Copyright law does not allow WotC to Copyright the rules of a game; games cannot be copyrighted. You can't even copy right the name of a game. The particular literary expression of the rules can be copyrighted, so I cannot simply reproduce the WotC books word for word and sell them. However, if I restate the rules of Dungeons and Dragons in my own words, I am allowed to do so and to sell products that use my restatements of their words.
The GSL masquerades as a set of legal restrictions on publication of materials that use the Dungeons and Dragons rules. The law does not allow such restrictions. The GSL system only serves to allow "official licensed products" which is about as good as the "Vista Approved" logo you find on every PC product out there. It means very little except as a form of advertising.
A summary of US Copyright Law regardind games.
The GSL masquerades as a set of legal restrictions on publication of materials that use the Dungeons and Dragons rules. The law does not allow such restrictions.
The law certainly allows it if you agree to it. There's no reason you can't give up legal rights as consideration to a contract.
And yes, if you want the license, WotC can name any terms they want for it.
The logo is, but is the name?
Actually, yes. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=99bitr.2.3
The entire GSL system is crunk.
Copyright law does not allow WotC to Copyright the rules of a game; games cannot be copyrighted. You can't even copy right the name of a game.
Yes, but you can put a registered trademark on the name.... there are laws out there other than copyright laws that protect companies from hacks stealing their ideas.
Monopoly is a very popular game, and has been for years.... you don't see any other company making and selling a game with the same name and/or the same rules... ever wonder why noone else tries to get a piece of that action?
philosofool and hellmute, and polaris, and anyone else that feels this way...put your money where your mouth is...publish a compatable book or PDF with out the GSL...see how long it takes to get sued
What the hell? I ask a simple question and get attacked for it?
no attack...and I am sorry if you feel it is, I am also sorry if I got the wrong idea about you, but this whole thread is about pointing out what "a total friggi crunk" the GSL is, andd if people think that I want to know if they are willing to put up or...well you know...
again no offence ment
:surrender
philosofool and hellmute, and polaris, and anyone else that feels this way...put your money where your mouth is...publish a compatable book or PDF with out the GSL...see how long it takes to get sued
Yes, a classic strategy of people with lots of money is to sue people with little money into submission. Why the hell would I want to subject myself and the tax payers to some corporate legal abuse?
Yes, a classic strategy of people with lots of money is to sue people with little money into submission. Why the hell would I want to subject myself and the tax payers to some corporate legal abuse?
Right... because you are the victim in that situation. I suppose you also think that it is corporate legal abuse if you are taken to court for stealing from Walmart?
The community has been spoiled by the OGL, but in the real world, there's not a lot that's done under open licensing. You can't make a product and claim it's Mac compatible without Apple's permission. You don't sell 'Harry Potter Wizzard Scarves' without the go ahead from JK Rowling and you don't try and sell DnD supplements without going through WotC first.
You try it and they have every right in the world to chew on you like a soup bone.
Of course, you could try and make an 'original game', but seeing as there's not incontrovertible evidence, vis-a-vis this thread (and editing won't help, the database logs your edits) as to exactly what the intent was.
Welcome to the e-publishing future, all budding game designers.
Go for it. You'll be glad you did.
The GSL masquerades as a set of legal restrictions on publication of materials that use the Dungeons and Dragons rules.
I disagree. The GSL allows people who aren't copyright attorneys the ability to produce D&D stuff without wondering if using things like the term "Shift 1 square" will get them sued.
Sure, you can probably do exactly what you're saying. You can also spend a lot of money convincing a judge you're right. Or, you could just use the license, make a buck playing in WotC's sandbox, and not have to worry about any of that.
You don't sell 'Harry Potter Wizzard Scarves' without the go ahead from JK Rowling and you don't try and sell DnD supplements without going through WotC first.
Not sure about the legalities of it but their is/was an Harry Potter Lexicon that wasn't given the 'Rowling Stamp of Approval' and she sued for it. Where the lawsuit is currently relation to it allowing or not the publishing of the book I don't know.
Not sure about the legalities of it but their is/was an Harry Potter Lexicon that wasn't given the 'Rowling Stamp of Approval' and she sued for it. Where the lawsuit is currently relation to it allowing or not the publishing of the book I don't know.
Because it can be argued books like that are fair use, they might be considered a critique or book about the copyrighted material. Similar to an essay or review, but with other intent. That's the debate.
In the same vein you can write books about D&D, but if you use a trademarked term or write something similar to a piece of the rulebook (which is copyrighted) it is a violation of IP.
Welcome to modern America, take a number and please step to the side until you are called to be sued for liking something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crunk
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Crunk
I doubt that you meant the GSL is a form of rap music. From the use I believe you meant jank.
In the same vein you can write books about D&D, but if you use a trademarked term or write something similar to a piece of the rulebook (which is copyrighted) it is a violation of IP.
I'm not a HP fan, I got people around that are so I get to hear words from the movies before I'm able to run far enough away, but some of the terms those people use seem like IP for Rowling (they would need to be used to be defined in the Lexicon) I would think?
Of course my legalese is worse then my swahili so I could be completely off my rocker.
You can't patent die rolling, use of maps, markers on maps, target number systems (like DC), fighters, elves or longswords. There's very little left for WotC to "own" except a set of expressions. I'm offened that WotC seems to be reserving the right to sue me if I re-write a description of stealth and put it on my website.
I should actually take back the part where I say it's crunk; there's some crunkiness about it. (BTW, in some parts of the country, crunk is a synonym for "crap.") I just don't like the WotC attitude of pretending like they invented all the public ideas (rolling dice, character classes, etc.) that they use in their game. However, probably, simply by introducing a set of standards that everyone shares, the GSL goes some way to promote shared rules among games. The game rules are very good, so there's something to be said for that.
... but if you use a trademarked term or write something similar to a piece of the rulebook (which is copyrighted) it is a violation of IP.
This isn't necessarily true. You can write something similar to something else, or write something using the same game rules, without necessarily violating copyright law. It has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
The entirety of Dungeons and Dragons is ripped off from Tolkien, and you mean to tell me WOTC gets the copyright?
WotC has the copyright on their expression of things like elves, etc. Not on elves generally.
WotC has the copyright on their expression of things like elves, etc. Not on elves generally.
Yes, but that copyright basically extends as far as the exact words or extremely similar words used to describe elves. If you want to talk exact words, the estate of Lewis Carrol should sue over vorpal swords. (Well, the poem isn't under copyright anymore, actually. The point, however, is that WotC are would be total hypocrites to assert intellectual priority about the content of DnD.)
Yes, but that copyright basically extends as far as the exact words or extremely similar words used to describe elves. If you want to talk exact words, the estate of Lewis Carrol should sue over vorpal swords. (Well, the poem isn't under copyright anymore, actually. The point, however, is that WotC are would be total hypocrites to assert intellectual priority about the content of DnD.)
No.
Yes, a classic strategy of people with lots of money is to sue people with little money into submission. Why the hell would I want to subject myself and the tax payers to some corporate legal abuse?
IF...and this is only IF anyone here belives that WotC is in the wrong and Can't own the IP of D&D and as such force you to sign the GSL or not make a source book... my challange stands...Money...Mouth... and then when you get sued, if you are right you will win.
OR as the above quite says (it's inbetween the lines) you will lose because you were WRONG.
What I belive what you belive what I post what anyone posts is meaningless...the law has the final say. So if you think they don't have the right...prove it. If on the other hand you know you can not win...then they have the right...
This is how I perceive your cries of "prove it." The fact that they believe that they can walk away from it doesn't mean that it wouldn't cost them too much money, time, and energy to just prove a point on an internet forum. (And that is if they "win", if they lose then they lose considerably more.)
I may believe that I would survive jumping off a second floor balcony. That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea, nor do I think I need to jump off to prove it.
This is how I perceive your cries of "prove it." The fact that they believe that they can walk away from it doesn't mean that it wouldn't cost them too much money, time, and energy to just prove a point on an internet forum. (And that is if they "win", if they lose then they lose considerably more.)
thats funny becuse everytime some one says WotC CAN'T do something...that they are doing (GSL) I wonder were this idea comes from...my version of your anology is a sign telling people not to jump off a bridge 300ft high without a bungie cord..and offering said bungie cord for a fee. Then someone saying "That is BS I can jump off that bridge without a cord and make it" I would tell them the same "Put up then...do it" (Inless they were a child or mentaly ill I don't realy want some one to jump... or for that matter to get sued to prove a point...).
I don't want to see you get hurt or lose money...I want to make my point...that you even know better...you know jumping off the bridge...or doing a D&D book without WotC promission is going to end badly...so don't pretend it wont.
WotC can and will copyright and trademark their products... they can create new better products and then tell others one or the other...not both. They can legaly make this GSL...and all of the fighting here is mute...
so...if you are saying you can't win the case... and WotC in court would be able to have the GSL upheld maybe we can find a middle ground...
Can we all agree WotC wrote it...and if you don't follow it...you can be sued...and there is not anything you can do to stop it...
