Maybe they could include a more specific definition or list of banned content, make note that they are allowed to change that definition/list in future versions of the contract, and note that the new definition will not be applied retroactively. That would cover the shifting societal standards while giving 3PP some guidelines around what to expect from WotC's review process. How do you write that in legal terms? No idea.
Unfortunately the issue with that idea is that it gives bad actors One Free Shot, since anything not on the list - and it's impossible to fully define hateful and discriminatory conduct - can thus be published without a single care before it gets on the list. Only once, yes - but once is all that's needed for a bad actor to torpedo D&D worse than this OGL mess ever could. I understand the desire for guidance, and I imagine one could easily contact Wizards and ask them for guidance for a specific product one is afraid might be borderline. Even if that guidance is simply instructions on how to contact sensitivity consultants.
Theoretically if there were a third party who was accepted as arbiter of cultural things like that, such a license might be able to refer to that body's definitions, but I'm not sure we have anything like that which would be acceptable to the community, leaving WOTC with the sensible option of reserving the right to determine what is hateful or obscene themselves. The closest thing I can think of to that kind of group would be the SPLC or maybe the UN?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
BTW it's entirely possible to include discriminatory characters in a campaign to be reflective of how life can be and present obstacles for players, but that doesn't have to be baked into the game itself.
Highlighting this because it is important. Wizards is not saying you can’t have slavery in your content. It is not saying you can’t have racism in your content. It is not saying you cannot explore complex themes in your content. These are all things Wizards has effectively explored in their own content before.
Wizards is saying you can’t be offensive - you can’t actively be trying to hurt someone or so negligent in your disregard for basic decency someone is likely to be hurt.
Let’s look at orcs in D&D. They were problematic because Gygax put a lot of his racism into them - all his views on how tribal societies are evil and inept and should be exterminated (he literally quoted someone ordering a genocide of Native Americans as how he thought orcs should be treated).
That’s bad and Wizards would not want that.
Have content where the Human Empire believes all those things about orcs, but the content also shows that there are bad actors among both the Empire and the orcs, and that the orc culture is beautiful and fascinating in its own way that the Empire does not see? That probably would be fine - it is about exploring prejudice, not furthering it.
So far, this OGL (which is the opposite of open) is a non starter for me.
Why does wizards want to restrict our ability to use the court system so severely? They seem to want all of us to waive our legal rights to suits and trials and only monetary damages are allowed, so I assume you can't sue them for ownership of your own stuff, just make them pay you for stealing it.
What is harmful,discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,obscene, or harassing? That's a pretty broad and subjective list and we have to waive the right to a trial to determine if WotC was unreasonable for terminating the license if they so choose. I have no problem with not allowing racists to use the license but where is the line drawn on harmful? What do you consider harassing? Why can't we ask a jury to rule on it if we disagree with you?
What about OSR material that does not use SRD 5.1 but does use OGL 1.0(a)? Is there now a moratorium on any SRD material prior to version 5.1?
Honestly, this is not an open anything. You have closed more doors than you left open.
I still have hope that WotC will chill out but I'm ever closer to stepping past ending my subscription and going to "Delete my account", even if it means hundreds of dollars lost. If I go that far, WotC can not expect me to come back. I've already stopped subscribing but that can be undone. Deleting everything can't and it will signal a loss of a customer of over 40 years.
You need to read it closer. They can use your content, and you can sue them but only for a monetary settlement. You cannot stop them from continuing to use it.
They're effectively still trying to kill VTT in 2 ways.
Ensuring they are text only without animations or other aspects
killing 1.0a--1.0a allows you to use digital media (games, videos, etc.).
These two alone is enough to say no, but section 9e and 9g makes it even worst by signing your rights away.
The kicker... the severability clause allows them to "revoke" the irrevocable 1.2 if they wanted for any reason (there's a couple items that appear to be baked in to do so).
Maybe someone who is a lawyer can clarify this for me, but they may be hoping that none of the big players will have Standing to challenge them since with the exclusions for older content, their existing work isn't in peril. They're moving to their own licenses. They don't have anything at stake.
IE... if they arent coming at Paizo and company, how is Paizo being harmed?
It doesn't change the status of whether 1.0a can be de authorized, but they may be trying to limit who can/will challenge it.
How can you prove knowledge and intent when access and substantial similarity are not enough to constitute a breach? Does this not make it trivial for WotC to replicate any content produced under OGL 1.2 without payment, acknowledgement or repercussion?
In the winter of 1998, I wrote a children's story to give out to friends and family as Christmas presents. It was about a young boy who could see and speak to ghosts
The next summer, the Sixth Sense came out. As yet, I haven't bothered to sue M Night Shyamalan
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
So, here's the thing. This wording is subjective to WOTC. They could give passes to special "groups" that are partial to the Portland/Seattle lifestyle... and fail to enforce content some might find obscene or harassing. While at the same time crack down hard on other groups that publish something that many find completely fine, claiming WOTC finds it "hateful" or some other keyword.
On top of all that, the "engage in conduct" clause means that if you're a content creator and get in a fight on Twitter and angrily call someone an idiot, poof! There goes your income.
Trying to understand the VTT policy on animations. I'm using Foundry to play PF2E, there's a module that animates a good amount of spell effects that was created by whoever made the module. Under this new VTT policy would we not be able to use any animated effects for the Magic Missile spell? (I don't know if this particular one is animated as not all spells are (yet))
Is it only magic missile or what other spells would not be allowed to be animated? Why would they limit someone who created their own animation without borrowing or stealing that animation from someone else? Seems like it's their own work.
I completely understand not being able to use the official artwork for the Owlbear as someone else created it. If someone wanted to create their own art for an Owlbear token and use that it seems fine so why not a spell effect/animation?
I'm guessing their new proprietary VTT will have spell effects included and they want to limit competition.
That's my only gripe with the new OGL and more specifically the VTT Policy.
You need to read it closer. They can use your content, and you can sue them but only for a monetary settlement. You cannot stop them from continuing to use it.
I wouldn’t care if they continue to use it as long as they give me an author’s credit for the work.
... Why does wizards want to restrict our ability to use the court system so severely? They seem to want all of us to waive our legal rights to suits and trials and only monetary damages are allowed, so I assume you can't sue them for ownership of your own stuff, just make them pay you for stealing it. ...
Because every year, copyright dicktrolls spawn ten gorrillion frivilous baseless meritless lawsuits that still eat valuable time, money, and legal sweat to defeat. Every company does this, not just Wizards. As has been stated, if Wizards truly ends up in breach, then you can sue regardless of what the terms say because the contract has been breached and redress has to come from outside it. But you need to have a stronger case than "I wrote a Blood Mage subclass for the Wizard in 2016 and then Wizards published a Blood Mage subclass in 2024! I gave them the idea, I DEMAND payment!" The clause is there to protect them from small-minded jackoffs who're trying to profiteer unfairly off of work they didn't do.
Really, guys - that's it. Wizards is GOING to have some sort of protection in place against frivolous copyright suits from bad actors trying to get one over on The Man, because otherwise the hundreds of third-party supplements out there and the thousands and thousands of Ideas other people have published would block Wizards from coming up with their own version of similar Ideas. It would be completely untenable, since Wizards would have to know the contents of every D&D product in existence and avoid anything smacking of similarity. That's a higher standard than is applied even between third-party publishers - Hit Point Press wouldn't be able to sue Green Ronin for making a book about monster hunting and using monster parts despite the existence of Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting, why should HPP be allowed to sue Wizards for doing the same?
Binding arbitration is an automatic red flag no go, too
Why?!?
The right to take any dispute to a court to law is a basic human right, and you give that up under this license.
Big NOPE.
Read the terms of service on literally anything you currently use....you've given up this right more times than you think. Nearly every company in existence that offers a product or service includes an arbitration clause.
... Why does wizards want to restrict our ability to use the court system so severely? They seem to want all of us to waive our legal rights to suits and trials and only monetary damages are allowed, so I assume you can't sue them for ownership of your own stuff, just make them pay you for stealing it. ...
Because every year, copyright dicktrolls spawn ten gorrillion frivilous baseless meritless lawsuits that still eat valuable time, money, and legal sweat to defeat. Every company does this, not just Wizards. As has been stated, if Wizards truly ends up in breach, then you can sue regardless of what the terms say because the contract has been breached and redress has to come from outside it. But you need to have a stronger case than "I wrote a Blood Mage subclass for the Wizard in 2016 and then Wizards published a Blood Mage subclass in 2024! I gave them the idea, I DEMAND payment!" The clause is there to protect them from small-minded jackoffs who're trying to profiteer unfairly off of work they didn't do.
