# D&D Fan Site Toolkit



## davethegame (Aug 6, 2009)

It's up, along with legal and quasi-legal language for its use. Still some unanswered questions, and it's mainly just to provide fan sites with a bunch of images they can use of higher quality than what's available elsewhere on their site:

Fan Site Kit


----------



## mhensley (Aug 6, 2009)

epic fail-



> Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 6, 2009)

mhensley said:


> epic fail-




Huh? Could you go into more detail on how it is "fail"??


----------



## davethegame (Aug 6, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> Huh? Could you go into more detail on how it is "fail"??




Meaning that a fan site where we could freely post D&D adventures without having to sign the GSL and everything that goes with it (and is a bit unclear about online publications) would be preferable.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 6, 2009)

davethegame said:


> Meaning that a fan site where we could freely post D&D adventures without having to sign the GSL and everything that goes with it (and is a bit unclear about online publications) would be preferable.




Ahhh.

Makes sense I guess, but I honestly didn't expect a fan site policy to cover things which are already covered under the GSL. I can see how it would be disappointing to some people, .


----------



## Ktulu (Aug 6, 2009)

As I read it, I can make and post free adventures so long as I do not charge for it or a subscription to my site.

Fair enough to me.  Not that I actually have a site or sell material.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 6, 2009)

*Fan Site Kits*

Wizards Press

This just found its way to me.  I haven't given a proper read through but it for people interested in having D&D and Magic the Gathering fan sites.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 6, 2009)

I just downloaded the one for D&D.  It's essentially images only.  One folder with all the 4e D&D covers (full cover, not the art, but also with the book dress).  Some images, some logos and a single product package.

Kinda lame for a fan site kit.  But it's a start, I guess.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 6, 2009)

It's better then what we had yesterday!    Hopefully they can get some feedback and improve it.  What is usually in a fan site kit?  I've never seen one before.


----------



## Mark (Aug 7, 2009)

Crothian said:


> What is usually in a fan site kit?  I've never seen one before.





A kick in the junk and a C&D letter.


----------



## freyar (Aug 7, 2009)

Is this actually also the long-awaited fan-site policy?  Does it actually address fan-created material other than to say "use the GSL" and reference WotC trademarks?


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 7, 2009)

Mark said:


> A kick in the junk and a C&D letter.




"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Mark again."


----------



## MerricB (Aug 7, 2009)

Fansite Policy said:
			
		

> The "suits" in Wizards' legal department require us to tell you that Wizards Materials in the Tool Kits are for your personal Fan Site use only, and that the rights and permissions we grant to you in this Policy are personal to you.






			
				Fansite Policy said:
			
		

> Although imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, you may not imitate Wizards' logos, trade dress, or other elements of Wizards product packaging and website.




I LOLed. 

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Aug 7, 2009)

freyar said:


> Is this actually also the long-awaited fan-site policy?  Does it actually address fan-created material other than to say "use the GSL" and reference WotC trademarks?




The most relevant part is this:
"Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome."

Also:
"You may not publish, display, exhibit or use any information about products (including any photographs, game text, rules, or drawings of such new products or their prototypes) that has not already been released to the general public by Wizards or that Wizards has otherwise expressly authorized for release to the collector community."

And:
"We encourage you to use these materials, post your character sheets for Dungeons & Dragons®, create fan fiction, display your personal artwork, and just have fun on your Fan Site."

The pack is a lot of image files (logos, book covers, etc.) to use on your site.

Cheers!


----------



## kitsune9 (Aug 7, 2009)

Crothian said:


> Wizards Press
> 
> This just found its way to me.  I haven't given a proper read through but it for people interested in having D&D and Magic the Gathering fan sites.




Images on the zipped folder and make you agree to their terms of service. The interesting thing is that you're not allowed to create game material, etc. unless you're under the GSL.


----------



## davethegame (Aug 7, 2009)

Psh, of course, when I post about it, it only gets half as many responses as when Crothian does it... http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/260106-d-d-fan-site-toolkit.html

There's a lot of talk over RPG Bloggers about what it actually means, and the final decision seems to be it's not worth using.


----------



## weem (Aug 7, 2009)

Yea, nothing there that great for me (just downloaded and went through it).

You know who had a good one iirc was World of Warcraft (I had a wow site back when it first came out).


----------



## Tewligan (Aug 7, 2009)

Ktulu said:


> As I read it, I can make and post free adventures so long as I do not charge for it or a subscription to my site.
> 
> Fair enough to me.  Not that I actually have a site or sell material.



Buh? That's not what it says at all. Here, look:


> Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to *publish, distribute or sell* your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands



(Emphasis mine) Notice the words right before "or sell"? _Any_ publishing or distribution is off-limits according to this wording, whether you charge for it or not. Oh my, this is gonna erupt into a hell of a crapstorm tomorrow, I wager...


----------



## Derulbaskul (Aug 7, 2009)

Tewligan said:


> (snip) Oh my, this is gonna erupt into a hell of a crapstorm tomorrow, I wager...




The amateur lawyers are about to come out and unleash nerdrage very soon. I think this weekend will be a good one to stay away from D&D-related messageboards.

"On my command... unleash nerdrage!" With apologies to Russell Crowe.


----------



## Melan (Aug 7, 2009)

It is a good thing D&D is in the hands of brand management that just *wuvs* gaming and gamers, because let's imagine how things would look like if they didn't. 

Go Rouseketeers!


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 7, 2009)

davethegame said:


> Meaning that a fan site where we could freely post D&D adventures without having to sign the GSL and everything that goes with it (and is a bit unclear about online publications) would be preferable.



But that was surely never on the cards, being, as it would have, a massive circumvention of the protections Wizards have written for themselves in the GSL.

Nothing in the policy seems to forbid posting characters, monsters, and all that malarky though. "...games, modules or applications..." is pretty specific, so I should wager (IANAL) that things like the monster and NPC wiki's are golden. Those are the kinds of projects that I personally was concerned about. Otherwise this looks to be standard fare.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 7, 2009)

davethegame said:


> Meaning that a fan site where we could freely post D&D adventures without having to sign the GSL and everything that goes with it (and is a bit unclear about online publications) would be preferable.




Yes, this policy firmly establishes fear, uncertainty, and doubt about posting pretty much anything D&D related online.  Apparently they just don't get it that the main thing rpg's have going for them is the ability to create your own material for them.  All they want is a pool of quiet, obedient consumers.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 7, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> But that was surely never on the cards, being, as it would have, a massive circumvention of the protections Wizards have written for themselves in the GSL.
> 
> Nothing in the policy seems to forbid posting characters, monsters, and all that malarky though. "...games, modules or applications..." is pretty specific, so I should wager (IANAL) that things like the monster and NPC wiki's are golden. Those are the kinds of projects that I personally was concerned about. Otherwise this looks to be standard fare.




the words modules and applications are very broad in meaning and could represent pretty much anything they want


----------



## Mercutio01 (Aug 7, 2009)

I think it's absurd to have to sign the GSL to make a fan-produced adventure for 4E.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 7, 2009)

Nellisir said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Mark again."




The same thing happened to me!


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2009)

Tewligan said:


> Buh? That's not what it says at all. Here, look:
> 
> (Emphasis mine) Notice the words right before "or sell"? _Any_ publishing or distribution is off-limits according to this wording, whether you charge for it or not.




You are missing out the next sentence.  Publishing and distribution is NOT off-limits; it's merely covered by a different license to this one.  This license isn't the "publish adventures" license; the GSL is the "publish adventures" license.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 7, 2009)

kitsune9 said:


> Images on the zipped folder and make you agree to their terms of service. The interesting thing is that you're not allowed to create game material, etc. unless you're under the GSL.




No surprise there.  Not a lot of difference between fan created material and published material.  With the PDF explosion in the past five years the line blurred heavily.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 7, 2009)

Nellisir said:


> "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Mark again."






Raven Crowking said:


> The same thing happened to me!




Covered. 

The whole thing is funny. You may not publish adventures on your fansite, use the GSL for that.

GSL- what you produce in accordance with this license cannot appear on a fansite.

Quite amusing indeed.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 7, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Covered.
> 
> The whole thing is funny. You may not publish adventures on your fansite, use the GSL for that.
> 
> ...




I feel like Yossarian.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

Morrus said:


> You are missing out the next sentence.  Publishing and distribution is NOT off-limits; it's merely covered by a different license to this one.  This license isn't the "publish adventures" license; the GSL is the "publish adventures" license.



It will be interesting to see where the discussion goes when the inevitable nerdrage dies down. On other boards I've already seen the comparisons to T$R, "they're going to sue everyone!"-type comments which seem ridiculous on the face of them. The GSL does cover adventures, and hopefully we'll get clarification if things like statblocks are okay by themselves on fansites. It seems likely they are.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Aug 7, 2009)

The point you're missing is that the GSL says "no licensed product will include (a) web sites..."

Taken in conjunction with the fan site policy, that means you couldn't even use your fansite to publish your GSL approved adventure.

To recap - fansite policy says no adventures.  GSL policy says no websites.  The two effectively cancel each other out.  Am I interpreting that incorrectly?

As a further point - "no Licensed Product...(f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation)".  A website can't be a Licensed Product.  And adventure that is "incorporated into" a website, is banned per this clause too.  Again, am I reading it wrong?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

That's a lot of words to cover "Yeah just don't even make one, seriously, we hate that crap."

Anyways, here's a link to someone who is upset about it!

http://d7.pipemaze.com/blog/2009/08/07/wizards-fan-site-kit-is-not-a-fan-site-policy/

PS: "Suits?"  Honestly?  Dude WotC just stop man.  You're like a 70 year old man who just started trying to dance to hip hop.  _You aren't going to come off as being cool._


----------



## Nagol (Aug 7, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> The point you're missing is that the GSL says "no licensed product will include (a) web sites..."
> 
> Taken in conjunction with the fan site policy, that means you couldn't even use your fansite to publish your GSL approved adventure.
> 
> To recap - fansite policy says no adventures.  GSL policy says no websites.  The two effectively cancel each other out.  Am I interpreting that incorrectly?




You can host GSL adventures on a fan site so long as the adventure is stored as a "single-download electronic book format" (see GSL section 3).  Section 5.5 shuts down other forms of content so no room-a-day updates for you!


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 7, 2009)

So basically to get it directly from Wizards you have to agree to the 'Fan Site Policy', or you just ignore it and download it from somewhere else.  

Sorry but forcing 'Fan Sites' into an agreement where they can't have folks download things they create for free won't fly in the majority of the community.  Least I would hope it wouldn't.
Example, you have created a world in which you have fleshed it out completely.  Towns/Cities/Countries/Politics/etc, think a small version of Forgotten Realms.  You wouldn't be allowed to have the 'Fan Site' package unless it completely meets the GSL?  What if your 'Fan Site' is for your 2E game?  The way I read it, you wouldn't be allowed to use this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Lord knows I am often enough.

Heck the way it reads, technically EnWorld wouldn't even qualify as a 'Fan Site'.

Sometimes folks just over-lawyer things, when WotC could have just said something to the effect of: "Your our fans, we offer these images for non-commercial use in conjunction with your self-created 'fan sites'.  If found in use for commercial... yada yada yada" You get the point, than fans would willingly take them and use them.

Now all that being said, I do have to applaud them for taking the GIANT step forward in the attitude for 'fan sites' in general.  This is a long way from the days of the TSR C&D Letters that went out to any site that dare mentioned D&D or looked like they did.  For that definite props to WotC.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> The point you're missing is that the GSL says "no licensed product will include (a) web sites..."



Yes, the GSL covers adventures. WotC apparently does not want adventures published on websites at all. That's their apparent fansite policy.

Edit: See Nagol's post above. You can apparently post adventures to your fansite per the terms of the GSL.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> PS: "Suits?"  Honestly?  Dude WotC just stop man.  You're like a 70 year old man who just started trying to dance to hip hop.  _You aren't going to come off as being cool._



I've seen enough perfectly serious comments about "suits" here to realize it's a pretty common term when discussing WotC. I can't fault them for using it.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Now all that being said, I do have to applaud them for taking the GIANT step forward in the attitude for 'fan sites' in general.  This is a long way from the days of the TSR C&D Letters that went out to any site that dare mentioned D&D or looked like they did.  For that definite props to WotC.




...Uh, what?

It's also a huge step back from 3e and from *every other RPG developer in existance*.  Even White Wolf and their at times shady view towards websites is better then this.

You're praising WotC for giving you an STD instead of AIDs.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 7, 2009)

Unfortunately this license clarifies pretty much nothing, especially concerning posting fan-created mechanics which I think people are *far* more interested in than using product covers. 

For example, how does EN World and this forum in particular stand? Are they fine under this license? Or do they have to operate under the GSL?

Can I post a 4e encounter on a fan site or even here in the 4e Fan Creations? "Modules" are forbidden, but are a handful of encounters ok?

What about new classes, races, monsters? Use the fan site license or GSL?

Oh, and if you do have to use the GSL, it can no longer even be a fan *site*, it has to be a downloadable PDF or other non-HTML.

Also, if it does come down to "use the GSL for posting fan created content", then things like githyanki therapy and the massive amount of fan conversions of pre-4e material are no longer allowed. They reference material not in the SRD.

So I'm certainly not understanding the nerdrage at this and comparisons to the evil "T$R". I seriously doubt a wave of lawsuits are on their way. However, it is disappointing to see a company whose games I really enjoy acting so clueless and squandering opportunity after opportunity. It's not that this fan site license is "evil", it's just kinda worthless in it's current form.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

Side note - I was wondering when WotC's next hilarious customer service blowout would happen


----------



## avin (Aug 7, 2009)

Hey The Rouse, break the boss door and ask for a raise dude


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...Uh, what?
> 
> It's also a huge step back from 3e and from *every other RPG developer in existance*.  Even White Wolf and their at times shady view towards websites is better then this.
> 
> You're praising WotC for giving you an STD instead of AIDs.



True, but also recognizing the fact at least they are moving in the right direction.  While not as far as we would like.  I'm willing to watch them take the baby steps needed.

The thing is negative feedback alone won't change things.  If they see you like a direction, but feel it's not enough they are more likely to act on it than if you just say "thanks for nothing".

Really it isn't a policy that effects me at all, as I don't run any 'fan sites' (least not public ones) for D&D.  Doesn't mean I'm not willing to, I just remember the darker days of anything looking D&D related got you the big old C&D from TSR.

I attribute this policy as much like the current PDF policy.  If you make it so fans don't want to agree to it, they will just do it without your permission if they are of the mindset.  The only way to get a PDF of a book is to download it from a pirate now.  The only way to have a 'fan site' that you distribute (any webpage could be construed as distribution unless you turn off all Cut/Copy/Print permissions) anything is to simply ignore the existing policy.

Step towards the right direction, but too unclear if they will continue down that path or have this as a checkbox to their fan request list.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Side note - I was wondering when WotC's next hilarious customer service blowout would happen




Very true they do seem to have them regularly now a days.



avin said:


> Hey The Rouse, break the boss door and ask for a raise dude




Honestly for as much grief as many of us put him through with him unable to just freely speak his mind he should.

----------------
So how long till these threads are merged?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

The more I read this, the more hilariously and obscenely dumb this is.

"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"

"or makes disparaging, libelous or dishonest statements about Wizards and/or its products, employees and agents"

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure this was made in a strictly sterile legal environment.  But do these people even know what the internet _is?_  Do they think the fan sites are all "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" and _nothing else_?


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> "or makes disparaging, libelous or dishonest statements about Wizards and/or its products, employees and agents"
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I'm sure this was made in a strictly sterile legal environment.  But do these people even know what the internet _is?_  Do they think the fan sites are all "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" and _nothing else_?



"Disparaging" is a bit vague but "libelous" and "dishonest" are clear enough.

"If you lie about our products to make us look bad we won't let you use our trademarked material." Seems relatively fair.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> "or makes disparaging, libelous or dishonest statements about Wizards and/or its products, employees and agents"
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I'm sure this was made in a strictly sterile legal environment.  But do these people even know what the internet _is?_  Do they think the fan sites are all "LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW MUCH I LOVE DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" and _nothing else_?




I am assuming you are not objecting to the dishonest or libelous parts.

As for disparaging... there's a line between critique and ridicule, you know.

You can say, "I don't like this, for reasons X, Y, and Z," and not be disparaging.  However, I see no reason why Wizards should open doors to "fan" sites that say, "Wizards is a bunch of _bleepitybleeps_, who couldn't find their _bleep_s if you stabled them to their _bleep_s."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I am assuming you are not objecting to the dishonest or libelous parts.
> 
> As for disparaging... there's a line between critique and ridicule, you know.
> 
> You can say, "I don't like this, for reasons X, Y, and Z," and not be disparaging.  However, I see no reason why Wizards should open doors to "fan" sites that say, "Wizards is a bunch of _bleepitybleeps_, who couldn't find their _bleep_s if you stabled them to their _bleep_s."




But who makes the line?

There is a line between critique and ridicule, but you, the person taking the license, _don't know what that line is_.  Nor will you ever know, until you accidentally or not cross it.  It could be anywhere from "Wizards is a bunch of bleepitybleeps" to giving a negative review about a splat book.  Disparaging could be as far as simply giving a critique on a product.

I think the overwhelming problem is that Wizards wants fan sites to be nothing more then "MAN D&D IS SO WICKED AWESOME."  You can't host adventures on it - ever - and we _still_ have no word on what is or is not allowed as far as homebrewed classes, races, monsters, etc.  Instead we have this weird license that takes away your ability to do a whole freaking lot of things, but DUDE, YOU TOTALLY GET A SWEET BANNER IN RETURN!


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But who makes the line?
> 
> There is a line between critique and ridicule, but you, the person taking the license, _don't know what that line is_.  Nor will you ever know, until you accidentally or not cross it.  It could be anywhere from "Wizards is a bunch of bleepitybleeps" to giving a negative review about a splat book.  Disparaging could be as far as simply giving a critique on a product.




Have you looked at the WotC forums anytime recently?? The sheer number of posts accusing the WotC developers of incompetence and complete ignorance that remain should give you a pretty good idea of where the line is.

And as has been said before, the policy only applies to people who wish to use the Fan Site Kit. It seems to me that all of the bloggers out there have been able to blog about WotC (positively and negatively) without having any problem or worries.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> Have you looked at the WotC forums anytime recently?? The sheer number of posts accusing the WotC developers of incompetence and complete ignorance that remain should give you a pretty good idea of where the line is.
> 
> And as has been said before, the policy only applies to people who wish to use the Fan Site Kit. It seems to me that all of the bloggers out there have been able to blog about WotC (positively and negatively) without having any problem or worries.




I'm not trying to say WotC is the big bad $W$O$T$C$ or anything.  I'm just saying that this lisence is really, really, really *dumb* and like the complete opposite of what people have been asking from WotC for the past YEAR.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> But who makes the line?



They do, of course, since it's their trademarks.

But I think you're considering the word "disparaging" in isolation from the other two used. Taken together, it's a pretty clear indication of what they won't  accept, as Umbran pointed out.

Unless, of course, you're objecting to the "libelous" and "dishonest" parts, in which case I can't help you.


----------



## mhensley (Aug 7, 2009)

mudbunny said:


> Have you looked at the WotC forums anytime recently?? The sheer number of posts accusing the WotC developers of incompetence and complete ignorance that remain should give you a pretty good idea of where the line is.




Let me predict right now that wotc will shut down their forums within the next two years.  GW did it and I expect wotc will too.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> They do, of course, since it's their trademarks.
> 
> But I think you're considering the word "disparaging" in isolation from the other two used. Taken together, it's a pretty clear indication of what they won't  accept, as Umbran pointed out.
> 
> Unless, of course, you're objecting to the "libelous" and "dishonest" parts, in which case I can't help you.




The libelous and dishonesty parts I'm not complaining about.  Again, I'm not saying WotC is evil.  Just...kinda thick right now.

The GW comparison is amusing as, when I linked this to other people, their immidiate responses were all "Sounds like something GW would do."


----------



## Estlor (Aug 7, 2009)

It occurs to me that this isn't a fan site _policy_ so much as it gives you the opportunity to talk about the PHB and post an image of it's cover without WotC having to deal with whether or not that's okay or if they have to go protect their intellectual property over it.

I mean, seriously... why get bent out of shape over it?  Don't like the rules?  Don't download the package and use their trade dress on your website.  Why does everything have to be a conspiracy against us?


----------



## ggroy (Aug 7, 2009)

Estlor said:


> Why does everything have to be a conspiracy against us?




Conspiracies make for great entertainment.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 7, 2009)

In my opinion, all this anger is much ado about nothing.  You can develop fan-made adventures and post them on your site using the GSL, you can post a fansite and talk about the products and share your chars and adventures, etc (like a campaign blog), but if you want to use the fan-site trade dress, you can't be a jerk about what you say regarding WOTC.

I mean, really, its NOT that bad...  

WOTC does something to "open things up" a bit (and, yes, its just a baby step) and everyone goes all godzilla beacuse it wasn't the utopian, open-ended license that everyone expects.  And what people expect is subjective, anyway.


----------



## filthgrinder (Aug 7, 2009)

I think instead of immediately jumping on the WoTC is EVIL AND WRONG! bandwagon, let's look at this from a different point of view.

They have provided a kit full of their images, artwork, logos and branding. They say, look, some people want to put D&D fansites together, and they would like to use our logos, branding, and trade dress. Logos, branding, and trade dress are EXTREMELY valuable assets. So we need to come up with a policy to let people use them, WITHOUT harming the brand.

So let's look at some of the "complaints". "OMG YOU CANT PUBLISH ADVENTURES!?!?!" So what WotC is basically saying is, you can use our branding and trade dress for a site, but we don't want you to use the branding on an adventure, because that you seem like you are passing off your product as "official" when we have absolutely no control over the quality and content. People putting out crappy adventures with the official D&D tradedress can effect the D&D brand.

The other is "offense content and slanderous statements on the products". Basically the same thing. They don't want you to use their official logos and artwork to create a fan site and then slam the product. Someone who doesn't follow this stuff 100% happens across a site with all the D&D official images and logos and see comments slamming the products will get turned off the product, that hurts the brand. WotC doesn't want to help you hurt them.

I think alot of people just like to hem and haw about how WotC is evil and this is a horrible descision and write really angry posts. People really just need to sit back, take a breath, chill, and be cool. Call up some of your friends, get together, and play some D&D. Have fun, have a great time, and don't worry so much.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I'm just saying that this lisence is really, really, really *dumb* and like the complete opposite of what people have been asking from WotC for the past YEAR.




I think your hyperbole does you and your position a disservice.

If people have been asking for the real opposite, a license that says, "You may use content that WotC spent money and effort developing to make fun of and insult WotC," well, I think they are being unreasonable.

If "people" aren't asking for that, then you are not clearly stating what they really are asking for.  If you intend to speak for others, you should at least take a bit more care in representing them, hm?

And be realistic.  No license ever really clearly spells out exactly what may and may not be said, because language and human communication is too flexible.  They'd have to cover every case anyone could ever think of, and the license would be unusable if they did so.

Worry about the spirit and intent, not the letter of the law, especially for a fan site, which shouldn't be making you money or the like anyway.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 7, 2009)

I'm still trying to digest all of this.  Like many here, I'm pretty disappointed.  After all, how many of us have written D&D rules, adventures, etc. to post on a website?

Some other questions I would like to see clarified...

1.  E-commerce - Does this include selling D&D 4th edition products as an Amazon associate?  What about novels tied to one of the D&D worlds?

I don't see the harm in this, as you're supporting the sale of WotC's products.  What if any funds that come from that go right back into the cost of the site?  Still, by the wording of this policy, that's all a no-no.  

2.  What about sites that include rules other than 4e?  What if I use rules for a prior edition, or what if I create True20 conversion rules?


Am I missing something else here?


----------



## Ashtagon (Aug 7, 2009)

Thing is, this is technically a licence, not a general policy. As such, the rules within it only apply to you if you accept it. If you don't accept it, the standard fair use and copyright laws still apply.

By accepting it, you gain the right to use some piccies. You lose the right to make disparaging remarks about WotC on your site (they explicitly note you also lose the right to make libellous and dishonest comments, but that's one you never had anyway). You also give up the right to post certain kinds of fan-created content.Some may regard that as a fair exchange. They can accept the licence.

Personally, I'll wait for one that is more in-line with what I'm allowed to do anyway. I'm not going to sign my rights away for a few piccies.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I think your hyperbole does you and your position a disservice.
> 
> If people have been asking for the real opposite, a license that says, "You may use content that WotC spent money and effort developing to make fun of and insult WotC," well, I think they are being unreasonable.
> 
> ...





Allow me to clarify - it's not the details of the license that's the opposite, it's that it's a license period.  There were a lot of questions about what was and was not allowable on a fan sight, and this answered...well, almost none of them.

It does let us know that adventures and modules are never allowed though, so that's...an answer, I guess?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Aug 7, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> You can develop fan-made adventures and post them on your site using the GSL



Now, that may be the intent, but that is not what the GSL actually says.  It expressly forbids websites, as I quoted above.  It does say adventures can be in single download digital book format, but the website itself is forbidden under GSL.

Say I create a website "Mercutio01's free adventures for 4E."  That website's forbidden under GSL. The actual adventures might be okay, but the website is not.  Now, the policy for websites is the fansite policy, which forbids my created adventures.  I could link to where there are free adventures from WotC or other publishers, but I couldn't host my own on that site.  So the website would be okay, so long as there are no adventures hosted there.

Seems like a Catch-22 to me.

But again, I very well could be reading it wrong.


----------



## Serendipity (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Side note - I was wondering when WotC's next hilarious customer service blowout would happen




The temptation to Sig that is almost overwhelming.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 7, 2009)

Ashtagon said:


> Thing is, this is technically a licence, not a general policy. As such, the rules within it only apply to you if you accept it. If you don't accept it, the standard fair use and copyright laws still apply.
> 
> By accepting it, you gain the right to use some piccies. You lose the right to make disparaging remarks about WotC on your site (they explicitly note you also lose the right to make libellous and dishonest comments, but that's one you never had anyway). You also give up the right to post certain kinds of fan-created content.Some may regard that as a fair exchange. They can accept the licence.
> 
> Personally, I'll wait for one that is more in-line with what I'm allowed to do anyway. I'm not going to sign my rights away for a few piccies.



That is a good point. Thinking about this some more, as long as "I don't accept the fan site license nor the GSL, but I still want to have a fair-use based fan site" is a viable option, then I have no problem with it. 

It will still have been nice for WotC to produce a _policy_ not a _license_ that could be a nice mutual understanding between WotC and fans of what fair use they would both be comfortable with. (Of course, some people would complain that WotC could change their mind at any moment and sue your mom, but some people will complain about anything. I do think a general policy statement rather than restrictive license would have generated far, far fewer complaints.)

But in light of what Ashtagon said, yeah, fan sites can just continue in the same nebulous grey area we always have.


----------



## freyar (Aug 7, 2009)

The confusion I have is three-fold:

1) What does this say about fan sites that don't want to use the "kit" of graphics and assorted trade dress?  Does 

2) As kenmarable asks, what about a site like EN World that doesn't produce adventures or mechanics per se but has plenty of people posting about their homebrew stuff?

3) To continue that line of thinking, what about a site like Candlekeep, whose entire purpose is the discussion of WotC trademarked material?  They can't even use the GSL to post fan creations for that, since the GSL doesn't cover settings, just mechanics (which isn't the focus anyway).

So: just continue as usual?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 7, 2009)

freyar said:


> So: just continue as usual?




If you have no interest in using the trade dress, then sure why not? The license itself says that you accept it by using the content of the kit on your site, so don't do that. Produce your stuff and don't let WOTC logo get near it to avoid any confusion.


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 7, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Now, that may be the intent, but that is not what the GSL actually says.  It expressly forbids websites, as I quoted above.  It does say adventures can be in single download digital book format, but the website itself is forbidden under GSL.
> 
> Say I create a website "Mercutio01's free adventures for 4E."  That website's forbidden under GSL. The actual adventures might be okay, but the website is not.  Now, the policy for websites is the fansite policy, which forbids my created adventures.  I could link to where there are free adventures from WotC or other publishers, but I couldn't host my own on that site.  So the website would be okay, so long as there are no adventures hosted there.
> 
> ...



The website is the means of distribution, it is not the GSL licensed product. The licensed content is in the PDF, not the HTML linking to the PDF.

Neither license is relevant at all to RPGNow, for example.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The GW comparison is amusing as, when I linked this to other people, their immidiate responses were all "Sounds like something GW would do."



Well, on at least one other forum the immediate response was "It's T$R all over again! The lawsuits are next!" so I'm not sure I'd put much stock in the immediate responses.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Aug 7, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> The website is the means of distribution, it is not the GSL licensed product. The licensed content is in the PDF, not the HTML linking to the PDF.
> 
> Neither license is relevant at all to RPGNow, for example.



That makes perfect sense.  Thanks.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Allow me to clarify - it's not the details of the license that's the opposite, it's that it's a license period.




Yes, it is.  So if you don't use the content covered by the license (the stuff in the kit), the license _does not apply_ to your site!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Yes, it is.  So if you don't use the content covered by the license (the stuff in the kit), the license _does not apply_ to your site!




Yes, I grasp that ;p

The problem is, after a year of people asking for some understanding on what is or is not allowable for a fan site, this has been WotC's response.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Yes, it is.  So if you don't use the content covered by the license (the stuff in the kit), the license _does not apply_ to your site!




I think this is the key to everything. People have been acting all day as if WotC had made some TSR-like rules applying to every single blog, fansite or whatnot about D&D. But truth of the matter is, as you say, that if you do not use the license, the "rules" do not apply to your website, and thus *nothing* has changed since two days ago.

But yeah, as is, it's pretty much useless and they missed a great opportunity - again.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Aug 7, 2009)

I will not be complying with this edict _vis_ my *D&D* fansite.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 7, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Say I create a website "Mercutio01's free adventures for 4E."  That website's forbidden under GSL. The actual adventures might be okay, but the website is not.  Now, the policy for websites is the fansite policy, which forbids my created adventures.  I could link to where there are free adventures from WotC or other publishers, but I couldn't host my own on that site.  So the website would be okay, so long as there are no adventures hosted there.



I don't really see how...  You can have your website with the fan-site trade dress.

Then you can include PDF downloads on your website of your adventures, subject to the GSL.  Those are, themselves, bound to the constraints of the GSL.

It all seems kosher to me.  You can set up a website, and let people download your GSL-compliant stuff.  Your website _itself _should not be the product, though, because that _is_ forbidden by the GSL.

I don't think dungeon-a-day style stuff is forbidden, either, as some have speculated.  Host them in PDF form, each room its own thing.  It's how I'd probably do it if I wanted to do such a thing. 

So remind me why I should be upset by any of this?

-O


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> The website is the means of distribution, it is not the GSL licensed product. The licensed content is in the PDF, not the HTML linking to the PDF.
> 
> Neither license is relevant at all to RPGNow, for example.




It does seem to preclude, for example, an adventure built as a set of web pages with links to character statistics, references to rules, and so on that could be interactively used or reviewed over the web. That strikes me as unfortunate and unnecessary.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I don't really see how...  You can have your website with the fan-site trade dress.
> 
> Then you can include PDF downloads on your website of your adventures, subject to the GSL.  Those are, themselves, bound to the constraints of the GSL.
> 
> ...




I expect continual growth items like room-a-day (not dungeon-a-day) are walking on the wrong side of the GSL.  Section 3 stipulates single-download product.  Having a single adventure split over multiple pdfs won't qualify.

One example of something that is reasonable for a fan site and ostensibly isn't allowed under the current rule is posting my group's progress through an adventure alongside original adventure encounters as written.  I was toying with this approach for a campiagn using a different system.  I think it could be an interesting approach to demonstrate group dynamics and tactical consequences of campaign play for the group and interested kibitzers.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It does seem to preclude, for example, an adventure built as a set of web pages with links to character statistics, references to rules, and so on that could be interactively used or reviewed over the web. That strikes me as unfortunate and unnecessary.



As long as you weren't stealing large chunks of WotC material wholesale, I'm pretty sure the above situation is covered just fine under fair use.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Aug 7, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> 2.  What about sites that include rules other than 4e?  What if I use rules for a prior edition, or what if I create True20 conversion rules?
> 
> 
> Am I missing something else here?




   I'm not well versed enough in lawyerspeak to decipher all the implications of the license, but I get the feeling this was designed with Magic fans first, 4E fans second (some of the things that would concern D&D fans seem to be shuffled off into a "see the GSL" approach) and fans of other/out-of-print material not at all.


----------



## Obryn (Aug 7, 2009)

Nagol said:


> I expect continual growth items like room-a-day (not dungeon-a-day) are walking on the wrong side of the GSL.  Section 3 stipulates single-download product.  Having a single adventure split over multiple pdfs won't qualify.



Why not?  Each room in that context is its own "product."

-O


----------



## Ashtagon (Aug 7, 2009)

Dannager said:


> As long as you weren't stealing large chunks of WotC material wholesale, I'm pretty sure the above situation is covered just fine under fair use.




I suspect that this contract would replace the normal fair usage provisions that we might otherwise have. But IANAL.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 7, 2009)

Ashtagon said:


> I suspect that this contract would replace the normal fair usage provisions that we might otherwise have. But IANAL.




It can't.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2009)

Dannager said:


> As long as you weren't stealing large chunks of WotC material wholesale, I'm pretty sure the above situation is covered just fine under fair use.




But it still leaves us wondering what WotC's web site _policy_ is unless we're to assume that anything not covered by their license is implicitly against their policy...

I know that any policy they might come up with doesn't prevent me from relying on fair use. But people have been asking for a policy - a statement that makes it clear what WotC would like to encourage and discourage, what may be pursued with a C&D and what may not.


----------



## Nagol (Aug 7, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Why not?  Each room in that context is its own "product."
> 
> -O




Because that's what the license says.  

Could you create individual rooms in standard html / blogging software?  No. (not a format supported by Section 3 and specifically called out in 5.5)

Could you create individual rooms and publish each in a separate pdf?  Yes. 

Can you link those rooms together with an overview map and have the users come back and download them as necessary?  No. (Stops being a single-download book format as you need multiple downloads to acquire the dungeon.)

Can you create a variety of pdfs that represent the adventure as it grows day by day so people can download their preferred point in the product evolution? Yes.  (Each pdf is self-contained and would count as a single-download book format)

Do these rules make a whole lot of sense in this situation? No.



			
				GSL Section 3 said:
			
		

> 3. Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format *or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf) *, and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying






			
				GSL Section 5.5 said:
			
		

> 5.5 Licensed Products. *This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites,* interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).




* Highlighting has been added.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It can't.




Correct.  It's simply a "we made these cool images for you and you can use them if you agree to this deal" type affair.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 7, 2009)

billd91 said:


> But it still leaves us wondering what WotC's web site _policy_ is...




That is true.  

Here's the thing I think folks are missing:  Fansite policy is never going to be treated as a binding contract.  Given that, the question, then is not, "What's the Policy?" but instead, "Is WotC going to be a bunch of jerks about fansites?"

If they are jerks, their stated policy is not relevant - if they don't like the results, they'll change the policy and then come after you.  The policy gives you no real protection or assurance, so why bother?

If they aren't going to be jerks, they don't need to state a policy, because if there's a problem they'll enter into a polite discussion about it before doing nasty things.  So again, why bother?  Unless they find they have to enter in many such discussions, it is better for the fans to leave it open and not artificially restrict people before the fact.


----------



## Ashtagon (Aug 7, 2009)

Morrus said:


> Correct.  It's simply a "we made these cool images for you and you can use them if you agree to this deal" type affair.




Exactly. By accepting that "policy" (ie "contract") you are signing away some rights that you would normally have had.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I will not be complying with this edict _vis_ my *D&D* fansite.



Which edict is that?


----------



## freyar (Aug 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That is true.
> 
> Here's the thing I think folks are missing:  Fansite policy is never going to be treated as a binding contract.  Given that, the question, then is not, "What's the Policy?" but instead, "Is WotC going to be a bunch of jerks about fansites?"
> 
> ...



What concerns me is whether or not this policy/license will convince people, in particular the people running certain fansites, that WotC is going to be jerky (to use your words).  To use one example, Candlekeep has held back their latest issue of the Candlekeep Compendium for about a year waiting for this policy, and this might convince them that they need to cancel the whole thing.  Hopefully not.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2009)

According to a post on another board, Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) defines disparagement as: "_A false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, product, or business. To recover in tort for disparagement, the plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff_."

So it has a legal meaning, and it appears to be in the same realm as libel and dishonesty.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 8, 2009)

freyar said:


> What concerns me is whether or not this policy/license will convince people, in particular the people running certain fansites, that WotC is going to be jerky (to use your words).  To use one example, Candlekeep has held back their latest issue of the Candlekeep Compendium for about a year waiting for this policy, and this might convince them that they need to cancel the whole thing.  Hopefully not.




It's a policy that may keep many fansites from pursuing 4th edition altogether.  Which, in turn, is counterproductive to what WotC wants.  

Some fan sites may decide it isn't worth it anymore, which will leave many disappointed fans.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Aug 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Which edict is that?





I'm taking the EULA thing they put in the "fan kit" as a whole, as an edict.


----------



## Dannager (Aug 8, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> It's a policy that may keep many fansites from pursuing 4th edition altogether.  Which, in turn, is counterproductive to what WotC wants.
> 
> Some fan sites may decide it isn't worth it anymore, which will leave many disappointed fans.



I really don't think this will happen.  Has anyone taken any content off their site that was there yesterday as a result of this action?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 8, 2009)

Dannager said:


> I really don't think this will happen.  Has anyone taken any content off their site that was there yesterday as a result of this action?




I have not as of this time.  I'm kind of taking a "wait and see" approach.


----------



## FireLance (Aug 8, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I'm taking the EULA thing they put in the "fan kit" as a whole, as an edict.



It is certainly your prerogative to interpret every statement made by WotC in the most negative light possible and react accordingly. Just be careful not to disparage WotC while doing so.


----------



## ryryguy (Aug 8, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That is true.
> 
> Here's the thing I think folks are missing:  Fansite policy is never going to be treated as a binding contract.  Given that, the question, then is not, "What's the Policy?" but instead, "Is WotC going to be a bunch of jerks about fansites?"
> 
> ...




Good points.  

But let's not look at it from the point of view of whether they are or are not jerks.  From WotC's point of view, would it make sense to have a policy?

Potential fan-site creators (who do not want to accept the new fan site kit and license) may be confused by and/or perceive risk in the lack of a stated policy.  As a result they may be afraid to put too much work into their sites or perhaps even decide not to create them at all.  Fewer, less developed fan sites aren't in WotC's interest.

