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.
The problem with that is, it almost always ends up being reactive. Someone publishes something awful, but it hadn't been on the list, so they're allowed. Then they update the list to forbid the awful thing, but the horse is already out of the barn.
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.
That’s a fair point about frivolous lawsuits, and I totally agree. But yeah, author’s credit is a more than reasonable ask.
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.
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.
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: Open Game License Version 1.2 Page 1 of 3
DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY (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.
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?
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.
Anything that’s saying you need to sign away your rights is bs, when all the content creators jump ship and other games suddenly have endless campaigns and ownership of their creativity without looking over their shoulder the population will decrease here. Change things all you want but if WoTC is going to strong arm the base, the base is going to move on to a company that wants to embrace them and take care of them.~Peace~
After reading this, it is worse than 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.
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.
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.
No, the right to sue is not a basic human right. Many companies (including DDB) and industries (like real estate sales) rely on binding arbitration to settle disputes.
I find it hilarious that people complain about the deauth of the OGL. Do you really think they just threw that in there without a bunch of capable lawyers checking that after the uproar of the last weeks?
IMO, they can still take your work and use it. You can sue them and possibly win, ending up with maybe a couple thousand dollars. However, they can continue to use it and not pay anything more. So this has not changed, except for them paying a small pittance.
They also have complete control over the content you want to publish, via the racist, discrimination, etc. statement.
This is an exaggeration to a extent but some people on this forum would complain and riot if you took there rusty penny and handed them a gold bar instead.
Anything that’s saying you need to sign away your rights is bs, when all the content creators jump ship and other games suddenly have endless campaigns and ownership of their creativity without looking over their shoulder the population will decrease here. Change things all you want but if WoTC is going to strong arm the base, the base is going to move on to a company that wants to embrace them and take care of them.~Peace~
What part of this version of the OGL says anything about needing to “sign away your rights?” Did you really read the document?
The problem with that is, it almost always ends up being reactive. Someone publishes something awful, but it hadn't been on the list, so they're allowed. Then they update the list to forbid the awful thing, but the horse is already out of the barn.
That’s a fair point about frivolous lawsuits, and I totally agree. But yeah, author’s credit is a more than reasonable ask.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Why?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
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.
Sorry I am blind and stupid it seems: Where can I take the survey?
I mean - how can I send my opinion?
The text I found xD"
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?
It will be posted tomorrow.
The VTT policy is a Big nope.
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.
Anything that’s saying you need to sign away your rights is bs, when all the content creators jump ship and other games suddenly have endless campaigns and ownership of their creativity without looking over their shoulder the population will decrease here. Change things all you want but if WoTC is going to strong arm the base, the base is going to move on to a company that wants to embrace them and take care of them.~Peace~
After reading this, it is worse than 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.
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
No, the right to sue is not a basic human right. Many companies (including DDB) and industries (like real estate sales) rely on binding arbitration to settle disputes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I find it hilarious that people complain about the deauth of the OGL. Do you really think they just threw that in there without a bunch of capable lawyers checking that after the uproar of the last weeks?
IMO, they can still take your work and use it. You can sue them and possibly win, ending up with maybe a couple thousand dollars. However, they can continue to use it and not pay anything more. So this has not changed, except for them paying a small pittance.
They also have complete control over the content you want to publish, via the racist, discrimination, etc. statement.
The VTT issue is really bad and points out it was what they have been after all along.
Ah thanks a lot.
yeah we need to approach this with a level head not blind rage give it viald critism both on social media and dndb
This is an exaggeration to a extent but some people on this forum would complain and riot if you took there rusty penny and handed them a gold bar instead.
You can't animate your own unique depiction of a magic missile because video game, but they almost certainly can.
Also, they're trying to shut out video games which again... they can't, because 1.0a.
They’re only deleting flamer posts and not genuine discussion posts.
What part of this version of the OGL says anything about needing to “sign away your rights?” Did you really read the document?
How?!? This is 1,000× better than the last version.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting