Suppose I Were to Write an Adventure... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Suppose I Were to Write an Adventure...

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
May 01, 2007 2:16:49 Copyright law indicates that it is unlawful for me to write an adventure using trademark names belonging to Wizards of the Coast, in this instance, Greyhawk place and person names like Urnst and Bigby. Now suppose I were to write an adventure that did not use any Greyhawk place names and was set in a fairly generic fantasy world using OGL, but I provided a free guide (say as a downloadable pdf) indicating the changes necessary to adapt the adventure to the World of Greyhawk. Theoretically, I could do the same with FR and Eberron. Would that constitute a violation of copyright law? Would it be a grey area (no pun intended)? I mean, if the adventure is set in a generic fantasy world, I would not be using the Greyhawk trademark to sell my product. Would it be any different if I offered free conversions for a Green Ronin Adventure to make it compatible with Greyhawk? Just wondering...
#2
ranger_reg
May 01, 2007 8:37:23 It doesn't matter if you charge us or giving it away for free, distributing material containing unauthorized use of someone else's trademarks not covered under the d20STL is subject to copyright infringement violation.
#3
zombiegleemax
May 01, 2007 13:38:01 So the Oerth Journal is copyright infringement?
#4
mortellan
May 01, 2007 14:38:05 Aieee and my comic! ;)

How about disclaimers though? Doesn't that essentially give credit where it's due?
#5
Brom_Blackforge
May 01, 2007 14:56:34
It doesn't matter if you charge us or giving it away for free, distributing material containing unauthorized use of someone else's trademarks not covered under the d20STL is subject to copyright infringement violation.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I think, as a practical matter at least, that it does make a difference whether you charge for your work or give it away for free. If you're not making money off of it, I think the copyright holder is probably going to be less likely to sue. Also, depending on what you're doing, your work might constitute "fair use" of the copyrighted work. For instance, discussing Greyhawk on a message board wouldn't violate the copyright, even if it's a non-WotC message board.

Obviously, though, anyone who wants an in-depth assessment should go find a copyright lawyer....
#6
neon_knight
May 01, 2007 15:28:50
Aieee and my comic! ;)

How about disclaimers though? Doesn't that essentially give credit where it's due?

From what little I know about copyright law and what not, because your work is satirical and/or a parody you are exempt from copyright infringement under your First Amendment rights!

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire
#7
phantasm72
May 01, 2007 17:30:42 As long as the original, published module follows all the rules, thats all that matters.

If you, or someone else sets up a fan site on how to convert that particular module to a Greyhawk setting, theres no harm in that. Its been done for tonnes of material...
I have no idea on all the ins and outs of internation and on the net copyright laws, but no company in their right mind is going to start trashing their fan-base. If they were, you would of seen it years ago...
#8
theocratissak
May 01, 2007 17:40:35 Hi all -
On May 31, 1790, G. Washington signed the first US copyright law - "an act for the encouragement of learning."

First, I am not a lawyer, just a marketing director for a private school. I own GreyhawkOnline.com, OerthJournal.com, and several other gaming related Web sites. I am currently writing articles for our newsletter that goes out. In these endeavors, I rely heavily on the Associated Press Manual of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style. I also have the book "The Illustrated Story of Copyright" by Edward Samuels (C) 2000. The two former books have some basic information on copyright, but I'm using Samuels book for reference below.

According to tISoC, "derivative" works is something that is either a translation or an adaptation of a copyrighted work. Copyright is intended to prevent these types of works. Pg. 151, "What if the second work is not an exact duplicate of the original, but rather an independent work that incorporates certain, but not all, aspects of the copyrighted work?"
"Is this second work substantially similar? It doesn't have to be an exact duplicate to be an infringement, but it does have to take enough of the copyrighted work that it can be said that the second work was not 'independently created'."
pg. 190 "If a work meets the test of copyright ability...there is still one final hurdle” Fair Use defense.
Pg 191 - Fair Use is not defined by the courts. However, use for purposes such as ‘criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright.' Factors to consider:
1 - the purpose - commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
2 - the nature of the copyrighted work.
3 - the amount of the copyrighted work in relation to the new work.
4 - the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Also, Game Mechanics are not copyrightable. Thus the slew of "VegasOpoly", "Ohiopoly" and any other concept of the game. They of course cannot use Boardwalk Place, but they could use The Boardwalk Hotel (as did one vegasopoly game). Another thread here, iirc, something about WotC needing to make a PC generator program, someone mentioned this as well, and one of the reasons that 3rd party publishers were able to get away with making data sets and programs based on not just the SRD. A lawyer piped in and said a few things as well, much to the same effect.
However, remember the slew of 1st and 2nd ed. modules that were "reprinted" in 3e format on ENworld? Well those just took 10 orcs and put them in 3.0 format, but also had the description from the module, eliminating the need for the original module. Thus, they were removed, and instead something like Encounter 1a: 10 orcs and the new stats for 10 orcs (again, game mechanics). I am currently running a Rob J. Kuntz module, The Cairn of the Skeleton King, which is an excellent adventure. However, he places these skeletons using his Creations Unlimited format, so I just convert them to 3.5 skeletons. For the Ettin Skeleton, I used the Monster Manual and did things from the template. It is the magic items and other things that take a little more effort.

So going back to your idea: You want to flesh out the lands of the Great Kingdom (or wherever, just using the GK for this example). The Great Kingdom was once used for England, the United Kingdom, so you could even use that term for your lands. However, something like Rauxes would not be useable because that is a proper noun, and not a part of the English language - it is a made up word. As is Greyhawk. However, I also officially own Greyhawk Games and haven't had a problem. When I talked it over with Paizo 2yrs ago at GAMA, we discussed the fact that Greyhawk.com is not WotC's and that there are development communities called Greyhawk (I tried to steal a flag from one about 15yrs ago, but my Bro wouldn't let me!).
Therefore, you could flesh out the lands of the Great Kingdom, calling the ruined city Roax, and so forth. If you provided maps, then that would be another section of the book that you would have to read to determine your liability.
In the end, so long as your work had enough originality and what you used as a baseline would not be affected you should be safe. The Oerth Journal falls along this gray area.
I am always of the type that believes in kissing the girl first, and hoping she wanted it and does not slap me. If she slaps me, well then I guess I had better find a new girl. If you do your work and then WotC sends you a letter, it is not like it’s a real threat. It will still take a whole lot of time to get things moving, at which point, the work would have been so disturbed that stopping it would not be a real viable option. Otherwise, the Boston Globe would come after me for my PDF print out of their D&D story on my Web site.

In the end, take a chance and do the work. Heck, I'd be more than happy to host it on GreyhawkOnline.com or have it on CanonFire. In addition, if you are converting Green Ronin works, that would be appreciated too!

Be Well. Be Well Copied.
Theocrat Issak
#9
theocratissak
May 01, 2007 18:40:17 Hi all -
Further looking at tISoC, pg. 131 - Maps and Charts 1790:
"Originality consits of the 'selection, arrangement, and presentation of the componet parts' of a map, and has more to do with the design by which the information is presented than with the information itself."
Further, the author shows a map from 1964 of the NY Subway system, and a later map in 1972. The later NY subway sytem map is obviously a newer, cleaner version, and everything on the original map is on the newer map, "they are very differetnly presented." "Is the new map sufficiently 'original' to be eligible for copyright? Of Course! The originality is in the presentation, not the information. So, obviously, what we are encouraging under copyright is not just the surveying of new lands and new systems, but also the development of new ways of represnting those lands and systems."
Again, this infomration from the book is presented from court cases that that sometimes gone up to the Supreme Court. He mentions that the SC is usually a 4-5 split, or a 5-4 split depending on the court's demeaner. Currently, the court is very pro-business and would likely, if you could afford to pay the attorney to go all the way, lose. As I mentioned previously, another poster on another thread mentioned this as well.
So as to making maps of your region, even based loosely off the original Darlene Maps or even the later Dungeon Magazine maps, to help map out your locations, as long as they are presented unquiely enough, you might be free. Further, many, many people have re-done the Darlene maps, exact representation (but again, through a different media and they look unquie enough).
As I previously mentioned, I don't think that you have much to worry about. If you are planning on posting the work on your Web site, I think you would be fine. Worst case is that you get an email from a WotC lawyer telling you to take it down. I got a lawyer letter from my cable provider telling me to stop downloading the movie 300 or they would cancel my connection. I stopped downloading that seeded movie (and all "300" Bit torrent movies). And I heard nothing further. Once I had posted several PDF books on my GreyhawkOnline.com site for people in my gaming group to download. It happened that day I had also annouced free Web site hosting, as well has having the ISP loose my index.html - so all those PDF's were free for all to see. Someone from EN World press emailed me and I took all the stuff down. Simple enough. Same with the stuff I have on the site currently.
I think you are more than safe, and if someone is unhappy, you remove your offending information (but make sure that plenty of people have a copy!).

