Read the fine print. If you make over 50,000 US you must submit financials to WoTC.
If you make over 750,000 you must pay a licensing fee.
By the simple act of giving them your financials you acknowledge they are the copyright holders to your content in some way.
And has anyone noticed that WoTC has NEVER said that their new OneD&D or 6E or whatever they call it will be compatible with 5E. They always say it will be compatible with third party content. I am expecting them to release all new core rule books. Not just a major add on.
Read the fine print. If you make over 50,000 US you must submit financials to WoTC.
If you make over 750,000 you must pay a licensing fee.
By the simple act of giving them your financials you acknowledge they are the copyright holders to your content in some way.
And has anyone noticed that WoTC has NEVER said that their new OneD&D or 6E or whatever they call it will be compatible with 5E. They always say it will be compatible with third party content. I am expecting them to release all new core rule books. Not just a major add on.
This post is full of misinformation and bad analysis. For starters, there is no fine print yet - there is no print of any sort other than a press release with their thoughts. Second, your understanding of copyright is simply wrong - it is entirely possible for a content creator to both keep the copyright on their content and have to turn over financial details to Wizards as consideration for Wizards letting that content creator use Wizards’ content. Third, no one except you noticed their statements about backwards compatibility not mentioning 5e because you are wrong - “The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements”. Fourth, they have already said that there will be core rulebooks - they have been saying that for years.
The entire rule system is getting overhauled, so of course there will be new core books...but they are trying to make it backward compatible so that recently released content books can still be used.
I think this is disgusting and they're planning on burning down the entire industry to reduce competition. The ONLY reason to go after the old OGL like this is to try to kill Pathfinder and all the other games that use the old OGL.
I've got an MBA and I know contract and IP law. This is BAD and I'm done buying any products from this company if they continue to pursue this option. And I'll do my best to encourage others to walk away from D&D as well.
I think this is disgusting and they're planning on burning down the entire industry to reduce competition. The ONLY reason to go after the old OGL like this is to try to kill Pathfinder and all the other games that use the old OGL.
I've got an MBA and I know contract and IP law. This is BAD and I'm done buying any products from this company if they continue to pursue this option. And I'll do my best to encourage others to walk away from D&D as well.
If you are going to claim expertise then (a) you should know enough not to base your posts on lacklustre information, such as exists now, (b) would realise there are plenty of other reasons to change the OGL (specifically the current version doesn’t protect against folks using the OGL to make NFTs or similar nonsense; Wizards is currently having an issue with folks using their IP to make racist products and they’d rather not have their branding be slapped on racism; and the fact that, since the 1.0 version there has been an unexpected rise in third party content making a lot of money, and Wizards has reason to want to collect the sales data on those sales to better produce their own product).
Now, might it be the case that the changes are a problem? Yes - but right now folks are engaging in wild and ridiculous speculation based on mere conjecture and faulty data. That is hardly helpful.
I'm extremely disappointed in what Hasbro / WotC is doing. D&D today is what it is, not because of WotC, but because of the people who love, play, and create for the game.
The new OGL is a non-starter for me. If that becomes a thing, WotC will lose me as a customer as it pertains to any new content under that license.
Besides, I own all the 5E books and I'm very happy with our custom 5E ruleset we play with.
One thing I would like to comment on that I heard (can't confirm) but I hear that WotC is trying to revoke the OGL as it had been. I hear the license itself says it's irrevocable, but people are claiming they can still do so. While I'm not a lawyer, one thing I do know is you cannot change a contractual agreement once it's in effect. That's what a license is. A contractual agreement that both parties must accept knowing full well. The only way to change it, is if both parties agree to change it, or there is a reason for the judicial branch to throw it out based on some legal basis / technicality / whatever.
Now, I'm not saying they cannot change the license. Clearly you can. You just cannot back date to collect *taxes* from things that has already happened. (content already released under the previous license) That would be like a car dealership selling you a car with a 10 year warranty and then the next month, they change it to a 30 day warranty and give you the bird. Yeah, that's not going to fly in court.
Now, any *NEW* content that gets released (even for 5E) after they changed the license. That legally would have to be tested in court.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
As a note the 1.1 license is unenforceable as written.
