I'm considering developing (primarily for education, portfolio and betterment-of-self reasons) a first person 4th edition dungeonbasher much like the old, original 2nd edition Eye of the Beholder games. I read the GSL today and a few things stuck out for me.
SRD, pg 3 wrote:
... no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; ...
Emphasis added by me.
If you've got a lawyer handy then you can get his/her advice on fair use of D&D materials, but if you're just trying to make a proof-of-concept or a tech demo or something then there are PLENTY of open source RPGs out there that would probably be thrilled to hear that you're working on a FPRPG of their system; probably much safer than dealing with WotC.
Nothing I've said should substitute real legal advice, of course, since this isn't legal advice. I'm just pointing out something I noticed that I think you should have noticed, too. >_>
I am not a lawyer, but I think you're overlooking something far more important:
Emphasis added by me.
If you've got a lawyer handy then you can get his/her advice on fair use of D&D materials, but if you're just trying to make a proof-of-concept or a tech demo or something then there are PLENTY of open source RPGs out there that would probably be thrilled to hear that you're working on a FPRPG of their system; probably much safer than dealing with WotC.
Nothing I've said should substitute real legal advice, of course, since this isn't legal advice. I'm just pointing out something I noticed that I think you should have noticed, too. >_>
Wow, okay. Didn't notice that.
That's fine. You're right- there are plenty of open source RPGs out there. Pathfinder, maybe?
Still, it's a shame that WotC don't allow interactive products. Oh well... I'll keep investigating, thanks a bunch!
This clause is in part due to WotC not owning the rights to D&D Computergames, or having it licenced out. Also it's quite reasonable they do not want that just anybody can go and make a PC game out of it, don't you think?
I've never said that it was unreasonable.
Just that it's a bit disappointing for me, that's all.The GSL confers nothing of use to your intended purpose even if it allowed interactive products. You need to go with good ol' fashioned fair use.
Here's what your do:
With respect to the use of D&D game mechanics, go nuts. The actual rules of the game, any game, cannot be copyrighted (this is why there are a loads of Monopoly clones). Since this is a computer game, the user need not even see any of the mechanics (dice rolls, bonus summations, etc) if you so choose; keeping it embedded in the code instead is a perfectly viable choice. You can take the rules and bend them as you will to whatever extent you choose. You want to re-work Fey Step? Go for it. No one has any right to stop you.
With respect to D&D intellectual property, you will have to keep a few things in mind:
1) Eladrin, Tieflings, Dragonborn, Yuan-ti, Beholders, etc, are all out. You will need to take their basic concepts and redo them as something else (Eladrin become High Elves, Dragonborn become Drake-men, catch my drift?). The more generic (or original) the better. The goal of this is to distance yourself from WotC fluff as much as possible.
2) Certain game terms with specific meanings may need to be re-named. A "Shift" becomes and "5-step". Things like "Push", "Pull", "Slide", "Fortitude", "Reflex", and "Will" are generic enough to not mess with. Power names and descriptions will need to be re-written in your own words. Classes like "Fighter" and "Wizard" are fine. Classes, paragon paths, and epic destinies attached to WotC fluff need to be re-written.
Hope this helps.
One does not need a law degree to inform someone of their rights and responsibilities as a U.S. citizen. Should the original poster be wise and cross-reference my advice with his or her own research into the topic of copyright and fair-use, my previous post will indeed be found to be quite informative. Really everyone, this is basic information everyone needs to know in the digital age.
Now I'm going to go on a little spiel. It's about something that has been bothering me lately as I lurk the boards (you can stop reading my post now if this does not interest you).
I'm going to use something that most people can relate to as an analogy; this is the matter of doing your taxes. One does not need a degree in accounting nor does one need to hire and accountant to do ones taxes. It sure as heck helps save time (and in some instances, money) and reduces the chances of getting audited, but it is definitely not mandatory.
