This is really a question for the admins. I've been wondering about the policy on public homebrews of content that is later covered by official material. I have a few published blocks on living spells that I imagine will be covered by the upcoming Eberron release. Will they be taken down if an official living spell appears?
This is really a question for the admins. I've been wondering about the policy on public homebrews of content that is later covered by official material. I have a few published blocks on living spells that I imagine will be covered by the upcoming Eberron release. Will they be taken down if an official living spell appears?
If it is copied exactly or close enough you can claim copyright infringement.
But the question is: why do you think they'll be covered by official material? The chances of them coming up with something identical to your homebrew is slim unless your homebrew is based on something already detailed officially in which case, your case is either compromised or an infringement on itself.
If you're referring to the "idea" of a "living spell" then neither you nor WotC can claim copyright since neither of you are the first to come up with it. That idea has been around a long time.
EDIT: Oh, I can see that previous editions had actual "living spells" so you're already breaking copyright - since you should not be publishing homebrew of ANY edition or published work of any kind. So, really your living spell could be taken down now if they wanted.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I doubt that they would ban it, simply because you submitted your version first for 5e. As for posting updated versions/conversions of content from earlier editions, contrary to what Cyb3rM1nd said, it is in fact allowed, and mods have have confirmed it (I've asked the same question before). The only material they don't allow is copyrighted material from other franchises (Game of Thrones, Star Wars), stuff from UA, or reuploading things from 5e, like the Alert feat.
Yeah, I've been explicitly told that version ports are kosher. Otherwise about half of the homebrew material on this site, and 90% of my own would be gone. My concern is that I've had material taken down for so much as sharing a name with vaguely official material. Specifically, I ported the tanglefoot bag from 3e and had it removed because the original UA Artificer had access to the tanglefoot bag, although it had a completely different mechanic. (Strangely the new Artificer has no mention of the tanglefoot bag and I still can't publish it, but whatever). This time I'm worried that the devs will publish their own living spells and mine would be removed despite the slim chance that they bear any resemblance, and the fact that I published it first.
Whenever I do a version port, I always make sure to mention what it is based on and from what edition, just as a precaution, even though I'm not entirely certain that it is necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all,
This is really a question for the admins. I've been wondering about the policy on public homebrews of content that is later covered by official material. I have a few published blocks on living spells that I imagine will be covered by the upcoming Eberron release. Will they be taken down if an official living spell appears?
If it is copied exactly or close enough you can claim copyright infringement.
But the question is: why do you think they'll be covered by official material? The chances of them coming up with something identical to your homebrew is slim unless your homebrew is based on something already detailed officially in which case, your case is either compromised or an infringement on itself.
If you're referring to the "idea" of a "living spell" then neither you nor WotC can claim copyright since neither of you are the first to come up with it. That idea has been around a long time.
EDIT: Oh, I can see that previous editions had actual "living spells" so you're already breaking copyright - since you should not be publishing homebrew of ANY edition or published work of any kind. So, really your living spell could be taken down now if they wanted.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I doubt that they would ban it, simply because you submitted your version first for 5e. As for posting updated versions/conversions of content from earlier editions, contrary to what Cyb3rM1nd said, it is in fact allowed, and mods have have confirmed it (I've asked the same question before). The only material they don't allow is copyrighted material from other franchises (Game of Thrones, Star Wars), stuff from UA, or reuploading things from 5e, like the Alert feat.
Yeah, I've been explicitly told that version ports are kosher. Otherwise about half of the homebrew material on this site, and 90% of my own would be gone. My concern is that I've had material taken down for so much as sharing a name with vaguely official material. Specifically, I ported the tanglefoot bag from 3e and had it removed because the original UA Artificer had access to the tanglefoot bag, although it had a completely different mechanic. (Strangely the new Artificer has no mention of the tanglefoot bag and I still can't publish it, but whatever). This time I'm worried that the devs will publish their own living spells and mine would be removed despite the slim chance that they bear any resemblance, and the fact that I published it first.
Whenever I do a version port, I always make sure to mention what it is based on and from what edition, just as a precaution, even though I'm not entirely certain that it is necessary.