The only thing people might have any serious reason to get uppity over is the provision that Wizards has the sole right to determine what qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" and that signants of the new OGL waive their right to contest any such determination with any sort of legal action. Those are pretty broad powers and I just know a bunch of people are going to claim it's a Loophole Backdoor in the OGL, but I imagine the forum's legal people can tell me if I'm right on this one: Wizards cannot compel you to sacrifice your legal rights. If your license was terminated under Clause 6f, and you have a solid case that it was done maliciously and in breach of the contract, you can still sue Wizards for breaching the contract. Your case will be weaker, yes, but the company will also be getting excoriated in the court of public opinion for twisting their words and the court system will be looking over whether Wizards breached the terms of their license agreement with you based on an unreasonable reading of the document.
This is the only term that gave me pause - not that I don’t support them cracking down on racism using their content, but I don’t think it is fully enforceable as written. It might add another layer to litigation, but most judges I know would be highly suspect of “you can’t sue if we breached the contract” terms.
It’s one of those terms they could probably clear up, but not one I would cry over if it was used.
They cannot de-authorize the 1.0a. Prepare the lawsuits as this is the only way they will learn.
This is false. 1.0 confers no rights until entered into under its acceptance terms and 1.0’s very text anticipated that one day it will be revoked as an offer.
A judge should laugh you out of court if you make this argument - I can’t think of a single judge who would say anyone has to perpetually keep an offer hanging open in the aether indefinitely.
Yawn, plenty of legal minds disagree. It will have to be argued in court but it can be very bad day for WOTC and Hasbro.
The 1.0a explicitly outlines the rights and authority of the contract. There is no de-authorization authority afforded in section 9 or section 13. Section 9 also outlines that any version can be used (where authorized is a communicated by an official party, not any joe-smoe). The sole clause for termination of 1.0a is outlined in Section 13 AND you have 30 days to rectify.
Anything not outlined in the contract is historically in legal percent set AGAINST the drafter (WOTC and Hasbro). We also have the creators of the 1,0a stating explicitly what the 1.0a is. When in court with those testimonies, it is a BAD day for WOTC. If you think otherwise you are naïve.
"(d)Severability.If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
This doesn't sit too well with me... So you're telling me that at any point they don't like something about this license or can't enforce something they dislike they can just claim the entire thing as being void and null.
What this means is that if a government passes a law somewhere that - somehow - makes part of the OGL invalid/illegal/unable to be legally enforced, or someone manages to win a case saying that part of the OGL doesn't apply to them, Wizards has the right to decide what to do about that. It's probably necessary, to deal with the fact that laws change but this document isn't allowed to. Under normal/expected usage of the document, this will never come up.
More like, if a court of law holds any part of the license as unenforceable, they reserve the right to declare the entire license null and void.
And more than likely, that will happen because the deauthorization clause will DEFINITELY go to court and is likely to not be upheld. If we're lucky, the court will rule on the ability to copyright any of the mechanics of their game, That leaves them with a few proper names and a brand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
The only thing people might have any serious reason to get uppity over is the provision that Wizards has the sole right to determine what qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" and that signants of the new OGL waive their right to contest any such determination with any sort of legal action. Those are pretty broad powers and I just know a bunch of people are going to claim it's a Loophole Backdoor in the OGL, but I imagine the forum's legal people can tell me if I'm right on this one: Wizards cannot compel you to sacrifice your legal rights. If your license was terminated under Clause 6f, and you have a solid case that it was done maliciously and in breach of the contract, you can still sue Wizards for breaching the contract. Your case will be weaker, yes, but the company will also be getting excoriated in the court of public opinion for twisting their words and the court system will be looking over whether Wizards breached the terms of their license agreement with you based on an unreasonable reading of the document.
I agree this is a bit vague, but also, I think it kind of needs to be. There's not really an agreed-upon definition of obscene. To use an American example, what's obscene in a small town is an everyday sight on the streets of some larger cities. Beyond that, society's moral compass is ever shifting, and leaving it vague gives them leeway to not have to re-write this. Things that are perfectly fine now were considered obscene not too long ago. And things that were considered acceptable aren't any longer. Even if they said something like, racism isn't allowed, what people think of as racist behavior changes over time.
I'm not trying to disagree with you, btw. Just trying to add to the discussion.
I have an issue with „obscene“. This can be used to ban the depiction of same gender couples or same gender kisses from OGL products. „Obscenity laws“ have been/are one of the main avenues to battle LGBTQIA+ people in the past and present. Who guarantees that a future Hasbro/WotC management won‘t use that to again marginalize depictions of LGBTQIA+ persons? I don‘t trust WotC on this, at all.
I do have one significant objection to this new OGL v.1.2. p1 §3 ¶s a & b
3. WHAT YOU OWN. Your Licensed Works are yours. They may not be copied or used without your permission. You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us:
(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief. (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
"(d)Severability.If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
This doesn't sit too well with me... So you're telling me that at any point they don't like something about this license or can't enforce something they dislike they can just claim the entire thing as being void and null.
What this means is that if a government passes a law somewhere that - somehow - makes part of the OGL invalid/illegal/unable to be legally enforced, or someone manages to win a case saying that part of the OGL doesn't apply to them, Wizards has the right to decide what to do about that. It's probably necessary, to deal with the fact that laws change but this document isn't allowed to. Under normal/expected usage of the document, this will never come up.
More like, if a court of law holds any part of the license as unenforceable, they reserve the right to declare the entire license null and void.
And more than likely, that will happen because the deauthorization clause will DEFINITELY go to court and is likely to not be upheld. If we're lucky, the court will rule on the ability to copyright any of the mechanics of their game, That leaves them with a few proper names and a brand.
Mechanics cannot be copyrighted but expression can. For TTRPGs that is a very tricky needle to thread, so... good luck.
I do have one significant objection to this new OGL v.1.2. p1 §3 ¶s a & b
3. WHAT YOU OWN. Your Licensed Works are yours. They may not be copied or used without your permission. You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us:
(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief. (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
I think the authorship part is a fair critique and one I think I’ll take and put in my comments I submit to Wizards. A term like “You shall not sue for injunctive relief or any specific performance, except specific performance in the form of Wizards granting you an author credit” would be a good addition.
The only thing people might have any serious reason to get uppity over is the provision that Wizards has the sole right to determine what qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" and that signants of the new OGL waive their right to contest any such determination with any sort of legal action. Those are pretty broad powers and I just know a bunch of people are going to claim it's a Loophole Backdoor in the OGL, but I imagine the forum's legal people can tell me if I'm right on this one: Wizards cannot compel you to sacrifice your legal rights. If your license was terminated under Clause 6f, and you have a solid case that it was done maliciously and in breach of the contract, you can still sue Wizards for breaching the contract. Your case will be weaker, yes, but the company will also be getting excoriated in the court of public opinion for twisting their words and the court system will be looking over whether Wizards breached the terms of their license agreement with you based on an unreasonable reading of the document.
I agree this is a bit vague, but also, I think it kind of needs to be. There's not really an agreed-upon definition of obscene. To use an American example, what's obscene in a small town is an everyday sight on the streets of some larger cities. Beyond that, society's moral compass is ever shifting, and leaving it vague gives them leeway to not have to re-write this. Things that are perfectly fine now were considered obscene not too long ago. And things that were considered acceptable aren't any longer. Even if they said something like, racism isn't allowed, what people think of as racist behavior changes over time.
I'm not trying to disagree with you, btw. Just trying to add to the discussion.
If I would guess, they want to be the arbiters of whether or not something is "obscene" because they stand the most to lose financially from being associated with the "obscene" content, and they also want to avoid the hassle of being sued by troglodytes because said troglodytes wanted to write a module with a character in black-face, and argue that that's not obscene in (insert backwards location here).
This is the only term that gave me pause - not that I don’t support them cracking down on racism using their content, but I don’t think it is fully enforceable as written. It might add another layer to litigation, but most judges I know would be highly suspect of “you can’t sue if we breached the contract” terms.
It’s one of those terms they could probably clear up, but not one I would cry over if it was used.
Yeah, it struck me as a little open-ended and reachy, but the whole thing people are pushing for - i.e. narrow, exclusive definitions of what does and does not qualify as Hateful Content/Conduct in an unchangeable document - is a no-go from the beginning. As society's standards shift, so do Wizards', and being able to protect their brand from association with hateful content or conduct is probably the single biggest reason they pulled this whole mess to start with. That shit can and does sink companies these days, whatever people think of that fact.
And again, for the listeners - the answer is don't be a cockwaffle when making D&D content. If you publish and sell stuff that's deliberately hateful, discriminatory, or harmful, maybe you should have to do it with your own work instead of cribbing Wizards'.
I do have one significant objection to this new OGL v.1.2. p1 §3 ¶s a & b
3. WHAT YOU OWN. Your Licensed Works are yours. They may not be copied or used without your permission. You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us:
(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief. (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
I think the authorship part is a fair critique and one I think I’ll take and put in my comments I submit to Wizards. A term like “You shall not sue for injunctive relief or any specific performance, except specific performance in the form of Wizards granting you an author credit” would be a good addition.
Agreed. Author credit (at least on subsequent printings) should be authorized.
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
Apparently this is fairly standard for media contracts. I would note that you can probably sue for cash and then accept a settlement for recognition in lieu of cash.
The only thing people might have any serious reason to get uppity over is the provision that Wizards has the sole right to determine what qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" and that signants of the new OGL waive their right to contest any such determination with any sort of legal action. Those are pretty broad powers and I just know a bunch of people are going to claim it's a Loophole Backdoor in the OGL, but I imagine the forum's legal people can tell me if I'm right on this one: Wizards cannot compel you to sacrifice your legal rights. If your license was terminated under Clause 6f, and you have a solid case that it was done maliciously and in breach of the contract, you can still sue Wizards for breaching the contract. Your case will be weaker, yes, but the company will also be getting excoriated in the court of public opinion for twisting their words and the court system will be looking over whether Wizards breached the terms of their license agreement with you based on an unreasonable reading of the document.
I agree this is a bit vague, but also, I think it kind of needs to be. There's not really an agreed-upon definition of obscene. To use an American example, what's obscene in a small town is an everyday sight on the streets of some larger cities. Beyond that, society's moral compass is ever shifting, and leaving it vague gives them leeway to not have to re-write this. Things that are perfectly fine now were considered obscene not too long ago. And things that were considered acceptable aren't any longer. Even if they said something like, racism isn't allowed, what people think of as racist behavior changes over time.
I'm not trying to disagree with you, btw. Just trying to add to the discussion.
If I would guess, they want to be the arbiters of whether or not something is "obscene" because they stand the most to lose financially from being associated with the "obscene" content, and they also want to avoid the hassle of being sued by troglodytes because said troglodytes wanted to write a module with a character in black-face, and argue that that's not obscene in (insert backwards location here).
I wager they don't want to be the arbiters of what's obscene, or any of the other terms. It's a no-win for them. Leave something up, and they are tarnished for allowing racism. Shut something down, and they'll only have backlash from the opposite side of the issue with people screaming about free speech. But they do need to have the option if something gets dire. More like, hope we never need to exercise this clause, but in case of emergency, break glass.
Yeah, I think the Author's Credit thing is a reasonable ask. They may not be willing to give it, but it's a reasonable thing to ask in the feedback surveys. I just also know Caerwyn's absolutely right and a lot of dickheads start a lot offrivolous trollerskates copyright lawsuits that have no merit. Prolific homebrew publishers should have some potential reprieve, but I also know Wizards actively forbids its creative people from looking at Fan Stuff specifically so they have a legal defense against this sort of frivolous BS from bad actors.
This is the only term that gave me pause - not that I don’t support them cracking down on racism using their content, but I don’t think it is fully enforceable as written. It might add another layer to litigation, but most judges I know would be highly suspect of “you can’t sue if we breached the contract” terms.
It’s one of those terms they could probably clear up, but not one I would cry over if it was used.
Yeah, it struck me as a little open-ended and reachy, but the whole thing people are pushing for - i.e. narrow, exclusive definitions of what does and does not qualify as Hateful Content/Conduct in an unchangeable document - is a no-go from the beginning. As society's standards shift, so do Wizards', and being able to protect their brand from association with hateful content or conduct is probably the single biggest reason they pulled this whole mess to start with. That shit can and does sink companies these days, whatever people think of that fact.
And again, for the listeners - the answer is don't be a cockwaffle when making D&D content. If you publish and sell stuff that's deliberately hateful, discriminatory, or harmful, maybe you should have to do it with your own work instead of cribbing Wizards'.
I think that if there were some way to offload the determination to a neutral third party, that would be ideal.
The legitimate concern is that Hasbro/WotC has a financial interest potentially in weaponizing this clause, and even if current management wouldn't do that (and they aren't trustworthy - they dont honor commitments and past perpetual licenses), even worse future management could.
So what can they do for assurance on this item, to prevent weaponization?
No, mods are deleting flame-bait caterwauling howling-at-the-moon rabid word vomit. As they should. Speak reasonably and your reasonable concerns and inquiries will be addressed. Speak like a rioting yaybo and no one will pay any attention. Easy as that.
This is the only term that gave me pause - not that I don’t support them cracking down on racism using their content, but I don’t think it is fully enforceable as written. It might add another layer to litigation, but most judges I know would be highly suspect of “you can’t sue if we breached the contract” terms.
It’s one of those terms they could probably clear up, but not one I would cry over if it was used.
Yeah, it struck me as a little open-ended and reachy, but the whole thing people are pushing for - i.e. narrow, exclusive definitions of what does and does not qualify as Hateful Content/Conduct in an unchangeable document - is a no-go from the beginning. As society's standards shift, so do Wizards', and being able to protect their brand from association with hateful content or conduct is probably the single biggest reason they pulled this whole mess to start with. That shit can and does sink companies these days, whatever people think of that fact.
And again, for the listeners - the answer is don't be a cockwaffle when making D&D content. If you publish and sell stuff that's deliberately hateful, discriminatory, or harmful, maybe you should have to do it with your own work instead of cribbing Wizards'.
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.
This is the only term that gave me pause - not that I don’t support them cracking down on racism using their content, but I don’t think it is fully enforceable as written. It might add another layer to litigation, but most judges I know would be highly suspect of “you can’t sue if we breached the contract” terms.
It’s one of those terms they could probably clear up, but not one I would cry over if it was used.
Yeah, it struck me as a little open-ended and reachy, but the whole thing people are pushing for - i.e. narrow, exclusive definitions of what does and does not qualify as Hateful Content/Conduct in an unchangeable document - is a no-go from the beginning. As society's standards shift, so do Wizards', and being able to protect their brand from association with hateful content or conduct is probably the single biggest reason they pulled this whole mess to start with. That shit can and does sink companies these days, whatever people think of that fact.
And again, for the listeners - the answer is don't be a cockwaffle when making D&D content. If you publish and sell stuff that's deliberately hateful, discriminatory, or harmful, maybe you should have to do it with your own work instead of cribbing Wizards'.
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.
They can decide a company is getting too big, declare their content hateful, and that company has no right to take it to court under the license.
This is WORSE than the not-draft OGL 1.1
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
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.
Binding arbitration is an automatic red flag no go, too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is the only term that gave me pause - not that I don’t support them cracking down on racism using their content, but I don’t think it is fully enforceable as written. It might add another layer to litigation, but most judges I know would be highly suspect of “you can’t sue if we breached the contract” terms.
It’s one of those terms they could probably clear up, but not one I would cry over if it was used.
Yawn, plenty of legal minds disagree. It will have to be argued in court but it can be very bad day for WOTC and Hasbro.
The 1.0a explicitly outlines the rights and authority of the contract. There is no de-authorization authority afforded in section 9 or section 13. Section 9 also outlines that any version can be used (where authorized is a communicated by an official party, not any joe-smoe). The sole clause for termination of 1.0a is outlined in Section 13 AND you have 30 days to rectify.
Anything not outlined in the contract is historically in legal percent set AGAINST the drafter (WOTC and Hasbro). We also have the creators of the 1,0a stating explicitly what the 1.0a is. When in court with those testimonies, it is a BAD day for WOTC. If you think otherwise you are naïve.
(not a lawyer, not legal advice)
More like, if a court of law holds any part of the license as unenforceable, they reserve the right to declare the entire license null and void.
And more than likely, that will happen because the deauthorization clause will DEFINITELY go to court and is likely to not be upheld. If we're lucky, the court will rule on the ability to copyright any of the mechanics of their game, That leaves them with a few proper names and a brand.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I agree this is a bit vague, but also, I think it kind of needs to be. There's not really an agreed-upon definition of obscene. To use an American example, what's obscene in a small town is an everyday sight on the streets of some larger cities. Beyond that, society's moral compass is ever shifting, and leaving it vague gives them leeway to not have to re-write this. Things that are perfectly fine now were considered obscene not too long ago. And things that were considered acceptable aren't any longer. Even if they said something like, racism isn't allowed, what people think of as racist behavior changes over time.
I'm not trying to disagree with you, btw. Just trying to add to the discussion.
I have an issue with „obscene“. This can be used to ban the depiction of same gender couples or same gender kisses from OGL products. „Obscenity laws“ have been/are one of the main avenues to battle LGBTQIA+ people in the past and present. Who guarantees that a future Hasbro/WotC management won‘t use that to again marginalize depictions of LGBTQIA+ persons? I don‘t trust WotC on this, at all.
I do have one significant objection to this new OGL v.1.2. p1 §3 ¶s a & b
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Mechanics cannot be copyrighted but expression can. For TTRPGs that is a very tricky needle to thread, so... good luck.
I think the authorship part is a fair critique and one I think I’ll take and put in my comments I submit to Wizards. A term like “You shall not sue for injunctive relief or any specific performance, except specific performance in the form of Wizards granting you an author credit” would be a good addition.
If I would guess, they want to be the arbiters of whether or not something is "obscene" because they stand the most to lose financially from being associated with the "obscene" content, and they also want to avoid the hassle of being sued by troglodytes because said troglodytes wanted to write a module with a character in black-face, and argue that that's not obscene in (insert backwards location here).
Yeah, it struck me as a little open-ended and reachy, but the whole thing people are pushing for - i.e. narrow, exclusive definitions of what does and does not qualify as Hateful Content/Conduct in an unchangeable document - is a no-go from the beginning. As society's standards shift, so do Wizards', and being able to protect their brand from association with hateful content or conduct is probably the single biggest reason they pulled this whole mess to start with. That shit can and does sink companies these days, whatever people think of that fact.
And again, for the listeners - the answer is don't be a cockwaffle when making D&D content. If you publish and sell stuff that's deliberately hateful, discriminatory, or harmful, maybe you should have to do it with your own work instead of cribbing Wizards'.
Please do not contact or message me.
Agreed. Author credit (at least on subsequent printings) should be authorized.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Apparently this is fairly standard for media contracts. I would note that you can probably sue for cash and then accept a settlement for recognition in lieu of cash.
I wager they don't want to be the arbiters of what's obscene, or any of the other terms. It's a no-win for them. Leave something up, and they are tarnished for allowing racism. Shut something down, and they'll only have backlash from the opposite side of the issue with people screaming about free speech. But they do need to have the option if something gets dire. More like, hope we never need to exercise this clause, but in case of emergency, break glass.
Yeah, I think the Author's Credit thing is a reasonable ask. They may not be willing to give it, but it's a reasonable thing to ask in the feedback surveys. I just also know Caerwyn's absolutely right and a lot of dickheads start a lot offrivolous trollerskates copyright lawsuits that have no merit. Prolific homebrew publishers should have some potential reprieve, but I also know Wizards actively forbids its creative people from looking at Fan Stuff specifically so they have a legal defense against this sort of frivolous BS from bad actors.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think that if there were some way to offload the determination to a neutral third party, that would be ideal.
The legitimate concern is that Hasbro/WotC has a financial interest potentially in weaponizing this clause, and even if current management wouldn't do that (and they aren't trustworthy - they dont honor commitments and past perpetual licenses), even worse future management could.
So what can they do for assurance on this item, to prevent weaponization?
No, mods are deleting flame-bait caterwauling howling-at-the-moon rabid word vomit. As they should. Speak reasonably and your reasonable concerns and inquiries will be addressed. Speak like a rioting yaybo and no one will pay any attention. Easy as that.
Please do not contact or message me.
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.
They can decide a company is getting too big, declare their content hateful, and that company has no right to take it to court under the license.
This is WORSE than the not-draft OGL 1.1
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
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.
Binding arbitration is an automatic red flag no go, too
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.