Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

The question is not how litigious WotC is... it's a subsidiary. Hasbro on the other hand?

I also don't think trademark suits are irrelevant as they show a general intent by Hasbro to protect what it believes are its IP rights.

Here's just a few results from a search on "Hasbro Lawsuits"

https://www.shacknews.com/article/5096/hasbro-lawsuits
https://nypost.com/2019/01/29/hasbro-wins-game-of-life-lawsuit/
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/06/02/hasbros-lawsuits-are-no-game.aspx
https://www.cbr.com/hasbro-dc-comics-bumblebee-trademark-lawsuit/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hasbro-sues-stop-warner-bros-522262/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hasbro-wins-lawsuit-over-play-doh-trademark/

Those are just some of the first results and is enough to say, yes, they sue regularly to protect their their IP. And when the profits of the division currently responsible for 70% of their value is on the line... I would not be the one wanting to poke that bear unless I had no other choice.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 18, 2023, 02:26:35 PM
Stop being a fucking retard.

It's real easy to talk big on a message board. How fucking tough will you be when some Hasbro process server drops a big steaming lawsuit on your doorstep? You'll need a lawyer -- which costs. And the point Geeky is making here is that Hasbro knows they won't be able to prove ownership easily (if at all). So they'll drag it out, as long as possible, to drain your funds and maybe force bankruptcy.

While it's not quite the same, I strongly recommend you review 'SLAPP' lawsuits, and why some states actually passed laws against that bullshit.

Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

Considering Chris's point, I'd say they're litigious enough.

If you wanna gamble with that, that's your business. But you got a lot of nerve telling Geeky he's a pussy for not wanting to pick that fight.

Imagine trying to goad someone to get into lawfare with a megacorp. Are you fucking larping Shadowrun or something?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

The question is not how litigious WotC is... it's a subsidiary. Hasbro on the other hand?

I also don't think trademark suits are irrelevant as they show a general intent by Hasbro to protect what it believes are its IP rights.

I disagree. It is not relevant because nobody here is supporting using WotC's trademarks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM
Here's just a few results from a search on "Hasbro Lawsuits"
...
Those are just some of the first results and is enough to say, yes, they sue regularly to protect their their IP. And when the profits of the division currently responsible for 70% of their value is on the line... I would not be the one wanting to poke that bear unless I had no other choice.

The only copyright case of those you listed was that of the movie script called "ChainMail" and WotC/Hasbro's copyright claims were dismissed.
Then they settled with Warner Bros. on the contract claims.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 04:09:40 PM
D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

I do recall that a successful defense against copyright claims used in the past was "it's already been used by others without interference thus it is no longer copyrighted."  I'm not an expert in that aspect of IP, though, so there may be more to it.

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 06:08:37 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM

Quote from: DocJones on January 18, 2023, 02:50:54 PM
Here's a challenge for you.  List the copyright infringement lawsuits WotC has filed against others.
For the purpose of keeping it on point (copyright) ignore trademark and patent suits.
Just how litigious are they?

The question is not how litigious WotC is... it's a subsidiary. Hasbro on the other hand?

I also don't think trademark suits are irrelevant as they show a general intent by Hasbro to protect what it believes are its IP rights.

I disagree. It is not relevant because nobody here is supporting using WotC's trademarks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 05:06:42 PM
Here's just a few results from a search on "Hasbro Lawsuits"
...
Those are just some of the first results and is enough to say, yes, they sue regularly to protect their their IP. And when the profits of the division currently responsible for 70% of their value is on the line... I would not be the one wanting to poke that bear unless I had no other choice.

The only copyright case of those you listed was that of the movie script called "ChainMail" and WotC/Hasbro's copyright claims were dismissed.
Then they settled with Warner Bros. on the contract claims.

So, put on your big boy pants, develop a game following YOUR own advice and publish it, we'll be right here cheering you on.

What? You're not going to do it? Why is that big mouth?

Quote from: Mishihari on January 18, 2023, 06:09:10 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 04:09:40 PM
D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

I do recall that a successful defense against copyright claims used in the past was "it's already been used by others without interference thus it is no longer copyrighted."  I'm not an expert in that aspect of IP, though, so there may be more to it.

The question isn't if you have a successful defense, the question is: Can you survive (without selling your game) until the case reaches a court several years from the moment the law suit is initiated? Paying lawyer fees?

It's called lawfare.

Wizards would have to go after Piazo first wouldn't they?

Quote from: Mishihari on January 18, 2023, 06:09:10 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 04:09:40 PM
D&D basically invented a number of fantasy tropes that are widely used even outside of ttrpgs. Video games, novels, animes... Now Hasbro is trying to copyright claim all of that, frivolously or not, and it's going to have consequences.

Does Hasbro have grounds to sue anyone who uses drow, gnolls, daos, liches, mohrgs, and whatever else can be pretty clearly traced back to D&D without meaningful precedent in prior folklore or literature? How much do you have to change to avoid litigation? Well, we're about to find out.

I do recall that a successful defense against copyright claims used in the past was "it's already been used by others without interference thus it is no longer copyrighted."  I'm not an expert in that aspect of IP, though, so there may be more to it.