IF...and this is only IF anyone here belives that WotC is in the wrong and Can't own the IP of D&D and as such force you to sign the GSL or not make a source book... my challange stands...Money...Mouth... and then when you get sued, if you are right you will win.
OR as the above quite says (it's inbetween the lines) you will lose because you were WRONG.
What I belive what you belive what I post what anyone posts is meaningless...the law has the final say. So if you think they don't have the right...prove it. If on the other hand you know you can not win...then they have the right...
Settle down.
You seem to imply that might makes right: whatever suit I can't win, perhaps because I don't have enough money to hire a lawyer, is a suit that I rightly wouldn't win. You could think that's what justice involves, but if you were a paladin, your deity would disown you for it.
The entirety of Dungeons and Dragons is ripped off from Tolkien, and you mean to tell me WOTC gets the copyright?
It is not.
If you had read any pre-modern fantasy other than Tolkien that would be blatantly obvious.
That being said, as for your original post:
And?
What do you the OGL was?
What do you think TSR's deal with Role-Aids was?
Of course people can put out compatible product as long as they avoid any copyrighted material or trademarks. Yes, WotC can sue them the way TSR sued certain people. And if those people do not have enough reserves they will have to roll over for WotC. If not, WotC will have to eat the court costs. And likely try to make an ex post facto license arrangement with the company to "acknowledge" the rights to all of the material even thought that does not actually have to.
Second verse, almost the same as the first; a little bit longer, and to many quite a bit worse.
The OGL was, among other things, a tradeoff of extra access in exchange for recognition of rights.
The GSL is trying to get the same recognition, with an extra bonus, but with heavier restrictions.
Overall, it is a whole bunch of big whoop, and people should have recognized the OGL for what it was a long time ago just as much as people who tout the GSL as being "not any worse than other IP licenses" need to recognize that it is going to be compared to the OGL and not and theoretical other license.
Settle down.
You seem to imply that might makes right: whatever suit I can't win, perhaps because I don't have enough money to hire a lawyer, is a suit that I rightly wouldn't win. You could think that's what justice involves, but if you were a paladin, your deity would disown you for it.
yes...I feel if you can not win in a court of law then you are wrong...not becuse justice is perfect...but becuse we are discusing LEGAL rights. and what is legal basicly comes down to the courts...now moral or ethical is diffrent...but I am not argueing eaither I am argueing they have the right to do what they did...and to prove it no court in the land will overturn it.
oh and I am a 4e paliden...of an unaligned god...they let me keep my powers ;)
yes...I feel if you can not win in a court of law then you are wrong...not becuse justice is perfect...but becuse we are discusing LEGAL rights. and what is legal basicly comes down to the courts...now moral or ethical is diffrent...but I am not argueing eaither I am argueing they have the right to do what they did...and to prove it no court in the land will overturn it.
oh and I am a 4e paliden...of an unaligned god...they let me keep my powers ;)
My legeal rights are a matter of what the law is. The role of the courts is not to decide what my rights are, except in the VERY EXCEPTIONAL cases when the courts are setting prescedents rather than using them. My rights are decided by what the laws are, which in turn is decided by legislatures (mostly, there are a few other ways like direct democracy and executive orders, by those are far more limited in purvue and use.) The role of the judicial system is to decide when and how the law has been violated. An unfortunate fact of our legal system is that it is pretty expensive to participate in the case of civil suits that aren't in small claims courts. Lawyers, especially good ones, cost a lot of money. One consequence is that even though I have a legal right, it may be exceptionally difficult to represent them in court, and often more expensive to do so than simply to accept the consequences of the suit.
You seem to suggest that imperfection in the courts has to do with their inability to uphold moral claims that i have against others. But that's not where the imperfection of our legal system lies: it lies in the fact that as a decision making system, it can end up making a decision that is contrary to the law. The law never says "You go to jail when there is sufficient reason to convict you of murder" it says "You go to jail when you murder." It's a mistake to think that the laws says the former just becuase, as a matter of practice, you go to jail because the results of a decision by a judge or jury found that you did something, and that doesn't always correspond perfectly with what you did. We digress a long way from DnD and the GSL at this point.
Just a bunch of whiny overprivileged kids complaining that WotC took their toys away.
"Hey guys, we think that this whole thing about you using our IP to create incompatible competing material went a bit too far, so how about you collaborate with us by making material that plays well with our own or you just create your own game instead?"
"Fascist corporate swine!"
It is not.
If you had read any pre-modern fantasy other than Tolkien that would be blatantly obvious.
That being said, as for your original post:
And?
What do you the OGL was?
What do you think TSR's deal with Role-Aids was?
Of course people can put out compatible product as long as they avoid any copyrighted material or trademarks. Yes, WotC can sue them the way TSR sued certain people. And if those people do not have enough reserves they will have to roll over for WotC. If not, WotC will have to eat the court costs. And likely try to make an ex post facto license arrangement with the company to "acknowledge" the rights to all of the material even thought that does not actually have to.
Second verse, almost the same as the first; a little bit longer, and to many quite a bit worse.
The OGL was, among other things, a tradeoff of extra access in exchange for recognition of rights.
The GSL is trying to get the same recognition, with an extra bonus, but with heavier restrictions.
Overall, it is a whole bunch of big whoop, and people should have recognized the OGL for what it was a long time ago just as much as people who tout the GSL as being "not any worse than other IP licenses" need to recognize that it is going to be compared to the OGL and not and theoretical other license.
I am sorry but your wrong about trademarks in gaming Samwise.
Way back when when Wotc was small company (before being bought by hasbro and before Magic) the first product it ever made was something called The Primal Order.
It was "multisetting" mostly fluff book designed to be used in any number of the systems and had conversion guides to many of the games at the time.
You know what happened?
Palladium sued WoTC over it.
a link to a history of what happened is here
http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml
Though the case never went to trial and settled out of court it was clear that Palladium could have won. The end result was that WotC could never reference a Palladium game even indirectly ever again.
In short Wizards of The Coast got sued for doing exactally what you suggested and put out a "compatible" product without permission and paid dearly for it indeed it nearly put them out of buisness.
It is not.
If you had read any pre-modern fantasy other than Tolkien that would be blatantly obvious.
That being said, as for your original post:
And?
What do you the OGL was?
What do you think TSR's deal with Role-Aids was?
Of course people can put out compatible product as long as they avoid any copyrighted material or trademarks. Yes, WotC can sue them the way TSR sued certain people. And if those people do not have enough reserves they will have to roll over for WotC. If not, WotC will have to eat the court costs. And likely try to make an ex post facto license arrangement with the company to "acknowledge" the rights to all of the material even thought that does not actually have to.
Second verse, almost the same as the first; a little bit longer, and to many quite a bit worse.
The OGL was, among other things, a tradeoff of extra access in exchange for recognition of rights.
The GSL is trying to get the same recognition, with an extra bonus, but with heavier restrictions.
Overall, it is a whole bunch of big whoop, and people should have recognized the OGL for what it was a long time ago just as much as people who tout the GSL as being "not any worse than other IP licenses" need to recognize that it is going to be compared to the OGL and not and theoretical other license.
Your aware that the Tolkiens threatened to sue TSR and that caused several changes to made to DnD? (halflings used to be called hobbits in DnD)
The Lovecraft family also threatened to sue TSR and had the cthulhu mythos removed from later printings of Deities and Demigods
You seem to suggest that imperfection in the courts has to do with their inability to uphold moral claims that i have against others. But that's not where the imperfection of our legal system lies: it lies in the fact that as a decision making system, it can end up making a decision that is contrary to the law. The law never says "You go to jail when there is sufficient reason to convict you of murder" it says "You go to jail when you murder." It's a mistake to think that the laws says the former just becuase, as a matter of practice, you go to jail because the results of a decision by a judge or jury found that you did something, and that doesn't always correspond perfectly with what you did. We digress a long way from DnD and the GSL at this point.
Ok...I give up now you are going WAY out there just to argue...the law says you go to jail if the state can prove BEYOND A RESNOBLE DOUBT...So lets get back to the case at hand...can you write a 4e book without the GSL and still be in buisness...
survey says NO
why is that
Survey says LEGAL ACTION
so...
WotC can and will copyright and trademark their products... they can create new better products and then tell others one or the other...not both. They can legaly make this GSL...and all of the fighting here is mute...
so...if you are saying you can't win the case... and WotC in court would be able to have the GSL upheld maybe we can find a middle ground...
Can we all agree WotC wrote it...and if you don't follow it...you can be sued...and there is not anything you can do to stop it...
Ok...I give up now you are going WAY out there just to argue...the law says you go to jail if the state can prove BEYOND A RESNOBLE DOUBT...So lets get back to the case at hand...can you write a 4e book without the GSL and still be in buisness...
survey says NO
why is that
Survey says LEGAL ACTION
so...
Actually, I'm going out there to correct you about the law. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an evidential standard, not what the law says you go to jail for. You go to jail for commiting a crime, the courts determine whether a crime has been committed and they employ the reasonable doubt standard in making a determination. The courts can make a mistake and send you to jail for committing a crime, but it is not the determination of the court of which you are accused...
