Given the latest developments, might it not make sense for WotC to somehow outsource the ttrpg side of D&D and only retain the digital business, such as DnDBeyond and any new VTT environment? I can't imagine that Hasbro makes much money from the sale of D&D books and this seems to be one of the reasons why the whole OGL controversy kicked off in the first place.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 07:04:42 AM
Given the latest developments, might it not make sense for WotC to somehow outsource the ttrpg side of D&D and only retain the digital business, such as DnDBeyond and any new VTT environment? I can't imagine that Hasbro makes much money from the sale of D&D books and this seems to be one of the reasons why the whole OGL controversy kicked off in the first place.

It might, but the thing about "lifestyle brands" is the need to present a consistent identity. Tieflings in the new edition have to look just like the one in the movie who will look just like any that turn up in the tv show who will look just like what turns up in their tabletop book.

I do actually commend Hasbro on its devious solution. A bunch of the people on DnDBeyond have announced they're re-subscribing and it's largely calmed the waters while the 5.1SRD itself is all but devoid of the descriptions/appearances that Hasbro actually cares about for its lifestyle brand.

Similarly, though it's untouched for now, they still haven't actually taken steps to ensure the 3.5e SRD (where some actual IP fluff lives) is similarly protected... because deauthorization has always been the end goal to reclaim that IP fluff so they're the only ones with the small draconic kobolds (a distinct D&D-ism) and similar elements that were described in 3.5e, but were blank statblocks in 5.1.

They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.

They wanted to force the ttrpg hobby onto their platform... but I think they may have chosen divorce as the less costly option. Their attorneys will still revoke the OGL1.0a (and thereby the 3.5e SRD) once they no longer care about the controversy eating up all the oxygen for their movie/tv series launches and that'll hit the properties like Paizo whose Pathfinder uses all that more directly than others... while the OSR is unlikely to really notice as they can probably reverse-engineer most of what they care about from the 5.1 SRD after a fashion.

I'd still wanna crosscheck everything from the 3.5e SRD and yank it if its not specifically in the 5.1SRD if I were a third party publisher... just because you know Hasbro will yank it eventually and it's much easier to do while there's time than at the last minute. That mostly means fluff text at this point as the names at least the 5e levels for spells are CC-by-4.0... but still something you want to keep an eye on... especially going forward.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 07:04:42 AM
Given the latest developments, might it not make sense for WotC to somehow outsource the ttrpg side of D&D and only retain the digital business, such as DnDBeyond and any new VTT environment? I can't imagine that Hasbro makes much money from the sale of D&D books and this seems to be one of the reasons why the whole OGL controversy kicked off in the first place.

Similarly, though it's untouched for now, they still haven't actually taken steps to ensure the 3.5e SRD (where some actual IP fluff lives) is similarly protected... because deauthorization has always been the end goal to reclaim that IP fluff so they're the only ones with the small draconic kobolds (a distinct D&D-ism) and similar elements that were described in 3.5e, but were blank statblocks in 5.1.

They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.

Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.

Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.

Luckily...

Quote from: DocJones on January 29, 2023, 09:16:50 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.

Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.

Luckily...

Says the IP edgelord who will risk nothing himself, but demands others take the legal and monetary risks to deliver unto him what he desires.

Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, buttercup.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: DocJones on January 29, 2023, 09:16:50 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.

Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.

Luckily...

Says the IP edgelord who will risk nothing himself, but demands others take the legal and monetary risks to deliver unto him what he desires.

Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, buttercup.

So this is OGC: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm

A kobold's scaly skin ranges from dark rusty brown to a rusty black color. It has glowing red eyes. Its tail is nonprehensile. Kobolds wear ragged clothing, favoring red and orange. A kobold is 2 to 2½ feet tall and weighs 35 to 45 pounds. Kobolds speak Draconic with a voice that sounds like that of a yapping dog.

There are no images in the SRD. However images derived from that description are non-infringing of WoTC copyright. 

Kobold is clearly a trade mark for Kobold Press. They have indeed registered the mark - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:yao38x.2.1 - although the filing was very recent, 24th January 2023, likely spooked by WoTC's face-heel turn.
It does not appear to have ever been used as a trade mark by WoTC. They could try to stop approval of the mark but they'd need to point to some use by them of Kobold as a mark of origin.