That's patent law, not copyright law.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 06:25:53 PM
Wizards would have to go after Piazo first wouldn't they?

Nope, they can go after whoever they wish IIRC.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM
Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

Why would that rain on my parade? I'm just bringing up logistics and potential places where the SRD (and in Basic Fantasy's case the old B/X material which is also copyright WotC) has likely been taken for granted and should be looked at... because I'm sure WotC won't be vindictive towards the third parties who wouldn't step into their trap at all. <sarcasm>

Basic Fantasy's method of crowdsourcing a dozen plus volunteers to go over a 170 page book is honestly a good strategy. I'm glad they'll have something out sooner rather than later. The fact they've also always released as free content also helps insulate them from potential problems with a vindictive WotC (no money to be had) so it's a good move for them.

* * * *

As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

WotC's arcane/divine divide makes no such moral judgments and the good/evil divide is entirely on the divine side with its pantheon of good and evil gods while arcane is more akin to a poorly understood science that has almost no moral component to it at all.

I brought it up because that is a specific expression of a magic system that could be a problem depending again on how ugly WotC wants to be because those third parties they wanted to rope in for content for their walled garden exploitationfest escaped their clutches.

Particularly when that divide is included alongside Vancian slot-based spell prep, eight schools of magic and nine levels of spells and a selection of spells at each level that matches very closely the standard setup of D&D.

I think a lot of people are really glossing over matters that fall under the category of protected expression and how it could bite various parties if they don't account for it. One aspect of that expression is a particular collection of elements into a larger whole.

Mechanics are protected, but mechanics presented in the exact same way are not. The example from a while back about the western and samurai themed card games with identical mechanics is apt. The notes in that case indicated that the entire decision was founded on the difference in presentation of western vs. samurai... but that if it had been another western-themes card game with the same mechanics, even with minor name changes (ex. calling the deputies, the posse), it would have been infringement.

Basic Fantasy's swap from chromatic to environmental dragons is an example of such a necessary swap; even when the body text of the new material does indicate colors very much like the classic D&D depictions it isn't making it nearly so prominent and is expressed in their own words not copied and pasted from the SRD and non-profit protects them more than it would Paizo, but the fact it's still a very D&D like setting with the dragons filling the same niches and just reading their descriptions indicating which color they're actually supposed to be could still be a weak point that an unreasonable litigant could go after.

Life is risk so I'm not saying don't go there. I'm just saying to be aware of what wildlife and potential pitfalls are in the forest as you go traveling through it and the more you relied on the SRD directly the more you've got your work cut out for you.

I think you are right that most people are not thinking deeply enough about what they have to strip out. For the arcane/divine distinction, if challenged, I will point out that the arcane/divine distinction is found in Christianity, which differentiates sorcery from prophecies, tongues, healing, and other gifts of God or the Holy Spirit; in the Arthurian mythos, which differentiates Merlin's powers from Lancelot's and Galahad's saintly miracles; in A Wizard of Earthsea and a Tomb of Atuan, where the powers of the wizards are contrasted with those of the priests and priestesses of the Old Powers; and the Aspect Emperor series, where the power of sorcery is contrasted with the power of the gods. And I specifically cite those two novel seriess as the inspiration for ACKS magic in Heroic Fantasy Handbook and elsewhere. If Hasbro comes for me, I will lose because I don't have the money to sue them, anyway.

Glad to hear you are already so far along in your de-SRDification. It's been a painful slog for me. Yesterday I released a 391-page draft of ACKS II to my King-tier patreon backers that has been de-OSRed in seven of eight chapters. You and I are each an army of 170 BFRP volunteers!

Quote from: amacris on January 18, 2023, 08:09:32 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 18, 2023, 08:15:14 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 17, 2023, 05:58:51 PM
Not to rain on your parade or anything but Basic Fantasy is done with the first review of their book stripping all WotC content from it, the second pass is underway, there'll be a third and fourth passes and then it will be out, probably in 2-3 weeks, that's what? A little over a month since the fiasco started?

Why would that rain on my parade? I'm just bringing up logistics and potential places where the SRD (and in Basic Fantasy's case the old B/X material which is also copyright WotC) has likely been taken for granted and should be looked at... because I'm sure WotC won't be vindictive towards the third parties who wouldn't step into their trap at all. <sarcasm>

Basic Fantasy's method of crowdsourcing a dozen plus volunteers to go over a 170 page book is honestly a good strategy. I'm glad they'll have something out sooner rather than later. The fact they've also always released as free content also helps insulate them from potential problems with a vindictive WotC (no money to be had) so it's a good move for them.

* * * *

As to my point about the arcane/divine magic divide... angels and demons are of a kind in most religions and the distinction is whether you are relying upon good or evil powers of basically the same type (God could drop a pillar of fire and the Devil could cure your illness... neither happened often, but that was due to a difference in the grantor's intent not "this magic is fundamentally different and can't do that").

WotC's arcane/divine divide makes no such moral judgments and the good/evil divide is entirely on the divine side with its pantheon of good and evil gods while arcane is more akin to a poorly understood science that has almost no moral component to it at all.

I brought it up because that is a specific expression of a magic system that could be a problem depending again on how ugly WotC wants to be because those third parties they wanted to rope in for content for their walled garden exploitationfest escaped their clutches.

Particularly when that divide is included alongside Vancian slot-based spell prep, eight schools of magic and nine levels of spells and a selection of spells at each level that matches very closely the standard setup of D&D.

I think a lot of people are really glossing over matters that fall under the category of protected expression and how it could bite various parties if they don't account for it. One aspect of that expression is a particular collection of elements into a larger whole.

Mechanics are protected, but mechanics presented in the exact same way are not. The example from a while back about the western and samurai themed card games with identical mechanics is apt. The notes in that case indicated that the entire decision was founded on the difference in presentation of western vs. samurai... but that if it had been another western-themes card game with the same mechanics, even with minor name changes (ex. calling the deputies, the posse), it would have been infringement.

Basic Fantasy's swap from chromatic to environmental dragons is an example of such a necessary swap; even when the body text of the new material does indicate colors very much like the classic D&D depictions it isn't making it nearly so prominent and is expressed in their own words not copied and pasted from the SRD and non-profit protects them more than it would Paizo, but the fact it's still a very D&D like setting with the dragons filling the same niches and just reading their descriptions indicating which color they're actually supposed to be could still be a weak point that an unreasonable litigant could go after.

Life is risk so I'm not saying don't go there. I'm just saying to be aware of what wildlife and potential pitfalls are in the forest as you go traveling through it and the more you relied on the SRD directly the more you've got your work cut out for you.

I think you are right that most people are not thinking deeply enough about what they have to strip out. For the arcane/divine distinction, if challenged, I will point out that the arcane/divine distinction is found in Christianity, which differentiates sorcery from prophecies, tongues, healing, and other gifts of God or the Holy Spirit; in the Arthurian mythos, which differentiates Merlin's powers from Lancelot's and Galahad's saintly miracles; in A Wizard of Earthsea and a Tomb of Atuan, where the powers of the wizards are contrasted with those of the priests and priestesses of the Old Powers; and the Aspect Emperor series, where the power of sorcery is contrasted with the power of the gods. And I specifically cite those two novel seriess as the inspiration for ACKS magic in Heroic Fantasy Handbook and elsewhere. If Hasbro comes for me, I will lose because I don't have the money to sue them, anyway.

Glad to hear you are already so far along in your de-SRDification. It's been a painful slog for me. Yesterday I released a 391-page draft of ACKS II to my King-tier patreon backers that has been de-OSRed in seven of eight chapters. You and I are each an army of 170 BFRP volunteers!

Exactly, they didn't invent it, they can't copyright words or mechanics, and still you would lose because you lack the deep pockets to fight them.

We were talking in this or another related thread that besides a truly open license we need a legal fund to fight the Wankers on the Beach.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 18, 2023, 02:12:28 PM
Somebody seriously tried to argue that D&D never invented anything original that spread into the wider fantasy genre. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

All of Western fantasy is D&D, in so many ways. Has been since Magician: Apprentice.

Even Eastern Fantasy like LitRPG came from D&D, albeit indirectly.

Quote from: amacris on January 18, 2023, 08:09:32 PM
Glad to hear you are already so far along in your de-SRDification. It's been a painful slog for me. Yesterday I released a 391-page draft of ACKS II to my King-tier patreon backers that has been de-OSRed in seven of eight chapters. You and I are each an army of 170 BFRP volunteers!

To be fair, I can't claim any speed to my effort.

Rather, I'd started the process long before this dropped when I realized my system and setting was as distinct from D&D as Palladium Fantasy is and decided that operating on the good graces of WotC offered me no benefit. I just happened to be lucky that my writing is done and art is well in process as this situation is developing (and to be fair, I'm not convinced it was actually luck either given the direction my setting and game focus has shifted since dropping the OGL).

Glad to hear your efforts are going well. One thing I'm expecting out of this is that, without the OGL as a central anchor, many systems will become more clearly focused on their strengths and less so on the need to include various D&D-isms.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 17, 2023, 05:43:20 PM
For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

You seem really hung up on issues that are clearly very minor or impossible to realistically enforce.

No one really cares if you have Tiamat & Bahamut as dragon gods or not. DragonLance has a similar-ish but obviously distinct mythology and it only takes the smallest bit of creativity to invent some new deity and write up a few unique myths or characteristics, even if the general outline is similar. Same with kobolds. Do you need kobolds, if you can have goblins, lizardmen, or any number of other creatures old or new?

Basic races like Elves and Dwarves are basically going to be impossible to nail anyone for unless you word-for-word copy them. There's thousands of sources to draw from and unless you're terminally uncreative, it's probably harder to not come up with your own twist than it is to do something exactly-the-same-but-worded-differently.

Obviously direct copy & paste of any content, whether that's creature & spell descriptions or something else, would be infringement. However unique expressions are almost inevitably going to have different nuances to them that make them unique, particularly in aggregate. Of course none of this is a guarantee against lawfare, but a good faith effort at creating something shouldn't fear that.