Nevermind. The point is excessively subtle for present purposes, though I encourage everyone to think about it.
Your aware that the Tolkiens threatened to sue TSR and that caused several changes to made to DnD? (halflings used to be called hobbits in DnD)
The Lovecraft family also threatened to sue TSR and had the cthulhu mythos removed from later printings of Deities and Demigods
But those were specific instances of terminology or IP being used inappropriately. They were not proof that the entire game was ripped off from either source.
For example, it's well known that D&D's magic system is based off of the "Vancian" system of magic. That is to say, the "fire and forget" style of magic user spells was a concept used in Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels. I don't recall Gandalf having to rest and re-memorize his spells every morning. I also don't recall Jack Vance trying to sue the hell out of Gygax & co. back in the early days.
The ideas and concepts behind D&D came from a vast array of sources in fantasy and science fiction. To say that the game is a complete ripoff of Tolkein is to show a lack of knowledge of the history of the game and of the fantasy genre in general.
But those were specific instances of terminology or IP being used inappropriately. They were not proof that the entire game was ripped off from either source.
For example, it's well known that D&D's magic system is based off of the "Vancian" system of magic. That is to say, the "fire and forget" style of magic user spells was a concept used in Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels. I don't recall Gandalf having to rest and re-memorize his spells every morning. I also don't recall Jack Vance trying to sue the hell out of Gygax & co. back in the early days.
The ideas and concepts behind D&D came from a vast array of sources in fantasy and science fiction. To say that the game is a complete ripoff of Tolkein is to show a lack of knowledge of the history of the game and of the fantasy genre in general.
The point was that wasnt how the Tolkiens themselves viewed it.
Chris Tolkien thought that DnD was enough of a Lord of the Rings rip off to sue over it. He pretty much viewed the entire game as a JRR Tolkien rip off.
I grant others may veiw it diffently but thats how Chris Tolkien saw DnD.
Of course I could be wrong.
I still hold that it's kooky to say D&D is a "total ripoff" of Tolkein.
No, he thought that elements of LotR were taken without permission. Hobbits, Ents, and I think a couple of other things were far too similar for Chris Tolkein, but I don't think he ever believed that Gygax and Arneson made Lord of the Rings and just gave it a different name.
Of course I could be wrong.
I still hold that it's kooky to say D&D is a "total ripoff" of Tolkein.
Its kinda a murky definition here. I am not saying that Chris thought DnD was a "total rip off" as in the creators copied everything verbetim from the novels and turned it into a game.
Just that he thought DnD plagiarised JRR's work to a great extent.
Plagaism is hard to define sometimes.. I can write a book thats very similar to another authors yet still have many diffrences and it can still be considered a "rip off" of that authors work.
It usually takes long legal battles to resolve such issues.
Anyway Chris was threating to sue over the entire ruleset not just a few minor things.
Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs and such were removed as part of a settlement between TSR and Tolkiens Estate. That is TSR and the Estate came to a mutual agreement that if TSR stopped using some of the Estates IP then the Estate would not sue and the whole matter would be dropped.
If no such agreement was made then Chris would have agrued in court that most of what made up DnD (again not every single part of the ruleset but most of it) was a blatant Tolkien rip off.
It wasnt just the use of a few terms that was the problem but the whole game.
Its kinda a murky definition here. I am not saying that Chris thought DnD was a "total rip off" as in the creators copied everything verbetim from the novels and turned it into a game.
Just that he thought DnD plagiarised JRR's work to a great extent.
I didn't mean Chris Tolkein thought it was a total ripoff, I was referring to Philosofool's comment that the game was a total rip.
Anyway Chris was threating to sue over the entire ruleset not just a few minor things.
Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs and such were removed as part of a settlement between TSR and Tolkiens Estate. That is TSR and the Estate came to a mutual agreement that if TSR stopped using some of the Estates IP then the Estate would not sue and the whole matter would be dropped.
If no such agreement was made then Chris would have agrued in court that most of what made up DnD (again not every single part of the ruleset but most of it) was a blatant Tolkien rip off.
It wasnt just the use of a few terms that was the problem but the whole game.
Well I'm not going to argue the point either way, as I've read up a little on the estate's opinion and, quite frankly, we're going off on a tangent.
Let's just be thankful that they came to an amenable compromise and we still have this great game!
I am sorry but your wrong about trademarks in gaming Samwise.
Way back when when Wotc was small company (before being bought by hasbro and before Magic) the first product it ever made was something called The Primal Order.
It was "multisetting" mostly fluff book designed to be used in any number of the systems and had conversion guides to many of the games at the time.
You know what happened?
Palladium sued WoTC over it.
a link to a history of what happened is here
http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory1.phtml
Though the case never went to trial and settled out of court it was clear that Palladium could have won. The end result was that WotC could never reference a Palladium game even indirectly ever again.
In short Wizards of The Coast got sued for doing exactally what you suggested and put out a "compatible" product without permission and paid dearly for it indeed it nearly put them out of buisness.
That they sued is not the key fact there.
That they did not win, and that WotC did not actually admit guilt, is.
Again, if you want a better example, look at TSR vs. Role-Aids. That resulted in TSR "granting" Role-Aids a license to say their product was compatible.
Also be aware of the differences there, as WotC provided conversions to multiple systems, and did not just produce a product that was generally compatible with another system.
Your aware that the Tolkiens threatened to sue TSR and that caused several changes to made to DnD? (halflings used to be called hobbits in DnD)
And you are aware that Christopher Tolkien did so because TSR was attempting to claim exclusive rights to things such as orcs, never mind using hobbits and ents, right?
If not, then I suggest you consider the differences between making a compatible product and attempting to trademark names that appear in someone else's copyrighted product.
The Lovecraft family also threatened to sue TSR and had the cthulhu mythos removed from later printings of Deities and Demigods
Not exactly. The holder of Lovecraft's copyright is not his family but the publisher of one his contemporaries. (And even their rights are more than a bit suspect because of copyright law.)
The people who sent the message to TSR were Chaosium. They did so because they held an actual license to produce roleplaying material based on Lovecraft's works, making the use by TSR a violation. It was initially resolved by Gary Gygax adding an acknowledgement to the book of Chaosium. That was rejected by the Blumes, and so the Mythos section, as well as the Melnibonean section, were removed from later printings.
The issue there is whether material from books can be casually used, particularly when the copyright holder is active and even moreso when a license for the property exists.
You want to write a new definition of Stealth and put it on your website? Do it. I mean, we haven't seen the supposedly on-the-horizon fansite guidelines yet, but no one's gonna sue you, that's for sure. Now, if you publish a book (or PDF) use the logo covered by the GSL (and actively claim D&D compatibility) and rewrite Stealth, you might get sued since you violated a piece of the contract you signed. A person can give up any and all rights under a contract and that's what the GSL is – a contract. If you aren't publishing, it has NO EFFECT ON YOU WHATSOEVER...
If you are publishing, well, it has its possible pit-traps, but all-in-all it is a fairly lenient and open-ended licensing agreement. Much less restrictive and scary than, say, the one that WotC must have with Lucasfilm...
Instead I find the same old legal arguments. Ah well, I guess crunk means something different down here in the south.
Yes, but you can put a registered trademark on the name.... there are laws out there other than copyright laws that protect companies from hacks stealing their ideas.
Monopoly is a very popular game, and has been for years.... you don't see any other company making and selling a game with the same name and/or the same rules... ever wonder why noone else tries to get a piece of that action?
Actually, people have. Ralph Anspach published the "Anti-Monopoly" game in the seventies with very similar rules, look and feel. Parker Brothers sued, and Anspach won by challenging the legitimacy of Parker Brothers' ownership. Anti-Monopoly has sold millions of copies and remains in print.
Since that victory in 1982, there have been a host of variant games published by others, such as "Ghettopoly", "Casinopoly", etc. BoardGameGeek has a list of unofficial variants.
I would recommend not using using a very close trademark like "Anti-Monopoly" versus "Monopoly", but if you are more circumspect then I think victories such as these have established the principles fairly well.
In short Wizards of The Coast got sued for doing exactally what you suggested and put out a "compatible" product without permission and paid dearly for it indeed it nearly put them out of buisness.
If only Palladium had of taken it all the way then we wouldn't have to worry about this GSL.
If only Palladium had of taken it all the way then we wouldn't have to worry about this GSL.
Yeah, and D&D would have gone the way of the dodo.
Yeah, and D&D would have gone the way of the dodo.
Well, for many people, it already has.
The GSL doesn't take away any rights that potential publishers had before the GSL. It doesn't even take away the OGL. If publishers don't want to accept the stipulations of the GSL as that have to do is not agree to the GSL.
The GSL doesn't try to copyright anything. Copyrighting in a separate legal process that, due to the Berne Convention, is done when any ever the material is "fixed" (published, recorded, etc). Copyrights can be registered for public record, but registering is not a condition of copyright protection.
As a side note: The owner of Palladium Books might not be the best example of what legal actions a person could expect from any company other than Palladium.
If only Palladium had of taken it all the way then we wouldn't have to worry about this GSL.
Actually, probably not. If they had actually gone to court, chances are that Palladium would have 'won' the legal battle (since WotC DID use their product name explicitly), but would have only been allowed provable damages (since at no time did WotC claim that they WERE a Palladium product). Palladium would have won a very hollow victory.
As it is.. well, look at where WotC and Palladium are now, shall we?
I think what the Palladium, Tolkien, and Lovecraft examples show is that those types of actions can and do occur without a GSL.
These examples really reinforce the notion that the GSL is a good thing. The GSL spells out what is allowed and it's free. For a designer who doesn't want to come up with a whole new game system, it's a lot better to have a clearly defined set of parameters than a huge gray area. The parameters do make it unwise to base one's entire livelihood on making 4e products, but that doesn't mean it's entirely foolish to do so. It just means you shouldn't take out another mortgage on your house, liquidate your stocks and the kids' college fund, and cease any other economic activities all to support your new career as a licensed designer of 4e supplements.
I am without a doubt quite let down and very disappointed, and I will now return to my goblet of crunk juice while searching for threads that do not lie to me about their hilarity... For shame gentlemen.
This would allow to make a compatible product if you do
a) not claim to be compatible
b) are not making any references to the rulebooks
Of course you can try to make a clone of the game.
But you should make sure that you do not violate any IP.
(So no Mordenkainens Magnificient Mansion or the like)
But luckily a lot of the IP was given out under the Open game license, so there is only the mechanical side of the issue.
Games like Labyrinth Lord (Clone of the original Dungeons and Dragons)
and OSRIC (Clone of AD&D) show that it is possible to do so, without getting sued into bankruptcy.
But the thing is, you are better off publishing an original system as you can't advertise with compatibility and so nobody will know.
Okay, it is true that american copyright doesn't allow to copyright the rules of a game.
This would allow to make a compatible product if you do
a) not claim to be compatible
b) are not making any references to the rulebooks
This is completely false.
I can't emphasize enough that anyone considering going the non-GSL route should consult with an IP attorney and should under no circumstances proceed on the basis of anything they've read in these forums.
Thats garbage. It will cost a few thousand dollars to make a motion to dismiss a complaint if Wizards sues you for copyright infringement (or trademark or whatever intellectual property law is being invoked). Motions to dismiss are cheap and quick and will resolve the legal issue of whether they have a legal claim.
Despite what pop culture will have you believe the law isn't actually designed by Whiplash Snidelies twirling their waxed mustaches and fat men in three-piece suits devising ways to keep the young and earnest dreamer from making a decent living.
Anybody who seriously expects to be a professional publisher needs to reserve a few thousand dollars for litigation costs. If Wizards sues and they win the motion, then you were wrong. The company declares bankuptc and you walk away.
If Wizards loses the motion then you were right and you can publish willy nilly!
(However, you're wrong. The law doesn't protect rules, but it does protect how those rules are expressed. I agree with Steerpike7. Consult an IP lawyer so he can correct your many many many misunderstandings of intellectual property law and litigation.)
Take a power, for example:
Tide of Iron. Strength v. AC. HIt: 1[W] + STR and push one square.
Is that power a rule? What about the name of it? I'd argue that it IS a rule, just like "castling" is a rule in chess. The name defines an action that can be taken in the game, and the text referring to how the action works and the end result are all rules.
The fluff and the presentation (template) are non-rules and are subject to copyright.
But I can see that issue being argued over. Would be a fascinating case, in my view.
Yeah, I think you're right wrecan. Where I can foresee money being spent is if you have to go to trial to determine what are "rules" and what aren't.
That's only if there's a question of fact. But determining what "rules" are is akin to interpreting the language of a contract or a statute, so that's a question of law ripe for a motion to dismiss.
But I can see that issue being argued over. Would be a fascinating case, in my view.
I would love to work on the legal briefs for that argument. in my opinion, the name of the power, "Tide of Iron" is copyrightable as a unique description of the rule. Someone else could make up a game in which a successful use of the power inflicts the damage listed for the weapon used and moves the victim away from the attacker one increment. He could call it "Blowback" or some such, but if he calls it Tide of Iron, it would be one example of a violation. (Whether it's enough alone to warrant a case is doubtful, but if accompanied by several of such violations, then Wizards could probably defeat a motion to dismiss.)
But that's my opinion. A judge would have the final say.
Despite what pop culture will have you believe the law isn't actually designed by Whiplash Snidelies twirling their waxed mustaches and fat men in three-piece suits devising ways to keep the young and earnest dreamer from making a decent living.
I disagree since the US does not recognize the internet as a viable business. If you do not have a B&M store then you have no rights, and even WotC is allowed to deny service because you do not have a physical storefront.
This is exactly they kind of thing that does crush new business, because of the unwillingness to accept that internet sales can generate more profits and lower costs for consumers on select items.
It isn't that EVERYTHING can be sold online, but most can.
The point is they'll win because the law is on their side in the matter.
The community has been spoiled by the OGL, but in the real world, there's not a lot that's done under open licensing. You can't make a product and claim it's Mac compatible without Apple's permission. You don't sell 'Harry Potter Wizzard Scarves' without the go ahead from JK Rowling and you don't try and sell DnD supplements without going through WotC first.
You try it and they have every right in the world to chew on you like a soup bone.
Of course, you could try and make an 'original game', but seeing as there's not incontrovertible evidence, vis-a-vis this thread (and editing won't help, the database logs your edits) as to exactly what the intent was.
Wow, you just saved me a lot of typing. I would say this is one of the more realistic posts on the matter I have seen.
I disagree since the US does not recognize the internet as a viable business.
What are you talking about?!
The internet isn't a business. It's a medium. It's not owned by anybody. That's like saying the US doesn't recognize storefronts as a viable business. It's nonsensical.
I have a feeling that you're trying to insinuate some sort of private political agenda that you've got a bug about. Thats off-topic.
If you do not have a B&M store then you have no rights, and even WotC is allowed to deny service because you do not have a physical storefront.
WotC is allowed to deny you service even if you have a physical storefront. Being a business (like WotC) means you get to decide with whom you do business.
And since my friends who have E-Bay businesses have those businesses incorpoated, and hve to file federal tax forms, and pay business registration fees, I'm pretty sure the US does in fact recognize internet-based business ventures as viable businesses.
Heck, you can buy stock in Google and Amazon, which is as internetty as business ever have been. I'm pretty sure the United States Securities and Exchange Commission considers them to be viable businesses.
For more information go to the United States Patent and Trademark Office website.
They have a Copyright FAQ and a Trademark FAQ.
The Copyright FAQ says:
[indent]No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.... There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration.... Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.[/indent]
With regard to Trademarks, the USPTO states:
[indent]Is registration of my mark required?
No. You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the mark.[/indent]
So, no. Registration is not required.
Also, the process of registration does not establish that the copyright or trademark is legitimate. If I were to plagirize something you wrote and then file it with the USPTO, you could still sue me for copyright infringement. And if you could prove that you had written the copy before I did, you would win and my registration would be considered void.
However, it is a good idea to register your copy and trademarks. It is even a better idea to consult an actual Intellectual Property attorney before relying on the internet for legal advice.
Great links BTW. I love it when people add good stuff to a discussion that helps clarify for everyone a term.
Monopoly is a very popular game, and has been for years.... you don't see any other company making and selling a game with the same name and/or the same rules... ever wonder why noone else tries to get a piece of that action?
Its amusing (to me at least) that you use Monopoly as an example, as Monopoly is probably the most sued over board game in existance (From 1974-1985 AntiMonopoly inc. V General Mills (they owned Parker Brothers at the time) later Hasbro (after they bought Parker Brothers)), it wasn't settled until trademark laws were changed as Charles Darrow (The man PB bought it from) in fact patented a game that was already patented (I forget the name it was patented under Greenlanes or something like that). They (Hasbro, Parker Brothers, General Mills) wound up winning on trademark considerations, and in the 9th circuit appeals on Patent Grounds.
What are you talking about?!
The internet isn't a business. It's a medium.
The internet is big business, but not my point. They do not recognize it as a viable medium. Do some research. Ask yourself why many companies require B&M stores?
Ask yourself why people buy things on the internet quicker then a local store.
Ask yourself why many companies require B&M stores?
Your point is both delusionally wrong and radically off-topic. My comment about "Whiplash Snidelies" was -- in context -- clearly discussing the intellectual property laws and you've decided to try to twist it into some vague allegations of a shadowy government conspiracy to keep down the internet businesses like Google, Amazon and E-Bay.
Let's keep to the topic of IP, okay?
Copyright law does not allow WotC to Copyright the rules of a game; games cannot be copyrighted.
True but misleading. You cannot copyright a game; you can copyright its presentation, art, ect. The PHB, DMG, and MM are entirely protected under copyright laws, despite the "rules" being non-copyrighted.
