I hope this will not stop my foundry module to work.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from NH23 >>

I'm also a lawyer and the language in section 5.2 is way broader than necessary to allow dndbeyond to continue to operate. There is a big difference between granting a license to "use, copy, store, distribute, and communicate your content in manners consistent with your use of the services. (For example, so we can store and display your content.)” and granting a licensee to "use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed ... (including) the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, ... (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. "

One gives permission to use/copy/store/distribute data for the service; the other provides an unlimited right to use, change, adapt, and commercially exploit the data in whatever way the company wants including the right to exploit our personal information. While it's true we lawyers like to make stuff as broad as possible to avoid future issues, if I were negotiating on behalf of the other side I would say heck no to this provision as drafted.

It is fair to note that the language in 5.2 is basically identical to the license that was in place when dndbeyond was owned by twitch. However, the license in place under fandom was substantially less expansive and they managed to operate the site just fine. For more info on how the license has changed over time and issues with the WoTC language see this discussion.

 
I would posture that you are not taking into account that IP law is particularly unforgiving to one who “knowingly” violates another’s IP.  Given the sheer volume of homebrew content submitted, you can bet there’s going to be some overlap with official content that is released after the homebrew. 

I know I wouldn’t want to put my clients in a position where they are publishing information, storing information, and have a high likelihood of accidentally or inadvertently copying that information, and then having to argue “yes, well, you see, we have this information in our system, available to all our staff, and have a license to use it for some things… but, honest, we didn’t know about this thing in our possession!” Much easier to argue “this wasn’t copied and, in the alternative, if it were copied, we have a legal right to it.”

Given the business it is in - and the volumes Wizards is dealing with - I just don’t see any way their counsel would let them operate the site without protections against potentially litigious content creators.

As for the language being different, Fandom’s license includes everything in Wizards’, including rights to use folks’ likeness, right to produce derivative works, etc. Wizards writes with more legalise than Fandom, but the effect is that Fandom had MORE power than Wizards, since they reserved the right to authorise whomever they wished to utilise same.

Ultimately, nothing is changing: Wizards does what it needs to protect itself, folks get the services they want, and creators, most of whom probably don’t bother to read T&Cs are still going to follow the general common sense approach of “if I want to monetise this, I won’t put it on a free forum”, avoiding 90% of the potential issues 

 

Care to share a link, quote from fandom's license info, or any actual information to support your assertions that Fandom's license was more expansive than WoTC's? Everything I've seen in the past, including the discussion I linked to that has actual quotes from licensing docs, indicates the opposite.

Also, in claiming that nothing's changed you seem to be ignoring my point that the new terms seem to apply to literally everything we create on dndbeyond, not just stuff published on homebrew pages (I presume that's what you were referring to as a free forum).  I get that things aren't changing in that billion dollar companies will continue to look out for their economic interests at the expense of users as long as the users let them get away with it but that has nothing to do with whether the language of licensing terms has changed.

Nobody has answered my questions 

Does this mean our costs will go up?  Will the format we work with change?

More actual information would be really nice here. This literally tells us nothing, only that the accounts will move. What about our homebrew? What about pretty much everything? We need details here. We use DnDBeyond exclusively and I would hate to have to move all my homebrew to another system, it DOES NOT belong to WOTC. 

Quote from NH23 >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from NH23 >>

Care to share a link, quote from fandom's license info, or any actual information to support your assertions that Fandom's license was more expansive than WoTC's? Everything I've seen in the past, including the discussion I linked to that has actual quotes from licensing docs, indicates the opposite.

 

By submitting content (including comments) to our discussion or chat forums or creating or responding to quizzes or similar games, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display such submitted content (including comments and quizzes) in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so (this license right includes the name, identity, likeness and voice you submit with such content). You agree that you have the right to submit any content (including comments or quizzes) you post, and that such content (including comments or quizzes) does not violate the copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other personal or proprietary right of any other party.

As I said, Fandom’s terms gave them all manner of rights to whatever content you submit, public or not, and the right to do what they will with the content…. Except it also gave Fandom the ability to authorise third parties to use the same. You will note that “content” as defined in the current T&C is not limited to just public homebrew either. 

I want to know this too

I kind of hate myself for spending the last half hour or so reading through all 11 pages (at the time of this writing) and listening to all the "sky is falling," fear-inducing posts.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from NH23 >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from NH23 >>

Care to share a link, quote from fandom's license info, or any actual information to support your assertions that Fandom's license was more expansive than WoTC's? Everything I've seen in the past, including the discussion I linked to that has actual quotes from licensing docs, indicates the opposite.

 

 

By submitting content (including comments) to our discussion or chat forums or creating or responding to quizzes or similar games, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display such submitted content (including comments and quizzes) in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so (this license right includes the name, identity, likeness and voice you submit with such content). You agree that you have the right to submit any content (including comments or quizzes) you post, and that such content (including comments or quizzes) does not violate the copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other personal or proprietary right of any other party.

As I said, Fandom’s terms gave them all manner of rights to whatever content you submit, public or not, and the right to do what they will with the content…. Except it also gave Fandom the ability to authorise third parties to use the same. You will note that “content” as defined in the current T&C is not limited to just public homebrew either. 

 Thanks for providing an actual quote. I was actually just about to post this. The problem is you've left out the title to the paragraph you quoted and are trying to apply this to stuff it obviously doesn't apply to. The title to the quoted paragraph is "Content submitted to discussions forums or quizzes" and the first sentence makes it clear that's all it applies to. It has nothing to do with stuff like characters or other stuff  created on dndbeyond that isn't shared on forums.

The only language in the fandom terms that could theoretically be read broadly enough to cover our characters/items/other stuff is the following: "Idea submission: By submitting ideas, suggestions, documents, and/or proposals (“Submissions”) to Fandom or its employees, you acknowledge and agree that Fandom shall be entitled to use or disclose such Submissions for any purpose in any way without providing compensation or credit to you."  However, it's far more likely that would be interpreted as referring to things like ideas provided on suggestion threads or other direct communications with employees. Given that the language is arguably not clear most courts would interpret the language in favor of the non-drafting party (i.e. the user).

Bottom line, after re-reading the fandom terms I can say with greater confidence that I don't see any claim of right to anything like our characters or other creations (apart from stuff we post on the homebrew portions of the site) in the fandom terms of use . Section 5.2 should cause people concern and it is entirely fair to speak out in order to voice those concerns to WoTC.

Are we going to be able to have our hard copies on DnDBeyond finally? 

And this is why all of my homebrew content is going to be super gay and sex oriented. </joke>

Quote from NH23 >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from NH23 >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from NH23 >>

 

 

 

The only language in the fandom terms that could theoretically be read broadly enough to cover our characters/items/other stuff is the following: "Idea submission: By submitting ideas, suggestions, documents, and/or proposals (“Submissions”) to Fandom or its employees, you acknowledge and agree that Fandom shall be entitled to use or disclose such Submissions for any purpose in any way without providing compensation or credit to you."  However, it's far more likely that would be interpreted as referring to things like ideas provided on suggestion threads or other direct communications with employees. Given that the language is arguably not clear most courts would interpret the language in favor of the non-drafting party (i.e. the user).

 

 
I think we both know that “construe against the drafter” is one of those things 1Ls believe and practicing attorneys pay lip service to, but ambiguity is in the eye of the beholder. Given that, as you note, no other term is applicable to the analogous situation (and, frankly, that most judges are not technologically savvy), the most likely outcome is that the term “forum” is read broadly to include all user-submitted pages, with suggestions and quizzes being differentiated because they have different mechanisms for creation and purpose (quizzes presumably having some fan input, but mostly being generated by site mechanics, and thus warranting their inclusion as a separate byline). 

When combined with the fact that the homebrew system provides the ability to submit comments and responses, and it looks, from a practical stance, a lot like it falls into the “forum” definition. It’s a forum post with added functionality and the ability to make it private, but it’s still really easy to argue it’s unambiguously a special type of post on their forums. 

I think, though I am not a lawyer, that this is a fairly common clause not intended to somehow rob you of your characters or such, but to prevent disputes. These might occur if, e.g. you would have created a custom homebrew item named "Sword of the XYZ" some time ago, and now a new official item  with  the same or very similar name or effect is created in some official campaign book or such. This clause will allow them to simply create whatever npc, magic  item or spell they wish without someone who made the same  thing before claiming intellectual property. I don't think this will have any effect whatsoever on you if you simply use dndbeyond to run and manage your characters and homebrew stuff.

Still, if you're concerned maybe see if you can get an official response.

the number of people that will leave because of this clause will not even be  noticed. Almost every digital service has a clause like this and no one cares.

Quote from Verenti >>

So, if my characters have copyrighted material in them, for example portraits, Wizards is claiming the right to use, royalty-free, the content that I do not own the rights to and the IP holder never consented to place on this website? That's a bold claim.

Also, I would point out the difference between Old Beyond claiming the right to use user content and Wizards doing so. Old Beyond is/was not creating content for sale. There was the possibility they could have mined user content and sold it, but it wasn't likely to ever happen. It wasn't really a conflict of interest.

I mean, It's not like Old Beyond particularly cared about fairness and administration in my experience, but still.

 Fandom (the owner of beyond) was and still is a publisher. THey had t3eh capability to do jsut that.

Are we to assume that only the data controller is going to change?  

you can always delete your content. In fact do it ri8ght now and delete your whole account. You obviously dont want WotC to have access to your stuff, even though Fandom had the exact same clauses

I entered DDB via a Twitch account. Is that what will be transferred, or are you going to send me a bill?

For those freaking out about it:

From Fandoms ToS

CONTENT SUBMITTED TO DISCUSSIONS FORUMS OR QUIZZES

By submitting content (including comments) to our discussion or chat forums or creating or responding to quizzes or similar games, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display such submitted content (including comments and quizzes) in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so (this license right includes the name, identity, likeness and voice you submit with such content). You agree that you have the right to submit any content (including comments or quizzes) you post, and that such content (including comments or quizzes) does not violate the copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other personal or proprietary right of any other party.

Exact same thing as what is in WotC's terms. and jsut about every other digital platform. Stop being alarmists and try to make WotC out to be a bad guy looking to steal your content.