The rules and mechanics of a game CANNOT be copyrighted. They can protect Drizzt and his image, and some specific monster names (like mind-flayer), but anything else is free game already.
The OGL 1.0a pretty much just stated copyright law in slightly simpler terms. It only protected "Product Identity" because legally, that is all it could.
As a note the 1.1 license is unenforceable as written.
The rules and mechanics of a game CANNOT be copyrighted.
There's a significant amount that can be, but we also don't know what 1.1 will actually look like.
The thing which seems to be getting excitement is the statement that 1.0 and 1.0a are no longer authorized. There are two things Wizards could be trying do there:
They could simply be saying that something released under OGL 1.1 cannot be used with 1.0 or 1.0a. This is clearly something that is within their power.
They could be trying to restrict future use of materials already released under OGL 1.0 or 1.0a. This is... not clearly possible but might well be something they want to do.
Well; if the leaked version of the OGL is anything to go by... WotC is just about to torpedo its own fan creator community... Exactly the same way Disney did with Star Wars and CBS/Paramount did with Star Trek. I don't want to be "that guy" but I did call that.
This is Hasbro doing what it always does. I suspect it will get worse.
It would be a mistake to think there is anyone at Hasbro interested in what is best for the game or the users over short term business' profits.
This is a business out to make as much money as possible as fast as possible and that is what shareholders would want and how people at Hasbro get bonuses. It's called capitalism and its legal. I am sure lawyers from Hasbro have been very careful in their actions except for the information that just got out that they were not expecting to get out now.
I also suspect that $750,000 threshold is going to go downward in a big way once their profits go down after an initial surge as they kill the golden goose by having it over for dinner.
There is nothing from what I see to keep them from making more and more profit by seizing anything they want by blocking a content creator from his own work while Hasbro sells it off as theirs.
Seriously, it would seem be allowed under the agreement that was leaked. That wording would not be there if that was not planned.
I spend a lot of money here and was happy when Wizards (aka Hasbro) brought D&D Beyond.
I am going to rethink that now depending on the response coming and the things that were not said in their previous response in the light of this new information and future actions.
It will be interesting to see what forum entries survive here over the next few days to months as a bellwether of morality in future actions.
They legally cannot charge royalties or claim restrictions on the rules and mechanics.
They are by law not copyrightable.
Unfortunately: what is legal matters a LOT less when you are a massive corporation with a massive war chest and legal team versus largley small businesses. It doesn't matter that "you won't win" when you can jsut drive them into bankruptcy just by trying.
They legally cannot charge royalties or claim restrictions on the rules and mechanics.
They are by law not copyrightable.
Unfortunately: what is legal matters a LOT less when you are a massive corporation with a massive war chest and legal team versus largley small businesses. It doesn't matter that "you won't win" when you can jsut drive them into bankruptcy just by trying.
Twitter and Youtube aren't exactly reputable sources.
I have been on about 8 or 10 twitter and you tube links today that direct to the Gizmodo article, or Kickstarter confirming their terms with wotc, or Troll Lords announcing they are getting out of the D&D business completely. So yeah, they are indeed reputable sources.
So what we actually have is one article by Gizmodo (which still doesn't actually show the document) and stuff by Kickstarter, which doesn't actually use the OGL in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They legally cannot charge royalties or claim restrictions on the rules and mechanics.
They are by law not copyrightable.
Unfortunately: what is legal matters a LOT less when you are a massive corporation with a massive war chest and legal team versus largley small businesses. It doesn't matter that "you won't win" when you can jsut drive them into bankruptcy just by trying.
We saw this happen with Games Workshop.
Disney and CBS/Paramount pulled the same maneuver with the Star Wars and Star Trek fan creator communities respectively as well, and of course Bethesda trying to monetize people's mods for their games... repeatedly. It seems it's the new on-vogue thing for corporations in charge of intellectual properties to do: lock-down and "monetize", regardless of whether that kills a flourishing ecosystem of creatives that bring in more money to them than they cost.
