into business, ANY business, you need to consult with professionals from time to time, be they lawyers, accountants etc. That's simply a fact and to refuse to talk to a lawyer is, quite frankly, foolish.
The OGL is a LEGAL document with very specific language and requirements. If you want to try breaking into the RPG publishing field, you need to fully understand the OGL and for that, you will need to consult a lawyer
Does section 15 of a product produced using the Paizo Publishing, LLC Pathfinder® Roleplaying Game Compatibility License have to include copyright notices for all of the products listed in Exhibit B?
Richard
I don't understand why you wouldn't want to list everywhere you might have used someone else's idea or concept? I mean they are giving out for you to use FOR FREE, all you have to do is add a line in your section 15. Not really that big of a thing to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to recall that back in 2000, Necromancer Games did an incorporate-by-reference for the OGL in one of their products (with the OGL itself on their web page with a URL ion the product? It's been a while, I'm not 100% certain on the details), and it was talked about, and the resulting consensus on the mailing list was that it was not actually an acceptable approach, and I don't recall anyone doing it since.
On the other hand, there's a moderately common case of multi-file downloads where the collection of files as a whole was treated as the work, and the complete OGL with full Section 15 was one separate file among the multiple files.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You distribute.
Black letter law. Failing to do so means you are in violation of that.
Like I said, Paizo have set a precedent for distributing a PDF product using many files only one of which has the OGL in it.
If it ever came to a court battle between Wizards and Paizo, Paizo would argue that the print product is the primary and that it appears within. The PDF is merely a way of presenting that information in a more easy to use fashion.
You, however, your product is primarily PDF. As such if the OGL does not appear in your product. You are opening yourself up to law suits from everyone you reference.
Even if you are successful in winning your case, how much are you going to spend on lawyers to defend yourself? How much time are you going to spend working on that that you could otherwise be creating game material.
If you go ahead with this and are sued, more than likely, you will be forced to settle out of court or outright lose. But by going to court, you are risking losing everyong. Are you really willing to risk your house, car, wife's wedding ring, saving accounts, kid's college funds, retirement, everything you have based on "you are right" and betting against "the other guy hired a better lawyer"? This thread could very well be used against you as evidence of being told how to comply with the law and you choosing to do otherwise.
Isn't it ALOT easier to just comply with the OGL?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PZO1120 is a single book - the Pathfinder Bestiary 3.
That book is broken into multiple PDFs for download, but the book itself is a single work and the OGL is included in it. If you get the printed book, the OGL is in that printed book. And if you get the single-download file, the OGL is in that PDF. The only time the OGL is not directly in the PDF is when you get the segmented version, but even then, it's not a separate file, it's simply in one of the segments.
Also, I highly doubt Paizo leaves themselves open to violating the OGL, especially given their past history working directly for Wizards of the Coast, who created the OGL, when they did the Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
If you're wanting to do something different - like having the OGL itself as a separate document in the download - and not directly in the work, I would strongly advise consulting with a lawyer before doing that, as you otherwise risk having your ability to use the OGL revoked entirely.
Not wanting to consult with lawyers because "they have enough money already" isn't really a good reason to risk losing your ability to publish under the OGL. And it really shouldn't be all that expensive, since the OGL isn't exactly a complicated contract.
And as Dale mentions above, if you're just doing a PDF, I don't see why it's even an issue. You can compress it to fit on a few pages by changing the font / borders on that page, and problem solved. And with a print product, you're going to need to do that anyway.
Not wanting to consult with lawyers because "they have enough money already" isn't really a good reason to risk losing your ability to publish under the OGL.
Spot on. Reference:
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
Translation: if you fail to use the OGL properly, you can never use the OGL again.
|
|
You know, I think the day will come when everyone will be so frightened of litigation that no one will dare whistle a tune in the street without first of all consulting a lawyer.
And the lawyers will charge so much for their services that everybody will stop whistling (apart from the lawyers, that is).
I do not agree with a lot of what is being said here. In my opinion, you do not need to consult a lawyer in order to use the OGL. If you overstep the mark legally, you wont get some Mafioso at your door demanding your wife's wedding ring, you'll get a letter, which you'll be able to answer, and then if it looks like you're losing the argument you'll have to desist, and all it'll cost you is the price of a few stamps.
