Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's at the high end, but not completely outside the range of what other distributors charge. OBS normally charges between 20% and 35% (35% base, 25% for products sold exclusively through OBS, and the affiliate program can get you a little bit extra). Paizo is a bit wonkier in that they charge a different rate for PDFs than for print. For PDFs Paizo takes a smaller cut than OBS (according to Neil Spicer on the forums, lemme see if I can find that post....) On the other hand, Paizo charges 50% (!) for print, and requires the publisher to cover more of the expenses related to print products than OBS does. Bradley Crouch (the owner of Interjection Games) estimated that he would make three times as much of a profit from selling a hardcover on OBS as he would from selling the same hardcover for the same price on Paizo, and many other small publishers sell print products only on OBS but sell PDFs on both Paizo and OBS.Looks like the commission on Dungeon Master Guild products is 50% (split somehow between OneBookShelf and WotC). How does that compare if you want to distribute a self-published PDF through the various sites?
That's a bit misleading. See "Q: How do royalty payments work with regard to printed copies?" on the DriveThru FAQ. Yes, DriveThru pays 70% if you're an exclusive publishing partner, and 65% if you're not... but that's *after* they deduct the print cost of their PoD book. Using their FAQ example of the $14.99 print edition, selling it at DriveThru as an exclusive publisher nets you $7.35; as a non-exclusive publisher, you get $6.87, so their royalty as a percentage of cover price in that example is 49% (exclusive) or 46% (non-exclusive). Yes, their position as a PoD publisher means your sale through them will be more profitable for you, but the 50% royalty you get on a paizo.com sale ($7.49 in the example) isn't exactly unreasonable.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Per Circular 34, I can definitely use it in a list for an NPC, monster, or character. In fact, since the format and terminology of the spell description is present in the 5e SRD, the spell could simply be rewritten and fall under Fair Use. There is no reason to do that because the 5e SRD is about writing new not trying to copy existing material.
I believe everything in your post is fundamentally correct, except that the phrase "the spell could simply be rewritten" glosses over something that I think is actually quite tricky.
The problem is that in games, the line between the game mechanic (which is not copyrightable) and the expression of that mechanic (which is copyrightable) is often blurry. Take the Fireball spell from the 5.0 SRD:
3rd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: InstantaneousA bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.
Clearly they can't lay claim to the word "Fireball." And sure, those three paragraphs at the bottom can easily be rewritten. But what about those other 5 lines at the top? Is "Casting Time: 1 action" a non-protectable mechanic, or a protected expression of a mechanic?
If you change "1 action" to, say, "1 step," or if you remove it entirely, it no longer makes sense in the game, so maybe that argues that it's a game mechanic, and is thus free to use... but if you were to publish a non-OGL book that has huge chunks of spells where the spell names and the next 5 lines of every spell are clearly taken directly from Wizards' products, I'd fully expect any intellectual properties attorney to tell me that you have violated Wizards' exclusive rights to create derivative works from their copyrighted material.
I think what you suggest might appear easy, but is in fact a very risky proposition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per Circular 34, I can definitely use it in a list for an NPC, monster, or character. In fact, since the format and terminology of the spell description is present in the 5e SRD, the spell could simply be rewritten and fall under Fair Use. There is no reason to do that because the 5e SRD is about writing new not trying to copy existing material.I believe everything in your post is fundamentally correct, except that the phrase "the spell could simply be rewritten" glosses over something that I think is actually quite tricky.
The problem is that in games, the line between the game mechanic (which is not copyrightable) and the expression of that mechanic (which is copyrightable) is often blurry. Take the Fireball spell from the 5.0 SRD:
3rd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: InstantaneousA bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.
Clearly they can't lay claim to the word "Fireball." And sure, those three paragraphs at the bottom can easily be rewritten. But what about those other 5 lines at the top? Is "Casting Time: 1 action" a non-protectable mechanic, or a protected expression of a mechanic?
If you change "1 action" to, say, "1 step," or if you remove it entirely, it no longer makes sense in the game, so maybe that argues...
What is the new rewrite of spells used different format of presenting information about spell? Go the Call of Cthulhu way where all the information about spell is just contained in the description? Introduced an assumption that all spells have casting time of 1 action unless noted otherwise and a standard range unless noted otherwise?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Per Circular 34, I can definitely use it in a list for an NPC, monster, or character. In fact, since the format and terminology of the spell description is present in the 5e SRD, the spell could simply be rewritten and fall under Fair Use. There is no reason to do that because the 5e SRD is about writing new not trying to copy existing material.I believe everything in your post is fundamentally correct, except that the phrase "the spell could simply be rewritten" glosses over something that I think is actually quite tricky.
The problem is that in games, the line between the game mechanic (which is not copyrightable) and the expression of that mechanic (which is copyrightable) is often blurry. Take the Fireball spell from the 5.0 SRD:
3rd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: InstantaneousA bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.
Clearly they can't lay claim to the word "Fireball." And sure, those three paragraphs at the bottom can easily be rewritten. But what about those other 5 lines at the top? Is "Casting Time: 1 action" a non-protectable mechanic, or a protected expression of a mechanic?
If you change "1 action" to, say, "1 step," or if you remove it entirely, it no longer makes sense in the game, so maybe that argues...
Does the fact that, in each case(save the name and the exact material component), the game mechanics in those five lines appear in the SRD on existing spells mean that the terms are in effect Open games content, even if the spell is not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can, and it does. The OGL is not a gift—it's a trade. Publishers who use the OGL gain the ability to use Wizards’ own expressions of all game mechanics that Wizards (or anyone else) has declared as Open Game Content, in exchange for which they must give up the ability to use anything that Wizards (or anyone else) has declared as Product Identity, even if that use would be legal under copyright or trademark law.I could wrong, but I don't think they can do that. They can't just arbitrarily claim things are product identity. Fictional creations - setting, adventures, even invented monsters are protected under copyright law, not just the actual words, but the basic concept. You can't use them without permission, just like you can't sell a story set in Middle-Earth, even if you don't quote Tolkien.
Game mechanics on the other hand aren't copyrightable - beyond the actual expression. Saying something is Product Identity doesn't change that in the slightest.
The only protection they have here is copyright law. Everything else derives from that. The OGL loosens that protection, letting others use content that would otherwise be protected. But it can't go past that and limit anything beyond what would normally be allowed.
And we all thought it was a good trade. I wrote some open game content back in the day, and even had some published. Heck, I write open game content now. The difference is, there are far more stuff I can use for Pathfinder than I can use for 5th Edition.
However, with 5th Edition under the OGL, all of that can change. It's a good thing for Wizards to outsource it to their audience and to the gaming community at large. But I bet we can get some good legal counsel on how the OGL works. I used to have that, but I might get some later. :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What [if] the new rewrite of spells used different format of presenting information about spell? Go the Call of Cthulhu way where all the information about spell is just contained in the description? Introduced an assumption that all spells have casting time of 1 action unless noted otherwise and a standard range unless noted otherwise?
Does the fact that, in each case(save the name and the exact material component), the game mechanics in those five lines appear in the SRD on existing spells mean that the terms are in effect Open games content, even if the spell is not?
Only Wizards can answer that. And unless they are willing to do so in advance, trying to do either of those things (or probably any other workaround you can think up) comes with risk.
But maybe I focused a bit too much on those 5 lines—really, my point is that if you're deriving your work directly from Wizards' copyrighted materials that have deliberately not been made Open Game Content, you run a pretty high risk that your work could be considered a derivative work, which violates their exclusive rights.
J.K. Rowling can't stop me from writing a book about kids in a wizard school, but if that book contained entire chapters paraphrased from Harry Potter, I'd expect to be hearing from her lawyers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the OSR clones stay away from from WotC copyrighted material and Product Identity, specifically to avoid the sort of problems Vic is talking about. For instance, once you have the term saving throw in the OGL, having the five AD&D saves rather than the three D20 saves falls under the game mechanics exception, but you still can't have Beholders, Displacer Beasts or Mind Flayers.
Speaking as a layman, that is.
So here's a question: what goes into deciding what is and isn't covered under the aegis of Product Identity? In other words, what makes beholders copyrightable that doesn't also make Worgs copyrightable?
I have a feeling I know some of the answer, but humor me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Product Identity and Open Content are special terms of the OGL, but all of it is still subject to Copyright law (check any page of the PRD, for example and you'll see that it's copyright Paizo despite being predominantly open content).