Be Well. Be Well Informed.
Theocrat Issak
I am The Theocrat; My interprentation of laws only applies to the laws of Pholtus.
#10
ranger_reg
May 01, 2007 20:23:59
I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I think, as a practical matter at least, that it does make a difference whether you charge for your work or give it away for free. If you're not making money off of it, I think the copyright holder is probably going to be less likely to sue.

Technically, you're still in violation due to unauthorized distribution of material containing unauthorized trademarks.

HOWEVER, the government does not have the money to fund an IP law enforcement agency. That's up to the owner of the trademarks being illegally distributed.

Even though you stated "less likely," it is still possible for the trademark owner to pursue legal actions against the violator, starting with a nice C&D letter.

Also, depending on what you're doing, your work might constitute "fair use" of the copyrighted work. For instance, discussing Greyhawk on a message board wouldn't violate the copyright, even if it's a non-WotC message board.

We discusss on the message board like we discuss among friends.

As for "Fair Use," to use an unauthorized trademark for entertainment purpose like publishing an adventure module is not protected under the policy.

Obviously, though, anyone who wants an in-depth assessment should go find a copyright lawyer....

Like I said, if you don't want to take my word or Brom's, ask a lawyer. And if WotC decided to take legal action against you, then that lawyer who licensed to give legal advice have better fight for you in court.
#11
theocratissak
May 01, 2007 22:15:59
Like I said, if you don't want to take my word or Brom's, ask a lawyer. And if WotC decided to take legal action against you, then that lawyer who licensed to give legal advice have better fight for you in court.

Hi all -
As I posted previously, it takes a whole lot of effort to go to court. I see this stuff posted online all the time....stop or you'll go to court. Damn sue happy nation.
You do the deed. They eventually find out about and either care and send you a letter or they don't. Just like anything else, they have to inform you that you are doing wrong. As they have moderators here on this board, they would certainly know of the many different things that go on that "threaten" their IP. It would be very easy for them to follow the trails and send out CD letters.
Crap, it's gonna turn into one of those - so is Theocrat gonna pay his lawyer fees? Hell no. All he would have to do - is to take down the offending item. As I said, if and when WotC starts doing that then I'll be getting several of them, as will most fan sites. Even if you are asking if it's ethical. Yes it's ethical because are doing your best to follow the rules and further their product lines.
Or I suppose you could find one of the zillion lawyers that practice copyright law that hang out in your average downtown. Oh wait, all those are injury attorney's.
Be Well Lawyered.
Theocrat Issak
#12
samwise
May 02, 2007 0:02:33 From what I understand, the Oerth Journal falls into one of those vague areas of tolerated fan material.

As long as it doesn't pretend to be official, or that the material is not derived from WotC owned properties, and there is nothing commercial about it, it is allowed.
If it did cross that line, I would expect one of those lawyer letters Theocrat mentions to show up.