To give you an example to show this in operation, look at the following story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-15825960. I mean, you could hardly get a more blatant violation of copyright, from an enormous US company at that. They got a letter. They've answered it. So far, that's it. It wont cost them a fortune in lawyer's fees unless they choose to pursue it.
Sure, people get sued, for lots of money, but that doesn't mean that we live in a world where you're in danger of losing everything every time you stick your nose out the door unless you surround yourself with lawyers. There is such a thing as being too cautious. You end up never going out the door.
That's my perception of the situation, and I will say categorically that I am not the least bit concerned about getting sued by anyone if I decide to include the OGL as a separate PDF with my module, as long as I make it clear that it's part of the same package (i.e. stick them in one zip file or somehow or another associate the two unequivocally). I am actually much more concerned with making sure Paizo themselves are happy with this than with any legalities.
Clearly, other people on this forum have different views, and I respect theirs in the same way that I hope they respect mine. There will be some people, I'm sure, who will not resist the temptation to "stick the boot in" to me for speaking out in this way, but at the end of the day this is simply what I believe (at present - I do change my mind sometimes :-) ).
Legalities to one side, by the way, I am benevolent. I do not wish to usurp or bypass anybody's rights, either in letter or in spirit. Actually, I don't think the OGL does very much to accredit people's work, because the way everything ends up being included means that an actual contributor's work gets drowned in a load of copyright noise. But I guess we have to live with that.
Richard
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Caedwyr mentions, yes, we at d20pfsrd.com do often find products to be in various stages of OGL compliance ranging from NOT AT ALL to fully. Usually we try to contact the original publisher to find out if it was an honest screw-up on their part or what so they can update if necessary. In some cases that's not possible since we often convert content from publishers that don't even exist as business entities any longer (for whatever reasons.) But yeah, it does happen that's for sure. And in all honesty you could probably blatantly intentionally be in complete non-compliance with the OGL and there is a decent chance nothing would ever happen to you. Would I risk it? HELLS NO.
|
Not wanting to consult with lawyers because "they have enough money already" isn't really a good reason to risk losing your ability to publish under the OGL.Spot on. Reference:
Translation: if you fail to use the OGL properly, you can never use the OGL again.12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
Actually, untrue. You can't use the OGL for that particular product again.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try very very hard not to notice that there are buckets of bat guano thrown at my profession of choice here and tell the OP one advice: hire a lawyer.
If you overstep the OGL, you might get in trouble. Wizards of the Coast didn't send nice letters to the people they sued for torrenting 4E books a few years back, they sued right away and sued hard. Defendants in the US had to pay circa 150k USD each for damages (in voluntary settlements - I can imagine if they didn't pony up right away, stuff could go in millions), the defendant in Poland was lucky that our civil law is very defendant-friendly and generally requires the plaintiff to indicate the *actual* damages done, instead of pulling random numbers from the air, and WotC dropped the lawsuit.
Dunno where you're based in and what laws you answer to, but tangling with things that could, in any event, result in legal action from a behemoth such as Hasbro, is something to be very careful at. You're planning to run a business, good for you, but part of a business are costs, and legal advice is one of them :)
|
|
You know, I think the day will come when everyone will be so frightened of litigation that no one will dare whistle a tune in the street without first of all consulting a lawyer.
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.
And the lawyers will charge so much for their services that everybody will stop whistling (apart from the lawyers, that is).
A friend of mine did some calculations and he figured that there are too many lawyers per capita in the United States. He figured that the typical religious congregation in Utah supports 4 lawyers each. considering the typical church going congregation is about 120 people, then you have 1 lawyer for every 30 people in the U.S.A. Therefore, it's more like the lawyer has an army of people trying to ask him for advice on every situation.
I do not agree with a lot of what is being said here. In my opinion, you do not need to consult a lawyer in order to use the OGL. If you overstep the mark legally, you wont get some Mafioso at your door demanding your wife's wedding ring, you'll get a letter, which you'll be able to answer, and then if it looks like you're losing the argument you'll have to desist, and all it'll cost you is the price of a few stamps.