This is because you cannot copyright ideas, but you can copyright their presentation.
You can't even copy right the name of a game.
No, but you can trademark it. And Dungeons & Dragons is very much trademarked. Note the R with a circle around it next to the logo? Next to the phrases "Player's Handbook", "Dungeon's Master Guide", and "Monster Manual"? Those indicate that not only are they trademarked, but that they're registered with the US trademark office.
However, if I restate the rules of Dungeons and Dragons in my own words, I am allowed to do so and to sell products that use my restatements of their words.
Incorrect. People think this, but it really isn't true, and it isn't true for the same reason that you cannot reword the entirety of Harry Potter, call it Larry Hotter, and sell it.
This is because this is what is known as a "derivative work".
While you cannot copyright the rules to a game, it is very difficult to restate them for sale in a non-infringing way.
Not sure about the legalities of it but their is/was an Harry Potter Lexicon that wasn't given the 'Rowling Stamp of Approval' and she sued for it. Where the lawsuit is currently relation to it allowing or not the publishing of the book I don't know.
This is because you are allowed to write a book about a subject (even a book like Harry Potter). This is why Cliff's Notes are legal. Basically, you can write something ABOUT another work, as long as you aren't duplicating the work itself. You can even use small excerpts for comment, critique, or criticism, or to illustrate a point about the work.
JK Rowling will lose the lawsuit, both for that reason and the fact that it has existed FOR YEARS with her blessing. And yes, it was rather given the Rowling Stamp of Approval; she even stated she used it sometimes to keep track of what she'd written previously, thus making absolutely certain that she is not going to win this court case.
If the RIAA is allowed to consider music being played on the radio as "a form of piracy," then WotC can make up all kinds of licenses for their games.
This is entirely legitimate. Obviously you don't have much comprehension of copyright law if you think it is otherwise.
While most people are happy for their music to be played on the radio, if they don't give you their permission, you're using their IP to make money illegally, or even just distributing it freely, thus preventing THEM from making money on it.
Many people do not understand this basic fact.
I'm not a HP fan, I got people around that are so I get to hear words from the movies before I'm able to run far enough away, but some of the terms those people use seem like IP for Rowling (they would need to be used to be defined in the Lexicon) I would think?
It falls under fair use. You're allowed to talk about, criticize, review, ect. anything. As the book is a reference to the world of Harry Potter, it falls under fair use, as it is ABOUT the world of Harry Potter and the books written about it. This is the same reason that movie critics can write criticism of movies.
You can't patent die rolling, use of maps, markers on maps, target number systems (like DC), fighters, elves or longswords. There's very little left for WotC to "own" except a set of expressions. I'm offened that WotC seems to be reserving the right to sue me if I re-write a description of stealth and put it on my website.
Except of course they aren't patenting, they're copyrighting their presentation of the game.
I can use elves, longswords, ect. all I want. It is difficult for me to reproduce their rules, however, without being a derivative work. If I just happened to use the tieflings and Dragonborn, but made up my own history for them, there's absolutely nothing WotC could do about it. Not that they invented THOSE either, but still.
Very little in D&D is not usable from a literary standpoint, but describing their rules is difficult to do. A few things (Illithids, for instance) ARE WotC IP, and if I was to use something which was obviously an Illithid, I MIGHT be sueable. It would probably still be very difficult though, as I'd just claim "Its just cthulu-esque beings" (Cthulu is in the public domain, hence how so much stuff using him has popped up).
Yes, but that copyright basically extends as far as the exact words or extremely similar words used to describe elves. If you want to talk exact words, the estate of Lewis Carrol should sue over vorpal swords. (Well, the poem isn't under copyright anymore, actually. The point, however, is that WotC are would be total hypocrites to assert intellectual priority about the content of DnD.)
The IP is A) their take on it and B) their rules. It isn't hypocritical at all; ALL works, EVER, are heavily dependent on the public domain. Tolkien included.
It has been said that the last truly original idea was Flatworld. I disagree, but it is funny.
What I find particularly funny about this whole debate is that nobody actually expects, say, White Wolf to allow you to do even half as much with their IP as what WotC allows you under the GSL. Nobody is complaining to White Wolf though.
Just a bunch of whiny overprivileged kids complaining that WotC took their toys away.
"Hey guys, we think that this whole thing about you using our IP to create incompatible competing material went a bit too far, so how about you collaborate with us by making material that plays well with our own or you just create your own game instead?"
"Fascist corporate swine!"
Thieves are often hypocrites. You can tell they don't produce their own IP, so they don't have any respect for it.
The Lovecraft family also threatened to sue TSR and had the cthulhu mythos removed from later printings of Deities and Demigods
Interestingly, Cthulu is no longer copyrighted. The problem with the Cthulu "mythos" is that there are actually a number of writers who wrote books about Cthulu mythos beings, and many of THOSE still ARE under copyright protection.
For example, it's well known that D&D's magic system is based off of the "Vancian" system of magic. That is to say, the "fire and forget" style of magic user spells was a concept used in Jack Vance's Dying Earth novels. I don't recall Gandalf having to rest and re-memorize his spells every morning. I also don't recall Jack Vance trying to sue the hell out of Gygax & co. back in the early days.
That's because its impossible to do. The IDEA of Vancian magic is impossible to own. The presentation is. Presenting it as game rules versus writing it in a novel are pretty different presentations.
If no such agreement was made then Chris would have agrued in court that most of what made up DnD (again not every single part of the ruleset but most of it) was a blatant Tolkien rip off.
The problem is that most of what TOLKIEN used was not original to Tolkien; many people mistakenly believe it was, but Tolkien borrowed very heavily from real world mythology, particularly Norse mythology, to create his world.
A lot of the stuff (Hobbits, Ents, ect.) were arguably trademarks of Tolkien because he made up the words and used them in a specific manner. Ambulatory trees and short people, however, are not owned by Tolkien. Their presentation of some things was also too close to LotR.
The game mechanics were clearly completely distinct.
If only Palladium had of taken it all the way then we wouldn't have to worry about this GSL.
SOMEONE would have bought up TSR. If not WotC, then someone else. And maybe Garfield would have gone to some other company instead, and that company would own D&D. Indeed, its fairly likely that it would, given the rediculous success of MTG.
While you cannot copyright the rules to a game, it is very difficult to restate them for sale in a non-infringing way.
I disagree with this. The fact that rules are not subject to copyright protection makes it easier to restate them in a non-infringing way. Further, since rules are not subject to protection, if you can show that the way they are stated in the primary source is one of but a few or limited ways of stating them, you're likely going to have even MORE leeway in terms of how you state the rules, not less.
It isn't reasonable to expect that a company could take something that is not protectable by copyright, and then do an end-run around that law by tying up the few ways of expressing the material. Instead, the person trying to make an alternative statement of those rules is going to have broad latitude in how they do it.
That they sued is not the key fact there.
That they did not win, and that WotC did not actually admit guilt, is.
Again, if you want a better example, look at TSR vs. Role-Aids. That resulted in TSR "granting" Role-Aids a license to say their product was compatible.
Also be aware of the differences there, as WotC provided conversions to multiple systems, and did not just produce a product that was generally compatible with another system.
And you are aware that Christopher Tolkien did so because TSR was attempting to claim exclusive rights to things such as orcs, never mind using hobbits and ents, right?
If not, then I suggest you consider the differences between making a compatible product and attempting to trademark names that appear in someone else's copyrighted product.
Not exactly. The holder of Lovecraft's copyright is not his family but the publisher of one his contemporaries. (And even their rights are more than a bit suspect because of copyright law.)
The people who sent the message to TSR were Chaosium. They did so because they held an actual license to produce roleplaying material based on Lovecraft's works, making the use by TSR a violation. It was initially resolved by Gary Gygax adding an acknowledgement to the book of Chaosium. That was rejected by the Blumes, and so the Mythos section, as well as the Melnibonean section, were removed from later printings.
The issue there is whether material from books can be casually used, particularly when the copyright holder is active and even moreso when a license for the property exists.
Pallidum did win its suit against WotC and d Wotc did indeed admit wrong doing.
The case was settled out of courtt and Wotc had to pay Palladium damages and argeed to never mention ever being compatible with a Pallidum product again. That is a clear legal victory for Palladium.
Settled out of court does'nt mean Palladium lost its case in fact it means just the oppisite.
If a case is settled out of court in your favorthen you in fact won your case against whoever your suing. A trial is not always needed to win a lawsuit. Getting a settlement is the same as winning really.
That Wotc paid Palladium money and agreed to never mention their games is an admission of some guilt on Wotc's part.
Your also misunderstanding standing how legal settlements work.
Settlements are finalised in US law by court orders. If you fail to meet the terms of the settlement you are in contempt of court. Settlements are as legally binding as decisions.
Wotc is prohibited by law from ever mentioning being compatible with a Palladium product again. Thats what a court order says. Its the same end result that would have occurred if the whole thing had gone to trial and the case was decided in Palladium's favor.
Your also misunderstanding standing how legal settlements work.