Why then wouldn't WotC just go ahead and come up with a policy?  They might find it very difficult to create a good policy.  And if they did come up with something, once it was specified they'd risk going down the "being jerks" path unintentionally if there was an error or some unintended consequence in the policy, and they felt that they had to change it. 

So, it may be a tradeoff between the negative uncertainties of no policy vs. the potential negatives in a realized policy...

I'm just speculating, of course.  What other costs and benefits are there to having a policy vs. having no policy?

(I'm trying to consider it here in an idealized, rational domain... who knows, in reality there could be office politics, budget/resource issues, inertia that enter into the actual decision.)


----------



## ryryguy (Aug 8, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I'm taking the EULA thing they put in the "fan kit" as a whole, as an edict.




I'm confused, did you want to use the stuff in the fan kit?  If so, I guess you could look at the EULA as an edict.  If not, it's irrelevant to you.

I could take the rules about using the pool at the condominium next door as an offensive "edict", but since I don't live there or use the pool, it would be pretty silly of me to do so.


----------



## Rangergord (Aug 8, 2009)

I need a DM guide to law for this 

It's this statement that's troubling: 

"Please note that this Fan Site Policy does not allow you to publish, distribute or sell your own free-to-use games, modules or applications for any of Wizards' brands including, but not limited to, Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. If you want to engage in any of these activities related to Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition, such use is subject to the Game System License"

Does this than apply only to material directly related to their licensed products only. Such as say a module for Forgotten Realms. Or is it only if use the stuff provided by by the toolkit.  I assume it's to ensure that fan content and official content don't mix on the same site, that fanes don't do wholesale reproduction of rules, or infirnge on specific wizard content, but that is only an interpretation.


IF I say develop an alternate super hero world using the concept of Striker, Defender, Controller, and Daily/Encounter/Utlity powers but come up with my own powers and races, without using anything from the toolkit is that a breach of these terms or not?

We need clarification by more than just learned fans  and certainly need formula less complicated than a professional insurance company.   Geez I just want to make sure If I want to add a new worlock pact of my own design I won't be going up river!

I understand protecting their products and realize that wizard lost a lot of potential revenue from the OGL. but stilfling creativity (sa the above rule implies) is not protection. 

Seems to counterdicts everything they wrote in their nice DM guide about coming up with your own adventures, skill challenges, monster modification and the like for your party; well at least if you tend to actually tell anyone about it. 

Ultimatly this may limit the lifespan of 4e as ideas dry up and become secert home projects, or fans just returning back to 3.5.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 8, 2009)

I thought the wording of the license was funny. As in I smiled when I read about the "suits".

Checking out the kit now. It looks ok, but the selection of pictures available was disappointing to me. I hope they expand it to have at least one picture for each class, and some more iconic monsters as well.

Although I sure that would cost them quite a lot of money, if they have to pay extra to the artist for using their pictures like this.

Anyways, an interesting first step, which I hope is expanded with more graphics.

/M


----------



## Umbran (Aug 8, 2009)

Rangergord said:


> I need a DM guide to law for this
> 
> It's this statement that's troubling:
> 
> ...




IANAL.  

The toolkit and its license are linked - the license is for that specific package of content.  If you are not using that content, they _cannot_ apply that license to you, and breaching that licenses terms is not relevant to you.

However, the things you are talking about have _nothing_ to do with the content of the toolkit.  You're now talking about use of content of the D&D game, not the content of the toolkit, or whether you are running a fansite.  Thus, standard copyright or GSL are involved, not the fansite toolkit license.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 8, 2009)

ryryguy said:


> Why then wouldn't WotC just go ahead and come up with a policy?  They might find it very difficult to create a good policy.  And if they did come up with something, once it was specified they'd risk going down the "being jerks" path unintentionally if there was an error or some unintended consequence in the policy, and they felt that they had to change it.
> 
> So, it may be a tradeoff between the negative uncertainties of no policy vs. the potential negatives in a realized policy...




These are my thoughts as well.  Folks here speak as if creating a good policy that works for fans and WotC is easy.  It isn't.  The fans, if they had their druthers, would have a policy that said, "Do anything, so long as you don't make money at it".  That probably wouldn't make much sense for the business, though, so a policy would have to strike a balance, and that is not trivial work by any means.

]


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 8, 2009)

Meh - it's their IP.

Their policy.

Use it or don't.

4E as a game is not affected.  You can still play it and enjoy it.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 8, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Meh - it's their IP.
> 
> Their policy.
> 
> ...




That's not entirely the point, though.

Let's say that your fan site is dedicated to keeping one of the 2e settings alive.  One of the key ways of doing that is to create world-specific 4e rules for your setting.  

So the point is that not only do I want to play 4e, but I want to share materials with fans so that they can play 4e with their favorite setting.  I need to post some rules on my website in order to do that.

The million dollar question isn't our interpretation, it's WotC's.  Does their policy apply to the kit only, or are they applying that beyond?


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 8, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> So the point is that not only do I want to play 4e, but I want to share materials with fans so that they can play 4e with their favorite setting.  I need to post some rules on my website in order to do that.




Then you might be using their IP in a way that they don't want you to.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> I'm taking the EULA thing they put in the "fan kit" as a whole, as an edict.



You keep using that word, etc, etc.

Unless you're using a different definition of the word than what's in the dictionary, I can't say that I follow you.


----------



## ryryguy (Aug 8, 2009)

Regarding the issue of posting adventures on a web site... would the following work?

I have one site that uses the fan site kit for logos, trade dress, etc.  This is "ryryguy's official D&D fan site."

I have a second site that does not use the fan site kit.  It's pretty much just a collection of my free adventures published as PDF's in accordance with the GSL.  This is "ryryguy's free adventure depot."

On the kit-based "official site", I put links to the "adventure depot".  I can hype the adventures, give capsule summaries, sample art, maybe even post stat blocks of a cool monster from one of the adventures (assuming stat blocks are allowed under the kit license, which is a bit unclear).

While I can't use the fan kit stuff on the "adventure depot", I can still have common elements on the sites, like a "ryryguy" logo.  (Maybe the adventures in the depot wouldn't have to be free - there's nothing stopping a fan-kit site from linking to RPGNow with reviews of the product there, is there?)

Would this work?  (IANAL... and I don't know if there's some legal definition of what constitutes separate sites that would have to be honored.)

It's still a bit annoying that there is no license, apparently, which would allow somebody to post adventures in "wiki" form, with links between connected rooms and so forth.  That could be a really convenient way of presenting adventures, worth exploring.  Could WotC actually be considering such to be some threat to their business?  Or is this just unintentional, falling through the cracks of the available licenses?


----------



## Nagol (Aug 8, 2009)

I'm unsure what you are attempting to accomplish by setting up two web sites.

If you are abiding by the GSL restrictions for your free product, it would work perfectly fine on the fan site.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 8, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> You keep using that word, etc, etc.
> 
> Unless you're using a different definition of the word than what's in the dictionary, I can't say that I follow you.



Main Entry:    *edict* 
*1* *:* a proclamation having the force of law
*2* *:* order, command <we held firm to Grandmother's _edict_  — M. F. K. Fisher>


----------



## ryryguy (Aug 8, 2009)

Nagol said:


> I'm unsure what you are attempting to accomplish by setting up two web sites.
> 
> If you are abiding by the GSL restrictions for your free product, it would work perfectly fine on the fan site.





Oh, I thought part of the fan kit license was that you could not post adventures there.  I must have misunderstood.

I guess the disgruntlement (to the extent that there is disgruntlement) is that you'd still have to abide by the GSL for that, and people were hoping for something different and looser for free adventures?


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 8, 2009)

frankthedm said:


> Main Entry:    *edict*
> *1* *:* a proclamation having the force of law
> *2* *:* order, command <we held firm to Grandmother's _edict_  — M. F. K. Fisher>



Yes, precisely. There is no edict here. There is a license agreement, which you are free to use or ignore. If you choose to ignore it (and not use the related materials), it does not apply to you. It is therefore not an edict, because you can choose whether or not it will apply to you.


----------



## Xyxox (Aug 8, 2009)

What it comes down to is each person with a fan site has to ask themselves a question.

"Is it worth adhering to the terms of this license in order to use these images?"

My guess is that in nearly all cases, the answer will be no.

As to an actual fan site policy, my guess is the Hasbro legal team will not publish one ever. It's too restrictive for them. They'll let copyright law stand as is and take any issues they determine are worth it to court. Better to operate without actually saying anything in regards to fan sites than to give away any of Hasbro's rights via an externally published policy.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 8, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> The million dollar question isn't our interpretation, it's WotC's. Does their policy apply to the kit only, or are they applying that beyond?




Of course they aren't going to apply the terms of this policy to any sites not using the kit. 

That doesn't mean they won't take recourse if a site infringes on their IP in other legal areas - but thus far all the sites they have taken action against have included published material from WotC books that was being freely posted and openly distributed online. 

Now, I definitely agree it would be nice for WotC to release a 'statement of purpose' as to what fan sites they have no problems with. But it wouldn't really change anything - as it is, WotC could go crazy tomorrow and try to shut down every site that mentions the words "D&D." They wouldn't actually be entitled to do so, but many sites would probably get hurt due to not having the resources to handle a legal battle. But the thing is, even if they posted a policy saying "These websites are fine"... they could still go crazy, change their minds, take down that policy, and go after fansites anyway. 

For myself, I'm absolutely confident they aren't going to do any such thing. They will go after sites that illegally distribute the actual material in their books. But most fan sites, operating under fair use, filled with fanfiction, artwork, characters, stories, backgrounds, homebrew material, articles, reviews, etc, etc, etc? Shouldn't have any issues. Many of those sites will need to make absolutely no changes to use the fansite toolkit - and similarly, many of them likely won't see the need, and continue operating entirely on their own. Unless they are doing something seriously wrong, WotC isn't going to come after them.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 9, 2009)

Wow. Really? For that?

I looked at the "fan kit" and I found a bunch of images...

3 D&D logos
1 WotC logo
6 Eberron images
3 Monster Manual Images
23 Product Covers.

Wow. Thanks WotC. If I was setting up an Amazon Associate's site, I'd have all I need. I guess they think the point of a fansite is to be free advertising for their books and minis. Any really useful art images (pics of the races, maps, holy symbols, monsters) are missing, as are any FR specific art (which really sucks if your trying to show off your LFR inspired campaign.) OTOH, its great for an Eberron-inspired one, as long as you don't specifically reference anythiing Eberron on the site (since all the unique elements of said setting, warforged, shifters, daelkyr, dragonmarks and other campaign-specific elements are not in the GSL-SRD). 

Seriously, there's not one image in that "kit" I couldn't get from 10 minutes on Wizard's own site (both the product gallery and the artwork gallery) or a good google-image search. It feels more like a PR pack for a web-reseller (like an Ebay store) than a fankit. You want to make a good D&D Fankit? Release DnDVecna and DnDLolth fonts and the symbols kit for 4e. 

Come on WotC, make it LOOK like an effort!


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 9, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Of course they aren't going to apply the terms of this policy to any sites not using the kit.




How do we know this?  I hear a lot of people saying this, but I haven't read anything that says that the policy only applies to the kit.  Is it the wording where it says "kit policy"?  Or the accept button?

I'm just confused on this one point.  Any clarification would be helpful.




> Now, I definitely agree it would be nice for WotC to release a 'statement of purpose' as to what fan sites they have no problems with. But it wouldn't really change anything - as it is, WotC could go crazy tomorrow and try to shut down every site that mentions the words "D&D." They wouldn't actually be entitled to do so, but many sites would probably get hurt due to not having the resources to handle a legal battle. But the thing is, even if they posted a policy saying "These websites are fine"... they could still go crazy, change their minds, take down that policy, and go after fansites anyway.




I think the legal term here, IIRC, is "chilling effect."  It's kind of a paranoia brought on by the perceived threat of potential legal action.  




> For myself, I'm absolutely confident they aren't going to do any such thing. They will go after sites that illegally distribute the actual material in their books. But most fan sites, operating under fair use, filled with fanfiction, artwork, characters, stories, backgrounds, homebrew material, articles, reviews, etc, etc, etc? Shouldn't have any issues. Many of those sites will need to make absolutely no changes to use the fansite toolkit - and similarly, many of them likely won't see the need, and continue operating entirely on their own. Unless they are doing something seriously wrong, WotC isn't going to come after them.




That is my hope.  I'm not about to touch that kit for the Nexus.  We've had a good relationship with WotC, and been told on a few occasions that they like us.  Scott Rouse used the Nexus and Athas.org as examples of what good fan sites should be.  So that all sounds good.  

Of course, WotC legal is kind of their own beast.  I wonder what their stats are....


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Then you might be using their IP in a way that they don't want you to.



Well, that's sort of the question, isn't it?  Does WotC want Canonfire! (the Greyhawk site), Planewalker.net (the Planescape site), Birthright.net, and Vaults of Pandius (the Mystara site) to go away?  Those were all explicity allowed, and endorsed, by WotC at one point.


----------



## freyar (Aug 9, 2009)

Dannager said:


> I really don't think this will happen.  Has anyone taken any content off their site that was there yesterday as a result of this action?




I don't know your answer to this question, but I can give a specific example of a chilling effect WotC's fan site policy has had since it was announced however long ago.  From March 2005 to Oct 2007, Candlekeep released 9 issues of the Candlekeep Compendium.  Because of its use of WotC's FR IP, this project always relied on WotC's good will, which Candlekeep's administrators believed they had.  However, Candlekeep has not had a site update since 16 Aug 2008 and the 10th Compendium, though nearly finished, has not been posted in that time, specifically because the announced fansite policy worried the Candlekeep admins about whether WotC would take a more aggressive stance on fan productions.  I'm not sure that this new policy has done anything to clear up the issue, largely due to the way it was announced.

Here are the appropriate threads at Candlekeep: 
WotC Fan Site Policy released
The Candlekeep Compendium, see starting mid-way on page 8.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 9, 2009)

I really shouldn't post in threads like th-. . .














D'oh!


----------



## Maldin (Aug 9, 2009)

My read of this is similar to several other people here... This license only applies to the use of artwork in the package, if you choose to use any of it on your website. Alas, there is not a single image in there that I feel the need or desire to use on my website. And since I do not use or publish 4E materials, the GSL does not apply to anything I do, as well. As such, for my purposes, WotC still has not released fansite guidelines. 

::sigh::

Denis, aka "Maldin"
Maldin's Greyhawk Maldin's Greyhawk
Loads of edition-independent Greyhawk goodness... Maps, mysteries, magic, mechanics, and more!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 9, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Of course, WotC legal is kind of their own beast.  I wonder what their stats are....




I think in some ways that's the big problem.  The legal crew of WotC seem to operate in a completely different country then everyone else at times.  It's possible that this whole "fan kit" is just a byproduct of bored lawyer syndrome.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 9, 2009)

Maldin said:


> My read of this is similar to several other people here... This license only applies to the use of artwork in the package, if you choose to use any of it on your website.




Again, though, how do we know this for a certainty?  This is the popular opinion, but I could easily see WotC legal saying that this policy applies to all fan sites.  



> Alas, there is not a single image in there that I feel the need or desire to use on my website. And since I do not use or publish 4E materials, the GSL does not apply to anything I do, as well. As such, for my purposes, WotC still has not released fansite guidelines.




Agreed.  Do they not consider that there are pre-4e sites out there?  What about sites for properties such as Star Frontiers that may not even use D&D rules?  What if I ran a Dragonlance site using solely the SAGA rules set, or an Alternity site?  What about sites that have both 4e and 3e rules, or 4e and Pathfinder?  

This is completely frustrating.  WotC would have been better served to have done nothing.  Or, to say that folks can use those images so long as they're not used to make a profit.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 9, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> WotC would have been better served to have done nothing.  Or, to say that folks can use those images so long as they're not used to make a profit.




I don't know about that. I think they are well served by setting terms in return for using specific art work that link back to the D&D brand identity. And that may serve whomever wants to include that kind of art in their sites. I don't think anybody else is served at all.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 9, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Wow. Really? For that?
> 
> I looked at the "fan kit" and I found a bunch of images...
> 
> ...



This is pretty much exactly as I saw it.  

I thought the cover images wouldn't help at all on my site.  I wasn't going to sell amazon books.   I wanted to post a blog for my online War of the Burning Sky campaign.  Can i do it as an official D&D Fan site?  Maybe not, since I am running a 3PP campaign.  So... so what?  I then still put up my own site with pics from the campaign PDFs and blog about the adventures anyway.  I can't be stopped for doing that.  I just don't use this official trade dress.

How is this a problem, then?   I lower and shake my head in shame for WoTC to give such a small number of images.  They could have flooded us with all the official images from all art and map galleries all zipped up and ready to go packaged up each month online with the Dragon and Dungeon releases.

Can I put soem of these up?  Maybe not, but WoTC would have done well for themselves if they added them.   I would sign it.  I have nothing disparaging to say to WoTC about their products.  I like 4e and I acutally (cuddled) sat up and read Open Grave last night.  My late Saturday night with a plate of buffalo wings and some undead goodness.  Wife and baby asleep. See, I like what WoTC has been putting out for my 4e game.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Agreed.  Do they not consider that there are pre-4e sites out there?




Probably not.  They stopped supporting previous games.  They are a business, in hard times.  What do they stand to get out of spending effort supporting fan activity on products they don't sell?  

They might get a small amount of goodwill.  The goodwill of people who are not purchasing current products is not worth a whole lot when you're trying to pay the bills.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 10, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Again, though, how do we know this for a certainty?  This is the popular opinion, but I could easily see WotC legal saying that this policy applies to all fan sites.



It can't. 

I can't just write a license and claim it applies to what you do and then sue if you don't comply with it, possibly not even knowing the license ever existed. 

They could use the terms of their license as a guideline to know when they start legal actions against a fan site that technically violates copyright or trademark laws - but that would not give them any more "power", since they still need to find/show the violation of laws.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It can't.
> 
> I can't just write a license and claim it applies to what you do and then sue if you don't comply with it, possibly not even knowing the license ever existed.
> 
> They could use the terms of their license as a guideline to know when they start legal actions against a fan site that technically violates copyright or trademark laws - but that would not give them any more "power", since they still need to find/show the violation of laws.




Okay, so to be certain I have my ducks in a row here...

1.  We're basically saying that this policy only applies to the kit.  If I don't use the kit, then none of those rules apply.
2.  Fan sites that don't use the kit are in the same nebulous gray area they've always been in, so it should be business as usual.
3.  As long as I'm not attempting to make a profit off of WotC's IP, I should be okay.

Bare bones basics version there, but I think you catch my meaning.

Is this all a fair assessment?

I know it may seem like I'm being a bit too worried, and perhaps so.  Reason is, the Dragonlance Nexus is a huge community resource, one that supports Dragonlance novels and games.  We do our best to respect WotC's IP, and have even been cited by Scott Rouse and the novel department as a good example of a fan site.  

My fear, though, is that the "suits" won't see it that way and will get a little nostalgic for the late 90s TSR days.   

I've got some folks in the industry doing a little homework for me at GenCon.  Depending on what they say will depend on any final decisions I make.  However, I would like to be able to continue on as usual, which I believe benefits WotC and their IP.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 10, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> Okay, so to be certain I have my ducks in a row here...
> 
> 1.  We're basically saying that this policy only applies to the kit.  If I don't use the kit, then none of those rules apply.
> 2.  Fan sites that don't use the kit are in the same nebulous gray area they've always been in, so it should be business as usual.
> ...



Yes. Though maybe with 
4. As long as nobody at WotC gets crazy or more greedy than good for their reputation yadayadayada
5. I am not a lawyer. 



> I know it may seem like I'm being a bit too worried, and perhaps so.  Reason is, the Dragonlance Nexus is a huge community resource, one that supports Dragonlance novels and games.  We do our best to respect WotC's IP, and have even been cited by Scott Rouse and the novel department as a good example of a fan site.
> 
> My fear, though, is that the "suits" won't see it that way and will get a little nostalgic for the late 90s TSR days.
> 
> I've got some folks in the industry doing a little homework for me at GenCon.  Depending on what they say will depend on any final decisions I make.  However, I would like to be able to continue on as usual, which I believe benefits WotC and their IP.




I suspect it doesn't really matter what the suits things until someone else orders them to think about it. I might be wrong, but I do not think that the legal department of WotC is surfing the web for fan sites violating their copyright. They act on the initiative of other departments.

I might be totally wrong and I hope anyone corrects me quickly if I am, but didn't the recent copyright trial against PDF piracy also coincide with The Rouse traveling through Europe into the countries of the pirates? If that was true, it's certainly a clear sign that the legal department doesn't do this on its own...


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I might be totally wrong and I hope anyone corrects me quickly if I am, but didn't the recent copyright trial against PDF piracy also coincide with The Rouse traveling through Europe into the countries of the pirates? If that was true, it's certainly a clear sign that the legal department doesn't do this on its own...




What difference would Scott Rouse's travel itenary make with regards to lawsuits over online piracy? It's not like crossing a border into a country magically makes you aware of what citizens of that country have posted online. Nor are you unable to access Polish websites from outside Poland, AFAIK.

Wait -- now I get it! The Rouse went abroad on a secret recon mission, to physically find and identify the pirates, to make sure that only the guilty were brought to justice. He also no doubt made a detour to the coast of Africa to rescue hostages from Somali pirates. And all this was done while he was officially vacationing on a yacht with several members of the Moscow ballet (or was it the Swedish bikini team), no doubt. His trusty butler covered for him, too! It all makes sense now!

Then this fan site thing might just be The Rouse's way of being the hero this city Internet needs, taking the fall for another popular figure who went crazy after a hideous tragedy and horrific injury. Quick, someone have the Commissioner smash the Rouse-signal, and unleash the hounds!


----------



## CharlesRyan (Aug 11, 2009)

Dragonhelm said:


> 3.  As long as I'm not attempting to make a profit off of WotC's IP, I should be okay.




This one is a bit iffy. A lot of people think copyright violation hinges on whether you make money off your efforts, but in fact they aren't really related. Sure, if it's making you rich the IP holder will come after you faster and probably win a bigger judgement in court, but money-making isn't the legal test of whether copyright violation has occurred.

A better standard isn't whether you're making money, but rather whether your efforts hurt the IP holder's ability (actual or potential) to make money--though even that's not an actual legal test.

So a better point 3 might be something like "As long as my use of WotC's IP is moderate, supports interest in D&D, and doesn't undermine WotC's sales, licenses, or fan interest--and I'm not making any money off it--I should be okay."

[Note: I don't speak for WotC. This is purely speculative.]

That's not a legal guideline (and I'm not a lawyer (and I wouldn't dispense real legal advice on internet message boards if I was)), but it's probably a good summation of the spirit in which companies like WotC are often tolerant of people using their IP on fan sites. As others have pointed out, this assumption is based on the premise that WotC does not undergo a massive personality transplant sometime down the road.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Aug 11, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> So a better point 3 might be something like "As long as my use of WotC's IP is moderate, supports interest in D&D, and doesn't undermine WotC's sales, licenses, or fan interest--and I'm not making any money off it--I should be okay."




Agreed.  

I think, then, that the Nexus should be okay.  A lot of our articles include how to use X element from Y book in Dragonlance.  That right there is just more incentive to go out and buy WotC's books.  We also point people to WotC's website quite often if an article catches our eye.

We do have some original content, but it isn't anything that would cause a person to not buy a book.  Hell, if anything, we're told over and over that what we do is nice, but it just isn't the same 'cause it isn't from WotC or in print.


----------