The number of frivolous copyright claims is often overblown. It does happen, but the typical offenders are large corporations rather than individuals like we would see under these circumstances, Getty Images is a good example. But yes most all companies these days prefer arbitration and do so for a variety of reasons. Some questionable, most simply because it's faster and saves money.
... Why does wizards want to restrict our ability to use the court system so severely? They seem to want all of us to waive our legal rights to suits and trials and only monetary damages are allowed, so I assume you can't sue them for ownership of your own stuff, just make them pay you for stealing it. ...
Because every year, copyright dicktrolls spawn ten gorrillion frivilous baseless meritless lawsuits that still eat valuable time, money, and legal sweat to defeat. Every company does this, not just Wizards. As has been stated, if Wizards truly ends up in breach, then you can sue regardless of what the terms say because the contract has been breached and redress has to come from outside it. But you need to have a stronger case than "I wrote a Blood Mage subclass for the Wizard in 2016 and then Wizards published a Blood Mage subclass in 2024! I gave them the idea, I DEMAND payment!" The clause is there to protect them from small-minded jackoffs who're trying to profiteer unfairly off of work they didn't do.
And which clause protects small businesses from WotC stealing their work? All WotC have to say is that it was a coincidence and not intentional. It’s a completely one-sided clause that benefits WotC and exposes anyone who signs OGL 1.2 to creative theft.
No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.
So, here's the thing. This wording is subjective to WOTC. They could give passes to special "groups" that are partial to the Portland/Seattle lifestyle... and fail to enforce content some might find obscene or harassing. While at the same time crack down hard on other groups that publish something that many find completely fine, claiming WOTC finds it "hateful" or some other keyword.
On top of all that, the "engage in conduct" clause means that if you're a content creator and get in a fight on Twitter and angrily call someone an idiot, poof! There goes your income.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
Racially discriminatory content is an unavoidable part of D&D lore. Orcs are evil. Elves and dwarves dislike and distrust each other. Is this racist? Technically, yes. It's also a catalyst for good roleplay. Racially discriminatory content is part of the history and lore of D&D.
is there any actual harm of this sort caused by any current D&D product? No, there isn't. Is it WotC's job to police such things? No, it isn't, but they've taken it upon themselves to do so anyway. "This is deeply important to us," they said in the post. This position is silly. Also, it's contradictory to the D&D universe they bought, of which they are supposedly stewards. They are too woke for their own good and probably can't be talked out of it. In the meantime, it leaves them a backdoor to railroad any D&D creator they wish.
Those discriminatory contents are being changed and many tables haven't incorporated them for decades. I've played many an orc and not one has been evil. Just because something is a part of history doesn't mean it has to be repeated.
There is actual harm from discriminatory content in D&D products. When discriminatory content in D&D is coded to reflect real world racism it perpetuates said real world racism and often excludes people from D&D. It's not about it being someone's job to police, it's about bettering our community and society. BTW it's entirely possible to include discriminatory characters in a campaign to be reflective of how life can be and present obstacles for players, but that doesn't have to be baked into the game itself.
Honestly my first read of your take is that of a troll or someone upset they aren't allowed to be racist, but I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and hope you are well intentioned.
You're certainly free to think whatever you want.
Back to something you said... In what way does dwarf-elf rivalry, or other in-game racial discrimination (such as orcs being untrusted or presumed as evil) exclude people in real life from D&D?
There's about 100 threads on racial sterotyping. Maybe take this part of the discussion there, and stay focused on the ogl, here. Please.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
I'm reasonably sure the "engage in conduct" bit is Wizards giving itself an out if somebody decides to become a flaming hatemonger in the media, but yeah. It might be overreaching, especially if the conduct isn't limited to conduct relating to their OGL-covered business. That bit could probably do with some tightening up, because Wizards' product identity and IP aren't tied to someone being a cockwaffle on Twitter the same way their brand is tied to a concrete product that uses their system.
Waiver of the right to join a class action -- the only real threat to WOTC is a Class Action by multiple 3pp against them.
Statement that "by agreeing to this" you are saying you understand and have had a lawyer's help with it - This is standard for party-to-party contracts but does not belong in a generalized open license that might be read and used by thousands. It should not be in there.
... Why does wizards want to restrict our ability to use the court system so severely? They seem to want all of us to waive our legal rights to suits and trials and only monetary damages are allowed, so I assume you can't sue them for ownership of your own stuff, just make them pay you for stealing it. ...
Because every year, copyright dicktrolls spawn ten gorrillion frivilous baseless meritless lawsuits that still eat valuable time, money, and legal sweat to defeat. Every company does this, not just Wizards. As has been stated, if Wizards truly ends up in breach, then you can sue regardless of what the terms say because the contract has been breached and redress has to come from outside it. But you need to have a stronger case than "I wrote a Blood Mage subclass for the Wizard in 2016 and then Wizards published a Blood Mage subclass in 2024! I gave them the idea, I DEMAND payment!" The clause is there to protect them from small-minded jackoffs who're trying to profiteer unfairly off of work they didn't do.
Really, guys - that's it. Wizards is GOING to have some sort of protection in place against frivolous copyright suits from bad actors trying to get one over on The Man, because otherwise the hundreds of third-party supplements out there and the thousands and thousands of Ideas other people have published would block Wizards from coming up with their own version of similar Ideas. It would be completely untenable, since Wizards would have to know the contents of every D&D product in existence and avoid anything smacking of similarity. That's a higher standard than is applied even between third-party publishers - Hit Point Press wouldn't be able to sue Green Ronin for making a book about monster hunting and using monster parts despite the existence of Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting, why should HPP be allowed to sue Wizards for doing the same?
I have said this before on other threads, but it is worth repeating:
One of the things you can do in an intellectual property lawsuit is ask for an injunction - a judge saying “you can’t publish that.” You can ask for this at the beginning of the case (a preliminary injunction) where a judge says “you can’t publish that until the case is over.” These lawsuits can take years - something far more damaging to a company with release timelines than a layperson can imagine. We’re talking hundreds of thousands in losses per day and delays echoing down their entire schedule.
There are folks who game this system. One of my intellectual property professors did - before he went into teaching, he would do things like find some intellectual property close to something a big company was doing, get the owner of the similar IP to hire him as a client (or sell him the IP to the item), sue someone like Microsoft, and say “I’ll either get a preliminary injunction that will cost you ten million a day, or you can pay me a cool ten million right now and we’ll be done. You’ll win the case long term, but it will be more expensive to win than it would be to just bribe me.”
Wizards doesn’t want to risk losing the rights to publish books. They don’t want their production schedule held up. They don’t want to risk being held hostage by someone, all because in the hundreds of thousands of pages of content third parties produced, something by happenstance looked a lot like something Wizards independently came up with.
It terrifies them - to the point (as Yurei noted earlier) they have very strict company policies against workers looking at third party content.
I gave them the idea, I DEMAND payment!" The clause is there to protect them from small-minded jackoffs who're trying to profiteer unfairly off of work they didn't do.
But that's what they are willing to give you. Payment.
If they steal someone's content, the very most you can expect after signing is that they give you some money. They will still be able to sell that product because you can only get a monetary settlement (from my reading at least). You can't argue your case in open court. You can't sue them to credit you. You can't sue them to cease publication. You can't sue them to change their "O"GL terms so that it can't happen again. You can get a pittance from arbitration and that's it.
I personally would never sign a contract that says I give up all my other options so long as I get a small sum of cash unless that pittance was all I was interested in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Theoretically if there were a third party who was accepted as arbiter of cultural things like that, such a license might be able to refer to that body's definitions, but I'm not sure we have anything like that which would be acceptable to the community, leaving WOTC with the sensible option of reserving the right to determine what is hateful or obscene themselves. The closest thing I can think of to that kind of group would be the SPLC or maybe the UN?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Highlighting this because it is important. Wizards is not saying you can’t have slavery in your content. It is not saying you can’t have racism in your content. It is not saying you cannot explore complex themes in your content. These are all things Wizards has effectively explored in their own content before.
