So.... can I still access and share content in dnd beyond which is what I paid the money for?

Will we be able to use something from our physical books so we can use them online too? I like collecting the books, but I also like having them online for my virtual sessions

any chance for account merges in that Wizard accounts would absorb the DDB account with the Wizards account then becoming primary for both wizards.com and dndbeyond.com content?

We can use nothing of theirs without permission but they can use any and all of our creative content freely.

Sounds like a fair exchange for a dice roller and character sheet. 

i am still confused on what this is going to do

ok thanks! that simplifies it

Quote from SherlockHulmes >>

With regards to the User Content policy.

- Fandom was not making D&D books. The same Terms may have been in place, but Fandom did not produce 5e books which does change things. The content here has far more value to WOTC than it did to Fandom. Especially from the viewpoint of folks who share their 5e work on Patreon, Blogs, Twitch/YouTube or via Kickstarter/Third Party Publishers in the Industry.

- If someone creates content for D&D Beyond, and WOTC *does* decide to publish it in a book (the argument of; "they won't" doesn't really work with contracts/agreements because as written they *can*), how does that then work in Ownership? My understanding is that the user waives any future trademark or copyright claim to it when uploading it, so does WOTC own it if they DO publish it and thus could demand the original owner remove it from other websites/locations?

- How will it work if someone doesn't upload their custom content to D&D Beyond, specifically because they want to retain ownership, but another user decides to copy it exactly and upload it? Will there be an option to issue a takedown notice to WOTC? Will that publisher or individual be able to take necessary steps *should* that content be used or modified in some way? How does international copyright laws and differences affect this?

- If it is necessary to have this clause for WOTC to be able to share that content with other users/in campaigns, then why is that not made more clear? If that is the SOLE purpose of this policy, then why does it not specify that? Why is it written in this way? If it IS the case that this policy is in place for the site's features to function then I feel like it could (and should) be rewritten to specify the ways it CAN be used without the need for such irrevocable sublicensing to take place. Clauses can be added to define the circumstances that would prevent bad faith users from damaging WOTC whilst ensuring honest users still have control and ownership of their content overall. Currently, it is an extremely controlling, overbearing, policy. Maybe not for a large % of users, but for the growing industry of third-party publishers, independent designers, stream DMs, Patreon users, artists, and more it *is* a concern.

Saying that the terms were the same before with Fandom is NOT a defense of any criticism towards the policy. It can be bad then, and still bad now. Some folks might not have known about it then and have every right to raise their voice now, others may have expected WOTC to improve it, or have only just begun to understand the importance of owning their material and are concerned with how it will be used in the future. EDIT: Also, another factor I realize is that many users signed up to D&D Beyond before Fandom acquired it from Curse. I can't say for sure for certain if a similar clause existed when D&D Beyond first launched, but I don't remember it being a thing.

If WOTC is taking ownership of this, then they have the power to change and modify those terms to better protect the creative community using it. That is exactly what providing feedback here is for. If you don't care about it, that's completely up to you. But folks can absolutely be upset about this.

I've supported WOTC a lot, and I think the idea of them having ownership of D&D Beyond is great for the tool's development and I would be excited to see what they do with it. But I still don't agree with this policy and I think being critical of large companies having unquestionable, irrevocable rights to others' creative content isn't something to be defending. 

Hey, thanks for not using any obvious fallacies in your argument. You've hit the nose on the crux of debate. I would think that certain large streams would most likely be affected by this policy. However, in the most likeliness of cases they probably Copyrighted their characters and merch first before throwing them up on this site.

I believe most people here are under the wrong impression that their homebrew, digital art, etc. was private as long as they didn't "publish" for public view. 

And one could assume that there can be a more friendly policy for the PRIVATE vs published content, but it's clear from the wording itself this wasn't the intent.

If people really wanted to keep their homebrew private, they would left the idea somewhere else that isn't a public database or infrastructure. For example, a txt document, some Virtual Table Tops (VTTs), or even physical paper.