Legalities to one side, by the way, I am benevolent. I do not wish to usurp or bypass anybody's rights, either in letter or in spirit. Actually, I don't think the OGL does very much to accredit people's work, because the way everything ends up being included means that an actual contributor's work gets drowned in a load of copyright noise. But I guess we have to live with that.
This is why I use the Creative Commons Attribution license in lieu of section 1 of the OGL license (the CC-A license overrides provision 1).
If you're using the Open Gaming License (and the Pathfinder Compatibility License), then you need to abide by the terms of both licenses. The licenses are legal documents, and are binding. Updating Section 15 of the OGL is one of the most tedious parts of publishing Open Game Content (and by extension Pathfinder Roleplaying Game material), but it is necessary, and required according to the terms of the license.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it's my free legal advice day apparently, I'd also like to tangentially remind that running a business (yes, selling PDFs of Medusas is a commercial activity, strange as it sounds) requires not only to tackle IP laws, but also taxes, VAT (if applicable), business registration (if applicable), taxes, public healthcare dues (if applicable), taxes, registration with central statistics office (if applicable), taxes, taxes and whatever other relevant legal regulations your country of origin imposes on running a business, however obscure and/or absurd they might be.
Believe me or not, there are spots on this planet where selling PDFs of medusas without having that joyous activity reported to some Very Important Office might net you 30 whips or a year in jail. You have been warned.
Now, where did I keep my business cards...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it's my free legal advice day apparently, I'd also like to tangentially remind that running a business (yes, selling PDFs of Medusas is a commercial activity, strange as it sounds) requires not only to tackle IP laws, but also taxes, VAT (if applicable), business registration (if applicable), taxes, public healthcare dues (if applicable), taxes, registration with central statistics office (if applicable), taxes, taxes and whatever other relevant legal regulations your country of origin imposes on running a business, however obscure and/or absurd they might be.
Dont forget there are tax obligations to be met as well.
You know, I think the day will come when everyone will be so frightened of litigation that no one will dare whistle a tune in the street without first of all consulting a lawyer.
And the lawyers will charge so much for their services that everybody will stop whistling (apart from the lawyers, that is).
I do not agree with a lot of what is being said here. In my opinion, you do not need to consult a lawyer in order to use the OGL. If you overstep the mark legally, you wont get some Mafioso at your door demanding your wife's wedding ring, you'll get a letter, which you'll be able to answer, and then if it looks like you're losing the argument you'll have to desist, and all it'll cost you is the price of a few stamps.
To give you an example to show this in operation, look at the following story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-15825960. I mean, you could hardly get a more blatant violation of copyright, from an enormous US company at that. They got a letter. They've answered it. So far, that's it. It wont cost them a fortune in lawyer's fees unless they choose to pursue it.
Sure, people get sued, for lots of money, but that doesn't mean that we live in a world where you're in danger of losing everything every time you stick your nose out the door unless you surround yourself with lawyers. There is such a thing as being too cautious. You end up never going out the door.
That's my perception of the situation, and I will say categorically that I am not the least bit concerned about getting sued by anyone if I decide to include the OGL as a separate PDF with my module, as long as I make it clear that it's part of the same package (i.e. stick them in one zip file or somehow or another associate the two unequivocally). I am actually much more concerned with making sure Paizo themselves are happy with this than with any legalities.
I share your position in lots of ways. Nonetheless, I wouldnt characterise the situation in your OP as analogous to "whistling in the street".
.You're contemplating entering into a legal agreement and varying the way you intend to comply with the terms of that agreement in a way which is not usually done within the industry.
I also think people go to the doctor too readily nowadays - but I wouldnt take out my own appendix.
|
|
Just out of interest, if you were to look at the latest Pathfinder Adventure Path, Curse of the Lady's Light, would you say that it was OGL compliant (look at the tiny section 15 in its OGL compared with, say, everything that sits in section 15 of Bestiary 3, which it uses, and which includes non-Paizo material)?
Richard
, and the last thing I'd ever do is talk to a lawyer (they have enough money as it is!)
Attorney hatred quips are dated. Lawyering is a valid profession that helps more people than it hurts. The perception that it's otherwise comes from media sensationalism.
Just out of interest, if you were to look at the latest Pathfinder Adventure Path, Curse of the Lady's Light, would you say that it was OGL compliant (look at the tiny section 15 in its OGL compared with, say, everything that sits in section 15 of Bestiary 3, which it uses, and which includes non-Paizo material)?
Yes. What clause do you think it isn't complying with?
|
|
Clause 6.
If I've understood this correctly, it should be including the copyright notice of any OGL products that it uses, i.e. their complete section 15, within its own section 15.
That's how this whole discussion started.
I'm not against lawyers, BTW. I'm against being frightened into using lawyers unnecessarily.
Richard
I'm not against lawyers, BTW. I'm against being frightened into using lawyers unnecessarily.
I'm with you on that, I just think in this kind of enterprise it is necessary.
I wouldn't enter a legal agreement blind - the OGL is free, but its still a legal agreement.
|
|
The way I read it, it is, but if that's the case then even Paizo aren't bothering.
In terms of legal agreements - I sign them all the time. I've bought cars and taken out loans on them, signed legal agreements with utility companies, travel companies, employers, and heaven knows how many times I've clicked AGREE on EULAs on software that I've installed on my PC. I'm director of a company which does business with other companies, and we've set up and signed loads of trading agreements without going anywhere near lawyers.
I've personally used lawyers twice - once for a mortgage and once for a divorce. On both occasions, they were excellent, but that's it - no other times.
My rule of thumb is that if I can understand what a contract says then I'm happy. I know that lawyer voodooism does exist (like the difference between warranty and liability which we came across the other day) but I'm happy to take the risk that I might get trapped by some piece of legal mysticism because I believe that the chances of this happening are very low - low enough to not justify paying a lawyer to mitigate it.
How much money you pay in order to reduce risk from any direction by paying for professional advice is clearly a personal decision. I think that on this instance I'm sufficiently comfortable to not think it worth the money, and I do tend to think there's a lot of legal scaremongering going on in the world, but that's just my opinion.
Richard
Ok, strange question. Is section 15 recursive?
What I mean is, lets say I write an adventure that uses the Aurmvorax. If I cite an adventure it is used in, do I still need to cite the TOH?
If whatever you are referencing cites another book, you must cite that same book. If you use one spell from a book that has 500 citations in its section 15, you must have all 500 citations in your section 15. Or you can track down the primary source and have less to cite.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simple answer to the question is yes. You do need to cite everything that you use. It's simple, it's on paper, and you do need to cite where you used stuff in section 15.
Believe it or not, the OGL is a blessing, even if you have to cover your asian desert donkey. The section 15 is just a formality to smooth some feathers. That's it. If you want more attribution to the original authors, just list the authors you can on your title page.
I just mention QuestionCopyright.org and Boldrin and Levine because they question the lifetime of the Corporate Copyright. So, according to the terms on the OGL, I'm really backing Dale McCoy up. Just not as fanatically. Liz Courts is absolutely right, no matter how vague she says it.
If you're using the Open Gaming License (and the Pathfinder Compatibility License), then you need to abide by the terms of both licenses. The licenses are legal documents, and are binding. Updating Section 15 of the OGL is one of the most tedious parts of publishing Open Game Content (and by extension Pathfinder Roleplaying Game material), but it is necessary, and required according to the terms of the license.
The Lawyering advice is needed as to what to do with section 15 in case you want to shorten it. But reading the license over and over again, it's amazing how much plain English was used to spell out the terms of the license. It's not written in much legal Jargon. There are some parts I don't agree with in Section 1 (which using the CC license takes care of that part for me), but they are there, even if some spell names are so common it's annoying (Firebolt anyone? The name Shadowbolt has been used at least twice!).
However, the OGL gives you an amazing amount of Freedom. It's basically one of the tools used to help Paizo Publishing become as successful as it did, especially when the Game System License first came out. Section 15 is one of those necessary things you have to do. It's not evil, and the best thing to do without Lawyering advice is just document everything you used under Section 15. It's about covering your donkey while you declare copyright on your stuff.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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.