When you release something under the OGL, you have to specify what is Product Identity and what is Open Content. Those who produce subsequent works using the OGL are entitled to use the material you've declared open - however there are also conditions they have to comply with. One of those is that they agree not to use anything which has been declared Product Identity (without a further specific license/agreement with the owner of that PI).
So both beholders and the contents of the SRD are protected by copyright laws. If you choose to use the OGL, you are entitled to use the stuff in the SRD (provided you comply with the terms of the OGL) and are agreeing to not use beholders (unless you get permission from WotC to do so, via a separate license).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, I should have been more clear, but I mentioned copyrighted material because despite the open content status of the SRDs out there, it's actually a copyright violation to simply print them, bind them and sell them.
|
Incentivizing designers to create a reworded PHB knock-off that will be more widely available in an electronic format than the actual PHB can't be good for D&D as a brand. You want to create a situation where third parties generate familiarity with the core rules of your game, not one where third parties create potential confusion by blending a fraction of your official rules with reworded rules written to fill an intentional content gap.
This is only going to be all the more true if WotC doesn't release reasonably-priced PDFs of their core books. (I really like that Paizo sets the price of all the PDFs in the RPG line to $10. I end up buying basically all of them in print as well, at local FLGSes. The fact that the PDF price is so low means it doesn't hurt so much to buy it twice. (That they don't do that for every line is the main reason I subscribe to so many things; I end up wanting both versions, and the free PDF when you subscribe is a nice incentive.)
As it is right now, I encourage people to use Archives of Nethys rather than d20pfsrd. The latter changes the name of the occasional feat or some such, for OGL compliance reasons. (Archives of Nethys doesn't have to, since that site doesn't sell anything, and as such can fall under the fan rules rather than strict OGL.) That occasional renaming is far less than what will happen to 5E, so isn't nearly as confusing, but it's bad enough. 5e is going to have it much worse.
The people who are going to suffer the most are GMs who use the WotC hardbacks. Players, even players who have the books, are going to love the convenience of an online SRD, and are going to come in with various renamed feats and so forth, and the GM is going to have a hell of a time figuring out exactly what all of the abilities are.
|
|
Like RyanH said, WotC brought rise to the competing product of Pathfinder because of what they did with 4th Edition. Paizo had to make Pathfinder so they could continue with their Adventure Path line, or I am sure they would have gone out of business. If WotC would have been more lenient with the 4th edition things, Pathfinder may never have been created and many more people would have had to either stop playing or suck it up and play 4th Edition. Will we see a new "Pathfinder" out of this when the inevitable 6th Edition comes out? Well, that depends on WotC.
If the Pathfinder retrospectives from a couple of years ago are to be believed, there were really two things wrong with 4e. First was the fact that they completely turned their back on the OGL. (And, not only that, but they didn't tell 3pps like Paizo who asked if they were going to do that or not until the last minute, forcing them to assume the worst -- which was a good thing, because they were ready when the worst happened.) However, there was also the fact that the 4e rules were a huge change from earlier editions. As such, some people who liked 3.5e didn't like 4e. What's more, Paizo (according to this retrospective) didn't see the 4e rules as something that would really work well for what they wanted to do. So, both from the publisher and customer side, not only was the 4e licensing not what they needed, but also the rules themselves were just too different. Those two things together led to the rise of the competing Pathfinder.
Until 4e came out, D&D reigned as king. The OGL didn't kill them at all, but did more or less what it was designed to do.
|
So here's a question: what goes into deciding what is and isn't covered under the aegis of Product Identity? In other words, what makes beholders copyrightable that doesn't also make Worgs copyrightable?
I have a feeling I know some of the answer, but humor me.
I also believe that the creatures in question (beholders, mind flayers, dicplacer beasts, etc) were made up by some TSR person rather than having been derived from some myth or what have you. I'm kind of curious why they never copyrighted rust monsters and owl bears, as they were inspired by cheap toys, but maybe that fact kept them from wanting to draw attention to themselves and the derivative nature of the monsters.
Also, Hook Horrors don't seem to be part of the OGL, but Paizo has never done one (that I know of). That having been said...
Tolkien wrote about worgs, and got those from norse mythology (there written as wargs, I think). Really, it'd be silly to try and copyright a chimera, a Nemian lion, a hydra, or a dragon.