Wizards is saying you can’t be offensive - you can’t actively be trying to hurt someone or so negligent in your disregard for basic decency someone is likely to be hurt.
Let’s look at orcs in D&D. They were problematic because Gygax put a lot of his racism into them - all his views on how tribal societies are evil and inept and should be exterminated (he literally quoted someone ordering a genocide of Native Americans as how he thought orcs should be treated).
That’s bad and Wizards would not want that.
Have content where the Human Empire believes all those things about orcs, but the content also shows that there are bad actors among both the Empire and the orcs, and that the orc culture is beautiful and fascinating in its own way that the Empire does not see? That probably would be fine - it is about exploring prejudice, not furthering it.
So far, this OGL (which is the opposite of open) is a non starter for me.
Why does wizards want to restrict our ability to use the court system so severely? They seem to want all of us to waive our legal rights to suits and trials and only monetary damages are allowed, so I assume you can't sue them for ownership of your own stuff, just make them pay you for stealing it.
What is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing? That's a pretty broad and subjective list and we have to waive the right to a trial to determine if WotC was unreasonable for terminating the license if they so choose. I have no problem with not allowing racists to use the license but where is the line drawn on harmful? What do you consider harassing? Why can't we ask a jury to rule on it if we disagree with you?
What about OSR material that does not use SRD 5.1 but does use OGL 1.0(a)? Is there now a moratorium on any SRD material prior to version 5.1?
Honestly, this is not an open anything. You have closed more doors than you left open.
I still have hope that WotC will chill out but I'm ever closer to stepping past ending my subscription and going to "Delete my account", even if it means hundreds of dollars lost. If I go that far, WotC can not expect me to come back. I've already stopped subscribing but that can be undone. Deleting everything can't and it will signal a loss of a customer of over 40 years.
You need to read it closer. They can use your content, and you can sue them but only for a monetary settlement. You cannot stop them from continuing to use it.
Very steaky of them.
They're effectively still trying to kill VTT in 2 ways.
These two alone is enough to say no, but section 9e and 9g makes it even worst by signing your rights away.
The kicker... the severability clause allows them to "revoke" the irrevocable 1.2 if they wanted for any reason (there's a couple items that appear to be baked in to do so).
(not a lawyer, not legal advice).
Maybe someone who is a lawyer can clarify this for me, but they may be hoping that none of the big players will have Standing to challenge them since with the exclusions for older content, their existing work isn't in peril. They're moving to their own licenses. They don't have anything at stake.
IE... if they arent coming at Paizo and company, how is Paizo being harmed?
It doesn't change the status of whether 1.0a can be de authorized, but they may be trying to limit who can/will challenge it.
In the winter of 1998, I wrote a children's story to give out to friends and family as Christmas presents. It was about a young boy who could see and speak to ghosts
The next summer, the Sixth Sense came out. As yet, I haven't bothered to sue M Night Shyamalan
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So, here's the thing. This wording is subjective to WOTC. They could give passes to special "groups" that are partial to the Portland/Seattle lifestyle... and fail to enforce content some might find obscene or harassing. While at the same time crack down hard on other groups that publish something that many find completely fine, claiming WOTC finds it "hateful" or some other keyword.
On top of all that, the "engage in conduct" clause means that if you're a content creator and get in a fight on Twitter and angrily call someone an idiot, poof! There goes your income.
Trying to understand the VTT policy on animations. I'm using Foundry to play PF2E, there's a module that animates a good amount of spell effects that was created by whoever made the module. Under this new VTT policy would we not be able to use any animated effects for the Magic Missile spell? (I don't know if this particular one is animated as not all spells are (yet))
Is it only magic missile or what other spells would not be allowed to be animated? Why would they limit someone who created their own animation without borrowing or stealing that animation from someone else? Seems like it's their own work.
I completely understand not being able to use the official artwork for the Owlbear as someone else created it. If someone wanted to create their own art for an Owlbear token and use that it seems fine so why not a spell effect/animation?
I'm guessing their new proprietary VTT will have spell effects included and they want to limit competition.
That's my only gripe with the new OGL and more specifically the VTT Policy.
