How will this effect Youtube channels and podcasts that play 5e? I listen to Oxventure, Dragon Friends, Adventure Zone, Dungeon Dudes (among others), will they be able to continue producing new episodes after 13/01/2022 if they make money via adverts, merchandise or live shows?
KS was meant for small scale.
Please dont boycott as that will really hammer small press.
Yeah, ngl, I'd boycott OGL content on Kickstarter. They say they tried to negotiate a better arrangement for their users, but really... it's going to be new OGL content. That's going to be stuff that feeds this beast. No sense in offering up more IP sacrifices to Rovagug, it will only grow stronger for it and then seek to destroy everything but itself. This is Hasbro showing it can't be trusted. It's telling us what it wants and that it will try again even should it fail.
It's time to leave D$D and its OGL.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How will this effect Youtube channels and podcasts that play 5e? I listen to Oxventure, Dragon Friends, Adventure Zone, Dungeon Dudes (among others), will they be able to continue producing new episodes after 13/01/2022 if they make money via adverts, merchandise or live shows?
They probably need to hire a lawyer to answer that question.
...which is, sadly, a summary of the base layer of why all of this is such a problem.
The vast majority of the "industry" now needs to lawyer up just to keep going.
|
| 26 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.
This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).
Read the full statement here:
Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press
How will this effect Youtube channels and podcasts that play 5e? I listen to Oxventure, Dragon Friends, Adventure Zone, Dungeon Dudes (among others), will they be able to continue producing new episodes after 13/01/2022 if they make money via adverts, merchandise or live shows?
Their revenue will be subject to the royalties demands as well, I'm sure. Can't imagine Jules is pleased.
Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.
This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).
Read the full statement here:
Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press
Nice!
May you keep Midgard where it belongs.Can't help worrying that Golarion and the Pact Worlds may end up as Hasbro IPs, since it started as a D$D setting and has been OGL for so long.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't help worrying that Golarion and the Pact Worlds may end up as Hasbro IPs, since it started as a D$D setting and has been OGL for so long.
Again, disclaimer, not a lawyer and I am more familiar with open source software licenses than the OGL.
First, the OGL is a distribution license - not a copyright.
Hasbro would have to sue in order to enforce their OGL 1.1 license. And trying to sue for violations of the OGL 1.1 on content that was published under the OGL 1.0a license isn't going to hold up well. That is the retroactive rewriting of the agreement that violates the very foundations of contract law. So they can't retroactively claim that the Paizo setting copyright belongs to Hasbro under the terms of OGL 1.1 now when it was created under OGL 1.0.
It is more possible that Hasbro could file suit that current content in the Pact Worlds setting needs to be published under OGL 1.1 going forward - but that can be handled by removing any Hasbro/D&D proprietary content from the setting and publishing it under a non-OGL distribution license or simply under their own copyright with no redistribution license.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't help worrying that Golarion and the Pact Worlds may end up as Hasbro IPs, since it started as a D$D setting and has been OGL for so long.Again, disclaimer, not a lawyer and I am more familiar with open source software licenses than the OGL.
First, the OGL is a distribution license - not a copyright.
Hasbro would have to sue in order to enforce their OGL 1.1 license. And trying to sue for violations of the OGL 1.1 on content that was published under the OGL 1.0a license isn't going to hold up well. That is the retroactive rewriting of the agreement that violates the very foundations of contract law. So they can't retroactively claim that the Paizo setting copyright belongs to Hasbro under the terms of OGL 1.1 now when it was created under OGL 1.0.
It is more possible that Hasbro could file suit that current content in the Pact Worlds setting needs to be published under OGL 1.1 going forward - but that can be handled by removing any Hasbro/D&D proprietary content from the setting and publishing it under a non-OGL distribution license or simply under their own copyright with no redistribution license.
Yeah, also not a lawyer, but I'd guess that Hasbro/WotC ultimately doesn't want to force things in front of a judge who might actually rule on the situation.
Changing the OGL like this seems to be a strong arm tactic to force other people out of the market (or to make it more expensive to sell/market their existing products, by virtue of adding legal costs to consider whether those products are now a liability) and to be able to restrict future products.
If Hasbro comes at other folks over this, it seems likely that their goal will be captivation or a settlement out of financial necessity well before things make it to a ruling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I just bought every rulebook for 2E that I don't already own. Paizo gets some additional $ for legal defense, and WotC can come and try to take my books. They will be guarded by three house cats, one of whom may pee on their shoes.I just did the same, though I'm still on 1E. Hopefully dropping $600 on them will help out a bit.I won't spend that much, but yea, I'm doing the same.