Disney and Paramount respond aggressively like that because there isn't an OGL for Star Trek or Star Wars. Paramount in particular was relatively lenient about fan-created content until one group started trying to monetize their fan-made movie. Any company would have stepped in at that point, because the way copyright laws are written doing otherwise would have been considered abandonment of the IP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Disney and Paramount respond aggressively like that because there isn't an OGL for Star Trek or Star Wars. Paramount in particular was relatively lenient about fan-created content until one group started trying to monetize their fan-made movie. Any company would have stepped in at that point, because the way copyright laws are written doing otherwise would have been considered abandonment of the IP.
Axanar is the fan film you are talking about: and gee, how DARE fans create something that their benevolent corpo masters won't. Do you knwo WHY US copyright law is written the way it is? I'll tell you: because the Walt Disney Corporation; which i might remind everyone made its fortunes initially by adapting OTHER people's work; pulled up the ladder behind themselves. Copyrights in the USA are not only written to encourage ridiculous aggressive preemptive action (anyone remember the time Bethesda C&D-ed Mojag because they titled a game "scrolls"?), but extend the window of ownership from life of the author, to life of the author +50 years, to life of the author +70 years.
It sure is amazing how much clickbait can be generated by a single internal memo being leaked.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Read the fine print. If you make over 50,000 US you must submit financials to WoTC.
If you make over 750,000 you must pay a licensing fee.
By the simple act of giving them your financials you acknowledge they are the copyright holders to your content in some way.
And has anyone noticed that WoTC has NEVER said that their new OneD&D or 6E or whatever they call it will be compatible with 5E. They always say it will be compatible with third party content.
I am expecting them to release all new core rule books. Not just a major add on.
This post is full of misinformation and bad analysis. For starters, there is no fine print yet - there is no print of any sort other than a press release with their thoughts. Second, your understanding of copyright is simply wrong - it is entirely possible for a content creator to both keep the copyright on their content and have to turn over financial details to Wizards as consideration for Wizards letting that content creator use Wizards’ content. Third, no one except you noticed their statements about backwards compatibility not mentioning 5e because you are wrong - “The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements”. Fourth, they have already said that there will be core rulebooks - they have been saying that for years.
The entire rule system is getting overhauled, so of course there will be new core books...but they are trying to make it backward compatible so that recently released content books can still be used.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
I think this is disgusting and they're planning on burning down the entire industry to reduce competition. The ONLY reason to go after the old OGL like this is to try to kill Pathfinder and all the other games that use the old OGL.
I've got an MBA and I know contract and IP law. This is BAD and I'm done buying any products from this company if they continue to pursue this option. And I'll do my best to encourage others to walk away from D&D as well.
If you are going to claim expertise then (a) you should know enough not to base your posts on lacklustre information, such as exists now, (b) would realise there are plenty of other reasons to change the OGL (specifically the current version doesn’t protect against folks using the OGL to make NFTs or similar nonsense; Wizards is currently having an issue with folks using their IP to make racist products and they’d rather not have their branding be slapped on racism; and the fact that, since the 1.0 version there has been an unexpected rise in third party content making a lot of money, and Wizards has reason to want to collect the sales data on those sales to better produce their own product).
Now, might it be the case that the changes are a problem? Yes - but right now folks are engaging in wild and ridiculous speculation based on mere conjecture and faulty data. That is hardly helpful.
I'm extremely disappointed in what Hasbro / WotC is doing. D&D today is what it is, not because of WotC, but because of the people who love, play, and create for the game.
The new OGL is a non-starter for me. If that becomes a thing, WotC will lose me as a customer as it pertains to any new content under that license.
Besides, I own all the 5E books and I'm very happy with our custom 5E ruleset we play with.
One thing I would like to comment on that I heard (can't confirm) but I hear that WotC is trying to revoke the OGL as it had been. I hear the license itself says it's irrevocable, but people are claiming they can still do so. While I'm not a lawyer, one thing I do know is you cannot change a contractual agreement once it's in effect. That's what a license is. A contractual agreement that both parties must accept knowing full well. The only way to change it, is if both parties agree to change it, or there is a reason for the judicial branch to throw it out based on some legal basis / technicality / whatever.
Now, I'm not saying they cannot change the license. Clearly you can. You just cannot back date to collect *taxes* from things that has already happened. (content already released under the previous license) That would be like a car dealership selling you a car with a 10 year warranty and then the next month, they change it to a 30 day warranty and give you the bird. Yeah, that's not going to fly in court.
Now, any *NEW* content that gets released (even for 5E) after they changed the license. That legally would have to be tested in court.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
As a note the 1.1 license is unenforceable as written.
The rules and mechanics of a game CANNOT be copyrighted. They can protect Drizzt and his image, and some specific monster names (like mind-flayer), but anything else is free game already.
The OGL 1.0a pretty much just stated copyright law in slightly simpler terms. It only protected "Product Identity" because legally, that is all it could.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
There's a significant amount that can be, but we also don't know what 1.1 will actually look like.
The thing which seems to be getting excitement is the statement that 1.0 and 1.0a are no longer authorized. There are two things Wizards could be trying do there:
Well; if the leaked version of the OGL is anything to go by... WotC is just about to torpedo its own fan creator community... Exactly the same way Disney did with Star Wars and CBS/Paramount did with Star Trek. I don't want to be "that guy" but I did call that.
Does anybody have a link to the leak?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is Hasbro doing what it always does. I suspect it will get worse.
It would be a mistake to think there is anyone at Hasbro interested in what is best for the game or the users over short term business' profits.
This is a business out to make as much money as possible as fast as possible and that is what shareholders would want and how people at Hasbro get bonuses. It's called capitalism and its legal. I am sure lawyers from Hasbro have been very careful in their actions except for the information that just got out that they were not expecting to get out now.
I also suspect that $750,000 threshold is going to go downward in a big way once their profits go down after an initial surge as they kill the golden goose by having it over for dinner.
There is nothing from what I see to keep them from making more and more profit by seizing anything they want by blocking a content creator from his own work while Hasbro sells it off as theirs.
Seriously, it would seem be allowed under the agreement that was leaked. That wording would not be there if that was not planned.
I spend a lot of money here and was happy when Wizards (aka Hasbro) brought D&D Beyond.
I am going to rethink that now depending on the response coming and the things that were not said in their previous response in the light of this new information and future actions.
It will be interesting to see what forum entries survive here over the next few days to months as a bellwether of morality in future actions.
Twitter and Youtube aren't exactly reputable sources.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They legally cannot charge royalties or claim restrictions on the rules and mechanics.
They are by law not copyrightable.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Unfortunately: what is legal matters a LOT less when you are a massive corporation with a massive war chest and legal team versus largley small businesses. It doesn't matter that "you won't win" when you can jsut drive them into bankruptcy just by trying.
We saw this happen with Games Workshop.
So what we actually have is one article by Gizmodo (which still doesn't actually show the document) and stuff by Kickstarter, which doesn't actually use the OGL in the first place.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Disney and CBS/Paramount pulled the same maneuver with the Star Wars and Star Trek fan creator communities respectively as well, and of course Bethesda trying to monetize people's mods for their games... repeatedly. It seems it's the new on-vogue thing for corporations in charge of intellectual properties to do: lock-down and "monetize", regardless of whether that kills a flourishing ecosystem of creatives that bring in more money to them than they cost.
Disney and Paramount respond aggressively like that because there isn't an OGL for Star Trek or Star Wars. Paramount in particular was relatively lenient about fan-created content until one group started trying to monetize their fan-made movie. Any company would have stepped in at that point, because the way copyright laws are written doing otherwise would have been considered abandonment of the IP.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Axanar is the fan film you are talking about: and gee, how DARE fans create something that their benevolent corpo masters won't. Do you knwo WHY US copyright law is written the way it is? I'll tell you: because the Walt Disney Corporation; which i might remind everyone made its fortunes initially by adapting OTHER people's work; pulled up the ladder behind themselves. Copyrights in the USA are not only written to encourage ridiculous aggressive preemptive action (anyone remember the time Bethesda C&D-ed Mojag because they titled a game "scrolls"?), but extend the window of ownership from life of the author, to life of the author +50 years, to life of the author +70 years.