Settlements are finalised in US law by court orders. If you fail to meet the terms of the settlement you are in contempt of court. Settlements are as legally binding as decisions.
Wotc is prohibited by law from ever mentioning being compatible with a Palladium product again. Thats what a court order says. Its the same end result that would have occurred if the whole thing had gone to trial and the case was decided in Palladium's favor.
If the case was settled out of court then I doubt a court order exists. All that would exist is an independent contract between WotC and Palladium. No precedent was established, and no court ruling was made. It is because no precedent is established that people settle out of court. That way they avoid having a previous loss used against them in the future.
This also means they would not be in contempt of court for violating the settlement terms, only in violation of the contract, a completely different offense. Yet another reason to settle the case out of court rather than go through a trial and face a judgement.
You will note these elements in the TSR-Mayfair case over the Role-Aids supplements. Since the previous suit was settled rather than ruled on, the court had to first rule on a number of issues relating to whether the claim as a whole was legitimate, then it could rule on remedies for various violations.
Also, WotC cannot be prohibited by law from saying a product is compatible with a Palladium game. No such law would be constitutional. You are confusing liable under a contract with an actual law.
So no, it is very much not the same end result as if they had gone to trial and a verdict reached.
If the case was settled out of court then I doubt a court order exists. All that would exist is an independent contract between WotC and Palladium. No precedent was established, and no court ruling was made. It is because no precedent is established that people settle out of court. That way they avoid having a previous loss used against them in the future.
This also means they would not be in contempt of court for violating the settlement terms, only in violation of the contract, a completely different offense. Yet another reason to settle the case out of court rather than go through a trial and face a judgement.
You will note these elements in the TSR-Mayfair case over the Role-Aids supplements. Since the previous suit was settled rather than ruled on, the court had to first rule on a number of issues relating to whether the claim as a whole was legitimate, then it could rule on remedies for various violations.
Also, WotC cannot be prohibited by law from saying a product is compatible with a Palladium game. No such law would be constitutional. You are confusing liable under a contract with an actual law.
So no, it is very much not the same end result as if they had gone to trial and a verdict reached.
ummm....hmmmm....how to say this without being overly negative....? Samwise, you're wrong. Settling a case out of court is done through mediation and negotiation. Lawyers are involved, but no judge during this initial stage. However, settlement agreements, once reached are then entered into the court for final approval. There have been cases where judges have looked at a settlement and rejected it, even if both parties agreed, due to statute or because they felt one party was unfairly taking advantage of another, and the spirit of the settlement was ill-intentioned. Settlements have been overturned, as court has signed off and an appeals court later adjudicates that previous court did not have jurisdiction. There also have been cases where courts have ordered that one company that did damage to another no longer refer to them in any product or marketing. I'm sorry, but your entire statement is full of falsehoods.
If the case was settled out of court then I doubt a court order exists. All that would exist is an independent contract between WotC and Palladium. No precedent was established, and no court ruling was made. It is because no precedent is established that people settle out of court. That way they avoid having a previous loss used against them in the future.
This also means they would not be in contempt of court for violating the settlement terms, only in violation of the contract, a completely different offense. Yet another reason to settle the case out of court rather than go
through a trial and face a judgement.
You will note these elements in the TSR-Mayfair case over the Role-Aidssupplements. Since the previous suit was settled rather than ruled on, the court had to first rule on a number of issues relating to whether the claim as a whole was legitimate, then it could rule on remedies for various violations.
Also, WotC cannot be prohibited by law from saying a product is compatible with a Palladium game. No such law would be constitutional. You are confusing liable under a contract with an actual law.
So no, it is very much not the same end result as if they had gone to trial and a verdict reached.
Ok we are seeing the issue from two diffrent perspectives.
First
TSR Vrs Mayfair isnt a valid example here because it deals wth diffrent IP issues. TSR gave Mayfair permission to make 2e products and then unfairly revoked that permission.
OK Wotc entered into a contract (settlement) with Palladium not to mention being compatible with their system. How is that not being prohibited by law (contract law) from doing so? Being liable under contract law as you put it is still being legally bound not to do it. Maybe it isnt as strong as a jail sentence but its still a pretty severe legal penalty.
Unconstitutional? Wouldnt Non-Disclousure agreements be a violation then?
Settlements dont set precedents?
Consider the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement the largest settlement in US history.
How did that not create legal precedents?
The fact of the matter is we come from two diffrent viewpoints.
For me being forced to pay cash to and ending the production of a product line for fear of further suits by other companies is a clear legal loss.
A loss is a loss for me it really doesnt matter to me how it comes about whether its threw s trial or by being forced to settlle.
ummm....hmmmm....how to say this without being overly negative....? Samwise, you're wrong. Settling a case out of court is done through mediation and negotiation. Lawyers are involved, but no judge during this initial stage. However, settlement agreements, once reached are then entered into the court for final approval. There have been cases where judges have looked at a settlement and rejected it, even if both parties agreed, due to statute or because they felt one party was unfairly taking advantage of another, and the spirit of the settlement was ill-intentioned. Settlements have been overturned, as court has signed off and an appeals court later adjudicates that previous court did not have jurisdiction. There also have been cases where courts have ordered that one company that did damage to another no longer refer to them in any product or marketing. I'm sorry, but your entire statement is full of falsehoods.
It depends on the settlement. A case can be fully dismissed by agreement of the parties with the settlement having been reached but not submitted to the court. That way both sides avoid the possibility of the judge rejecting the settlement as you note. Further, getting an arbitrator is actually a separate legal remedy, distinct from private negotiation.
So no, my entire statement is not full of falsehoods, it is full of situational variables, just as much as your statement is not full of falsehoods because two parties could settle a case in another way. That is the problem with making wide sweeping statements about such a thing. "From a certain point of view" everyone can be right and everyone can be wrong. The term used here though was "settling out of court". By the very nature of the phrase, it is "out of court", not "within the jurisdiction of a court", and thus a very different type of settlement.
Ok we are seeing the issue from two diffrent perspectives.
First
TSR Vrs Mayfair isnt a valid example here because it deals wth diffrent IP issues. TSR gave Mayfair permission to make 2e products and then unfairly revoked that permission.
No.
TSR settled with Role-Aids on permission to make AD&D products. Mayfair bought Role-Aids. Mayfair then produced a number of products the TSR claimed breached the settlement agreement with Role-Aids that Mayfair had inherited by purchase. As a result of the claims and counter-claims filed for that, a court then determined whether the initial agreement was legitimate, and which side was in breach, and to what degree.
So in fact it is a quite valid example refuting your claim.
OK Wotc entered into a contract (settlement) with Palladium not to mention being compatible with their system. How is that not being prohibited by law (contract law) from doing so? Being liable under contract law as you put it is still being legally bound not to do it. Maybe it isnt as strong as a jail sentence but its still a pretty severe legal penalty.
It is not prohibited by specific, named law.
It may be liable under contract law. It would require a court case to determine such liability.
Unconstitutional? Wouldnt Non-Disclousure agreements be a violation then?
You said bound by law.
Writing a specific law to address a single company in a single issue is beyond the scope of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, and is most likely a bill of attainder.
Non-disclosure agreements are not a violation as they are a private legal contract.
Settlements dont set precedents?
Settling out of court does not set a precedent.
Consider the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement the largest settlement in US history.
How did that not create legal precedents?
It was settled in court, and thus it set a precedent.
Note the difference between the venues of the settlement.
The fact of the matter is we come from two diffrent viewpoints.
For me being forced to pay cash to and ending the production of a product line for fear of further suits by other companies is a clear legal loss.
A loss is a loss for me it really doesnt matter to me how it comes about whether its threw s trial or by being forced to settlle.
And that is the difference between perception and court trial and judgement.
Whether you perceive something as a loss is irrelevant to whether legal judgement has been rendered. One of the key foundations of the judicial system is that a court is not allowed to rule on an issue not brought before it. As long as an action is stopped before a judgement and the action dismissed, no actual, citable case law is created, and the suit stands as nothing more than a footnote. Nothing has been proven and nothing has been disproven under the law.
I know that is a difficult concept for most people to grasp. Chalk it up to one of the "technicalities" that nobody ever understands that allows criminals to get out, or corporations to evade responsibility. It is still a legal principle, and cannot be casually overlooked because someone has a personal definition that differs.
TSR settled with Role-Aids on permission to make AD&D products. Mayfair bought Role-Aids. Mayfair then produced a number of products the TSR claimed breached the settlement agreement with Role-Aids that Mayfair had inherited by purchase. As a result of the claims and counter-claims filed for that, a court then determined whether the initial agreement was legitimate, and which side was in breach, and to what degree.
So in fact it is a quite valid example refuting your claim.
Mayfair won its case because the judge ruled that Mayfair did in fact have a valid licsence to make DnD products from TSR. That is entirely diffrent from never even bothering to ask Wizards permission in the first place to go ahead and produce 4e stuff.
Unless your making some kinda of the 3.5 OGL applies to 4e agruement here?