Now, let's a person named Bob is a 50 year-old married man with a high-paying career that includes retirement benefits and stock options. He also has 2 cars, 1 child in college, 1 child in high school, and a moderately expensive house in the suburbs of a major city. Bob also runs a hot dog stand on the weekends in the park to make a little pocket cash. Bob's taxes are going to be a nightmare, and no one is going to fault him (heck, most would think him wise) for hiring an accounting firm or buying a software suite to do his taxes for him. Bob has to be careful to declare all his income, the stock options, his retirement funds, even his hot dog stand income, else he run the risk of being audited by the IRS.
Now, let's suppose Gregg is a 23-year-old single man with 1 car, no children, rents and apartment, and who has just completed the first year of his career outside of college at a modestly paid entry-level position. Gregg could do his taxes by himself in about an hour or less. As long as he is careful and knowledgeable about the basics of the process (like knowing what a W2 is), he runs little to no chance of being audited.
Gregg is the fan who wants to program a D&D application, write a D&D-based fanfiction or original story, create a D&D module and/or campaign, etc, and distribute it freely for the edification of himself and others like him. As long as he is knowledgeable about his rights and responsibilities with respect to the matter of copyright, he will come out just fine.
Bob is the publisher who wants to put a D&D computer game on store shelves, professionally publish a D&D module, write a D&D novel to be put on the shelves of Barnes & Nobles for the purpose of fun and profit. He needs to consult a lawyer, enter into negotiations with corporate representatives, and sign contracts, all while wading through a torrent of legalese translated by said hired lawyer as best as possible.
I'm going to exaggerate here, but just bear with me (it's a little hard to put into words). My problem is that, within the D&D community at large, I get the feeling that Gregg is the "Bad Guy". Gregg is overstepping his bounds. Gregg is infringing copyright. Gregg is going to get a C&D and/or get sued. Gregg is doing something illegal, and anyone who aides Gregg in any way is an accomplice. Therefore, we need to discourage Gregg and anyone who advises him whenever possible. The only way to do such things legally is to be like Bob.
I abhor this practice! It stifles creativity with the fear of being sued and/or doing something illegal. It's also highly incorrect and just plain wrong! Copyright was created to prevent scenarios where creativity is stifled due to lack of incentive. Well, what incentive is there to do anything if I'm afraid of being sued? Why do I need to consult lawyer anytime I wish to be creative with a piece of IP to which I bought the rights "just to make sure everything's legal"?
I challenge everyone to go and learn for themselves the basics of Fair Use, Copyright, Trademark, and Intellectual Property. Take the initiative and learn it on your own. Learn it correctly. Learn a few case studies and take them to heart. Then, go and teach someone else who has not yet learned.
"I am not a lawyer" and "this is not legal advice," phrases almost as old as the internet, are "cover your ass" statements that are used to avoid unauthorized "practice of law" (legal advice; a crime without a license) or to avoid entering an attorney-client relationship (which has resulted in lawsuits; I encourage you to look it up).
(That last bit might have seemed snarky of me, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity. Please don't hate me for it. <3 )
Intellectual property laws serve as an incentive to creators because it grants them ownership of (and control over) their work. In the case of D&D, TSR was it's creator, and WotC was able to gain control over it, making it the current owner. They've published quite a bit of content for this property, because they think they can get something out of it. IP is working for them; they have been, are, and will continue to make use of this property, as is what the law wants to encourage. I think shorter copyright terms, barring some example of productive use of the IP, would be ideal, but that's not the way it is right now, and is a whole other discussion anyways.
You suggest that Gregg "bought the rights" to something. All he's likely bought is a book. He doesn't have the right to copy it. WotC (probably) won't care if he xerox's a few tables for his D&D group (that might be fair use, even, since it's rather personal and non-commercial), or if he blogs about his sessions and, in the process, ends up describing some of their IP, like the Forgotten Realms depiction of Drow society. If WotC wanted to be mean (and spend an unnecessary amount of money on lawyers) then they could try to get that blog post removed, and upon refusal, sue based on how much of that post "ripped off" WotC's property.