I think Kobold Press are pretty safe. WOTC could try suing for non literal copyright infringement of a particular piece of kobold art they claim the KP kobold mascot was derived from, but it looks like a longshot to me.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: DocJones on January 29, 2023, 09:16:50 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 29, 2023, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
They don't care if you have kobolds who are rats or dogmen or fairies. They care that you can't have reptilian looking kobolds that resemble what they're going to have in the VTT, on t-shirts, as plushies, in video games and other media productions.

Yes, I've been wondering whether WotC might take legal action against Kobold Press because the latter's iconic kobold figure might actually be IP infringement.

Luckily...

Says the IP edgelord who will risk nothing himself, but demands others take the legal and monetary risks to deliver unto him what he desires.

Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up, buttercup.

Apparently many brave souls have overcome fear uncertainty and doubt to put up.
Look at all the reptilian-like kobolds I found!   I guess either copyright don't work that way for art or WotC is going to have to get busy with takedown notices.  I think the answer is what I said.
Let's take your comments on kobold descriptions to it's logical conclusion.  You recommend someone make dog men style kobolds instead. 
However Hackmaster Basic has dog men style kobolds.  So does the Critters, Creatures & Denizens DCC supplement. 
I guess dog-men are right out then unless you want to get sued by Kenzer & Co. or Goodman games.  Or perhaps they are suing each other?
Again that's not how this works.
Dungeon World has rat-like dragon-men kobolds.  RoleMaster has goblin imp-like kobolds.  I guess those a right out then.  The again DW's dragon-men description is the very image of Wizard's kobolds. 
They aren't going get sued because...
Again that's not how this works.
Here's another person who manned up (Justin Holiday)  and did exactly what you said to avoid.

Quote from: Heroes against Darkness page 179
Kobold
Kobolds are tiny reptilian humanoids. They are generally cowardly and weak, but in larger numbers they can easily overrun a travelling caravan or a smaller human settlement.

Because that's how this works.

I just started my D&D illustrated clone weeks ago.
You talk about cheap talk, but how long have you been talking?  ;-)

I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2023, 06:13:58 PM
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult

Couldn't agree more. I still play them this way. Never liked the D&D kobolds.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2023, 06:13:58 PM
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult

Germanic Kobolds = UK Brownies

Where's the danger? They gonna hide your tools or kick you on the shin?

https://mythus.fandom.com/wiki/Kobold

Now, you could take the Germanic Kobold AND make it into a dangerous thing, but then it would share only the name with the original.

Why not make them look like this?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenonychosaurus#/media/File:Dinosauroid.jpg

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 29, 2023, 06:13:58 PM
I dislike how D&D kobolds have displaced the original German fairies. It makes advertising folklore authentic writing way difficult

In my games, I simply renamed D&D kobolds "draconites". Actual kobolds exist as well, but they are the generally invisible fairy beings of German folklore.
Btw: In German rpgs, kobolds are treated as fairy beings in the Dark Eye, while the oldest German rpg, Midgard, uses them like D&D kobolds, albeit they aren't draconic and have more rat-like heads.
The game Midgard has obviously nothing to do with the Kobold Press setting, which is called Mythgart here. Midgard was originally created in 1981 and it's still in existence (now in its fifth edition).

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
Just as a minor observation that the 5.1 SRD contains basically zero fluff-text (ex. nothing in the kobold entry suggests any appearance other than small humanoid). Rather, 5.1 is ONLY mechanics, so WotC is still clinging tight to its actually copyrighted material.

And since mechanics can't pe protected under Copygright anyway it's ultimately just a brilliant marketing ploy.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
They also STILL haven't made the OGL1.0a (where more of the fluff text lives) irrevocable so they can always revisit that later,

I wouldn't put it past them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
once their movie has made its money and, they hope, justified their unpopular acquisition of eOne studios to their shareholders.

They likely intend to use this studio for Power Rangers, Transformers, and My Little Pony productions as well, so a failure here would be a substantial setback.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
Hasbro execs spent a LOT on acquiring the studio and the shareholders aren't happy about it... and here's this OGL controversy sucking all the oxygen out of the room whenever anyone does a search for "D&D" instead of directing people towards their upcoming film that they need to see make at least mid-tier Marvel money to quiet the already jittery investors.