But lets drop that for a sec and see the whole story of TSR vrs Mayfair
TSR was not amused and sued for break of contract. TSR actually lost the bulk of its case against Mayfair but legal costs proved ruinous. Mayfair sold itself to TSR which quickly discontinued Mayfair products. Game Designer's Workshop, which saw the TSR lawsuit suck the cash flow out of Mayfair, quickly changed the name of Gary Gygax's new Dangerous Dimensions FRG (compare DD to D&D) to Dangerous Journeys to forestall any kind of similar lawsuit.
correction Mayfair sold back its liscense to TSR to make DnD games.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1673789
Mayfair won the legal battle but it cost them their liscense and it was bought back by TSR.
Not exactally the best example to site if one thinks its ok to go ahead and go without a GSL.
And look what Games Workshop did with Dangerous Dimensions after the Mayfarir suit.
In fact if I was a 3pp what ultimately happened to Mayfair as result of the suit would scare me away from going without a GSL.
It is not prohibited by specific, named law.
It may be liable under contract law. It would require a court case to determine such liability.
This is a semantics debate. Prohibited and Liable are really the same thing here.
My city passed a law prohibiting smoking in bars ( the signs even say Smoking is Prohibited). Does that mean I am suddenly physically unable to perform the act of smoking in these places? No. There is a legal penalty for doing so though (a fine) and thats what keeps people from smoking. Its the fear the penalty that actually stops me from whipping out that cig.
Thats how the law prohibits things by applying penalties for certain actions.
Back to contract law. If I sign a contract with my landlord and agree not to have pets then I am prohibited from having pets in the house I am renting. Contracts terms are really private self contained laws that bind the parties that sign them. They even have penalties for not folllowing the rules (another word for law) written out in the contract in this case Eviction.
WotC is prohibited by terms of the contract it signed with Pallidum to never make a product that is compatible with their products again. They didnt reach a kinda of "gentlemens" agreement and pinky swear never to do it again. They actually signed a legally binding document that holds them to the terms of the contract to never do so again.
And that is the difference between perception and court trial and judgement.
Whether you perceive something as a loss is irrelevant to whether legal judgement has been rendered. One of the key foundations of the judicial system is that a court is not allowed to rule on an issue not brought before it. As long as an action is stopped before a judgement and the action dismissed, no actual, citable case law is created, and the suit stands as nothing more than a footnote. Nothing has been proven and nothing has been disproven under the law.
I know that is a difficult concept for most people to grasp. Chalk it up to one of the "technicalities" that nobody ever understands that allows criminals to get out, or corporations to evade responsibility. It is still a legal principle, and cannot be casually overlooked because someone has a personal definition that differs.
So you dont consider being forced to settle a loss?
The point is this. WOTC's IP lawyers thought that Palladium had a good enough case that it was too risky to go to trial.
Others in the industry at the time thought Palladium might win. Which is why Mike Pondsmith (Talsorian, and GAMA President) came in as a white knight because the whole thing was threating the entire industry.
Read the RPG.net article again it describes the "IP pall" that resulted in the industry after the suit.
Its not as clear cut as you want to make ti.
Mayfair won its case because the judge ruled that Mayfair did in fact have a valid licsence to make DnD products from TSR. That is entirely diffrent from never even bothering to ask Wizards permission in the first place to go ahead and produce 4e stuff.
Which neatly ignores the core of the issue.
But that is OK.
Unless your making some kinda of the 3.5 OGL applies to 4e agruement here?
Not at all. You are missing the point completely.
But lets drop that for a sec and see the whole story of TSR vrs Mayfair
If you like.
Mayfair won the legal battle but it cost them their liscense and it was bought back by TSR.
Why was there a license in the first place?
Remember, all other licenses had been cancelled by then.
Not exactally the best example to site if one thinks its ok to go ahead and go without a GSL.
Actually, that is an example of why it would be bad to ahead with the GSL.
And look what Games Workshop did with Dangerous Dimensions after the Mayfarir suit.
That would be the same Dangerous Journeys that TSR sued Game Designers Workshop over.
Obviously you have no idea how that was resolved.
Essentially TSR claimed that any game Gygax worked on was based on D&D, and thus a violation of IP that TSR owned because that IP had originally been created by Gygax. Unfortunately for TSR, the claim was absurd, and after several years of throwing money away in court, TSR forestalled losing the case by simply buying Dangerous Journeys, destroying all stock, and never using the system again.
You might not want to bring up such a disaster when encouraging WotC to sue anyone and everyone.
In fact if I was a 3pp what ultimately happened to Mayfair as result of the suit would scare me away from going without a GSL.
Given that the Dangerous Journeys fiasco contributed to the collapse of TSR, if I was Hasbro, what ultimately happened to TSR as a result of the suit would scare me away from trying to sue anyone and everyone.
This is a semantics debate. Prohibited and Liable are really the same thing here.
Unfortunately they are not.
Prohibited would mean there is a criminal action possible. Liable means there is a civil action possible.
WotC is prohibited by terms of the contract it signed with Pallidum to never make a product that is compatible with their products again. They didnt reach a kinda of "gentlemens" agreement and pinky swear never to do it again. They actually signed a legally binding document that holds them to the terms of the contract to never do so again.
Unless a court rules that provision unenforceable.
Which is likely moot as I doubt WotC feels any need to challenge it.
So you dont consider being forced to settle a loss?
It would depend on the situation.
The point is this. WOTC's IP lawyers thought that Palladium had a good enough case that it was too risky to go to trial.
Which means they did win by settling. They avoided having an actual judgement entered, establishing court recognition of the principle. That is very much a long term victory in such instances.
Its not as clear cut as you want to make ti.
No, it is not as clear cut as you want to make it.
It is exceptionally more complex, and includes numerous factors you are either unaware of or refuse to consider.
precedent?
And who says I am telling WOTC to sue everyone? I am just pointing out the IP pitfalls of that may occur without having a GSL.
Ok anyway lets examine what happened with publisher of Dangeous Journeys GDW after being sued by TSR
Under why GDW went out of buisness Loren K Wisemen has this in her faq as one of the reasons
A few years before dissolving, GDW had been involved in a lawsuit with TSR, Inc., over Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys game. This lawsuit did not cost GDW a dime (contrary to rumor) — our contract contained a hold harmless clause which meant that someone else picked up the tab if we got sued. What was crippling, however, was all of the staff time involved in depositions, and responding to demands for documentation — this took valuable time away from other things, like design and administration, at a critical time when we could have used that time to create and develop products. We were in the process of recovering from this when some of the other factors hit.
http://www.cgi101.com/~lkw/faq.html#A
So the lawsuit TSR brought against them helps lead to the demise of GDW.
Everyone mentioned so far gets serouisly burned by IP lawsuits, Mayfair, Wizards of the Coast, GDW, even Gygax. In every case so far IP issues have llead to disaster with all the devolpers involved.
The most any one able to win here is a Pyrrhic victory.
And you still think its ok to ahead without a GSL?
TSR won its Dangerous Journeys lawsuit but that doesnt count as a precedent?
Check that again.
TSR bought their way out of the lawsuit, they did not win it.
And who says I am telling WOTC to sue everyone? I am just pointing out the IP pitfalls of that may occur without having a GSL.
No, you are pointing out the pitfalls of what may occur with having a GSL.
So the lawsuit TSR brought against them helps lead to the demise of GDW.
Yes they did. Lawsuits destroy people whether they win or lose.
And you still think its ok to ahead without a GSL?
Yes I do.
The way you are talking, anyone who gets involved with the GSL is going to wind up getting sued. It would be much better to stick with the OGL and avoid the GSL completely.
You ARE the Hole in the Ring!
In short, the reason why the US government doesnt allow systems, methodologies and games to be copyrighted is because many of the systems that are in use by all of the RPGs that the Gaming Industry uses are already in use by the military and to allow a single corporation to totally own a system would put the military and the government at the mercy of the corporations, but more importantly in the hands of private citizens that could legally sue the government for a breach of copyright in those instances.
So to answer the question, by the RAW of the Copyright Laws, WotC and Hasbro can not stop anyone from recreating their system because legally they can not hold a copyright for said system/methodology without violating Copyright Laws.
However, WotC and Hasbro can copyright all of the fluff material/setting material that they have created in house because it is protected under copyright laws. They can Trademark the Dungeons & Dragons name because Trademark law allows for protection of product identification. But the D20 system itself can not be copyrighted.
I must warn anyone that wants to simply take the 4th Edition D20 system and use for their own game without significant rewording, that WotC and Hasbro can attempt to sue you for violating Trademarks and Copyrights. Under the Trademarks they will probably win the case, under the Copyrights for the system, they would likely lose. But the question you have to ask yourself is "do I have millions of dollars to pursue this fight in the courts?" If you do, more power to you and good luck because you will likely win. If you are like the rest of us in America, then you will lose because WotC and Hasbro have more than enough money to tie this case up in the courts for years on end with the intention of waiting you out in regards to your funding for the case...By the end of year one of the case, you would be filing for Bankruptcy.