I wouldn’t care if they continue to use it as long as they give me an author’s credit for the work.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Because every year, copyright dicktrolls spawn ten gorrillion frivilous baseless meritless lawsuits that still eat valuable time, money, and legal sweat to defeat. Every company does this, not just Wizards. As has been stated, if Wizards truly ends up in breach, then you can sue regardless of what the terms say because the contract has been breached and redress has to come from outside it. But you need to have a stronger case than "I wrote a Blood Mage subclass for the Wizard in 2016 and then Wizards published a Blood Mage subclass in 2024! I gave them the idea, I DEMAND payment!" The clause is there to protect them from small-minded jackoffs who're trying to profiteer unfairly off of work they didn't do.
Really, guys - that's it. Wizards is GOING to have some sort of protection in place against frivolous copyright suits from bad actors trying to get one over on The Man, because otherwise the hundreds of third-party supplements out there and the thousands and thousands of Ideas other people have published would block Wizards from coming up with their own version of similar Ideas. It would be completely untenable, since Wizards would have to know the contents of every D&D product in existence and avoid anything smacking of similarity. That's a higher standard than is applied even between third-party publishers - Hit Point Press wouldn't be able to sue Green Ronin for making a book about monster hunting and using monster parts despite the existence of Heliana's Guide to Monster Hunting, why should HPP be allowed to sue Wizards for doing the same?
Please do not contact or message me.
Read the terms of service on literally anything you currently use....you've given up this right more times than you think. Nearly every company in existence that offers a product or service includes an arbitration clause.
The number of frivolous copyright claims is often overblown. It does happen, but the typical offenders are large corporations rather than individuals like we would see under these circumstances, Getty Images is a good example. But yes most all companies these days prefer arbitration and do so for a variety of reasons. Some questionable, most simply because it's faster and saves money.
And which clause protects small businesses from WotC stealing their work? All WotC have to say is that it was a coincidence and not intentional. It’s a completely one-sided clause that benefits WotC and exposes anyone who signs OGL 1.2 to creative theft.
As a Seattleite, I feel attacked that you would lump me in with Portland.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
There's about 100 threads on racial sterotyping. Maybe take this part of the discussion there, and stay focused on the ogl, here. Please.
I'm reasonably sure the "engage in conduct" bit is Wizards giving itself an out if somebody decides to become a flaming hatemonger in the media, but yeah. It might be overreaching, especially if the conduct isn't limited to conduct relating to their OGL-covered business. That bit could probably do with some tightening up, because Wizards' product identity and IP aren't tied to someone being a cockwaffle on Twitter the same way their brand is tied to a concrete product that uses their system.
Please do not contact or message me.
A couple of other points I object to:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have said this before on other threads, but it is worth repeating:
One of the things you can do in an intellectual property lawsuit is ask for an injunction - a judge saying “you can’t publish that.” You can ask for this at the beginning of the case (a preliminary injunction) where a judge says “you can’t publish that until the case is over.” These lawsuits can take years - something far more damaging to a company with release timelines than a layperson can imagine. We’re talking hundreds of thousands in losses per day and delays echoing down their entire schedule.
There are folks who game this system. One of my intellectual property professors did - before he went into teaching, he would do things like find some intellectual property close to something a big company was doing, get the owner of the similar IP to hire him as a client (or sell him the IP to the item), sue someone like Microsoft, and say “I’ll either get a preliminary injunction that will cost you ten million a day, or you can pay me a cool ten million right now and we’ll be done. You’ll win the case long term, but it will be more expensive to win than it would be to just bribe me.”
Wizards doesn’t want to risk losing the rights to publish books. They don’t want their production schedule held up. They don’t want to risk being held hostage by someone, all because in the hundreds of thousands of pages of content third parties produced, something by happenstance looked a lot like something Wizards independently came up with.
It terrifies them - to the point (as Yurei noted earlier) they have very strict company policies against workers looking at third party content.
But that's what they are willing to give you. Payment.
If they steal someone's content, the very most you can expect after signing is that they give you some money. They will still be able to sell that product because you can only get a monetary settlement (from my reading at least). You can't argue your case in open court. You can't sue them to credit you. You can't sue them to cease publication. You can't sue them to change their "O"GL terms so that it can't happen again. You can get a pittance from arbitration and that's it.
I personally would never sign a contract that says I give up all my other options so long as I get a small sum of cash unless that pittance was all I was interested in.