Using Copyrighted Material

[AzrofD]

+1 this.

Anything Lone Wolf can do to make the Licensing process as pain free and clear as possible would be great. I adore the idea of taking my custom content and sharing/selling it to the world. On the flip side, I neither want my unique work stolen/shared (if I've erected some sort of paywall), nor do I want to infringe on the restricted licenses of others.

[sp762]

I think there are parallels here between photocopying and the use of copyright material in content or course management systems. Here's what copyright.com has to say:

Using Content: Course Management Systems

Course Management Systems (CMSs) are enhancing the educational experience for both face-to-face and distance learning by making it easier for students and instructors to communicate, teach and learn. While the value of a CMS is clear, there is much confusion when it comes to CMSs and copyright.

Many CMS vendors offer publisher-created content with their systems. They also offer schools and faculty the tools required for uploading and posting content — including readings and course syllabi — as well as other functionality, such as interactive student chat; instructor Q&A; student monitoring, testing and assessment; and grading and other class management functions. These easy to use tools allow instructors and others to upload information themselves, bypassing traditional controls for securing copyright permission and placing a new responsibility on instructors and IT departments.

Instructors, IT department personnel, staff members and others who upload content to a CMS often believe that because the content is password-protected, copyright permission is not required or that someone else has obtained it prior to the registration process. This is not true. Unlike publisher-created content from the CMS vendor (who has already obtained the necessary permission), content that is uploaded by faculty members and others typically requires copyright permission.

When it comes to copyright, there is no difference between digital and paper-based environments. While CMSs often replace the use of coursepacks, classroom handouts and library reserves, traditional copyright rules still apply. If you need permission to use the content in paper format (such as the content available to multiple students in coursepacks), you almost certainly need it to use the content in an electronic format (such as the content available to multiple students through a CMS).

To clarify the copyright requirements for a CMS, consider the following guidelines:

Vendor-provided content – This is content developed by publishers and sold with, or in addition to, the CMS. Copyright licensing is usually included in the price of the content; therefore copyright requirements are likely to have been met.

Content uploaded by faculty, staff or others – This is content not provided by the CMS vendor, that is added to the CMS. The institution must adhere to traditional copyright law in reproducing this content for use by multiple students. In general, if you need to obtain permission to use the content in paper format, you probably need permission to use it in electronic format as well.

So in this context, 'the institution' is the game master, I guess - or the content developer. I'm not sure this is an answer - but it might advance the discussion a little. The general principle of 'fair use' applies if you are making copies or storing in a private CMS, but if you plan to share that data, you need to get permission from the copyright owner - in my case, Marc Miller.

[Chokra Broodslayer]

What you guys are talking about, legally, is... what constitutes "Fair Use" of copyrighted material under the law. "Fair Use" can be a bit tricky, as some of you have noted. I am not an attorney but I did take Communication Law in college, which covers copyright.

Without a doubt, you could not copy the entirety of someone's module -- that is a blatant violation of copyright. Now, for your own personal use, I suppose that would fall under Fair Use -- but if you share it, that's where the problems arise.

References to things might fall under Fair Use but you might also be using someone's Trademarked or Registered Trademark name without permission, which is not copyright violation, but trademark violation -- two separate but seemingly intertwined laws.

This issue is pretty complicated and I, personally, would avoid writing game content in someone else's intellectual property (IP) without their express written permission. Now, if it's your gaming group's combined content, you're probably fine even if it's shared IP.

Remember, if it's from mythology, it can't be copyrighted. If it's from nature and reality (history, places, things), it can't be copyrighted. Only creative endeavors can be copyrighted (books, movies, music, newspapers, magazines, art, poetry, etc.).

So, if you want to do something in Norse Mythology, Greek Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, etc., the coast is clear.

Also, there are previously copyrighted materials that are now in the public domain -- such as most of Edgar Rice Burroughs' work and many other older writings. If it's in the public domain, then there's no copyright violation to use that work. It used to be 50 years after the death of the work's creator but I think it's now 75 years.

With the young age of RPGs, there are currently NO RPG products that have moved into the public domain without consent of the work's creator. There are open gaming licenses for many different publishers, including but not limited to 3.0/3.5 OGL, Savage Worlds, Pathfinder, even 4th Edition (to an extent) has a form of gaming license but more restrictive than the 3rd edition license.

It's not impossible to write game content that is "Forgotten Realms compatible" but without ever using Forgotten Realms locations or references. You just have to stay away from named characters, locations, or system-specific races or anything that is trademarked. For instance, even with the OGL, there are some races/monsters that are NOT covered and cannot be used without written permission from Wizards of the Coast: The ettercap, illithid, and umberhulk come to mind for example. I'm sure there are many more. This can get rather tricky. So, I tend to stick with traditional mythology creatures or my own creations for my own I.P.

[pjrichert]

The issue here isn't using the materials to create a campaign, or the vehicle in which you share it with your players. The issue is sharing that in a public venue. The maps, text, and images in a module, or game world guide are meant to be shared with the group of players that are playing your game. This would be covered under "fair use". You or your players are not making any gain from the sharing of the material, and if fact, in a lot of cases you'll be helping the company out, as your players will most likely buy core rulebooks, etc, in order to be able to play in your game.

What would not be covered under "fair use" is if you then took your created game, that used published material, and distributed it publicly.

