In their typical fashion, WotC is making another duplicitous move with their "open" licensing (https://thaumavore.substack.com/p/i-drafted-a-legal-argument-against). (They're registering trademarks on terms they've previously released under an open, irrevocable license.)
So are they clueless and incompetent, underhanded and evil, or all of the above?
I'm tired of dealing with intellectual property bullshit. I think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication. This would neatly solve the problems with abandonware, orphan works, and other works whose rights are stuck in legal limbo.
I'm going with "all of the above."
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 24, 2025, 01:43:12 PMIn their typical fashion, WotC is making another duplicitous move with their "open" licensing (https://thaumavore.substack.com/p/i-drafted-a-legal-argument-against). (They're registering trademarks on terms they've previously released under an open, irrevocable license.)
So are they clueless and incompetent, underhanded and evil, or all of the above?
To be specific, they're trying to trademark "Deck of Many Things" and "Orb of Dragonkind". I think this was a screw-up, since they already released a product titled "Deck of Many Things" before this -- but "Deck of Many Things" and "Orb of Dragonkind" has been in the OGL release since the revised SRD in the early 2000s.
The thing is that trademark works differently from copyright. You can trademark even a simple word like "Apple" as long as it is used distinctively in a specific context. So they can still legally trademark a term that appears in a CC-BY work -- it just reduces confusion to remove it from the document. Even if WotC successfully got a trademark, other publishers can still use "Deck of Many Things" in the interior of a product -- it's just that those publishers couldn't use "Deck of Many Things" in the title or cover to identify the work.
That said, I'm not sure they can trademark "Deck of Many Things", since (for example) Hit Point Press already sells a product titled that.
To a certain point it comes to who has the bigger lawyers.
For instance, Apple was literally named for the Beatles record company, Apple. The record company was fine as long as Apple didn't get into the music business. Which of course they did and won in court because they had more expensive lawyers.
To be fair, they did settle with the music company. But they didn't have to.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI'm tired of dealing with intellectual property bullshit. I think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication. This would neatly solve the problems with abandonware, orphan works, and other works whose rights are stuck in legal limbo.
I would agree except the 95 mark. 28 years seems plenty. Authors/creators could still sell authorized versions or keep writing.
Quote from: JeremyR on April 24, 2025, 03:41:45 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI'm tired of dealing with intellectual property bullshit. I think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication. This would neatly solve the problems with abandonware, orphan works, and other works whose rights are stuck in legal limbo.
I would agree except the 95 mark. 28 years seems plenty. Authors/creators could still sell authorized versions or keep writing.
They can also maintain trademarks too. Works for the Burroughs Estate. I too think 28 years max is plenty, but I don't imagine it being an easy sell to creators. The current AI debacle where companies like Meta are trying to dismantle copyright law has put all creators on edge.
In other words, WotC at long last as found a way around the OGL terms; trademark law.
I imagine the two things selected here don't actually mean anything, so much as WotC is testing fanbase reactions. The end-game is likely to start trademarking things in the OGL which third party developers are using, and then threaten them with legal action to tie them up or force them to shut down. In so many words, WotC doesn't think it can regain market dominance via product sales, so it intends to use its legal teams to forcibly thin competition.
This is probably the end of the OGL as a concept.
Quote from: Fheredin on April 24, 2025, 05:29:04 PMIn other words, WotC at long last as found a way around the OGL terms; trademark law.
I imagine the two things selected here don't actually mean anything, so much as WotC is testing fanbase reactions. The end-game is likely to start trademarking things in the OGL which third party developers are using, and then threaten them with legal action to tie them up or force them to shut down. In so many words, WotC doesn't think it can regain market dominance via product sales, so it intends to use its legal teams to forcibly thin competition.
This is probably the end of the OGL as a concept.
Trademark has to do with marketing, not the content of a work. In principle, I am in agreement with trademark as a perpetual ownership - because there are a lot of people out there who will try to trick customers into buying something while deceiving them about who they are buying from.
So someone shouldn't be able to sell their own "Apple" computer that customers think is coming from the Apple corporation.
I think copyright should be at most 28 years or so like it was originally.
---
In the case of WotC, since the start of the OGL in 2000, they've reserved a handful of monsters as iconically "official" as opposed to open - like the beholder and mind flayer - and they trademarked these. So if a book has a beholder on the cover, it's an official D&D product.
Even though I don't like them in general, Wizards of the Coast has produced a lot of stuff for D&D. They should be entitled to trademarks and trade dress so that customers clearly know whether they're buying an official D&D product as opposed to one of the horde of retro-clones and similar products. If their content sucks compared to third-party material, customers should clearly know that too.
I have my doubts about the validity of "Deck of Many Things" as a trademark, but even if wrong, this seems like a minor expansion of an existing practice by two magic items.
Quote from: jhkim on April 24, 2025, 02:39:00 PMThe thing is that trademark works differently from copyright...they can still legally trademark a term that appears in a CC-BY work...other publishers can still use [such a trademarked term] in the interior of a product -- it's just that those publishers couldn't use "Deck of Many Things" in the title or cover to identify the work.
That's basically what I was getting at with the "are they incompetent or evil" question (although in hindsight that wasn't obvious). We've seen WotC acting incompetently over open license issues before, so it could be that they haven't given the issue much consideration and are flailing around like usual. On the other hand, they could be acting cagily, looking for legal ambiguity and loopholes to try and leverage. Registering trademarks on terms that are already open content (i.e. not subject to copyright) could be considered very canny, in that respect: confusing to the layman, something that can be argued, et cetera.
I agree with your analysis, above, but I think that if WotC is granted trademarks over terms like "Deck of Many Things" (or whatever) they will try and use those trademarks to suppress *any* use of the terms by other publishers, whether it has to do with marketing and branding or not. In fact, they could do so while saying "we're forced to take this kind of action in all instances we become aware of because of the way trademark law works: if you don't defend your mark you can lose your mark."
Also, just the threat of the legal hassle of C&Ds, whether legally valid/justified or not, would be enough to cow many publishers. They'd decide it just wasn't worth the hassle and risk.
I"m thinking WOTC is running out of feet to shoot.
When the virtue signaling and woke stupidity drive your main customer base away, of course the best course of action is to triple down and do something even dumber.
But also, Hasbro is a megacorp so lawfare might be the only way the bean counters at the top know how to make WotC profitable. Just a guess
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.
OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 24, 2025, 07:09:52 PMQuote from: jhkim on April 24, 2025, 02:39:00 PMThe thing is that trademark works differently from copyright...they can still legally trademark a term that appears in a CC-BY work...other publishers can still use [such a trademarked term] in the interior of a product -- it's just that those publishers couldn't use "Deck of Many Things" in the title or cover to identify the work.
I agree with your analysis, above, but I think that if WotC is granted trademarks over terms like "Deck of Many Things" (or whatever) they will try and use those trademarks to suppress *any* use of the terms by other publishers, whether it has to do with marketing and branding or not.
It's possible -- that's a move that TSR would have done, or "They Sue Regularly" as they were known in the 1990s.
However, as far as I know, WotC has not done this with their other trademarks like beholder.
Their behavior in the past isn't a guarantee of the future - but I would note that in the Jan 2023 OGL debacle was a disaster for them and they completely capitulated.
The CC licence doesn't stop you filing TMs for licenced terms. OTOH there are already products called Deck of Many Things from other publishers so this ought to be invalid as non distinctive of origin (I teach UK TM law, but the US Lanham Act distinctiveness requirement looks identical afaict).
I wonder if Zack S is gonna miss his chance here, the Dick of Many Things is just waiting to be printed.
When I think of it, the only value they get from this is to make a big deal but then retract to get goodwill, this but claim they made a mistake releasing those things and use that as an excuse to back out of promises to release other things into the Creative Commons as promised. Otherwise they are just beyond stupid.
Quote from: Venka on April 25, 2025, 11:28:28 AMI wonder if Zack S is gonna miss his chance here, the Dick of Many Things is just waiting to be printed.
Narrator, "It turns out that the Device was just a shape shifting sex toy. The wizard was intrigued, but the bard called dibs on it."
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on April 24, 2025, 01:43:12 PMSo are they clueless and incompetent, underhanded and evil, or all of the above?
All of the above and more.
Quote from: Venka on April 25, 2025, 11:28:28 AMI wonder if Zack S is gonna miss his chance here, the Dick of Many Things is just waiting to be printed.
Well play, Venka, well play !!!
Even if I do think that Zakky boi claim to this title is rather toothless, I salute you !
And the idiocity of WotC/Hasbro is soo depth that I am actually thinking they dislike money (currency) and prefer social credit (aka nothing).
Whatever ...
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 25, 2025, 02:33:26 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.
OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?
95 is the current term limit on works for hire in the USA. I figure it's easier to convince companies to accept the reform if they don't perceive it as a removal of their rights.
Quote from: zircher on April 25, 2025, 03:21:31 PMNarrator, "It turns out that the Device was just a shape shifting sex toy. The wizard was intrigued, but the bard called dibs on it."
Very funny.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 26, 2025, 03:25:31 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on April 25, 2025, 02:33:26 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.
OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?
95 is the current term limit on works for hire in the USA. I figure it's easier to convince companies to accept the reform if they don't perceive it as a removal of their rights.
So why 14 years? Why not go with 19 years then as five terms of that equal 95 years?
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 28, 2025, 09:57:06 PMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 26, 2025, 03:25:31 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on April 25, 2025, 02:33:26 AMQuote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2025, 02:20:18 PMI think copyright should last for 14 years from first publication, with the option to renew thereafter once every 14 years, up to a maximum of 95 years from first publication.
OK, I'm curious: Why 14 years? Why 95 years (and not a multiple of 14)?
95 is the current term limit on works for hire in the USA. I figure it's easier to convince companies to accept the reform if they don't perceive it as a removal of their rights.
So why 14 years? Why not go with 19 years then as five terms of that equal 95 years?
Ideally I'd like to revert it to the original term where you got 14 years and could extend it, once, to 28 years. There's no economic benefit to longer terms and anything else is adequately covered by trademark.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 06:35:55 AMIdeally I'd like to revert it to the original term where you got 14 years and could extend it, once, to 28 years. There's no economic benefit to longer terms and anything else is adequately covered by trademark.
No economic benefit for whom? Just to be clear, I think the current terms are ridiculously long and never should have been extended the last two times but there is a clear economic benefit for the owner in things that are popular and break into the mainstream. The first Harry Potter book (and therefore the character as portrayed there) would be entering public domain next year if it were 28 years and I think there is plenty of gas left in that tank when it comes to monetization with merch, theme parks, games, and the upcoming show (racebait raceswap notwithstanding).
QuoteNo economic benefit for whom?
For the public. That's who copyright is meant to benefit. Copyright convinces creators, such as J. K. Rowling, to make their works public so that the public can benefit. How much less likely would Rowling have been to write and publish Harry Potter if the initial book were to return to the public domain next year? I think that number is, as BoxCrayonTales implied, very close to zero.
Copyright is a very special protection that most works do not have. Most works, the moment they come out, can be copied by other than the person making them, and those copies distributed. We provide copyright protection precisely because we want to incentivize creators of copyrightable works more, to convince them to in fact make their works public,
so that the public can use them. A 28-year term means a very long period in which the creator has sole right to distribute copies while still ensuring that a significant number of people alive when that special right was granted will be alive to make use of the results of that special grant when the term ends.
Quote from: capvideo on Today at 10:35:16 AMQuoteNo economic benefit for whom?
For the public. That's who copyright is meant to benefit. Copyright convinces creators, such as J. K. Rowling, to make their works public so that the public can benefit. How much less likely would Rowling have been to write and publish Harry Potter if the initial book were to return to the public domain next year? I think that number is, as BoxCrayonTales implied, very close to zero.
You literally could not be more wrong. Are you in the US? Here's the relevant part of the US Constitution that forms the basis of copyright law...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-3-1/ALDE_00013063/
Copyright, during its term, is meant to benefit the author/invention and not the public at large. It benefits the public AFTER it expires.
QuoteCopyright is a very special protection that most works do not have. Most works, the moment they come out, can be copied by other than the person making them, and those copies distributed. We provide copyright protection precisely because we want to incentivize creators of copyrightable works more, to convince them to in fact make their works public, so that the public can use them. A 28-year term means a very long period in which the creator has sole right to distribute copies while still ensuring that a significant number of people alive when that special right was granted will be alive to make use of the results of that special grant when the term ends.
Again, completely wrong. Copyright is not some special edge case scenario but rather the default when you create something new. This might help you understand it better.
"Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. "
"Once you create an original work and fix it, like taking a photograph, writing a poem or blog, or recording a new song, you are the author and the owner."
"Copyright exists automatically in an original work of authorship once it is fixed, but a copyright owner can take steps to enhance the protections. "
https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
Having that copyright and defending it in court (i.e. having the money to pay lawyers to do so) are two different things but it doesn't change that you had it in theory. Applying for additional protections is optional and expands the protections but it's, as with anything, a balancing act of time/cost.
Again, I agree with you that the current terms since the double extensions of the 1970's and 1990s are ridiculously long and shouldn't have happened... but you have a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire point of copyright in the first place.
Quote from: RNGm on Today at 01:21:36 PMQuote from: capvideo on Today at 10:35:16 AMQuoteNo economic benefit for whom?
For the public. That's who copyright is meant to benefit. Copyright convinces creators, such as J. K. Rowling, to make their works public so that the public can benefit. How much less likely would Rowling have been to write and publish Harry Potter if the initial book were to return to the public domain next year? I think that number is, as BoxCrayonTales implied, very close to zero.
You literally could not be more wrong. Are you in the US? Here's the relevant part of the US Constitution that forms the basis of copyright law...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-3-1/ALDE_00013063/
Copyright, during its term, is meant to benefit the author/invention and not the public at large. It benefits the public AFTER it expires.
I think what he's saying is that benefit to creators
is also benefit to the public, because patents and copyright encourage more inventions to be made and books to be written. Even during the period of patent, the public benefits from a new invention.
However, extending the period of patent and copyright does not inherently benefit the public.
I think the OGL and its derivatives - including the OSR - are a great example of this. What if instead of creating the OGL, WotC had continued the TSR practice of "They Sue Regularly" and suing anyone who created a D&D-like game or even compatible supplements for D&D? I think it would have been less successful for them, but it also would have stifled a lot of the creativity that happened under D20 along with retro-clones and the OSR.
Quote from: jhkim on Today at 01:44:17 PMHowever, extending the period of patent and copyright does not inherently benefit the public.
I would go as far as to say they're to the detriment of the public when they extend beyond a reasonable period like 50+ years post publication or author's death depending on the situation like they were before the extensions of the 1970s let alone the followup ones in the 90s.