We hit them right in the SEO.

Quote from: migo on January 28, 2023, 04:34:11 PM
They way that it got leaked suggested they desperately need 3pp to be on board,

They do, which is why choosing to alienate them instead of creating a profitable 3rd party ecosystem on #DnDBeyond is so mindboggling. It's one of the biggest cases of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory I've ever seen.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
It might, but the thing about "lifestyle brands" is the need to present a consistent identity. Tieflings in the new edition have to look just like the one in the movie who will look just like any that turn up in the tv show who will look just like what turns up in their tabletop book.

They have an uphill battle here as there's nothing in the movie previews that's particularly iconic.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 29, 2023, 08:04:38 AM
I do actually commend Hasbro on its devious solution. A bunch of the people on DnDBeyond have announced they're re-subscribing and it's largely calmed the waters while the 5.1SRD itself is all but devoid of the descriptions/appearances that Hasbro actually cares about for its lifestyle brand.

I wish people didn't keep falling for this.

Quote from: S'mon on January 29, 2023, 12:46:56 PM
So this is OGC: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm

A kobold's scaly skin ranges from dark rusty brown to a rusty black color. It has glowing red eyes. Its tail is nonprehensile. Kobolds wear ragged clothing, favoring red and orange. A kobold is 2 to 2½ feet tall and weighs 35 to 45 pounds. Kobolds speak Draconic with a voice that sounds like that of a yapping dog.

There are no images in the SRD. However images derived from that description are non-infringing of WoTC copyright. 

Kobold is clearly a trade mark for Kobold Press. They have indeed registered the mark - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:yao38x.2.1 - although the filing was very recent, 24th January 2023, likely spooked by WoTC's face-heel turn.
It does not appear to have ever been used as a trade mark by WoTC. They could try to stop approval of the mark but they'd need to point to some use by them of Kobold as a mark of origin.

I think Kobold Press are pretty safe. WOTC could try suing for non literal copyright infringement of a particular piece of kobold art they claim the KP kobold mascot was derived from, but it looks like a longshot to me.

The key factors here are that 'kobold' is a name from mythology, the registration is just for the text, and their use of the mark has been uncontested for 17 years. So while they may be forced to abandon some representations their brand is safe.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 11:28:31 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
once their movie has made its money and, they hope, justified their unpopular acquisition of eOne studios to their shareholders.

They likely intend to use this studio for Power Rangers, Transformers, and My Little Pony productions as well, so a failure here would be a substantial setback.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2023, 08:47:17 AM
Hasbro execs spent a LOT on acquiring the studio and the shareholders aren't happy about it... and here's this OGL controversy sucking all the oxygen out of the room whenever anyone does a search for "D&D" instead of directing people towards their upcoming film that they need to see make at least mid-tier Marvel money to quiet the already jittery investors.

They're already in the process of selling eOne:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3

I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 30, 2023, 12:37:01 PM
They're already in the process of selling eOne:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/11/29/hasbro-puts-newly-acquired-tv-brand-entertainment-one-eone-back-up-for-sale/?sh=2e2061e13ce3

Well shiiiiiit.... [article quotes follow]

QuoteHasbro purchased eOne in 2019 for approximately $4 billion.

PFFFFTTT.... *cough*. Holy hell.

QuoteHasbro realized it was more cost-effective to outsource the content creation as opposed to owning a media company, so it's now selling eOne.

Well of course it's more cost effective to license out ideas you already have rather than put the work into creating anything. About the only expense you need to worry about are approvals.

QuoteA proxy battle with activist investor Alta Fox didn't help the situation, as Alta Fox was trying to get Hasbro to sell off its games division.

Innnteresting.

QuoteA company like Disney has hundreds of properties to create content for, where Hasbro has limited options.

#Hasbro has plenty of options. An embarrassment of riches in fact. They just lack the courage and vision to make use of them.

QuoteThe purchase of eOne included the eOne Music division that owned the music catalogs of Death Row Records, Dualtone Records and titles from the Lumineers, RZA, Chuck Berry and more.

However, Hasbro later sold the music division for $385 million to entities owned and controlled by Blackstone.

Well that's disappointing.



So #Hasbro is in much more dire straights than I imagined, and this D&D fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg.