Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:15:42 PM
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.

I don't think anyone does. It's just Chris has this fixation on trying to spread FUD about WOTC owning broad categories of stuff, when actually they just own very narrow expressions of things.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 30, 2023, 09:26:55 PM

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.

Some around here have focused on Ha$bro's stock price, but that's driven by public perception, if the people think it's profitable they will want to buy the stock which drives the price up. We saw an example of this with the Stonks kerfufle, many said they were memeing the stock up. Well duh! that's how the stock market works!

But there's a piece of information, that IF true reveals much more in depth what's going on with Hasbro:

https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/47698/wotc-makes-more-money-hasbros-toy-business

"WotC generated $110M of Hasbro's $147.3M operating profits in the first quarter of this year, with an increase of 15% on last year." That's 75% of Hasbro's profits.

Either selling D&D/MTG is way more profitable than anyone thought or Hasbro is in deep shit. Their toys aren't selling, MLP, Transformers, G.I. Joe, Action Man, and others used to be big sellers, who had the comic book franchise? IDW, who lost them in Dec 2022 and who has been tethering on the edge of bankruptcy for a long while.

Both Hasbro & IDW went woke, which to me means they were already broke and needed the ESG cash flow.

Quote from: Zelen on January 30, 2023, 09:39:58 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:15:42 PM
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.

I don't think anyone does. It's just Chris has this fixation on trying to spread FUD about WOTC owning broad categories of stuff, when actually they just own very narrow expressions of things.

So, which book are you putting out in the near future where you're going to put this theory of yours to the test? How many thousands of dollars will you potentially lose if your bravado is misplaced?

It's easy to talk tough about how you don't fear Hasbro's lawyers when you've got nothing on the line. You call it FUD. I call it reasonable caution when you're actually looking to publish outside the OGL in the near future using just fair use, sufficient differences and that mechanics aren't copyrightable as your potential defenses against an infringement suit from Hasbro.m

ETA: Also, I care more about Kobolds than I do about dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, orcs, goblins and all the other Tolkein-alike races you always see in Tolkein-clone #537. At least the yapping little dragonmen are visually interesting and their facility with traps also sets them apart from many of the other low-tier monstrous humanoids.

I also prefer Dragonborn and Tieflings in the Nentir Vale setting to the Tolkein clones while we're at it (or anything else that is actually unique to an original setting). Anything but another Tolkein-ripoff or tautological D&D setting.

Here's the Kobold entry from the 5.1 SRD

Kobold
Small humanoid   (kobold),   lawful   evil
Armor   Class 12
Hit   Points 5   (2d6   −   2)
Speed 30   ft.
STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA
7   (−2) 15   (+2) 9   (−1) 8   (−1) 7   (−2) 8   (−1)
Senses darkvision   60   ft.,   passive   Perception   8
Languages Common,   Draconic
Challenge 1/8   (25   XP)

Sunlight   Sensitivity.   While   in   sunlight,   the   kobold   has   
disadvantage   on   attack   rolls,   as   well   as   on   Wisdom   
(Perception)   checks   that   rely   on   sight.

Pack   Tactics.   The   kobold   has   advantage   on   an   attack   
roll   against   a   creature   if   at   least   one   of the   kobold's   
allies   is   within   5   feet   of   the   creature   and   the   ally   isn't   
incapacitated.

Actions
Dagger. Melee   Weapon   Attack: +4   to   hit,   reach   5   ft.,   
one   target.   Hit: 4   (1d4   +   2)   piercing   damage.

Sling. Ranged   Weapon   Attack: +4   to   hit,   range   30/120   
ft.,   one target.   Hit: 4   (1d4   +   2)   bludgeoning   damage

SO...what do we know?

It's a small humanoid that speaks Draconic and is sensitive to light that uses pack tactics.

To me, this says WotC may want to copyright their image/concept of Kobolds - as is there's no mention of "tiny dragonmen who love traps"

Wonder how many other "concept stack" issues may exist in the 5.1 SRD?

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 31, 2023, 03:54:25 AM


To me, this says WotC may want to copyright their image/concept of Kobolds - as is there's no mention of "tiny dragonmen who love traps"

But to what extent can they copyright it? Like it seems the Tolkien estate has the word 'Hobbit' locked down, but you can make something that completely matches the Hobbit's 'concept stack', and call it a Halfling, and you're clear. Given that has already been tested in court, we have a pretty good idea of what you can cover and what not.

Like also, you can have an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse that is very clearly supposed to be Mickey Mouse, and just isn't called that by name, and it's OK. Family Guy and South Park have both done this. The 'concept stack' has been completely copied, just not the name.

Quote from: migo on January 31, 2023, 07:12:55 AM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 31, 2023, 03:54:25 AM


To me, this says WotC may want to copyright their image/concept of Kobolds - as is there's no mention of "tiny dragonmen who love traps"

But to what extent can they copyright it? Like it seems the Tolkien estate has the word 'Hobbit' locked down, but you can make something that completely matches the Hobbit's 'concept stack', and call it a Halfling, and you're clear. Given that has already been tested in court, we have a pretty good idea of what you can cover and what not.

Like also, you can have an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse that is very clearly supposed to be Mickey Mouse, and just isn't called that by name, and it's OK. Family Guy and South Park have both done this. The 'concept stack' has been completely copied, just not the name.

Just as a note; courts generally give more leeway to works intended as satire or parody... particularly if the depiction is providing some degree of commentary on the nature of the original. Similarly, those characters didn't stick around past the point where the commentary had been made.

As to Halflings vs. Hobbits; 1e AD&D Halflings are described only in the PHB as "very much like small humans, thus their name." Everything else is mechanics that includes level limits for various classes, a bonus to save vs. wands, staves, rods,
spells and to all manner of poisons for every 3.5 points of Con. They automatically speak common, dwarven, elven, gnome, goblin, halfling and orcish. They have infravision. They can note passage grade 75% of the time and determine direction 50% of the time. When alone in non-metal armor they can surprise someone 66.6% of the time.

In other words... there's virtually ZERO in the written Halfling concept stack that matches Tolkein's Hobbits. Bonuses vs. magic and poison (which later became to all saves)? Massively multilingual? Can see into the infrared range? Later editions added bonuses to slings and other ranged weapons (from the +3 to attacks with ranged weapons in the MM most likely).

Also note which race is missing from the picture of all the races on page 18; the Halfing (and Gnome). In fact, there is actually NO picture confirmed to be of a Halfling in the entire 1e PHB (there is possibly one on the full page art on p. 108 holding a torch, but it could be a beardless dwarf and regardless, it's wearing shoes, which would be another distinct difference from Tolkein's stack).

So, while much has been made of Halflings being just renamed Hobbits, it appears Gary was slightly more aware of the potential copyright problems than people pretend when he was putting together the 1e PHB (less so the MM, but one critter entry among hundreds is easier to overlook as compared to a playable race).

It's notable too that by the time 3e came around, Halflings had basically absorbed a number of Kender-ish traits including being svelter (vs. more portly Hobbits), the wearing of shoes, and particular facility with slings. In other words, the move has been on for quite a while to make D&D Halflings conceptually distinct from Hobbits.

Ultimately, the correct answer to where the line falls is "where the judge you get thinks the line is" and what your own personal level of financial risk tolerance is.

Quote from: Dracones on January 27, 2023, 08:54:13 PM
For the OGL, yeah, that's probably dead for third party publishers at this point. But for 5E CC SRD, that can't be taken back and is probably less restrictive than what ORC will be. For one, CC has no product identity concept it in. So go to town now with beholders and mind flayers, because its in there.

You might want to check your facts, because beholders and mind flayers are not in the SRD. Many of the "iconic DnD" monsters aren't, like carrian crawlers, slaadi, or yuan'ti.

