Revenue (the wording in the leaked "OGL 1.1") does not equal profit. If a Kickstarter brings in $750,000 of revenue, and then has to spend money on things like artwork, printing, distribution, testing, etc... then they will now have to pay a portion (percentage?) of that money collected to Wizards. It doesn't matter what the product's actual profit is. That's why this is deceptive.
That's not deceptive -- it's quite clearly stated.
So, a quick question about creators paying fees if they make income in excess of 750k: would that be 20% of their income, or 20% of income in excess of 750k, similar to how tax brackets work? IE, if you make $750,005, you have to pay Hasbro $1?
So, a quick question about creators paying fees if they make income in excess of 750k: would that be 20% of their income, or 20% of income in excess of 750k, similar to how tax brackets work? IE, if you make $750,005, you have to pay Hasbro $1?
Everything that we have seen indicates it's based on the amount in excess of 750k. So your example would be correct. Nothing under 750k would be subject to a fee.
So, a quick question about creators paying fees if they make income in excess of 750k: would that be 20% of their income, or 20% of income in excess of 750k, similar to how tax brackets work? IE, if you make $750,005, you have to pay Hasbro $1?
Everything that we have seen indicates it's based on the amount in excess of 750k. So your example would be correct. Nothing under 750k would be subject to a fee.
I don't think the changes to the OGL will be the end of the world for 3rd party creators. Think of it as an additional cost of doing business. Ultimately, the changes will likely increase their costs, and they will have to increase their prices in order to maintain their desired profit margin, but at the end of the day WoTC knows that 3rd party creators are essential, and would never outright kill the golden goose. (Much like 3rd party modders in the PC game industry)
If the leak is correct and it's what's WotC goes with for the updated OGL it absolutely could be the end of the world for third party creators.
The document gives Wizards "“nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. It also says “can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice.”
Wizards could tell a third party content creator that they can no longer sell anything under the new OGL after 30 days and start selling the content created under the license without paying a penny to the creators. Or WotC could start selling it or even just give it away for free on DND Beyond as soon as it's created.
Not exactly. The law does not work like that.
If WotC revokes the agreement with a licensee, that agreement is cancelled in total unless both parties agree to some alteration of that agreement. The 3rd party can no longer sell that content that is based on that license, but nor would WotC have access to use that content either. (the content the 3rd party created)
Hence, if they revoke a license. That agreement as it applies to both parties would become null and void. WotC cannot use their license to steal content from other content creators.
Revenue (the wording in the leaked "OGL 1.1") does not equal profit. If a Kickstarter brings in $750,000 of revenue, and then has to spend money on things like artwork, printing, distribution, testing, etc... then they will now have to pay a portion (percentage?) of that money collected to Wizards. It doesn't matter what the product's actual profit is. That's why this is deceptive.
Exactly right. I think some people are confusing revenue and profit. $750,000 sounds like a lot of money, but it doesn't mean that's that the company is making even a dime of profit.
Revenue (the wording in the leaked "OGL 1.1") does not equal profit. If a Kickstarter brings in $750,000 of revenue, and then has to spend money on things like artwork, printing, distribution, testing, etc... then they will now have to pay a portion (percentage?) of that money collected to Wizards. It doesn't matter what the product's actual profit is. That's why this is deceptive.
Exactly right. I think some people are confusing revenue and profit. $750,000 sounds like a lot of money, but it doesn't mean that's that the company is making even a dime of profit.
lol, ask Elon Musk how much profit he is making at Twitter! lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Here is the WOTC TOS that applies to DNDBeyond. If you post anything to DNDBeyond, you have granted WOTC a full license to your IP. What we call Homebrew, WOTC thinks they can claim for their own purposes.
5.2.License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content.
Here is the WOTC TOS that applies to DNDBeyond. If you post anything to DNDBeyond, you have granted WOTC a full license to your IP. What we call Homebrew, WOTC thinks they can claim for their own purposes.
That's been there for years and is bog-standard for forums. Seriously, if you have a Great Idea that you think you can monetize, don't post it on anyone's public forum.
I doubt that anyone with any power at WoTC/Hasbro will see this, but from the research that I've done based on what has been released about the upcoming OGL 1.1. I am done with D&D, I will go to PF2, Paladium or even WoD. I will cherish the times I had with my friends, but I will not support a company that is being so blatantly anti-consumer and anti-creator.
Here is the WOTC TOS that applies to DNDBeyond. If you post anything to DNDBeyond, you have granted WOTC a full license to your IP. What we call Homebrew, WOTC thinks they can claim for their own purposes.
That's been there for years and is bog-standard for forums. Seriously, if you have a Great Idea that you think you can monetize, don't post it on anyone's public forum.
Very true. Also, these clauses are more to protect the company from lawsuits than they are to go looking for things to steal. If WotC came out with a subclass that looks similar to something someone posted years ago, they could have to fight over it. It could be a total coincidence. Or the game designers might have actually seen it but forgotten where the idea came from. There might be no malicious intent at all. But if you posted it, you'll probably think you were being ripped off. So rather than litigate every single case, it's easier for companies to just say it all belongs to them if you post it here. Whether that sounds fair or not is a matter of personal opinion on the laws. But it's a very common thing for that reason. So if you want to sell your ideas one day, it's probably best not to show them off here first.