As an example, using Forgotten Realms: If you created your game in the Forgotten Realms setting, you could use the iconic characters of the setting in your private game, or private games. Your players could meet the Drizzts, the Bruenors, Danilos of the world, with no issue. However, if you then took your campaign, as laid down in RW, using the published materials, and tried to distribute that, then there would be a legal issue, as you've overstepped the bounds of "fair use" because you are now using WOTC's copyrighted material for your own gains.

[Romaq]

I have *almost* every Pathfinder license in Hero Lab, there are only a few I've not bothered with at the moment.

Hot & heavy on my list for RW is "Rise of the Runelords." If you were selling a license for RotRL right now today for RW, I'd be buying it yesterday. And it isn't just RotRL, there is a document http://ollywright.me/pathfinder/Sandpoint_npc_list.pdf which adds more info to listed NPCs as well as images and such. I will want to take a 'stock' RotRL, slap the OllyWright changes and then make further changes as the campaign progresses. But pretty hot & heavy on my list is "not re-entering freakin' stock RotRL".

So if you can get some contracts inked with Paizo, I have some more money to throw at you on top of the money for base Realm Works anyway.

[monsterfurby]

I am still doubtful as to whether this will ever become an issue. This may just be me being biased against published adventures and settings, but every Virtual Tabletop and RPG software with the ability to distribute licensed material pretty much never took off in this regard. The way I see it, "marketplace" type constructs simply are something hardly anyone other than content creators ever asked for. Of course, there are plenty of products people can distribute because let's face it, adventures and settings are excessively easy to write (not easy to write *well* of course), but because of that I dare assume that most GMs who are technologically savvy enough to use a software like RealmWorks would rather use it to create their own stuff than import or buy licensed materials. That kind of defeats the purpose of the software-as-service model to begin with.

Again, I might be cynical regarding this, also due to my personal style of work creation and GMing as well as my experience in the digital distribution space for fiction, but in my experience, just putting content out there wishing for a market to appear a viable perspective does not make.

Bottom line: before this becomes an issue really, Realm Works will have to become widely accepted as THE reference in terms of RP campaign planning and management software. I don't doubt that this will happen (HeroLab did it, at least for certain systems), but I highly doubt it will be used widely for any purpose other than privately maintained, "offline" campaign binders.

[Jaynay27]

Originally Posted by Romaq

I have *almost* every Pathfinder license in Hero Lab, there are only a few I've not bothered with at the moment.

Hot & heavy on my list for RW is "Rise of the Runelords." If you were selling a license for RotRL right now today for RW, I'd be buying it yesterday. And it isn't just RotRL, there is a document http://ollywright.me/pathfinder/Sandpoint_npc_list.pdf which adds more info to listed NPCs as well as images and such. I will want to take a 'stock' RotRL, slap the OllyWright changes and then make further changes as the campaign progresses. But pretty hot & heavy on my list is "not re-entering freakin' stock RotRL".

So if you can get some contracts inked with Paizo, I have some more money to throw at you on top of the money for base Realm Works anyway.

+∞ to this.

I started imputing RotRL and got as far as chapter 1 and a couple of the appendices, then stalled. Such a lot of work!
And then realised there were better ways to organise my data, but couldn't be bothered with changing it all.

So, yeah, my fingers are firmly crossed for this, with a data package for the SRD coming close second.

What would be even better, would be a 'global' structure that you could tie the AP in to.

So, for example, I could buy an 'Inner Sea World Guide' package, then buy RotRL and import it in to the first package, gradually building a complete world set from all the data packs and placing future AP's in that realm, so my players actions literally have ongoing consequences in 'their' world.

So many possibilities...hehehehehehahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA! <- rubbing hands together and cackling with evil glee.

[Romaq]

Perhaps we can see how far we are allowed to go with a "community RotRL" much as maps are being done, and so on. I'd rather focus on the presentation of the content than the production of it.

[Silveras]

My understanding:

The future Repository feature is intended to allow re-use of user-created content. The future Marketplace feature will allow users and Publishers to sell or give content to other users through the that mechanism. Once you have purchased (or been given shared user content, etc.), it is in your Repository and you can "import" it into a realm.

So.. after purchasing the Inner Sea World Guide, you can import the contents into a "working Realm" of your own (presumably for use in running a game). If there are other sourcebooks that are relevant to your game, after purchasing them you would be able to import them also. This makes all of the information you need available to your players as you reveal it, and to you (the GM) as you run the game.

Side Note: I have no idea how LoneWolf is planning to manage overlapping updates, such as where one sourcebook contains a more-detailed entry on a place or person than a previous sourcebook.

Revealing content to the players as you play, and (later) inviting them as "Player Accounts" into your Realm for them to access over the cloud, is part of the planned functionality. Whatever licensing deals are worked out, this is the intended use of the product and would presumably be covered.

What would NOT be covered is copying and distributing adventures, sourcebooks, and the like. Stories, plots, specific characters, and such are all Intellectual Property, and are not open content. You can take the PDFs and copy/paste or re-type them yourself for your own group's use in play.. but you cannot share it with other GMs over the Marketplace.

As I understand some of the early descriptions of the product, RealmWorks is envisioned as a new way to publish content. PDFs span the physical world of printed content and make it a digital replica of the physical. RealmWorks is another step removed from the physical -- cross-linked and interactive, it presents an opportunity to explore new ways to organize the content. However, at least initially, it will likely closely parallel the physical printed copies and PDFs (though organized differently).

It is a new medium, but the same basic rules for content apply.

[Romaq]

That's all happy. I anxiously await *not* having to re-enter Rise of the Runelords. I'm more than happy to pay Lone Wolf to deal with this instead.