Quote from: migo on January 31, 2023, 07:12:55 AM
Like also, you can have an anthropomorphic cartoon mouse that is very clearly supposed to be Mickey Mouse, and just isn't called that by name, and it's OK. Family Guy and South Park have both done this. The 'concept stack' has been completely copied, just not the name.

To be clear, the "image" of Micky Mouse is copyright, but shows like Family Guy get away with using it through the "parody" clause of Fair Use.

Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2023, 07:41:19 AM

Quote from: zer0th on January 28, 2023, 06:43:13 AM
WotC's intention wasn't to give us beholders, but the word was left behind in the text twice. I bet since this SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a many years ago (if it is the same exact SRD), publishers noticed this but were advised not to push it by using what I believe is WotC trademark as the name of a monster, even if the name was in SRD.

The OGL specifically forbade use of Product Identity terms, including
beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer
beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.
Under the CC licence that no longer applies.

But those monsters don't appear in the SRD, so you can't claim their use under CC-By-4.0 license. You can TRY to incorporate them into your product via Fair Use or through some unique creative expression, but any copy/paste of the stat blocks would be a clear and obvious violation of WotC's copyright.

Quote from: Zelen on January 30, 2023, 09:39:58 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2023, 09:15:42 PM
I realize it is just an example but I'm surprised anyone cares much for Kobolds.

I don't think anyone does. It's just Chris has this fixation on trying to spread FUD about WOTC owning broad categories of stuff, when actually they just own very narrow expressions of things.

People do, espcially the sparkle troll types. There so much "cute" kobold art you wouldnt think they were meant to be a monster. I have a friend who has a discord server for some 5e youtube channel and someone typed out hissing at me cause i suggest kobolds should be vile little things.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 12:41:00 AM
So, which book are you putting out in the near future where you're going to put this theory of yours to the test? How many thousands of dollars will you potentially lose if your bravado is misplaced?

It's easy to talk tough about how you don't fear Hasbro's lawyers when you've got nothing on the line. You call it FUD. I call it reasonable caution when you're actually looking to publish outside the OGL in the near future using just fair use, sufficient differences and that mechanics aren't copyrightable as your potential defenses against an infringement suit from Hasbro.m

Again, what you're doing is spreading FUD. If you don't like me calling you out on it, then don't do it. There's no reason to believe that WOTC can own broad conceptual categories of things like, "creatures from folklore depicted as reptilian."

Even your more complex FUD talking about "concept stacks" basically boils down to, "If you copy everything directly from WOTC, they might sue you!" Okay, and? No one ever disputed that. Avoiding it is easy. Create your own things.

Do you think that WOTC might bring meritless lawsuits to attack you? Okay, don't publish anything. Keep not publishing. I'm happy for you.

Quote from: Zelen on January 31, 2023, 12:25:56 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 12:41:00 AM
So, which book are you putting out in the near future where you're going to put this theory of yours to the test? How many thousands of dollars will you potentially lose if your bravado is misplaced?

It's easy to talk tough about how you don't fear Hasbro's lawyers when you've got nothing on the line. You call it FUD. I call it reasonable caution when you're actually looking to publish outside the OGL in the near future using just fair use, sufficient differences and that mechanics aren't copyrightable as your potential defenses against an infringement suit from Hasbro.m

Again, what you're doing is spreading FUD. If you don't like me calling you out on it, then don't do it. There's no reason to believe that WOTC can own broad conceptual categories of things like, "creatures from folklore depicted as reptilian."

Even your more complex FUD talking about "concept stacks" basically boils down to, "If you copy everything directly from WOTC, they might sue you!" Okay, and? No one ever disputed that. Avoiding it is easy. Create your own things.

Do you think that WOTC might bring meritless lawsuits to attack you? Okay, don't publish anything. Keep not publishing. I'm happy for you.