It might not have been. But that would be because DnD Beyond didn't have the same legal needs and wasn't trying to make their own content to sell. So it wouldn't be anything fishy.
I just happen to be coming up on the mid-campaign break in my own game (so I can plan around all the ways my PCs went off the rails from my original ideas :D) and am likely going to extend that an extra couple of weeks so I can look into porting everything over to other systems. Right now Pathfinder and Cypher are my biggest contenders. PF is so D&D adjacent that it's pretty straightforward to convert (assuming that WOTC doesn't go after Paizo with fireballs-blazing), and I've run Cypher for many years now.
If I do move away from 5e, I'll miss the excellent DDB tools for easy references and the really solid character creator though. DDB has helped me introduce a lot of new players to RPGs, just by how easy it is to get in and play around with making a character in ways that show you quickly how everything fits together.
If I use DDB Campaign tools for my Public and Private DM notes, is this now considered licensed to WOTC for their commercial use?
Yes, and it always has.
5.2.License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content.
That's not necessarily correct. I've been trying to find the actual draft of the leak, but haven't seen it. All it would take is a single line indicating that the granted rights to wizards survive termination and they could do exactly as this person claims.
I don't think they would if only because it would be better for them to just keep the license up while selling your stuff on bigger platforms they own without paying you. You make something new, hey we're selling that too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's not deceptive -- it's quite clearly stated.
So, a quick question about creators paying fees if they make income in excess of 750k: would that be 20% of their income, or 20% of income in excess of 750k, similar to how tax brackets work? IE, if you make $750,005, you have to pay Hasbro $1?
Everything that we have seen indicates it's based on the amount in excess of 750k. So your example would be correct. Nothing under 750k would be subject to a fee.
correct:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/d-d-beyond-feedback/160218-going-out-of-your-way-to-post-things-that-make-no?comment=12
I cancel my sub too.
If OGL 1.1 goes live in the leaked form, I will be canceling my Master sub immediately and will not buy any more books or content on DDB.
Not exactly. The law does not work like that.
If WotC revokes the agreement with a licensee, that agreement is cancelled in total unless both parties agree to some alteration of that agreement. The 3rd party can no longer sell that content that is based on that license, but nor would WotC have access to use that content either. (the content the 3rd party created)
Hence, if they revoke a license. That agreement as it applies to both parties would become null and void. WotC cannot use their license to steal content from other content creators.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Exactly right. I think some people are confusing revenue and profit. $750,000 sounds like a lot of money, but it doesn't mean that's that the company is making even a dime of profit.
lol, ask Elon Musk how much profit he is making at Twitter! lol
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Here is a fun nugget.
Here is the WOTC TOS that applies to DNDBeyond. If you post anything to DNDBeyond, you have granted WOTC a full license to your IP. What we call Homebrew, WOTC thinks they can claim for their own purposes.
5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content.
That's been there for years and is bog-standard for forums. Seriously, if you have a Great Idea that you think you can monetize, don't post it on anyone's public forum.
Was it there before the WOTC buyout?
I doubt that anyone with any power at WoTC/Hasbro will see this, but from the research that I've done based on what has been released about the upcoming OGL 1.1. I am done with D&D, I will go to PF2, Paladium or even WoD. I will cherish the times I had with my friends, but I will not support a company that is being so blatantly anti-consumer and anti-creator.
Very true. Also, these clauses are more to protect the company from lawsuits than they are to go looking for things to steal. If WotC came out with a subclass that looks similar to something someone posted years ago, they could have to fight over it. It could be a total coincidence. Or the game designers might have actually seen it but forgotten where the idea came from. There might be no malicious intent at all. But if you posted it, you'll probably think you were being ripped off. So rather than litigate every single case, it's easier for companies to just say it all belongs to them if you post it here. Whether that sounds fair or not is a matter of personal opinion on the laws. But it's a very common thing for that reason. So if you want to sell your ideas one day, it's probably best not to show them off here first.
It might not have been. But that would be because DnD Beyond didn't have the same legal needs and wasn't trying to make their own content to sell. So it wouldn't be anything fishy.
No, but a fairly equivalent grant to Fandom was.
If I use DDB Campaign tools for my Public and Private DM notes, is this now considered licensed to WOTC for their commercial use?
I just happen to be coming up on the mid-campaign break in my own game (so I can plan around all the ways my PCs went off the rails from my original ideas :D) and am likely going to extend that an extra couple of weeks so I can look into porting everything over to other systems. Right now Pathfinder and Cypher are my biggest contenders. PF is so D&D adjacent that it's pretty straightforward to convert (assuming that WOTC doesn't go after Paizo with fireballs-blazing), and I've run Cypher for many years now.
If I do move away from 5e, I'll miss the excellent DDB tools for easy references and the really solid character creator though. DDB has helped me introduce a lot of new players to RPGs, just by how easy it is to get in and play around with making a character in ways that show you quickly how everything fits together.
Yes, and it always has.
5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content.
That's not necessarily correct. I've been trying to find the actual draft of the leak, but haven't seen it. All it would take is a single line indicating that the granted rights to wizards survive termination and they could do exactly as this person claims.
I don't think they would if only because it would be better for them to just keep the license up while selling your stuff on bigger platforms they own without paying you. You make something new, hey we're selling that too.