There's no way WoTC couldnt' have forseen the outrage by the TTRPG community. My guess is that WoTC is out for blood, trying to end what they couldn't with 4E. Interesting point that; I saw over on the EnWorld 'lawyer' forum discussion that it looks like WotC is trying to claim that all content (other than 5E SRD) is no longer OGL because that license is being 'unauthorized'. Maybe I'm suspicious, but a kneecap attempt at Paizo?
It would be funny if WotC's attempt to better monetize D&D ends up being a huge revenue boost to Paizo :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be funny if WotC's attempt to better monetize D&D ends up being a huge revenue boost to Paizo :DWell, I just bought every rulebook for 2E that I don't already own. Paizo gets some additional $ for legal defense, and WotC can come and try to take my books. They will be guarded by three house cats, one of whom may pee on their shoes.I just did the same, though I'm still on 1E. Hopefully dropping $600 on them will help out a bit.I won't spend that much, but yea, I'm doing the same.
There's no way WoTC couldnt' have forseen the outrage by the TTRPG community. My guess is that WoTC is out for blood, trying to end what they couldn't with 4E. Interesting point that; I saw over on the EnWorld 'lawyer' forum discussion that it looks like WotC is trying to claim that all content (other than 5E SRD) is no longer OGL because that license is being 'unauthorized'. Maybe I'm suspicious, but a kneecap attempt at Paizo?
This is what happened when 4e launched and Paizo did better because of it. Here's hoping they can make some lemonade out of this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a perfect case for why Government intervention on anti-competitive practices is good.
It would be great if we can get the government involved since what Hasbro is trying to due is effectively monopolize an entire industry given how prevalent the OGL 1.0a is.
The government is also invested given that this can and will reduce tax revenues and increase unemployment.
all of this is true, but very unlikely to happen in the US. In Europe I'd say it's more likely, their courts hate monopolies so much.
Is there a possibility of everyone and their cousin putting out material and just not paying, i.e forcing Hasbro/WotC to put their money where their mouth is? Just curious.
Just to note, pathfinder 2e already renamed Treants to Arboreals <_< Paizo has kinda worked on already replacing D&D specific names with different names
Some people just want to be heard even if they have nothing to say, pretending as if every year someone at Paizo doesn't say "Hang on a second, what if WOTC tries to rat**** us like they did 15 years ago?"
Also damnit Kobold Press, now I have TWO systems I'm gonna have to sub to.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeaaaaaaah I originally thought that renaming was just about pathfinder spinoff products and paizo devs in general wanting to more focus on their original content, but I'm kiiiiiiinda starting to suspect that maybe inside industry people have been worried about this for long time now and just prepared for hasbro/wotc to do something like this eventually :'D
| 34 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some people, "I'm a free market small government liberal-conservative" ends with their first child; for some, with their first medical bill that requires crowdfunding; and for some, with the first attempt by a major corporation to take over their favourite game about pretending to be an elf.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I chuckled... but.... it's also sad because you aren't wrong...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some people, "I'm a free market small government liberal-conservative" ends with their first child; for some, with their first medical bill that requires crowdfunding; and for some, with the first attempt by a major corporation to take over their favourite game about pretending to be an elf.
To me, the truly sad part is that some people never get it. But that's another story...
The thing is Hasbro will not be able to revoke 1.0 or 1.0a. The authors of both have said the original intent as it to be ongoing and not revokable. there have been internet archives that show then saying this. They can also just ask the original authors of the OGl the intent. the issue would actually not be the OGL itself but the SRD that was used. PF2 does not have that much in common with the SRD neither does Starfinder for that matter. There are certain terns that might be debatable. Magic Missile maybe and fireball even less likely. Certain spell names. the spells work mechanically different than 5e so not sure Hasbro/WOTC be able to say there is any kind of copy right issues. Beyond that they (Hasbro/WOTC the SRD in 1.0 and 1.0a said these terms could be used Fireball Magic Missile. Game Mechanics cannot be copyrighted. This has been decided in court already. Terms like Magic Missile Fireball maybe. So there are several things here. It is highly unlikely Hasbro/WOTC could revoke OGL 1.0 and 1.0a. Their own statements on the matter and the Origanl authors saying it was written with that intent it could be unilaterally revoked by WOTC/Hasbro. Publishers entered into that contract with that understanding. I would think that Hasbro/WOTC could be sued for breach of said contract for attempting to revoke it and force publishers into a new less favorable contract. If it were me. I might pull whatever little SRD stuff is in Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 and come up with my OWN pathfinder and Starfinder Open game license.
Then I might start to reach out to certain streaming companies hint hint critical role about moving over to Pathfinder. Come back home. Also there are a bunch of 5e content streamer that are none two happy with Hasbro/WOTC since the leak of OGL 1.1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a possibility of everyone and their cousin putting out material and just not paying, i.e forcing Hasbro/WotC to put their money where their mouth is? Just curious.
This isn't really a good idea. If you violate someone's trademark/copyright, damages could be either a) actual damages plus any profits the infringer made, or b) between $750 and $30,000 per infringement (i.e. per book sold). If the Court finds the infringement was "willful" the penalty could be as high as $150,000 per infringement.
It is designed to make it really hurt to steal someone else's work.
That is why it would be better for Paizo/3PP to initiate the suit, claiming anticipatory breach (they have not yet violated the contract but they plan to) and requesting an injunction until the issue of revocability can be resolved (putting 1.1 on hold until court decides if 1.0a can be revoked).
(Actual attorney, not IP expert).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intent of the authors is one thing, and the intent of the organisation that hired the authors is another.
If you guys haven't seen it, there's a scrubbed pdf with the text of the OGL. Note, it's been confirmed by Griffon's Saddlebags that this was sent out with contracts. The whole thing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/107l24l/the_folks_at_battle_zoo_p osted_a_scrubbed_pdf/
If you guys haven't seen it, there's a scrubbed pdf with the text of the OGL. Note, it's been confirmed by Griffon's Saddlebags that this was sent out with contracts. The whole thing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/107l24l/the_folks_at_battle_zoo_p osted_a_scrubbed_pdf/
http://ogl.battlezoo.com/
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo, Critical Role, Kobold Press, and really any and all third party publishers and any person with the means to support our hobby, should group together with Ryan and the Open Gaming Foundation to preserve our community before WotC destroys it.
Ryan has posted the Open Gaming Philosophy here https://opengamingfoundation.org/foundation.html
The OGF main page here
https://opengamingfoundation.org/index.html
and the OGL 1.0a here
https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
I am not an influencer and do not have any reach, but if anyone reading this is, you should push this as our community is now at war with WotC whether we wanted it or not, and without a MASSIVE backing, they will win. Only by standing together will the abhorrent business practices of this megacompany be put down like the monster it is!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.
This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter).
Read the full statement here:
Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press
Nice!
May you keep Midgard where it belongs.Can't help worrying that Golarion and the Pact Worlds may end up as Hasbro IPs, since it started as a D$D setting and has been OGL for so long.
I'm very concerned of the same thing with ALL Pathfinder, including 2e, as it published under OGL1.0a, even though it isn't the same system as anything WotC has produced. With the wording contained in both OGL versions taken into legal consideration, that could very well happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very concerned of the same thing with ALL Pathfinder, including 2e, as it published under OGL1.0a, even though it isn't the same system as anything WotC has produced. With the wording contained in both OGL versions taken into legal consideration, that could very well happen.
The OGL is a redistribution license. Not a copyright. WotC has no claim to the copyright on any content that other people produce. Not even the OGL 1.1 gives them that - it gives them a royalty free license to publish the same content themselves (which is almost as bad, but technically different).
And just because PF1 and PF2 are published under OGL 1.0a doesn't mean that WotC can appeal to the OGL 1.1 license in order to claim the license rights to reproduce and redistribute Paizo's rulebooks. They can't rewrite the OGL 1.0a contract after the fact.
If Paizo decides to publish Rage of Elements under OGL 1.1 they would have a problem - with Rage of Elements. At that point, WotC probably could make a claim to publish Rage of Elements content themselves.
But this backdating of the contract change just doesn't make any sense to me. It feels like jumping at shadows.
Again, I am more familiar with software licensing than game rulebooks. But Perpetual License sounds like it would permanently allow PF1 to be licensed under OGL 1.0a indefinitely. The license itself could be revoked and no longer allowed to license any new content, but the existing content is a done deal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MCDM is making its own RPG. Nice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
VTTs with direct rules integration sure.
Character sheets are a huge part of making VTT usable. Without them, frankly the environment is too cumbersome to expect market adoption to be high.
Sure. You can roll dice outside of a VTT.
Sure. You can use a paper character sheet and then start typing stuff into an online roller outside of a VTT.
Both of those are annoying. Annoying products aren't used as much as convenient products.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if numbers matter, but I did hear that the lawyers saying that WotC cannot revoke OGL 1.0a outnumber those who say that they can by several to one.
I am also wondering whether Hasbro will be attracting lawsuits from companies that licensed out their IP to be made into games under the OGL, as OGL 1.1 seems to protect only the IP of WotC/Hasbro. I suspect that these companies would take a very dim view of WotC/Hasbro trying to claim rights to their IP beyond what they granted to the original publishers.