That would be the difference. I'm not sure if Paizo would ever try to copyright any of their creatures, or why TSR/WotC does (they could have done the hook horror or aboleth, but didn't). That part I can't answer, but most of what isn't copyrighted is basically old enough to be free game.
Product Identity and Open Content are special terms of the OGL, but all of it is still subject to Copyright law (check any page of the PRD, for example and you'll see that it's copyright Paizo despite being predominantly open content).
When you release something under the OGL, you have to specify what is Product Identity and what is Open Content. Those who produce subsequent works using the OGL are entitled to use the material you've declared open - however there are also conditions they have to comply with. One of those is that they agree not to use anything which has been declared Product Identity (without a further specific license/agreement with the owner of that PI).
So both beholders and the contents of the SRD are protected by copyright laws. If you choose to use the OGL, you are entitled to use the stuff in the SRD (provided you comply with the terms of the OGL) and are agreeing to not use beholders (unless you get permission from WotC to do so, via a separate license).
Except "beholder" isn't copyrightable per the Circular 34 from the US Copyright Office. It can't be used because it is included in Product Identity. A product that uses it would invalidate their use of the OGL. Without the PI exclusion, the only legal protection would be possible trademark law.
"Under section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code),
copyright protection extends only to “original works of authorship.” The
statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright.
To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum
amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or
graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these
requirements."
"Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may
be entitled to protection under laws relating to unfair
competition, or they may be entitled to protection and
registration under the provisions of state or federal trademark
laws. The federal trademark statute covers trademarks and
service marks—words, phrases, symbols, or designs that
distinguish the goods or services of one party from those of
another. The Copyright Office has no role in these matters."
The SRD defines what is open and what is Product Identify but there is gray content that is not included in either. For monsters, some of this gray becomes definitely open because of Tome of Horrors deal made by Clark Peterson. (i.e about 27 stat-blocks from 5e MM, 10 of which are included in 5e SRD). With SRD, SRD variants like bugbear chief, ToH, few others like the mythical cyclops, inclusion of "intellect devourer", "troglodyte", and pixie" which should be in SRD approximately 85% of the 434 5e MM stat-blocks are open.
The great irony is of the 15% (about 65 stat-blocks) left that are closed only 17 are included in Product Identity section. Names cannot be copyrighted per Circular 34 quote above nor would one be in violation of the OGL since that are not in the Product Identity section. Monsters such as "kuo-toa", "slaad", "modron", and "yugoloth" are not in the 17.
DISCLAIMER: Not a legal advice, just interpretation by a random person with no legal training.
I just noticed that the names (but not descriptions or specific abilities) of subraces that were omitted from the SRD should still qualify as Open Content because they are included in the SRD: reincarnate lists all the subraces from the Player's Handbook.
Product Identity and Open Content are special terms of the OGL, but all of it is still subject to Copyright law (check any page of the PRD, for example and you'll see that it's copyright Paizo despite being predominantly open content).
When you release something under the OGL, you have to specify what is Product Identity and what is Open Content. Those who produce subsequent works using the OGL are entitled to use the material you've declared open - however there are also conditions they have to comply with. One of those is that they agree not to use anything which has been declared Product Identity (without a further specific license/agreement with the owner of that PI).
So both beholders and the contents of the SRD are protected by copyright laws. If you choose to use the OGL, you are entitled to use the stuff in the SRD (provided you comply with the terms of the OGL) and are agreeing to not use beholders (unless you get permission from WotC to do so, via a separate license).
Except "beholder" isn't copyrightable per the Circular 34 from the US Copyright Office. It can't be used because it is included in Product Identity. A product that uses it would invalidate their use of the OGL. Without the PI exclusion, the only legal protection would be possible trademark law.
"Under section 102 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code),
copyright protection extends only to “original works of authorship.” The
statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright.
To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum
amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or
graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these
requirements.""Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may
be entitled to protection under laws relating to unfair
competition, or they may be entitled to protection and
registration under the provisions of state or federal...
The word "beholder" is not copyrightable. Beholder as a spherical monster with single big eye that projects antimagic field and numerous eyes on a short stalks that fire beams creating magical effects probably falls under "contains a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression". Unless I am missing some sort of earlier inspiration, it is, unlike majority of monsters used in D&D an original work of authorship by the creators of the D&D.
