PDA

View Full Version : Legal Use of 2e Content



Elohir
May 14th, 2019, 22:38
Since AD&D 2.0 was a TSR product that was not covered under the OGL, does anyone know what the SmiteWorks/WotC permissions and limits are on using the materials?

I'm not interested in re-selling 2.0 content. But I do want to know what the limits on use of the material will be. Back in the 90's, TSR was rather aggressive about limiting unauthorized use of it's material once they caught wind of the content that was being generated by the early Internet community, which has evolved quite a bit since then. In particular, I am trying to determine the answers to these kinds of questions:


Does the WotC Fan Content Policy (https://company.wizards.com/fancontentpolicy) apply to AD&D 2.0 material?
What kind of content can we share freely? I understand I cannot, for example, take a kit from the Complete Fighter's Handbook, convert it, and share it with everyone, but could we make our own kits that references AD&D 2 materials & terms (like spell names, "THAC0", etc.)?
The same question also applies to PreGens. Would we be violating any licensing or property rights if we created pregenerated 2e characters and shared them on the forums or elsewhere? (presuming they were free and included a disclaimer)


I guess that pretty much convers my concerns. But I think it's an important issue for DM's who are considering running 2e campaigns.

Elohir

LordEntrails
May 15th, 2019, 00:10
Good question :) I don't know if you are going to get any type of official answer, and I can't give you one either, but here's how I would approach it personally.

1) The Fan Use Policy applies. In short, it says it covers all WoTC IP and doesn't exclude anything, so yea, it's applicable.
2) I think any original content created for 2E could be shared "free" under the Fan Use Policy. So yea, new stuff you create, but not conversions of existing stuff.
3) I can't imagine WotC getting upset about Pre-gens, UNLESS you create pre-gens that effectively had every option or item, or class detailed in it. The safest way would be to not provide the text of features, spells or abilities. Though including that for a few things here and there would probably be fine, if or others made or were perceived to make a set of pre-gens that included all the wizard spells with text, that wouldn't be very good for Wizards right?

The other thing to consider, is the OSRIC stuff. My very limited understanding of that movement/approach is that some prior editions things effectively became part of what was released under the OGL. But, never took the time to really understand that.

Elohir
May 15th, 2019, 00:57
Thanks for the reply LordEntrails.

I haven't heard of OSRIC until today, but I guess I need to look into that a bit, and see what's covered. But I like your view on the Fan Use Policy. :D

I think my attitude is not to go overboard, but see how much I can share before someone complains. For instance, a kit I include in a Pregen may contain much of the descriptive text, but someone wont be able to assemble a complete set of kits from me.

Elohir

damned
May 15th, 2019, 01:51
Thanks for the reply LordEntrails.

I haven't heard of OSRIC until today, but I guess I need to look into that a bit, and see what's covered. But I like your view on the Fan Use Policy. :D

I think my attitude is not to go overboard, but see how much I can share before someone complains. For instance, a kit I include in a Pregen may contain much of the descriptive text, but someone wont be able to assemble a complete set of kits from me.

Elohir

Do not include ANY descriptive text from Copyright materials.

Elohir
May 15th, 2019, 16:12
Do not include ANY descriptive text from Copyright materials.

Actually, the Fan Content Policy (https://company.wizards.com/fancontentpolicy) does allow for some use of descriptive text, and even images, within reason. So if it comes from WotC, then we can use descriptive text under the conditions laid out there.

damned
May 15th, 2019, 20:50
Actually, the Fan Content Policy (https://company.wizards.com/fancontentpolicy) does allow for some use of descriptive text, and even images, within reason. So if it comes from WotC, then we can use descriptive text under the conditions laid out there.

quote from the wizards page you linked to:

The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards’ IP (e.g., freely distributing D&D® rules content or books, creating counterfeit/proxy Magic: The Gathering® cards, etc.), regardless of whether that content is distributed for free.

Elohir
May 15th, 2019, 22:25
quote from the wizards page you linked to:

The key is that it is your creation. It should go without saying, but Fan Content does not include the verbatim copying and reposting of Wizards’ IP (e.g., freely distributing D&D® rules content or books, creating counterfeit/proxy Magic: The Gathering® cards, etc.), regardless of whether that content is distributed for free.