MCDM is making its own RPG. Nice.
Do you have a link for this announcement?
I've enjoyed Matt's work to date, and would like to see what he and his team cook up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MCDM is making its own RPG. Nice.Do you have a link for this announcement?
I've enjoyed Matt's work to date, and would like to see what he and his team cook up.
https://www.twitch.tv/matthew_colville
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
read all of point 9 of OGL1.0a very carefully... now think like you are WotC and want to interpret that to benefit ONLY you...
"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."
Do you see where the catch is???... notice that the word "authorized" is missing from between the words 'any' and 'version' at the end.
With the wording of what was leaked of OGL1.1, WotC would make OGL1.0a no longer an "authorized" license, and version 1.1 would supersede 1.0a ..... thus they could effectively take ownership of any and all property released under 1.0a because, even though 1.0a is no longer "authorized", it would be property that was published under "any" version of the OGL.
Once WotC updates to 1.1 as it stands, they could effectively give a 30 day notice to cease ALL operations falling under 1.0a or get licensed under 1.1 and sign a contract basically giving them all properties and products you produced and/or released under the old license.
If you sign and give them the rights to your property, then you gave away all your work of your own free will and WotC owes you nothing.
If you close shop and cease all production and publication under 1.0a, then WotC can simply rerelease and publish that material as if it were theirs, keep you from publishing it legally, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Between point 9 of OGL 1.0a and the wording of what was released of version 1.1, these in affect create an all encompassing loop by which WotC can technically take ownership of EVERYTHING produced under the OGL since the year 2000 while only allowing those they want into OGL 1.1, which could be NOBODY, thus monopolizing an extremely large majority of all ttrpg marketed products since 2000.
I could be wrong, but I doubt it... I am sure this is what they will argue with anything they think they can take and make a profit with.
just take over what WOTC has decided to throw away?,
Hasbro (WotC) is not throwing away anything. To the contrary, they're now claiming that "all your base are belong to us". If you write anything that relies on their OGL, they get a perpetual irrevocable license to do anything they want with your intellectual property.
Not only that, if I parsed this document correctly, not only can they do anything they want with your IP, but they can also make *you* pay *them* if they get into some kind of trouble with your IP.
XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will happen:
A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense.
C. We may, at Our discretion, seek to intervene in a case brought against You in order to join in the defense of the claims, while leaving You and Your counsel in charge of Your own defense. If We do so, We will defend at Our own expense and cost. As for Our IP, that’s Ours to defend – You don’t have any obligation to defend Dungeons & Dragons IP Yourself, and in fact wouldn’t have standing (the legal right) to do so even if We wanted You to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thus they could effectively take ownership of any and all property released under 1.0a because, even though 1.0a is no longer "authorized", it would be property that was published under "any" version of the OGL.
They can't take ownership. They have no claim to the copyright on it - which is what determines ownership of IP.
Once WotC updates to 1.1 as it stands, they could effectively give a 30 day notice to cease ALL operations falling under 1.0a or get licensed under 1.1 and sign a contract basically giving them all properties and products you produced and/or released under the old license.
Probably. It is debatable, but I could see a valid argument being made that you cannot publish anything new using OGL 1.0a once it is no longer an authorized version.
It is an even less secure argument that the existing and already published OGL 1.0a IP must also be published under OGL 1.1 if it is reprinted without changes. But it is possibly also a valid argument.
This is where the legal warfare is likely going to be raged - by people wanting to continue reprinting or creating new content for PF1 or other OGL 1.0a content.
If you sign and give them the rights to your property, then you gave away all your work of your own free will and WotC owes you nothing.
Correct. I don't recommend publishing anything under OGL 1.1.
If you close shop and cease all production and publication under 1.0a, then WotC can simply rerelease and publish that material as if it were theirs, keep you from publishing it legally, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
I don't think so. They can't force you to republish your IP under OGL 1.1 and nothing in OGL 1.0a gives them license to publish your IP or charge royalties for it. OGL 1.0a still exists and is still a legally binding contract even if it has been 'unauthorized' for new content.
There are many that do agree with me. I suggest you watch roll for combat.
Also did said lawyer do the research and look at what the original other was and the intent of the author of the OGL intend. This is what matters not what Hasbro/WOTC new layers think. So if you and I enter an agreement that you say is like long and non revokable. I base my company on it then 23 year later you say well i am going to revoke the agreement. Good luck in court. I think the cases want make it to court. Remember. you have the original authors of it (1.0 and 1.0a). Also internal documents from WOTC/Hasbro saying 1.0 and 1.0a cannot be revoked.
So a few layers saying they can would not worry me. Maybe they did not do their research.