@Drejk
Yes not copyrightable but word is in Product Identity so can't be used even in sentence describing the gas spore which is open.
Even if a monster is open per the SRD, one simply can't copy a page out of the 5e MM to put in their own published monster book. Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.
Let me give an example of what is possible. Take the "galeb duhr". This monster is on page 139. There is no question it would a copyright violation to copy the contents of this page. However, how about the following.
Galeb Duhr: AC 16; HP 85 (9d8+45); Spd 15ft,(30ft when
rolling, 60ft when rolling downhill); Melee slam (+8, 2d6+5
bludgeoning); SA animate boulders 1/day, rolling charge
(+2d6 bludgeoning DC 16 Str save or knocked prone);
Immune poison; Resist normal weapons; Str +5, Dex +2,
Con +5, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +0; Senses darkvision 60ft,
tremorsense 60ft; AL N; CR 6; XP 2300.
I don't believe the above meets the criteria of "a certain minimum amount of authorship". If WoTC had put the name in Product Identify section, it would be a no-go however, in that case it could be changed to "guleb dahr" instead. Plus, it would be used in a way that supports 5e not competes against it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's a question: what goes into deciding what is and isn't covered under the aegis of Product Identity? In other words, what makes beholders copyrightable that doesn't also make Worgs copyrightable?
I have a feeling I know some of the answer, but humor me.
You asked two questions there, phrased in a way that made it seem that the first was rephrasing of the second, but they're really two very different questions.
The first question is relatively simple: "What goes into deciding what is and isn't covered under the aegis of Product Identity?" The answer to that is that the author of an OGL work can effectively decide for themselves what parts of their original contributions to the work are Product Identity and which are not. (So if you're asking specifically "why did Wizards chose the particular list of things they declared as PI in the 5.0 SRD," only they could tell you.)
The second question, "What makes beholders copyrightable that doesn't also make Worgs copyrightable?" isn't really an accurate question, as the fact is that any original expression that Wizards or TSR ever put into a worg actually *is* copyrighted. The idea of a big evil intelligent wolf can't be owned, and the word "worg" can't be copyrighted (though it theoretically *could* be protected by trademark), but any actual language used to describe them is copyrightable, as are any illustrations of them. (That you chose "worg" is an interesting example, given that they're clearly derived from Tolkien's "wargs," and World of Warcraft's worgs are clearly derived from them, which shows you just how hard it is to protect an idea like that!)
Overall, the "copyrightability" of a monster (or a character) is a fairly complicated subject. There's a fairly straightforward overview of some of the more salient points here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.
As long as you include the OGL you can reprint the entirety of the open content in the SRD, and the SRD is supposed to only contain open content.
You'd have to reformat things a little, since you can't use the same trade dress (fonts, borders, etc), but you can indeed reprint the entire SRD. People did it for 3rd edition, and Pathfinder is basically built on that fact.
Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.As long as you include the OGL you can reprint the entirety of the open content in the SRD, and the SRD is supposed to only contain open content.
You'd have to reformat things a little, since you can't use the same trade dress (fonts, borders, etc), but you can indeed reprint the entire SRD. People did it for 3rd edition, and Pathfinder is basically built on that fact.
Yes, I actually meant to state "You can't copy the entire SRD as a published work for sale either because this would be in violation of its copyright."
Except "beholder" isn't copyrightable per the Circular 34 from the US Copyright Office.Product Identity and Open Content are special terms of the OGL, but all of it is still subject to Copyright law (check any page of the PRD, for example and you'll see that it's copyright Paizo despite being predominantly open content).
When you release something under the OGL, you have to specify what is Product Identity and what is Open Content. Those who produce subsequent works using the OGL are entitled to use the material you've declared open - however there are also conditions they have to comply with. One of those is that they agree not to use anything which has been declared Product Identity (without a further specific license/agreement with the owner of that PI).
So both beholders and the contents of the SRD are protected by copyright laws. If you choose to use the OGL, you are entitled to use the stuff in the SRD (provided you comply with the terms of the OGL) and are agreeing to not use beholders (unless you get permission from WotC to do so, via a separate license).
I don't mean the name, I mean the concept. My point was that people often read "Open Content" as "not protected by copyright laws" and that's an error.
Yes, I actually meant to state "You can't copy the entire SRD as a published work for sale either because this would be in violation of its copyright."Also, you can't copy the entire SRD as a published work either because this would be in violation of its copyright.As long as you include the OGL you can reprint the entirety of the open content in the SRD, and the SRD is supposed to only contain open content.
You'd have to reformat things a little, since you can't use the same trade dress (fonts, borders, etc), but you can indeed reprint the entire SRD. People did it for 3rd edition, and Pathfinder is basically built on that fact.
You can copy the entire text of the SRD and sell it, the OGL is a license to do just that. You would have to add a small amount to the OGL declarations, and you'd need to reformat it. But the content is absolutely sell-able.
So no, you can't sell an EXACT copy, but you can try to sell a very close copy. Whether or not anyone would be interested is another matter.
Thanks for the answers, folks. Very thoughtful and informative responses to a clumsily phrased post.
I realize now that the question I should have asked is one that's much easier to answer: "Are beholders a D&D creation, and if so, why are they covered by Product Identity while some creatures that seem equally original and iconic, such as owlbears [Thanks for the link and the much better example, Lorathorn!], aren't?" The desire for that knowledge was the impetus for my original question. Asking the wrong question got me more comprehensive and interesting answers than asking the right one would have, and several of y'all managed to answer the right question in answering the wrong one.
Funny how that works, no? :)
|
I imagine the costs involved in proving before a an American court that Beholder is your own unique creation are much smaller than attempting to do the same with an owl/bear mashup.
Also, I recall something about WotC higher-ups telling Adkinson&Dancey explicitly to make OGL work so that some IP considered iconic for D&D was kept closed.
My point was variant core rules did exist.Yeah but I never denied that. Norman Osborn, whom I quoted, talked about a Paizo-like competition, and before WotC decided to go 4E the way they did, there was none.
Fair. But from my perspective, the only difference between Pathfinder and Arcana Evolved is how well it sold. Even Paizo didn't expect to be this successful when they started on Pathfinder Beta. But any of the variants could have become "a Paizo-like competitor" had the fans rallied around it.
@Steve
Actually, even the copyright of the beholder concept is questionable under "certain minimum amount of authorship." . A concept described in a simple sentence can't really qualify. It really is about protecting the whole body of work from wholesale copying and resell. Art is easy since a single picture that is worth a thousand words is the whole body of work. A word, a sentence, a concept, an idea is not.
As example, I present you "the sphere of many eyes" from Adventures Dark and Deep Bestiary by Joseph Bloch of BRW Games. The stats are nearly identical to 1977 AD&D Monster Manual entry. The text is rewritten and the description eliminates "eyestalks" and put the eyes directly on the sphere. The overall feel of the monster is distinctly beholder with only slight physical differences. This bestiary has been on OneBookShelf since September 2013.
The question is when everything that individually makes up the description of a monster is open when does the conceptual sum of these parts somehow become closed. Ideas and concepts cannot be copyrighted. So, the idea of a spherical monster with toothy maw and magical eye rays can't be copyrighted.
On the other hand, some like Paizo will never do what Joe did for his OSR game for a political reason as much as anything else. However, I am referring to the possible discretion in the support of 5e only not to use in competition.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
@Steve
Actually, even the copyright of the beholder concept is questionable under "certain minimum amount of authorship." . A concept described in a simple sentence can't really qualify. It really is about protecting the whole body of work from wholesale copying and resell. Art is easy since a single picture that is worth a thousand words is the whole body of work. A word, a sentence, a concept, an idea is not.As example, I present you "the sphere of many eyes" from Adventures Dark and Deep Bestiary by Joseph Bloch of BRW Games. The stats are nearly identical to 1977 AD&D Monster Manual entry. The text is rewritten and the description eliminates "eyestalks" and put the eyes directly on the sphere. The overall feel of the monster is distinctly beholder with only slight physical differences. This bestiary has been on OneBookShelf since September 2013.
The question is when everything that individually makes up the description of a monster is open when does the conceptual sum of these parts somehow become closed. Ideas and concepts cannot be copyrighted. So, the idea of a spherical monster with toothy maw and magical eye rays can't be copyrighted..
While you're not wrong, exactly, it's not quite so clear cut. Wizards *could* try to claim that the "sphere of many eyes" is a derivative work. If such a claim made it to court, Wizards would need to show that Bloch's work is "substantially similar" to a beholder, while Bloch would want to show that there is "sufficient originality" in his work. The fact that the quoted terms are both fairly subjective makes the whole thing a risky proposition for both sides.
