WoTC Doesn't Want Fan Sites?

Abyssal Maw · October 23, 2009, 08:34:22 AM

Quote from: Windjammer;340072Mistwell, can you link us

A) a 4E fansite which uses WotC imagery (or other WotC content) and contains the appropriate fan policy clause

*and*

B) a 4E fansite which exists in the blissful ignorance of the fansite policy, but can happily be linked to as it's really entirely harmless

I mean, there must be fansites of either category out there given 4E's widespread popularity, right?

There are tons of the second type. The majority of the RPGBloggers Network was dedicated to 4th Edition.

As for tools:

There's more, these are two I actually use.

Windjammer · October 23, 2009, 10:53:21 AM

AM, thanks. I wasn't going to go into the intricate details of WotC' fansite policies if having a look at some of the fansites already operating would give me a quicker idea what the current situation is. Thanks for those links, the random generator on the first page is really helpful! (I'm not sure how helpful to DDI subscribers, but then I'm not one of those.)

PS. Here's something that happened in February 2009.

Quote4epowercards.com is going down

Unfortunately, the people at Wizards of the Coast have served me with a Cease and Desist letter. While I respect Wizards, and love almost all of their products, I am still disappointed. We can only hope Wizards will offer a service simliar to that provided by 4epowercards.com.

In the near future, once I'm done clearing out all the offending copyrighted materials, I will provide the source code used to drive this site. I hope it can be of benefit to someone out there.

Regards,

Ryan Paddock

And then a press statement in response to some uproar:

QuoteThe fansite policy is being worked on. I was in a planning meeting today and it was being discussed and appropriately prioritized. I have read the draft and my personal opinion is that it looks very good. These will be guidelines and not a treatise on IP law. The fan site policy will not be a replacement for legal advice or common sense.

The web site in question had approximately 1825 full text power card entries. Of those 1 was a homebrew power. It also used Player's Handbook trade dress and the Dungeons & Dragons logo. The GSL does not allow for this type of use. FWIW, I saw this site for the first time on January 5th.

As I said in the Ema's post this is not a war on fansites. We appreciate fansites that respect our IP and support our business, ENWorld is a fine example of this type of websites. WotC has a great relationship with Russ and we sincerely value this community's support and patronage.
__________________
Scott Rouse

SR. Brand Manager - Dungeons & Dragons
Wizards of the Coast

ColonelHardisson · October 23, 2009, 11:21:20 AM

Wouldn't it be fairly easy to post 4e stuff if one simply avoided using IP? That is, aren't game stats one of those things they can't really go after? Is it or is it not possible to post character write-ups or stats for monsters that aren't IP owned by WotC ("generic" monsters like orcs, skeletons, etc.)? Could one post a new character class, for example, as long as one never directly said it was for 4e D&D? Couldn't one simply say it was for "Fourth Edition" or some-such?

Gordon Horne · October 23, 2009, 11:35:20 AM

I have no horse in this race, but what caught my eye was this:

QuoteOriginally Posted by Fan Site Policy
Inaccurate, Obscene or Libelous Statements Prohibited. Wizards welcomes and encourages honest discussion and opinions about all Wizards products on Fan Sites. However, we cannot allow Wizards Materials be used on any Fan Site that promotes sexually explicit materials, violence, discrimination or illegal activities, or makes disparaging, libelous or dishonest statements about Wizards and/or its products, employees and agents. We know you'll keep it clean. We Invite You to Ask Wizards

As they say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other. Disparage contains no connotation of falsehood, illegality, or inappropriateness. It is merely negative. So any site which uses the material provided for fan sites is prohibited from saying anything negative about WotC products, employees, or agents. That makes reviews worthless. Forums become an instant source of policy violation. That restriction alone is an excellent reason to avoid using official fan site material.

Windjammer · October 23, 2009, 11:37:55 AM

I think they just meant to cover slander, but you're right - the adjective "disparaging" seems to err on the side of caution in this context

Mistwell · October 23, 2009, 02:14:53 PM

Quote from: Windjammer;340072Mistwell, can you link us

A) a 4E fansite which uses WotC imagery (or other WotC content) and contains the appropriate fan policy clause

No. As far as I am aware, NOBODY has taken WOTC up on their offer to use their intellectual property under the license. Which probably tells you it is a shit offer.

Quote*and*

B) a 4E fansite which exists in the blissful ignorance of the fansite policy, but can happily be linked to as it's really entirely harmless

I mean, there must be fansites of either category out there given 4E's widespread popularity, right?

I think pretty much every fansite out there is simply not using the license. Including technically this one, if anyone has ever posted some 4e rules or stats or something.

Mistwell · October 23, 2009, 02:16:43 PM

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;340102Wouldn't it be fairly easy to post 4e stuff if one simply avoided using IP? That is, aren't game stats one of those things they can't really go after? Is it or is it not possible to post character write-ups or stats for monsters that aren't IP owned by WotC ("generic" monsters like orcs, skeletons, etc.)? Could one post a new character class, for example, as long as one never directly said it was for 4e D&D? Couldn't one simply say it was for "Fourth Edition" or some-such?

Pretty much yes.

ggroy · October 23, 2009, 02:23:24 PM

The first batch of Goodman's 4E Dungeon Crawl Classics modules were done as OGL. It says something like "4th edition compatible" on the cover and doesn't have any official WotC D&D logos on it.

Diavilo · October 23, 2009, 03:53:56 PM

Can't see why anyone would want to set up a site that recycled WotC content from WotC.com? Surely your own content is going to make or break it, not a few logos and repeat artwork.

StormBringer · October 23, 2009, 04:36:08 PM

Quote from: Diavilo;340148Can't see why anyone would want to set up a site that recycled WotC content from WotC.com? Surely your own content is going to make or break it, not a few logos and repeat artwork.

Not content, trade dress. As in, 'this is officially sanctioned by WotC'. Brand recognition and all.

Because at some point, if you are making material for 4e, you will need to mention the game in some capacity.

Mistwell · October 23, 2009, 04:41:48 PM

Quote from: StormBringer;340152Not content, trade dress. As in, 'this is officially sanctioned by WotC'. Brand recognition and all.

Because at some point, if you are making material for 4e, you will need to mention the game in some capacity.

You can mention the name. Your focus on trade dress is kinda misplaced. It really is a content issue, if you are talking about their license. You cannot replicate their entire look of course, but if you want to mention the game you can do it.

The clause you seem focused on is specific to use of "Wizard Materials" which means certain specific "trademarks and logos, product images, artwork, and other trademarked and/or copyrighted materials that have been pre-approved by Wizards". As long as you are not using the "Wizard Materials", NONE of that fan site kit crap applies.

aramis · October 23, 2009, 05:51:18 PM

In Re 4Epowercards:

Essentially, in march, WOTC was selling substatially the same thing that 4E Powercards was giving away free.

Further, 4Epowercards was violating the copyright, as well as the trademark.

jrients · October 24, 2009, 07:32:54 AM

WotC created a vacuum by not releasing the power cards the same month as the PHB. I'm not saying the free ones were legal, but they were filling an obvious need. If Wizards wants to sell solutions to obvious problems like power management, they really ought to be more on the ball.

Hairfoot · October 25, 2009, 01:01:51 AM

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;340102Wouldn't it be fairly easy to post 4e stuff if one simply avoided using IP? That is, aren't game stats one of those things they can't really go after? Is it or is it not possible to post character write-ups or stats for monsters that aren't IP owned by WotC ("generic" monsters like orcs, skeletons, etc.)? Could one post a new character class, for example, as long as one never directly said it was for 4e D&D? Couldn't one simply say it was for "Fourth Edition" or some-such?

I'll repost from the ENworld thread:

Quote"Don't ask, don't tell" sounds a lot like "suspend an axe over the necks of enthusiastic gamers".

It's not nice to menace the fanbase with uncertain terms and conditions. It's understandable that Hasbro doesn't want to test the legal limits of its stated policies, but having a legal team peering over the shoulder of every gamer on the net isn't very encouraging of fan-produced material. It seems similar to Hasbro's line on old-edition clones: you can enjoy them only as long as we tolerate you.

Is it unreasonable to view these approaches as a deliberate attempt to control content so that only official, trademarked creativity is allowed into Dungeons & Dragons?

Retaining control over system details is sensible, but how far does the limitation go on trademarked names and ideas? Obviously, it's not OK to put up a site containing lists of feats and powers copied verbatim from a book, but how about a tweaked or new feat with an existing name? What if someone uses "Eladrin" or "Shadow Wizard" or "Greyhawk" in a fan fic?

Gamers often put a lot of time and effort into their own material. Is it acceptable for Hasbro to be able to limit or seize that material without clearly explaining beforehand what's allowed?

Girl · October 25, 2009, 09:20:26 PM

You seem to be forgetting that all this stuff, all the rules and stuff, are Wizards of the Coasts property. If can take it away if they want to.