I think the discrepancy here is the scope. I am not suggesting I would be providing a complete copy of anything. But a few paragraphs of descriptive text, or using an image provided in a module (from WotC) would not qualify as 'verbatim', as long as I am not reselling it, or providing an alternate means for others to obtain the full product (and of course, I meet the other requirements including appropriate disclaimers and free access to my viewers).

But if in the course of a storyline, I decide to use say, a 'Beholder,' as one of the elements in a storyline based in the 'Forgotten Realms' for a game that I may stream online, the Fan Content Policy allows me to refer to such content. I can describe the Beholder using their 'descriptive text.' I can similarly describe the streets of Calimport using text from WotC material. Obviously, if I provide a complete stat block on the Beholder, or I provide a means for my viewers to download all the details about Calimport that has been published, then that would be abusive.

But what I am trying to clarify is if I talk about Bigby's or Mordenkainen's spells , or run an adventure through the Demonweb pits. Can I not describe the spells? Can I not show portions of the map? Can I show them the whole map if it does not allow them to reproduce it for game purposes? Do I have to rename Lloth? Is the 'Abyss' fair game? There's a wide range of grey in this point, which OGL and the Fan Content Policy address. But until LordEntrails pointed out the detail in the scope clause, above, I was unsure how it all applied to AD&D 2.0 and earlier.

Elohir

JohnD
May 15th, 2019, 22:36
Probably best to err on the side of being overly cautious.

damned
May 16th, 2019, 01:55
In regards to you running your game, converting content for your game and streamng it or recording your game I don't think there is any issue with you using images or descriptive text.

The restrictions apply to sharing content outside the context of your game.

If you converted the keep on the bushland and streamed your group running thru it there is little likelihood of any issues.

If you then share that content with other GMs you would find yourself in trouble.

In specific respect to beholders I think they are very much restricted IP of the wizards.

Elohir
May 16th, 2019, 14:57
Probably best to err on the side of being overly cautious.

Unfortunately, no one ever achieved much or has as much fun being cautious.

I am willing to respect people's claims to their IP, but the Fan Content Policy makes it pretty clear what we can do with WotC material. Besides, if I am not charging any fees, the risk-benefit analysis makes it pretty clear it's best to see how much I can do, instead of not allowing myself any wiggle room. You can't win the lottery if you don't play.

If WotC or some individual sees something of theirs and asks me to remove it, I'll be happy to comply. But if the big players can scrape images and text excerpts for their search engines, I'll be damned if I am going to impose additional restrictions on myself when they are not legally required. Those who already HAVE the money, have enough of an advantage on the playing field.

Elohir

Elohir
May 16th, 2019, 15:03
Do not include ANY descriptive text from Copyright materials.

Sorry, but the owners of the material have an official policy that says I can, with certain limitations. I plan on following those limitations, but I also plan on including excerpts of descriptive text as well. If WotC has an issue with what they've permitted, they can either ask me to take it down, or update their policy.

Elohir
May 16th, 2019, 15:28
What started as a legitimate question of WotC's & SmiteWorks policy on using 2e material, has become a debate on what constitutes Fair Use and Intellectual Property.

Might I suggest becoming more familiar with the doctrine of Fair Use (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-rule-copyright-material-30100.html) and Wizards' own Fan Content Policy (https://company.wizards.com/fancontentpolicy) before contradicting it any further.

celestian
May 16th, 2019, 15:42
I think the issue is these people aren't lawyers (far as I know) and are being cautious. Past history has shown that to be a wise plan. The choice is obviously yours and you seem to be pretty versed on the documents, I certainly hope for the best with your projects.

Trenloe
May 16th, 2019, 15:52
@Elohir, I agree with what you're saying.

We're very encouraging of community members creating and sharing content, as long as they do so with the guidelines/policies/licenses for that content. But please be aware that we are *very* strict on enforcing copyright on these forums. If the moderators deem you are not following the Fan Content Policy (for example, not following posts #2 and #4), have crossed the boundary of excessive use of IP, etc. then we will take your material down from this site.

What is also interesting about the Fan Content Policy is the following entry in the Frequently Asked Questions Section (red highlight mine):


Can I use all of Wizards’ IP?

Unfortunately, no. You cannot incorporate Wizards patents, game mechanics (unless your Fan Content is created under the D&D Open Game License), logos, or trademarks into your Fan Content without our prior written permission.

In the USA game mechanics are not covered by copyright. But Wizards specifically call this out as something you can't do within the Fan Content Policy. So, based off the US copyright laws, it seems you can either release Wizards material in terms of game mechanics outside of the Fan Content Policy, which will severely restrict the other IP you can include in the same package; or you can release quite a bit of material under the pretty liberal Fan Content Policy, but not include game mechanics which aren't also covered by the D&D OGL.

Elohir
May 16th, 2019, 17:59
Celestian and Trenloe,

Thanks VERY much for the helpful and constructive replies. My whole point of starting this thread was to establish what the real limitations are, and not just accept a blanket mantra of "don't use it."

Elohir

hawkwind
May 17th, 2019, 14:18
I wonder if you could get away with it by using the DM's guild to release stuff as 5e and then add an optional 2e module?

Also I have a 90% completd module i completed that I started before the 2e official ruleset came out. The original material its based on was released under Creative Commons CC and the module it self makes no calls for treasure /NPC's on 2e ruleset. i assume it will be ok to share via these forums?

Trenloe
May 17th, 2019, 14:39
I wonder if you could get away with it by using the DM's guild to release stuff as 5e and then add an optional 2e module?
Nope. See the first section here! https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217028818-Content-Guidelines


Also I have a 90% completd module i completed that I started before the 2e official ruleset came out. The original material its based on was released under Creative Commons CC and the module it self makes no calls for treasure /NPC's on 2e ruleset. i assume it will be ok to share via these forums?
If you follow the license the material was released under, and that license allows you to reformat (is not a CC ND - no derivatives license) and distribute that material, then you can share on the forums.

hawkwind
May 17th, 2019, 15:39
the license says

LICENSE
This work is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA.
You can share it for free, adapt it to your own system, edit it, print it and
leave it in local game stores. You just can’t sell it for money, and you
have to credit me somewhere. Same goes for the art.

so i guess I'm good to go

celestian
May 17th, 2019, 15:41
the license says

LICENSE
This work is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA.
You can share it for free, adapt it to your own system, edit it, print it and
leave it in local game stores. You just can’t sell it for money, and you
have to credit me somewhere. Same goes for the art.

so i guess I'm good to go

That sounds like OSRIC? I know they are wide open. I've contacted Stuart Marshall a few times to confirm and from my conversations that system is pretty open and makes it easy to use.

If that's not OSRIC ignore me... I just wanted to mention it because OSRIC is pretty nice ;)

Trenloe
May 17th, 2019, 15:56
This work is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Yep, that's cool, as long as you include the license, etc. within the FG module - see the "Attribution" section in the link above.

The main thing to look for in a CC license is ND = No Derivative, where you can change the format (e.g make a FG module from a PDF) but you can't adapt - essentially only using a portion of the original (unless it's used purely as an example), or combing data from the original into a larger work.

hawkwind
May 17th, 2019, 16:13
That sounds like OSRIC? I know they are wide open. I've contacted Stuart Marshall a few times to confirm and from my conversations that system is pretty open and makes it easy to use.

If that's not OSRIC ignore me... I just wanted to mention it because OSRIC is pretty nice ;)

its not OSRIC but its not keyed to any particular clone or version of DnD either, armour is given s a word, (plate, leather etc.) and there is a hit dice stat morale and damage, its system neutral old school friendly, its the adventure i mentioned to you by PM a few months back

saying that are one two cracking OSRIC modules published by Expeditious Retreat press like the "The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom" which would be great to convert to FG. Not sure what the legal implications of publishing OSRIC modules that depend on the 2e ruleset thru the online store are