Feywild & Shadowfell References in GSL - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Feywild & Shadowfell References in GSL

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
neuroglyph
Mar 03, 2010 18:14:12 I've read the GSL SRD and have accessed other posts such as this one from a few months ago. But I have found all manner of contradictory comments.

Some posters seem to think that you cannot use the Feywild or Shadowfell in 3PP - but the GSL specifically states that:

"You may use any 4E Reference in your Licensed Product, assuming the reader knows or can learn the
meaning of that 4E Reference from the Core Rulebooks."

The DMG is a Core Rulebook. Both the Shadowfell and Feywild are mentioned in the DMG, as well as in Manual of the Planes, which is not a Core Rulebook.

So doesn't that mean that I can use the Feywild and Shadowfell as a site for an adventure, as long as I don't mention the realms and/or rules discussed in the Manual of the Planes?

For instance, if I sent players to an isolated ruin deep in the Feywild, or to a Shadowfell village of my own devising, with the intent that these locales could be used in any campaign setting - does that violate the GSL?

Logically, I think this would fall under Section 4.1:

"Per Section 4.1 of the GSL, you can add functions to 4E References as long as, in doing so, you don’t redefine that 4E Reference. "

Does adding a ruin or village to a section of a Plane redefine it?

It would be nice to find out from official channels regarding this issue.
#2
ascottbay
Mar 03, 2010 22:18:57 "4E Reference" is defined in the Game System License < www.wizards.com/d20 > under section 4.1 "4E References" which reads:

Licensee may reprint the proprietary 4E reference terms, tables, and templates (each, a "4E Reference") described in the 4E System Reference Document as presented in the file "SRD.pdf" that is available for download at www.wizards.com/d20 ("SRD"), incorporated herein by reference.
The rest of the section goes on to discuss redefinition and such.

The point being, under the terms of the GSL, "4E Reference" means references described in the SRD.

Some posters seem to think that you cannot use the Feywild or Shadowfell in 3PP - but the GSL specifically states that:

"You may use any 4E Reference in your Licensed Product, assuming the reader knows or can learn the meaning of that 4E Reference from the Core Rulebooks."

This text is not from the GSL, it's from the SRD, and you left out something very important from the preceding paragraph:

The SRD that follows these Usage Guidelines is a straightforward list of 4E References, which you may use in your Licensed Product.
This reinforces the definition of "4E Reference" which is, "what appears in the SRD."

Do the Shadowfell or Feywild appear in the SRD document? If they do, then they have 4E References defined. Otherwise, they don't, and their use is not included under the GSL.

I suppose I should clarify that I'm not a lawyer nor do I work for Wizards of the Coast, but I'm confident in my ability to read something full of technical (or in this case, legal) statements.
#3
fatumd20
Mar 04, 2010 13:51:05 Ascottbay pretty much answered the question as I understand it.

Simply put, the GSL states that you can use terms from the SRD. The Shadowfell and the Feywild are not listed in the SRD. Therefore, you cannot use the terms in your products. It sucks but it isn't hard to create a plane similar in theme to them where players can understand what you're getting at.
#4
neuroglyph
Mar 04, 2010 19:45:40
Ascottbay pretty much answered the question as I understand it.

Simply put, the GSL states that you can use terms from the SRD. The Shadowfell and the Feywild are not listed in the SRD. Therefore, you cannot use the terms in your products. It sucks but it isn't hard to create a plane similar in theme to them where players can understand what you're getting at.

Well that's pretty much what I was afraid of - guess I'll make up my own names for those planes and hope my readers get it. Thankfully, D&D players as a whole are pretty sharp, so I don't think readers will be too confused... but for the record, I think it's a pretty ridiculous thing to withhold the entire D&D cosmology from 3PP. Settings, like FR and Eberron - sure I get that - but all the planes too? Seems way over the top.
#5
ascottbay
Mar 04, 2010 21:56:55 Wizards has to actively add to the SRD, which is a lot of legal hassle for Wizards; especially since I think their parent company, Hasbro, has their own lawyers involved. I remember following posts by Scott Rouse on his quest to make the GSL a reality. I'm not trying to be an apologist, but we're kind of lucky to have what we have, and the word "withhold" really can't be used here. We don't have a (legal) right to it without either a Statement of Acceptance or careful application of Fair Use.

And the GSL/SRD is designed for rules: numbers, statistics, instructions, tables, templates - not names and descriptions. Trying to adapt or expand the GSL would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but a second license for the more creative/expressive elements of a campaign guide might work. If it's too permissive then the original product becomes trivialized and someone is going to claim it's detracting from the bottom line, but it also has to be just enough that it's not a useless token gesture. It would be nice if this idea gets picked up, but odds of that happening are... probably the same as me winning the lottery. (Or exactly the same odds, money would speak louder than a forum post.)
#6
inkpenavenger
Mar 11, 2010 19:43:19 Actually some of the planes are technically in the SRD, I discovered. The following references:

Clarion Call of the Astral Sea (cleric power)
Cloak of Feywild Escape (magic item)
Shadowfell Gloves (magic item)

So technically the only planes not in the SRD are the Far Realm and the Elemental Chaos. I don't know if it really counts, but Mongoose Publishing makes passing references to the planes in thier books, so I'm not too worried about mentioning them as well.

P.S. I'm no lawyer, but that's my $0.02
#7
neuroglyph
Mar 12, 2010 7:38:37 Yes, but I believe that means you can only refer to such places as part of a power/item descriptor. You cannot actually refer to those planes as a place. I've talked to a couple other publishers who recommend simply creating your own terms for the planes, and that's what I intend to do in order to avoid any legal issues.

I'm still dissatisfied with having to do that, but without "official" word saying "yea or nay", we're left guessing or playing armchair lawyer, and I'd rather not risk losing my GSL.
#8
inkpenavenger
Mar 12, 2010 13:33:44
The only problem with defining your own planes (as I said in my original post that you linked to) is that you can't say that your version of the shadowfell is where shadow-origin creatures are from, since that would be a redifinition of what the "shadow" origin means. the MM defines "shadow" origin type as being from the shadowfell, so you can't say otherwise without violating the GSL.

Mongoose's books do refer to those planes as places, and if WotC isn't yanking their GSL, I don't think they'd waste time going after little guys like us.
#9
The_Jester
Mar 12, 2010 14:13:48 You're not supposed to mention the planes. That's probably why WotC went with terms like "feywild" and "shadowfell" as opposed to "faerie" or "the shadow world". By going with creative terms they can invoke trademark on anyone who irks them.
As long as Mongoose stays on WotC's good side then it's probably too much work to sick the lawyers on them, but if Mongoose were to begin badmouthing WotC or otherwise rocking the boat it would become a problem. And as long as it's small references in books. If they tried to publish a "Shadowfell Traveller's Guide" or something that would likely be shot-down as well.

Short Answer: WotC isn't going to care if you doing a write-up of your campaign setting's mirror planes, mention planes in your adventure summaries, make monsters with fluff that mentions the planes, or write small adventures featuring the planes.
As long as you don't give them a reason to want to shut you down.
#10
inkpenavenger
Mar 12, 2010 14:23:28
Short Answer: WotC isn't going to care if you doing a write-up of your campaign setting's mirror planes, mention planes in your adventure summaries, make monsters with fluff that mentions the planes, or write small adventures featuring the planes.
As long as you don't give them a reason to want to shut you down.

This is exactly what I mean.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 neuroglyph Mar 03, 2010 18:14:12	I've read the GSL SRD and have accessed other posts such as this one from a few months ago. But I have found all manner of contradictory comments. Some posters seem to think that you cannot use the Feywild or Shadowfell in 3PP - but the GSL specifically states that: "You may use any 4E Reference in your Licensed Product, assuming the reader knows or can learn the meaning of that 4E Reference from the Core Rulebooks." The DMG is a Core Rulebook. Both the Shadowfell and Feywild are mentioned in the DMG, as well as in Manual of the Planes, which is not a Core Rulebook. So doesn't that mean that I can use the Feywild and Shadowfell as a site for an adventure, as long as I don't mention the realms and/or rules discussed in the Manual of the Planes? For instance, if I sent players to an isolated ruin deep in the Feywild, or to a Shadowfell village of my own devising, with the intent that these locales could be used in any campaign setting - does that violate the GSL? Logically, I think this would fall under Section 4.1: "Per Section 4.1 of the GSL, you can add functions to 4E References as long as, in doing so, you don’t redefine that 4E Reference. " Does adding a ruin or village to a section of a Plane redefine it? It would be nice to find out from official channels regarding this issue.
#2 ascottbay Mar 03, 2010 22:18:57	"4E Reference" is defined in the Game System License < www.wizards.com/d20 > under section 4.1 "4E References" which reads: Licensee may reprint the proprietary 4E reference terms, tables, and templates (each, a "4E Reference") described in the 4E System Reference Document as presented in the file "SRD.pdf" that is available for download at www.wizards.com/d20 ("SRD"), incorporated herein by reference. The rest of the section goes on to discuss redefinition and such. The point being, under the terms of the GSL, "4E Reference" means references described in the SRD. Some posters seem to think that you cannot use the Feywild or Shadowfell in 3PP - but the GSL specifically states that: "You may use any 4E Reference in your Licensed Product, assuming the reader knows or can learn the meaning of that 4E Reference from the Core Rulebooks." This text is not from the GSL, it's from the SRD, and you left out something very important from the preceding paragraph: The SRD that follows these Usage Guidelines is a straightforward list of 4E References, which you may use in your Licensed Product. This reinforces the definition of "4E Reference" which is, "what appears in the SRD." Do the Shadowfell or Feywild appear in the SRD document? If they do, then they have 4E References defined. Otherwise, they don't, and their use is not included under the GSL. I suppose I should clarify that I'm not a lawyer nor do I work for Wizards of the Coast, but I'm confident in my ability to read something full of technical (or in this case, legal) statements.
#3 fatumd20 Mar 04, 2010 13:51:05	Ascottbay pretty much answered the question as I understand it. Simply put, the GSL states that you can use terms from the SRD. The Shadowfell and the Feywild are not listed in the SRD. Therefore, you cannot use the terms in your products. It sucks but it isn't hard to create a plane similar in theme to them where players can understand what you're getting at.
#4 neuroglyph Mar 04, 2010 19:45:40	Ascottbay pretty much answered the question as I understand it. Simply put, the GSL states that you can use terms from the SRD. The Shadowfell and the Feywild are not listed in the SRD. Therefore, you cannot use the terms in your products. It sucks but it isn't hard to create a plane similar in theme to them where players can understand what you're getting at. Well that's pretty much what I was afraid of - guess I'll make up my own names for those planes and hope my readers get it. Thankfully, D&D players as a whole are pretty sharp, so I don't think readers will be too confused... but for the record, I think it's a pretty ridiculous thing to withhold the entire D&D cosmology from 3PP. Settings, like FR and Eberron - sure I get that - but all the planes too? Seems way over the top.
#5 ascottbay Mar 04, 2010 21:56:55	Wizards has to actively add to the SRD, which is a lot of legal hassle for Wizards; especially since I think their parent company, Hasbro, has their own lawyers involved. I remember following posts by Scott Rouse on his quest to make the GSL a reality. I'm not trying to be an apologist, but we're kind of lucky to have what we have, and the word "withhold" really can't be used here. We don't have a (legal) right to it without either a Statement of Acceptance or careful application of Fair Use. And the GSL/SRD is designed for rules: numbers, statistics, instructions, tables, templates - not names and descriptions. Trying to adapt or expand the GSL would probably be more trouble than it's worth, but a second license for the more creative/expressive elements of a campaign guide might work. If it's too permissive then the original product becomes trivialized and someone is going to claim it's detracting from the bottom line, but it also has to be just enough that it's not a useless token gesture. It would be nice if this idea gets picked up, but odds of that happening are... probably the same as me winning the lottery. (Or exactly the same odds, money would speak louder than a forum post.)
#6 inkpenavenger Mar 11, 2010 19:43:19	Actually some of the planes are technically in the SRD, I discovered. The following references: Clarion Call of the Astral Sea (cleric power) Cloak of Feywild* Escape* (magic item) Shadowfell Gloves (magic item) So technically the only planes not in the SRD are the Far Realm and the Elemental Chaos. I don't know if it really counts, but Mongoose Publishing makes passing references to the planes in thier books, so I'm not too worried about mentioning them as well. P.S. I'm no lawyer, but that's my $0.02
#7 neuroglyph Mar 12, 2010 7:38:37	Yes, but I believe that means you can only refer to such places as part of a power/item descriptor. You cannot actually refer to those planes as a place. I've talked to a couple other publishers who recommend simply creating your own terms for the planes, and that's what I intend to do in order to avoid any legal issues. I'm still dissatisfied with having to do that, but without "official" word saying "yea or nay", we're left guessing or playing armchair lawyer, and I'd rather not risk losing my GSL.
#8 inkpenavenger Mar 12, 2010 13:33:44	The only problem with defining your own planes (as I said in my original post that you linked to) is that you can't say that your version of the shadowfell is where shadow-origin creatures are from, since that would be a redifinition of what the "shadow" origin means. the MM defines "shadow" origin type as being from the shadowfell, so you can't say otherwise without violating the GSL. Mongoose's books do refer to those planes as places, and if WotC isn't yanking their GSL, I don't think they'd waste time going after little guys like us.
#9 The_Jester Mar 12, 2010 14:13:48	You're not supposed to mention the planes. That's probably why WotC went with terms like "feywild" and "shadowfell" as opposed to "faerie" or "the shadow world". By going with creative terms they can invoke trademark on anyone who irks them. As long as Mongoose stays on WotC's good side then it's probably too much work to sick the lawyers on them, but if Mongoose were to begin badmouthing WotC or otherwise rocking the boat it would become a problem. And as long as it's small references in books. If they tried to publish a "Shadowfell Traveller's Guide" or something that would likely be shot-down as well. Short Answer: WotC isn't going to care if you doing a write-up of your campaign setting's mirror planes, mention planes in your adventure summaries, make monsters with fluff that mentions the planes, or write small adventures featuring the planes. As long as you don't give them a reason to want to shut you down.
#10 inkpenavenger Mar 12, 2010 14:23:28	Short Answer: WotC isn't going to care if you doing a write-up of your campaign setting's mirror planes, mention planes in your adventure summaries, make monsters with fluff that mentions the planes, or write small adventures featuring the planes. As long as you don't give them a reason to want to shut you down. This is exactly what I mean.