At least I hope that's our situation. :D
#13
zombiegleemax
May 02, 2007 2:19:00 Thanks for the help, Theocrat, and thanks to others for commenting. I think I have a better idea of what is allowable now.
#14
elberethsilverleaf
May 04, 2007 20:40:41 Here is a web site about a spanish language movie based on Star Wars.
http://www.darkresurrection.com/
Would this be more of a copyright infringement than what the original poster wants to do?
#15
zombiegleemax
May 06, 2007 20:00:07 Everything on Canonfire is copyright infringement.

Copyright Summary

And more importantly...

10 Myths about Copyright

Fortunately for us, WoTC has toned down it's company policies pertaining to fan based material, but by right, they technically could sue everyone even if you post in these forums with trademarked names etc... (from my limited understanding)

Basically what it boils down to is what the gentlemen in the links above had pointed out. It comes down to the $ damages incurred by the violations, which are so minimal that it would not be worth the time for WoTC to sue us all.
#16
samwise
May 06, 2007 20:26:30
Fortunately for us, WoTC has toned down it's company policies pertaining to fan based material, but by right, they technically could sue everyone even if you post in these forums with trademarked names etc... (from my limited understanding).

In which case it would all be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
In any case, by a combination of WotC being aware of the existence of Canonfire and similar sites, and having a policy acknowledging their existence, it can be construed as an implicit granting of permission to create such derivative works for non-commercial purposes.
Or it means WotC is aware of them but has not not defended their trademarks, which means they could all be lost if challenged in court.
Since a grant for non-commercial purposes doesn't include a grant for commercial purposes, WotC would have no incentive to try and claim they always objected to non-commercial uses. They would still be protected against trying to use such trademarks for commercial purposes (as in "Buy my generic adventure! It is really a Greyhawk adventure, and all the conversion notes will appear in a web enhancement as soon as the adventure is released!"), and they can still withdraw such permission whenever they feel like, telling everyone to close their websites or face legal action (the big downside of writing nothing but fan material for a published setting).

Or not. But that is what I have been able to understand from webpages like that (which I've read in the past), reading the law, and reading WotC's and other companies statements about allowing such sites to exist. For the most part, it all works on a mutual unspoken agreement that the fans don't try to annoy WotC, and WotC doesn't demonstrate to them just how much money an extended civil suit will cost them.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax May 01, 2007 2:16:49	Copyright law indicates that it is unlawful for me to write an adventure using trademark names belonging to Wizards of the Coast, in this instance, Greyhawk place and person names like Urnst and Bigby. Now suppose I were to write an adventure that did not use any Greyhawk place names and was set in a fairly generic fantasy world using OGL, but I provided a free guide (say as a downloadable pdf) indicating the changes necessary to adapt the adventure to the World of Greyhawk. Theoretically, I could do the same with FR and Eberron. Would that constitute a violation of copyright law? Would it be a grey area (no pun intended)? I mean, if the adventure is set in a generic fantasy world, I would not be using the Greyhawk trademark to sell my product. Would it be any different if I offered free conversions for a Green Ronin Adventure to make it compatible with Greyhawk? Just wondering...
#2 ranger_reg May 01, 2007 8:37:23	It doesn't matter if you charge us or giving it away for free, distributing material containing unauthorized use of someone else's trademarks not covered under the d20STL is subject to copyright infringement violation.
#3 zombiegleemax May 01, 2007 13:38:01	So the Oerth Journal is copyright infringement?
#4 mortellan May 01, 2007 14:38:05	Aieee and my comic! ;) How about disclaimers though? Doesn't that essentially give credit where it's due?
#5 Brom_Blackforge May 01, 2007 14:56:34	It doesn't matter if you charge us or giving it away for free, distributing material containing unauthorized use of someone else's trademarks not covered under the d20STL is subject to copyright infringement violation. I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I think, as a practical matter at least, that it does make a difference whether you charge for your work or give it away for free. If you're not making money off of it, I think the copyright holder is probably going to be less likely to sue. Also, depending on what you're doing, your work might constitute "fair use" of the copyrighted work. For instance, discussing Greyhawk on a message board wouldn't violate the copyright, even if it's a non-WotC message board. Obviously, though, anyone who wants an in-depth assessment should go find a copyright lawyer....
#6 neon_knight May 01, 2007 15:28:50	Aieee and my comic! ;) How about disclaimers though? Doesn't that essentially give credit where it's due? From what little I know about copyright law and what not, because your work is satirical and/or a parody you are exempt from copyright infringement under your First Amendment rights! http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=parody_satire
#7 phantasm72 May 01, 2007 17:30:42	As long as the original, published module follows all the rules, thats all that matters. If you, or someone else sets up a fan site on how to convert that particular module to a Greyhawk setting, theres no harm in that. Its been done for tonnes of material... I have no idea on all the ins and outs of internation and on the net copyright laws, but no company in their right mind is going to start trashing their fan-base. If they were, you would of seen it years ago...
#8 theocratissak May 01, 2007 17:40:35	Hi all - On May 31, 1790, G. Washington signed the first US copyright law - "an act for the encouragement of learning." First, I am not a lawyer, just a marketing director for a private school. I own GreyhawkOnline.com, OerthJournal.com, and several other gaming related Web sites. I am currently writing articles for our newsletter that goes out. In these endeavors, I rely heavily on the Associated Press Manual of Style and the Chicago Manual of Style. I also have the book "The Illustrated Story of Copyright" by Edward Samuels (C) 2000. The two former books have some basic information on copyright, but I'm using Samuels book for reference below. According to tISoC, "derivative" works is something that is either a translation or an adaptation of a copyrighted work. Copyright is intended to prevent these types of works. Pg. 151, "What if the second work is not an exact duplicate of the original, but rather an independent work that incorporates certain, but not all, aspects of the copyrighted work?" "Is this second work substantially similar? It doesn't have to be an exact duplicate to be an infringement, but it does have to take enough of the copyrighted work that it can be said that the second work was not 'independently created'." pg. 190 "If a work meets the test of copyright ability...there is still one final hurdle” Fair Use defense. Pg 191 - Fair Use is not defined by the courts. However, use for purposes such as ‘criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is not an infringement of copyright.' Factors to consider: 1 - the purpose - commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. 2 - the nature of the copyrighted work. 3 - the amount of the copyrighted work in relation to the new work. 4 - the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Also, Game Mechanics are not copyrightable. Thus the slew of "VegasOpoly", "Ohiopoly" and any other concept of the game. They of course cannot use Boardwalk Place, but they could use The Boardwalk Hotel (as did one vegasopoly game). Another thread here, iirc, something about WotC needing to make a PC generator program, someone mentioned this as well, and one of the reasons that 3rd party publishers were able to get away with making data sets and programs based on not just the SRD. A lawyer piped in and said a few things as well, much to the same effect. However, remember the slew of 1st and 2nd ed. modules that were "reprinted" in 3e format on ENworld? Well those just took 10 orcs and put them in 3.0 format, but also had the description from the module, eliminating the need for the original module. Thus, they were removed, and instead something like Encounter 1a: 10 orcs and the new stats for 10 orcs (again, game mechanics). I am currently running a Rob J. Kuntz module, The Cairn of the Skeleton King, which is an excellent adventure. However, he places these skeletons using his Creations Unlimited format, so I just convert them to 3.5 skeletons. For the Ettin Skeleton, I used the Monster Manual and did things from the template. It is the magic items and other things that take a little more effort. So going back to your idea: You want to flesh out the lands of the Great Kingdom (or wherever, just using the GK for this example). The Great Kingdom was once used for England, the United Kingdom, so you could even use that term for your lands. However, something like Rauxes would not be useable because that is a proper noun, and not a part of the English language - it is a made up word. As is Greyhawk. However, I also officially own Greyhawk Games and haven't had a problem. When I talked it over with Paizo 2yrs ago at GAMA, we discussed the fact that Greyhawk.com is not WotC's and that there are development communities called Greyhawk (I tried to steal a flag from one about 15yrs ago, but my Bro wouldn't let me!). Therefore, you could flesh out the lands of the Great Kingdom, calling the ruined city Roax, and so forth. If you provided maps, then that would be another section of the book that you would have to read to determine your liability. In the end, so long as your work had enough originality and what you used as a baseline would not be affected you should be safe. The Oerth Journal falls along this gray area. I am always of the type that believes in kissing the girl first, and hoping she wanted it and does not slap me. If she slaps me, well then I guess I had better find a new girl. If you do your work and then WotC sends you a letter, it is not like it’s a real threat. It will still take a whole lot of time to get things moving, at which point, the work would have been so disturbed that stopping it would not be a real viable option. Otherwise, the Boston Globe would come after me for my PDF print out of their D&D story on my Web site. In the end, take a chance and do the work. Heck, I'd be more than happy to host it on GreyhawkOnline.com or have it on CanonFire. In addition, if you are converting Green Ronin works, that would be appreciated too! Be Well. Be Well Copied. Theocrat Issak
#9 theocratissak May 01, 2007 18:40:17	Hi all - Further looking at tISoC, pg. 131 - Maps and Charts 1790: "Originality consits of the 'selection, arrangement, and presentation of the componet parts' of a map, and has more to do with the design by which the information is presented than with the information itself." Further, the author shows a map from 1964 of the NY Subway system, and a later map in 1972. The later NY subway sytem map is obviously a newer, cleaner version, and everything on the original map is on the newer map, "they are very differetnly presented." "Is the new map sufficiently 'original' to be eligible for copyright? Of Course! The originality is in the presentation, not the information. So, obviously, what we are encouraging under copyright is not just the surveying of new lands and new systems, but also the development of new ways of represnting those lands and systems." Again, this infomration from the book is presented from court cases that that sometimes gone up to the Supreme Court. He mentions that the SC is usually a 4-5 split, or a 5-4 split depending on the court's demeaner. Currently, the court is very pro-business and would likely, if you could afford to pay the attorney to go all the way, lose. As I mentioned previously, another poster on another thread mentioned this as well. So as to making maps of your region, even based loosely off the original Darlene Maps or even the later Dungeon Magazine maps, to help map out your locations, as long as they are presented unquiely enough, you might be free. Further, many, many people have re-done the Darlene maps, exact representation (but again, through a different media and they look unquie enough). As I previously mentioned, I don't think that you have much to worry about. If you are planning on posting the work on your Web site, I think you would be fine. Worst case is that you get an email from a WotC lawyer telling you to take it down. I got a lawyer letter from my cable provider telling me to stop downloading the movie 300 or they would cancel my connection. I stopped downloading that seeded movie (and all "300" Bit torrent movies). And I heard nothing further. Once I had posted several PDF books on my GreyhawkOnline.com site for people in my gaming group to download. It happened that day I had also annouced free Web site hosting, as well has having the ISP loose my index.html - so all those PDF's were free for all to see. Someone from EN World press emailed me and I took all the stuff down. Simple enough. Same with the stuff I have on the site currently. I think you are more than safe, and if someone is unhappy, you remove your offending information (but make sure that plenty of people have a copy!). Be Well. Be Well Informed. Theocrat Issak I am The Theocrat; My interprentation of laws only applies to the laws of Pholtus.
#10 ranger_reg May 01, 2007 20:23:59	I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I think, as a practical matter at least, that it does make a difference whether you charge for your work or give it away for free. If you're not making money off of it, I think the copyright holder is probably going to be less likely to sue. Technically, you're still in violation due to unauthorized distribution of material containing unauthorized trademarks. HOWEVER, the government does not have the money to fund an IP law enforcement agency. That's up to the owner of the trademarks being illegally distributed. Even though you stated "less likely," it is still possible for the trademark owner to pursue legal actions against the violator, starting with a nice C&D letter. Also, depending on what you're doing, your work might constitute "fair use" of the copyrighted work. For instance, discussing Greyhawk on a message board wouldn't violate the copyright, even if it's a non-WotC message board. We discusss on the message board like we discuss among friends. As for "Fair Use," to use an unauthorized trademark for entertainment purpose like publishing an adventure module is not protected under the policy. Obviously, though, anyone who wants an in-depth assessment should go find a copyright lawyer.... Like I said, if you don't want to take my word or Brom's, ask a lawyer. And if WotC decided to take legal action against you, then that lawyer who licensed to give legal advice have better fight for you in court.
#11 theocratissak May 01, 2007 22:15:59	Like I said, if you don't want to take my word or Brom's, ask a lawyer. And if WotC decided to take legal action against you, then that lawyer who licensed to give legal advice have better fight for you in court. Hi all - As I posted previously, it takes a whole lot of effort to go to court. I see this stuff posted online all the time....stop or you'll go to court. Damn sue happy nation. You do the deed. They eventually find out about and either care and send you a letter or they don't. Just like anything else, they have to inform you that you are doing wrong. As they have moderators here on this board, they would certainly know of the many different things that go on that "threaten" their IP. It would be very easy for them to follow the trails and send out CD letters. Crap, it's gonna turn into one of those - so is Theocrat gonna pay his lawyer fees? Hell no. All he would have to do - is to take down the offending item. As I said, if and when WotC starts doing that then I'll be getting several of them, as will most fan sites. Even if you are asking if it's ethical. Yes it's ethical because are doing your best to follow the rules and further their product lines. Or I suppose you could find one of the zillion lawyers that practice copyright law that hang out in your average downtown. Oh wait, all those are injury attorney's. Be Well Lawyered. Theocrat Issak
#12 samwise May 02, 2007 0:02:33	From what I understand, the Oerth Journal falls into one of those vague areas of tolerated fan material. As long as it doesn't pretend to be official, or that the material is not derived from WotC owned properties, and there is nothing commercial about it, it is allowed. If it did cross that line, I would expect one of those lawyer letters Theocrat mentions to show up. At least I hope that's our situation. :D
#13 zombiegleemax May 02, 2007 2:19:00	Thanks for the help, Theocrat, and thanks to others for commenting. I think I have a better idea of what is allowable now.
#14 elberethsilverleaf May 04, 2007 20:40:41	Here is a web site about a spanish language movie based on Star Wars. http://www.darkresurrection.com/ Would this be more of a copyright infringement than what the original poster wants to do?
#15 zombiegleemax May 06, 2007 20:00:07	Everything on Canonfire is copyright infringement. Copyright Summary And more importantly... 10 Myths about Copyright Fortunately for us, WoTC has toned down it's company policies pertaining to fan based material, but by right, they technically could sue everyone even if you post in these forums with trademarked names etc... (from my limited understanding) Basically what it boils down to is what the gentlemen in the links above had pointed out. It comes down to the $ damages incurred by the violations, which are so minimal that it would not be worth the time for WoTC to sue us all.
#16 samwise May 06, 2007 20:26:30	Fortunately for us, WoTC has toned down it's company policies pertaining to fan based material, but by right, they technically could sue everyone even if you post in these forums with trademarked names etc... (from my limited understanding). In which case it would all be trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. In any case, by a combination of WotC being aware of the existence of Canonfire and similar sites, and having a policy acknowledging their existence, it can be construed as an implicit granting of permission to create such derivative works for non-commercial purposes. Or it means WotC is aware of them but has not not defended their trademarks, which means they could all be lost if challenged in court. Since a grant for non-commercial purposes doesn't include a grant for commercial purposes, WotC would have no incentive to try and claim they always objected to non-commercial uses. They would still be protected against trying to use such trademarks for commercial purposes (as in "Buy my generic adventure! It is really a Greyhawk adventure, and all the conversion notes will appear in a web enhancement as soon as the adventure is released!"), and they can still withdraw such permission whenever they feel like, telling everyone to close their websites or face legal action (the big downside of writing nothing but fan material for a published setting). Or not. But that is what I have been able to understand from webpages like that (which I've read in the past), reading the law, and reading WotC's and other companies statements about allowing such sites to exist. For the most part, it all works on a mutual unspoken agreement that the fans don't try to annoy WotC, and WotC doesn't demonstrate to them just how much money an extended civil suit will cost them.