Anyways, thats my two cents "klink...klink"
TSR was able to produce proof that Gary wrote at least portions of Dangerous Journeys during his time at TSR. And on TSR computer equipment (Namely back-up files from computer harddrives at TSR).
The first challenge to the GSL was put up on June 23, 2008 by Kenzer & Company. The product: Kingdoms of Kalamar.
Please, continue on with the heated debate while we watch if Kenzer & Company is ever sued by Hasbro. More companies are expected to follow in the path set forth by Kenzer & Company, with release dates for 4E compatible material already set without utilizing the GSL.
Ask yourself why people buy things on the internet quicker then a local store.
Because it's too much work having to walk to the store or operate their car. They get all the exercise from typing and mouse-clicking.
Even a 300-lb pen-n-paper gamer get more exercise than one who plays World of Warcraft without leaving the chair. :P
As Dalzig mentioned: http://www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?products_id=625
Kenzer & Co. have NOT signed the GSL. They have NOT talked with WotC over this. They have just put out a 4e version of their world. They have stated on the front cover "For use with Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons(R)".
So far, WotC has been eerily quiet...
PS: Sawmwise is dead on correct so far in this thread.
Kenzer & Co. have NOT signed the GSL. They have NOT talked with WotC over this. They have just put out a 4e version of their world. They have stated on the front cover "For use with Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons(R)".
So far, WotC has been eerily quiet...
That's because they want their lawyers to review the questionable body of work.
If there is evidence of an infringement to their trademark according to the intellectual property law, then they will take action, preferably a private one with Kenzer & Co.
IOW, you need strong evidence before you go accusing someone of violating the civil law.
JK Rowling will lose the lawsuit, both for that reason and the fact that it has existed FOR YEARS with her blessing. And yes, it was rather given the Rowling Stamp of Approval; she even stated she used it sometimes to keep track of what she'd written previously, thus making absolutely certain that she is not going to win this court case.
I quess you know more about IP law than the actual judge in that case because this is what he had to say....
“The fair use people are on one side, and a large company is on the other side. . . . The parties ought to see if there’s not a way to work this out, because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/?s=harry+potter+lawsuit
Now if the presiding jugde who actually has to decide the case says that then i would say the outcome of the trial is far from abolutely certian.
Also notice how he says the law on fair use is "unclear" (and he by the way is a Federal Judge who knows more about the law than most random internet people). Fair use is not as simple as people want to make it out.
Kenzer & Co. have NOT signed the GSL. They have NOT talked with WotC over this. They have just put out a 4e version of their world. They have stated on the front cover "For use with Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons(R)".
So far, WotC has been eerily quiet...
There are several possible reasons for WotC not commenting. Plenty of things are illegal and still don't spawn lawsuits, because lawsuits are not always the best solution. In the case of Kingdoms of Kalamar, Kenzer and Co. probably are technically infringing; however, they are also producing the type of product that WotC actually wants 3PP to come out with.
Given that WotC is working on a revision of the GSL, I doubt we'll see much action before they come out with a revision, at which point I expect them to pressure the various 3PP to sign the GSL.
In the case of Kingdoms of Kalamar, Kenzer and Co. probably are technically infringing; however, they are also producing the type of product that WotC actually wants 3PP to come out with.
I think this is inaccurate. It is likely they are not infringing. And if there's a good case they are, then WotC will have no choice to sue them or to put their own trademark at risk, whether they like the product Kenzer is making or not.
But I think it's pretty well settled in the case law that an indication of compatibility is not necessarily an infringement.
I think this is inaccurate. It is likely they are not infringing. And if there's a good case they are, then WotC will have no choice to sue them or to put their own trademark at risk, whether they like the product Kenzer is making or not.
But I think it's pretty well settled in the case law that an indication of compatibility is not necessarily an infringement.
Whats missing from the all discussion here I think is the fact that its been an unwritten law from almost the inception of the role playing industry that one does not produce supplements for another company's games without the express permission of said company. Several companies even have IP statements to that effect on their websites (Mayfair for one).
Sure it may be be perfectly legal to for Mayfair to make supplements or adventures for White Wolf's Vampire games or GURPS but Mayfair refrains from doing so because theres been sort of a gentlemens agreement between gaming companies to respect one anothers IP.
Some people favor Open Sytems and some favor Closed Sytems and so far the industry has respected those who prefer a closed sytem and has avoided forcing the issue legally (with a few minor hiccups such as Primal Order).
Role Playing games designers consider themselves to be artists to a certian degree and as artists they are often allergic to the very idea idea of any one else messing with their "vison"
Could there be potential negative effects for the entire industry here? After all if Wizards cant keep 4e a "closed" system then what about other games?
Can anyone then start making products for FUDGE, Runequest, Exalted, ect... even if the makers of those games object .?
What would a lawsuit between Kenzer and Wizards do to the industry?
Role Playing games designers consider themselves to be artists to a certian degree and as artists they are often allergic to the very idea idea of any one else messing with their "vison"
They're considered artists as much as authors like JK Rowling. To say less than that would be discriminating.
Whats missing from the all discussion here I think is the fact that its been an unwritten law from almost the inception of the role playing industry that one does not produce supplements for another company's games without the express permission of said company. Several companies even have IP statements to that effect on their websites (Mayfair for one).
It may be an unwritten law, but it has not been from the inception.
Up until the early 80s Dragon magazine routinely carried articles on Traveller, and even a few Squad Leader scenarios. Likewise The General covered more than just Avalon Hill, and White Dwarf routinely included D&D articles.
It was only in the mid 80s that they moved to just being house organs, with articles about other company's products totally excluded. Even that did not stop all of it, as Challenge Magazine had a section dedicated to non-GDW products for a long time.
Yeah, I think you're right wrecan. Where I can foresee money being spent is if you have to go to trial to determine what are "rules" and what aren't. How do you see that playing out?
Take a power, for example:
Tide of Iron. Strength v. AC. HIt: 1[W] + STR and push one square.
Is that power a rule? What about the name of it? I'd argue that it IS a rule, just like "castling" is a rule in chess. The name defines an action that can be taken in the game, and the text referring to how the action works and the end result are all rules.
The fluff and the presentation (template) are non-rules and are subject to copyright.
But I can see that issue being argued over. Would be a fascinating case, in my view.
Then WOTC might get sued by Fantasy Flight.
I agree. What the hell is crunk? And as has been said many times before here and on other forums, just because you can make a 4E-like game system doesn't mean anyone wants to buy it. The D&D brand is a very powerful draw for consumers. (and the D&D name is covered under trademark law, not copyright law.)
So what we are saying here is that the only reason anyone wants to buy 4e is because it has the D&D name attached??? In other words the system is to lame to stand on its own and it must use the D&D label as a crutch??? Hehehe now that is funny... not funny because it isn't true but funny because it is. Hehe hahahahahahahahahah!!!!
Yes, a classic strategy of people with lots of money is to sue people with little money into submission. Why the hell would I want to subject myself and the tax payers to some corporate legal abuse?
Yeah for real... what you want is to get about 5,000 people at the same time to publish pdfs like this and see if they all get sued. Even Wizard's might balk at that.
Charles
It may be an unwritten law, but it has not been from the inception.
Up until the early 80s Dragon magazine routinely carried articles on Traveller, and even a few Squad Leader scenarios. Likewise The General covered more than just Avalon Hill, and White Dwarf routinely included D&D articles.
It was only in the mid 80s that they moved to just being house organs, with articles about other company's products totally excluded. Even that did not stop all of it, as Challenge Magazine had a section dedicated to non-GDW products for a long time.
Would you have the same opinion if WoTC was making supplements for Vampire and White Wolf was screaming bloody murder?
What if Wotc started doing some of the things to other gaming companies you suggested be done to it?
I bet you be up in arms.
If you cant copywrite rules at all whats keeping anyone really from ripping off Gurps or Fudge in their entirety especially considering those two games are by design very generalised and lacking in much material that could be protected?
Would you have the same opinion if WoTC was making supplements for Vampire and White Wolf was screaming bloody murder?
What if Wotc started doing some of the things to other gaming companies you suggested be done to it?
I bet you be up in arms.
Unless by "up in arms" you mean "kicking back in my comfy chair and making snide comments about White Wolf being silly", you would lose your bet.
Or are you suggesting I would be kvetching at WotC for "wasting" their efforts on material for another game I do not play? Even that is unlikely, particularly given the number of WotC employees who did freelance material for other game systems in the past.
If you cant copywrite rules at all whats keeping anyone really from ripping off Gurps or Fudge in their entirety especially considering those two games are by design very generalised and lacking in much material that could be protected?
I do not know and do not care. Protecting their IP is their responsibility. That does not mean I have to go out of my way to violate it or to encourage theft of it. It just means I have no need to feel in the least bit responsible, and definitely none to get bent out of shape, just because someone uses the OGL, or the simplest amount of general use.
Oh, and none of that changes the very simple fact that you are in fact wrong about what has been the rule, written or otherwise, from the inception of the role playing industry.