(Bloch could also try to win such a case by demonstrating that Wizards' work lacked "sufficient originality" to itself merit protection; that strategy might work for some things, but I doubt it would work in this case.)
@Steve
Actually, even the copyright of the beholder concept is questionable under "certain minimum amount of authorship." . A concept described in a simple sentence can't really qualify. It really is about protecting the whole body of work from wholesale copying and resell.
That's still missing the point I was making.
The beholder* IS protected by copyright law. The extent of that protection is debatable (what part of law isn't) but it is incorrect to portray it as not under copyright.
I'm making no claim about what you can or can't do. My initial point was merely correcting a common misconception that what is Open Content is not protected by copyright. That view is incorrect (no matter what you're allowed to publish using it - it is still copyrighted work).
* And again by beholder, I dont mean the name. I also don't mean sphere-with-eyes I mean the "whole body of work" as you put it.
Ffordesoon has since stated he was just being casual in his wording, so he doesnt really need the correction.
Nonetheless, it is relatively common to hear people implicitly claim that what's Open Content "isn't copyright" and it's worth correcting that. The distinction between Open Content and Product Identity has nothing to do with copyright really - those are just terms used in the OGL.
I'm not making any claim about what, practically, one is allowed to do when using anyone else's material. My strong opinion is that you should consult a lawyer if you're going to work with the OGL or any license in general. You definitely shouldnt listen to some random guy (ie me) on the internet,
@Vic
There is nothing here that I disagree which why I would personally steer clear of the beholder especially in a work that is essentially in competition. It is an example of how far some have taken it. The most of I could imagine is using the name "sphere of many eyes" along with short-stat block with no other description. Even then, I wouldn't do it with a printed work. Pdf only so that I would have 30 days to change per OGL Section 13 in case of C&D.
Joe likely doesn't have enough visibility for it to really matter.
Nonetheless, it is relatively common to hear people implicitly claim that what's Open Content "isn't copyright" and it's worth correcting that. The distinction between Open Content and Product Identity has nothing to do with copyright really - those are just terms used in the OGL.
All I am saying is that ignoring the OGL, copyright protection is not available for names, titles, or short phases. This also includes ideas and concepts. A "beholder" under copyright means the "whole body of work" not just the name, the concept or idea, or even a single simple sentence of description. There is even a certain amount that could be used under Fair Use. The same is true for OGL open monsters which are also still under copyright. The use of "beholder" under Product Identity is enough for most to steer way clear which I agree with in principle of actual implementation but not not necessarily in the case of hypothetical theory.
If I have won the last PowerBall jackpot, I would have solely tempted to put it to the test.
Yes, I actually meant to state "You can't copy the entire SRD as a published work for sale either because this would be in violation of its copyright."
Quite a few companies have done just that. Creative Mountain Games have a very nice extensively hyperlinked set of PDFs of the 3.5 SRD.
Yes, I actually meant to state "You can't copy the entire SRD as a published work for sale either because this would be in violation of its copyright."Quite a few companies have done just that. Creative Mountain Games have a very nice extensively hyperlinked set of PDFs of the 3.5 SRD.
Yes, this is value-added hyperlinked multitude of pdfs of about 3500 pages. Instead, I should have said "You shouldn't copy the entire SRD as a published work for sale without adding any value to it."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I am saying is that ignoring the OGL, copyright protection is not available for names, titles, or short phases. This also includes ideas and concepts. A "beholder" under copyright means the "whole body of work" not just the name, the concept or idea, or even a single simple sentence of description. There is even a certain amount that could be used under Fair Use. The same is true for OGL open monsters which are also still under copyright. The use of "beholder" under Product Identity is enough for most to steer way clear which I agree with in principle of actual implementation but not not necessarily in the case of hypothetical theory.
Nonetheless, it is relatively common to hear people implicitly claim that what's Open Content "isn't copyright" and it's worth correcting that. The distinction between Open Content and Product Identity has nothing to do with copyright really - those are just terms used in the OGL.
That doesn't really relate to what I was saying and I don't have any comment to make on it - you may well be right, my concern is correcting a common misconception, not providing advice as to the limits of the protections provided by copyright law.