If someone says "hey, double-check your chute" before you jumped out of airplane would you accuse them of spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt? Do you find the guy who you've seen hasn't checked any of the chutes and isn't actually jumping out of the plane saying "Nah, it'll be fine! Just jump!" to be exercising reasonable caution?

You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?

Also... that there are posters saying "time to use Beholders, Mind Flayers, Yuan'ti, Slaadi, etc. because everything is CC-by-4.0 now" when none of those things are in the 5.1SRD?

Have you by chance glanced at the changes made in the animated Vox Machina series to avoid using distinct elements of Hasbro's IP? (Hint - the petrifying tentacle monster in the latest batch of episodes was a Beholder in the actual play stream).

There's what you see the actual professionals doing in matters of IP and there's what a bunch of non-professionals are saying... and if you lean towards what the actual professionals are doing the non-professionals try to denigrate you with "spreading FUD."

I see a bunch of posters urging people to just ignore what actual publishers consider generally accepted safe use copyright practices because it seems like "Fuck WotC" is all they're really thinking about.

Frankly, if you're toeing up to some multi-billion dollar corporation's IP without clear guidelines for use then exercising a little fear and having some uncertainty over where the lines are is REASONABLE.

And who said anything about me not publishing? I am absolutely publishing. I'm taking time off my actual day job as my unpaid "vacation" just to finish up the artwork and get it out there.

But my project has been non-OGL for years now. I've long since broken away from any of Hasbro's copyrighted IP. My pointing out issues with copyright is more general practices because I see a bunch of other posters encouraging people to ignore what in any other writing field would land you in hot water (i.e. no, you don't get to write "Gary Porter and the Immortality Elixir" including a boy wizard with a magical scar on his hand given to him by Lord Mortis as a baby and following through the whole story of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" with minor renames and slightly different dialogue).

When one decides to travel through a (legal) minefield, FUD is warrented and the guy who just runs in heedless of the potential danger is an idiot (perhaps he'll be a lucky idiot, but an idiot nonetheless). Particularly when there are really easy procedures to minimize the risk.

Sorry to rain on your "Fuck Hasbro/WotC" parade... which is what you really seem to be upset about.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 01:45:18 PM
You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?

Never ever in a million years would I have said the above. 
Could it be that you are the one with a basic misunderstanding of what copyright covers?

And by the way there is no such thing as "concept stacks".  Concepts cannot be copyrighted.  Neither can stacks of them.

Quote from: DocJones on January 31, 2023, 02:36:11 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 01:45:18 PM
You are aware that other posters like DocJones are telling people to use WotC's IP outright and as is word for word because he claims they won't actually go after you, right?

Never ever in a million years would I have said the above. 
Could it be that you are the one with a basic misunderstanding of what copyright covers?

And by the way there is no such thing as "concept stacks".  Concepts cannot be copyrighted.  Neither can stacks of them.

"Word-for-word" might have been an exaggeration, but the spirit of the statement of what you're calling for remains true. You're the one screaming "Fight the power!...Somebody else fight the power!"

So go ahead and prove me wrong by publishing something using all of Hasbro's non-CC-by-4.0 IP then. Or better yet, go rewrite the entirety of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in your own words with different names for the characters and see where that lands you. Go tell Matt Mercer he's doing it wrong by replacing the Beholder from the live play stream with a tentacle beast that was an original creation because you can't copyright a stack of concepts.

You clearly know so much more than people who actually work in fields where knowing what is and isn't IP is important... so put your money where your mouth is and show us all how its done.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 31, 2023, 08:38:26 AM
So, while much has been made of Halflings being just renamed Hobbits, it appears Gary was slightly more aware of the potential copyright problems than people pretend when he was putting together the 1e PHB (less so the MM, but one critter entry among hundreds is easier to overlook as compared to a playable race).

The MM was published first, and the PHB instructed you to refer to the MM. So the absence of detail in the PHB is not indicative of Gary being careful not to step on the 'concept stack' as it was not wanting to repeat himself.