Now, if the OP's work remains strictly for educational purposes ("can it be done?" "how might this work?") and then travels no further than his portfolio (that is, isn't uploaded to some fileshare, "hay guyz play this graet game!"), that is very likely, almost probably certainly, fair use. In light of that, I probably jumped the gun by mentioning open source game systems as an alternative; but IANAL, and TINLA, so whether he relates to my opinions or yours is his problem.
Now I'm going to go on a little spiel. It's about something that has been bothering me lately as I lurk the boards (you can stop reading my post now if this does not interest you).
I'm going to exaggerate here, but just bear with me (it's a little hard to put into words). My problem is that, within the D&D community at large, I get the feeling that Gregg is the "Bad Guy". Gregg is overstepping his bounds. Gregg is infringing copyright. Gregg is going to get a C&D and/or get sued. Gregg is doing something illegal, and anyone who aides Gregg in any way is an accomplice. Therefore, we need to discourage Gregg and anyone who advises him whenever possible. The only way to do such things legally is to be like Bob.
Per your recommendation: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/ It's an interesting read. By all means, people should educate themselves.
If you read the links therein on IP law, you'll see that IP violation, *even for non-commercial purposes* is against the law. If Gregg does indeed respect WotC's copyrights and trademarks, then there's nothing wrong. But many of the examples that get debated on the boards are more like: "Gregg copies every power in the PHB to a website and makes it freely available for download."
I don't believe the community at large (or WotC) are against activities that respect IP laws. Indeed, the GSL is all about letting people, for free, make incredibly broad use of WotC's IP. But where an action is illegal, it is both right and proper that people be vocal in their condemnation of it. If Gregg steals every last one of R.A. Salvatore's characters in order to create a module, then posts it on the internet, I would hope the community would howl.
I abhor this practice! It stifles creativity with the fear of being sued and/or doing something illegal. It's also highly incorrect and just plain wrong! Copyright was created to prevent scenarios where creativity is stifled due to lack of incentive. Well, what incentive is there to do anything if I'm afraid of being sued?
Create something ORIGINAL. Then there's no fear of suit. Or get permission from the IP holder -- then, you're safe too. Copyright law was NOT designed to let people freeload on top of others' creativity without risk. The rights being protected are those of the ORIGINAL creator, not of those who seek to make derivative works off of someone else's ideas.
Why do I need to consult lawyer anytime I wish to be creative with a piece of IP to which I bought the rights "just to make sure everything's legal"?
OK, this right here is an example of how lay-people get themselves into trouble by mis-understanding the law. Buying a book does not mean you "bought the rights" to the IP. Please, please read up on IP law if you don't understand this. Buying a copy of the PHB doesn't let you copy/modify WotC's IP any more than buying a Mickey Mouse T-shirt at Disney Land lets you print your own modified Mickey Mouse T-shirts for all your friends. Misunderstanding this could land you in hot water.
If you really "bought the rights" to a piece of IP, you would have a legally binding agreement specifying what rights you had acquired (if you're smart, this won't be a verbal agreement). And then, you wouldn't need to consult a lawyer at all, because you'd have an agreement explicitly saying what you had rights to do.
An example: Take a look at the bottom of the Character Sheets in the PHB. At the bottom, you'll see the legend: "(C) 2008 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Permission granted to photocopy for personal use only."
Here, you did "buy the rights" -- but only LIMITED RIGHTS -- to some IP when you bought your copy of the PHB. This is a legally binding transferrence of limited rights to the owner of the PHB copy. In specific, the book owner can photocopy the character sheet pages, but only for personal use. You DO NOT own all rights to the pages -- just the rights WotC granted you. For instance, you could not distribute the pages you copied, as that wouldn't be for "personal" use. Nor could you sell them, as that would be for commercial use (also not personal use).
I challenge everyone to go and learn for themselves the basics of Fair Use, Copyright, Trademark, and Intellectual Property. Take the initiative and learn it on your own. Learn it correctly. Learn a few case studies and take them to heart. Then, go and teach someone else who has not yet learned.
To the community at large: please do educate yourselves on IP law. If you're going to do something that isn't clearly legal, though, please do protect yourself appropriately. Ask for permission from the copyright holder, consult an attorney, or take some other action to help clarify your rights, responsibilities, and risk level.
They also explicitly state that it's
- possible to infringe using lawfully acquired material (buying a book does not give you copyrights, perhaps better explained by Garanwyn above).
- infringement even if the unlawful distributor isn't making money; what matters is the retail value of the work being distributed and the preclusion of fair use.
- criminal to offer or make available infringing works, even if there's no proof that a transfer or copy took place; this is usually more specific to digital copies, although libraries have been prosecuted and found guilty for distribution (as opposed to reproduction) of a copyrighted work, and without proof that anyone borrowed it (simply that it was available).
Going right to the "source," the US government (or whatever your government might be), is the next best thing to consulting a lawyer; with getting advice from a forum still ranking low on the list of good ideas. :D
Going right to the "source," the US government (or whatever your government might be), is the next best thing to consulting a lawyer; with getting advice from a forum still ranking low on the list of good ideas. :D
QFT.
Don't listen to a "forum lawyer" -- do the necessary research to protect yourself. If you don't, you have only yourself to blame for the consequences. All the opinions offered on the forums (mine included) are worth every penny you paid for them ;)
I do have one final question however (but we're starting to get a little offtopic...)
Can you use the v3.5 SRD / OGC in a computer game?
I am not a lawyer, but I think you're overlooking something far more important:
If you've got a lawyer handy then you can get his/her advice on fair use of D&D materials, but if you're just trying to make a proof-of-concept or a tech demo or something then there are PLENTY of open source RPGs out there that would probably be thrilled to hear that you're working on a FPRPG of their system; probably much safer than dealing with WotC.
I would consider this. There are many other companies that will be much more supportive of your work than WotC, simply because WotC has little to gain from your product, while other companies would see that as a lot of free advertisement.
Hey guys,
I'm considering developing (primarily for education, portfolio and betterment-of-self reasons) a first person 4th edition dungeonbasher much like the old, original 2nd edition Eye of the Beholder games. I read the GSL today and a few things stuck out for me.
What I take the first part of this sentence to mean is that I may reproduce enough information for someone to play an elf wizard (including powers) but not any tables (such as the character advancement table) or the point buy table. Fair 'nuff.
The second part causes me some concern, especially when partnered up with the GSL FAQ which explains this part as follows:
I can see a problem with this. The 1st-person, entire-party-moves-together nature of the game I'm working on means that certain powers (Eladrin's Fey Step for example) will have to be rewritten to be something that doesn't involve movement. This seems to be in violation of the licence. Is this the case, or am I reading too much into it?
Thoughts?
1st: If you were to re-write the powers in your game, then it would be mis-leading to claim it's following the D&D 4E GSL...
2nd: In order to make a computer or console game of this nature, you would have to inter into negotiations with WotC to use the actual D&D license in your product and not just the GSL. I wish you luck with that as you will be bidding against companies with deep pockets...
Well, this certainly has been an educational thread.
I do have one final question however (but we're starting to get a little offtopic...)
Can you use the v3.5 SRD / OGC in a computer game?
Read this. It suggests the answer is yes, but...
You can't claim it is a D20 system game;
You can't claim it is campatible with anything;
You can't used anything identified as Product Identity.
But you can make a game, in theory. There are character generators around that use the OGL.
And you can ise anything identified as OGC and PI as long as you obtain written permission from the publisher like we do at PCGen.
And you can claim that it is compatible as long as you make darn sure that you are in no way attempting to confuse the consumer that you are claiming owner ship with said product that you are claiming to be compatible with.