I'm firmly of the view that anyone intending to use the OGL should consult a lawyer prior to publication. (Not because I think they're at imminent risk of being sued, I just think it's important to do things properly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine the costs involved in proving before a an American court that Beholder is your own unique creation are much smaller than attempting to do the same with an owl/bear mashup.
Owlbear was supposedly inspired by a Chinese monster figurine, one of the siblings to the figurine that gave rise to the rust monster. The monster that was used as its base does not resemble much of anything, the rust monster ended being much more similar in its final appearance to its own inspiration. Someone could probably use it as an argument against owlbear's originality. Also, mashups of multiple real-world monsters are much more common imagery than flying orbs with many eyes and rather specific magi abilities.
I'm firmly of the view that anyone intending to use the OGL should consult a lawyer prior to publication.
Hate to say this, but I question copyright.
All of you gave me valid reasons why I should. Although the History of Copyright Law was enough. With the internet, I believe Copyright is past its term of usefulness.
Hence one of the reasons why we have the OGL. Playing D&D is a creative exercise, so there should be no bars for us to showcase the work of our talents. The OGL is a perfectly good trade off between creatives and *place your own adjective/perjorative here* IP Lawyers in the employ of WotC.
We can either play it safe and publish in the DM's Guild, or trying something out on our own. So, Steve, here's the question: What should you do if you can't afford legal counsel? Should you publish on your own or through the DM's Guild? IF you can't afford legal counsel do the smart thing and publish through the DM's Guild.
If you can, Steve Geddes' suggestion, in whatever emotion it was given, is good advice. However, the maker of Rifts did not have the right reaction when legal counsel was given to him about the OGL. So, number one, if you intend to publish under the OGL for 5th Edition, do the smart thing. CHECK YOUR SELFISHNESS!
I mean it. If you aren't going to publish after your legal counsel tells you certain things that will make your heart stop, then the OGL and the d20 system isn't for you. And remember, there are multi-million and billion-dollar companies that have our Culture wrapped up in Copyright Vaults.
"Isn't It Romantic" is a song from Love Me Tonight that shows what sharing can do. And ironically, the movie is owned by Sony. So if you are going to publish with the OGL or the DM's Guild, just accept that your work is going to reprinted and repurposed. If you can't handle that, then don't do it. It's that simple.
Optimally, if you want to make a splash, do your work for Pathfinder or find a niche for 5th edition.
After I get some race work done, and a monster book done for a lost world for 5th Edition; and my Campaign Setting out; I'm probably trying to get more done for Pathfinder than 5th, but there's a niche I can exploit in 5th and it's lost world settings.
Plus, I'll be known as the guy who doesn't believe that dinosaurs changed to birds (I have some very good reasons not to believe that nonsense).
A lost world setting for 5e can go over very well. Complete with tribal drums, people dressing like "savages," dinosaurs, the whole nine yards. Of course someone tried to exploit it with 3.5e, and I have the book to prove it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, Steve, here's the question: What should you do if you can't afford legal counsel? Should you publish on your own or through the DM's Guild?
I personally wouldn't release anything under the OGL without first consulting a lawyer (not out of fear of being sued - I think that risk is very small). I guess if I was planning to begin using the OGL and couldn't afford to get a lawyer to explain the OGL to me then I'd save up for longer (or raise more capital).
I think it's worth bearing in mind that legal counsel is not as expensive as it's sometimes portrayed (especially when you're not actually in dispute).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, I'll be known as the guy who doesn't believe that dinosaurs changed to birds (I have some very good reasons not to believe that nonsense).
Why did you randomly throw that comment in? Are you insecure about it?
Good to have some free OGL. :)
Got's me a feeling that all the open FR stuff will be beneficial to WOTC's own organized play program, Adventurer's League. ;)
Plus, I'll be known as the guy who doesn't believe that dinosaurs changed to birds (I have some very good reasons not to believe that nonsense).Why did you randomly throw that comment in? Are you insecure about it?
It's a title I'll have to deal with when I get my scalykind races book out. One of the races I'm doing evolved from velociraptor mongolinesis, and they look more like a two legged, tailess dromeosaur than a bird. This particular scalykind race is based on the skinwalker legend.
Why?
What, have you only recently discovered the internet, cause, dude, seriously...
Even on the internet, people don't do things for no reason.