What's alluring with Dndbeyond's system though is that the homebrew can be applied mechanically (to a restricted extent). Also the ease of use will keep most new players locked into thinking this is best way to play and must keep using this platform to get maximum enjoyment. This makes it harder to break away for DMs and content creators. 

This platform was popularized by many streams and has gotten a large following, hence why WoTC is buying this database vs any others. Why would they buy this? If you came to that conclusion on your own then all the more obvious why people are freaking out. 

No one knows how WoTC is going to behave and they only got past glimpses to look at.

Have there any announcements about hot how this could affect access through subscriptions? Or the price of the subscriptions? I bought all my books through DND Beyond and got the subscription so I could easily share content with my players and my co-DM. It would be quite devastating to my table if I were to lose access to that feature.

I got a nat 1 on this......

I don't feel so good

Please create a system were people who buy the books can unlock the digital content on DnD beyond. This could be the only redeeming quality I see presentable with this acquisition. 

I'm not excited for this, I'll say it. D&D Beyond has always been about the community, for the community, BY the community. And now, it's being handed over to a corporate organisation. Corporations are known to be exclusively interested in profit, and for that reason I am now scared as to what will and won't be readily accessible to those who don't have a subscription. I think right now, with a few exceptions, the balance of paid content and free content is very steady, and I really hope that will continue as the transition occurs. I believe that there should be more free content personally, but I understand that this is still a business and profit at the end of the day is of utmost importance. That being said, I hope that the community aspect of DDB remains, and I hope that players, GMs and DMs all get to have a say and at least SOME input as to how the transition occurs, and what changes will be made, if any.

With all this in mind, I hope the transition runs smoothly, and whilst I am apprehensive, I would like to remain optimistic.

Downs it mean everyone is now a wizard? What if we want to multi-class? What will happen to my patron and deity?

(these are not serious questions, mostly a joke because roleplaying is important.)

Sorry Arenlor but your last statement in response to DDDienst1 and as I read more to many others about the T&C and content ownership/use are not true.

In that post you state that the ownership T&C clause can be found anywhere that has user-created content. Many services that have the option for player created content do not include terms and conditions that allow them whole sale use of content created by the community. Take the widely known Deviant Art or Fan Fiction as an example. If you upload an image or story to share they do not have a clause in there terms and conditions that allow them to use it. They do have one that says they may request your permission to use it. If your talking D&D related tools only, Roll 20, World Anvil, Dungeon Fog, Inkarnete and Campfire all have no such clause. So I'm sorry but your statement is false.

You could say that you may find it at SOME places that have user-generated content. For example some Large companies considered by many to have predatory practices like Take2, EA, ARC, Cryptic & Perfect World are fond of this T&C clause in hopes they will be able to leverage the community as a resource for free ideas or content. And considering what WoTC tried to do to Weis and Hickman over Dragon Lance proves it is questionable if they are above such practices or not. In addition the wording also has no reason to exists as it dose in a contract except for such potential predatory use, as it waives creators rite to copyright. A rite that is currently under debate in the U.S. legal system as to if T&C agreements can even do such legally as it is a given rite but not a constitutional one.

Please note I hold no ill will agents you. But I do suggest If you are going to be discussing legalese, please consult a legal expert first. Because weather you realize it or not by trying to clarify these questions you are technically advising people on what is a legally binding contract. If nothing else you should do so to cover yourself as once again, technically you could be considered a responsible party if you misrepresent the contract if your are a official representative in any way of either WoTC and/or D&D Beyond. A contract I may add has a high potential to lead to a lawsuit or litigation should WoTC exercise the clause in question.

Unless I need to create anything, I should be fine.  I assume I'm correct?

+1 for needing clarification on section 5.2

5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license ...

Granted, any webservice dealing in user content needs some license for that user content in order to provide the intended services, but the language here seems much broader and further reaching than what would be necessary.