Post-OGL D&D era?

[waysoftheearth]

Over in another topic jeffb commented that

Feb 26, 2023 14:17:25 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And finally, I no longer support the current WOTC/HASBRO corporation, their community, or their D&D game in any way, shape, or form.

That point rings true for me also, and TBH it's something been bugging me since the OGL fiasco. Despite many fans getting largely what they wanted, it's a hollow victory for old schoolers because the OGL 1.0a is undermined. The larger question is what remains outside of "their (Hasbro/WotC's) D&D game"? Is it even possible to step away from Hasbro/WotC and their product lines, and still be a D&D fan? Or have they really killed it that hard?

I rarely interacted with Hasbro/WotC previously, but I relied on the OGL/3.5e SRD a lot, was aware of 5e goings-on, and was generally aware that they "owned the product". So, what does a post-Hasbro, no faith OGL/3.0/3.5e SRDs, world really look like for the die-hard, old-school D&D fan? I'm interested to know hear what others are thinking/feeling... especially if you are or have been an OD&D-esque writer publisher type.

[geoffrey]

Short version: I could not care less about WotC or their OGL.

Longer version: I have never played a Hasbro-published version of D&D. I have no interest in doing so.

I have 13 FRPG books for sale: 3 for OD&D, 7 for AD&D, and 3 for B/X. None of them uses the OGL. But what about people who have written RPG books using the OGL? Then, if I were them, I would immediately take-out the OGL page and keep publishing the books as-is. As far as I can tell, the OGL does not grant any rights that you don't already have under standard copyright law. Just ignore the OGL and write RPG books as you desire. Utterly and thoroughly ignore WotC. They are a complete non-entity.

Heck, look at Robert J. Kuntz. Back in 2015 he had an AD&D module published without using the OGL. Seriously: If WotC was out gunning for us, they would have tried to take-out Rob Kuntz (who is about as far from a nobody as you can get!) years ago, but he's fine.

[waysoftheearth]

Feb 26, 2023 16:41:20 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Longer version: I have never played a Hasbro-published version of D&D. I have no interest in doing so.

So... (conjecture)... you don't mind that Hasbro owns OD&D and that supporting OD&D is indirectly supporting Hasbro?

[geoffrey]

Feb 26, 2023 19:02:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Feb 26, 2023 16:41:20 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Longer version: I have never played a Hasbro-published version of D&D. I have no interest in doing so.

So... (conjecture)... you don't mind that Hasbro owns OD&D and that supporting OD&D is indirectly supporting Hasbro?

While I wish that OD&D was in the public domain, I do not have a problem with supporting OD&D, regardless of Hasbro owning it.

[jeffb]

Feb 26, 2023 16:27:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Over in another topic jeffb commented that

Feb 26, 2023 14:17:25 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And finally, I no longer support the current WOTC/HASBRO corporation, their community, or their D&D game in any way, shape, or form.

That point rings true for me also, and TBH it's something been bugging me since the OGL fiasco. Despite many fans getting largely what they wanted, it's a hollow victory for old schoolers because the OGL 1.0a is undermined. The larger question is what remains outside of "their (Hasbro/WotC's) D&D game"? Is it even possible to step away from Hasbro/WotC and their product lines, and still be a D&D fan? Or have they really killed it that hard?

I rarely interacted with Hasbro/WotC previously, but I relied on the OGL/3.5e SRD a lot, was aware of 5e goings-on, and was generally aware that they "owned the product". So, what does a post-Hasbro, no faith OGL/3.0/3.5e SRDs, world really look like for the die-hard, old-school D&D fan? I'm interested to know hear what others are thinking/feeling... especially if you are or have been an OD&D-esque writer publisher type.

FWIW- my stance predates the OGL fiasco by a few years. I stopped supporting them when they went nuckin' futz with all the socio-political BS and "tearing down" older products, those who created them, and those who enjoy them.

I'm actually enjoying this whole OGL fiasco, and I'd love to see them burn the D&D brand to the ground. At this point it's a joke. Nobody needs WOTC or their farce of a lifestyle brand.

EDIT- this does not keep me from enjoying previous editions (4E, 3E) materials and being thankful for things like them bailing TSR out in 97, or Ryan Dancey and the OGL. But I was never very enamored of 5E to begin with and never supported their product model and business philosophy for 5E.

[tdenmark]

Feb 26, 2023 20:05:00 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Feb 26, 2023 16:27:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Over in another topic jeffb commented that
That point rings true for me also, and TBH it's something been bugging me since the OGL fiasco. Despite many fans getting largely what they wanted, it's a hollow victory for old schoolers because the OGL 1.0a is undermined. The larger question is what remains outside of "their (Hasbro/WotC's) D&D game"? Is it even possible to step away from Hasbro/WotC and their product lines, and still be a D&D fan? Or have they really killed it that hard?

I rarely interacted with Hasbro/WotC previously, but I relied on the OGL/3.5e SRD a lot, was aware of 5e goings-on, and was generally aware that they "owned the product". So, what does a post-Hasbro, no faith OGL/3.0/3.5e SRDs, world really look like for the die-hard, old-school D&D fan? I'm interested to know hear what others are thinking/feeling... especially if you are or have been an OD&D-esque writer publisher type.

FWIW- my stance predates the OGL fiasco by a few years. I stopped supporting them when they went nuckin' futz with all the socio-political BS and "tearing down" older products, those who created them, and those who enjoy them.

I'm actually enjoying this whole OGL fiasco, and I'd love to see them burn the D&D brand to the ground. At this point it's a joke. Nobody needs WOTC or their farce of a lifestyle brand.

EDIT- this does not keep me from enjoying previous editions (4E, 3E) materials and being thankful for things like them bailing TSR out in 97, or Ryan Dancey and the OGL. But I was never very enamored of 5E to begin with and never supported their product model and business philosophy for 5E.

Same here.

[dwayanu]

I’m not big on Hasbro, but nor am I inclined to boycott their products. If Goodman’s Classic Adventures Reincarnated line puts out something I want enough, I won’t deprive myself of it just to keep Hasbro from getting the royalties.

The same holds in the unlikely event that I get enough back into Advanced Squad Leader to want something new from Multi-Man Publishing. (I don’t know what other AH/VG/SPI board games getting new editions from other publishers involve royalties to Hasbro.)

One of these days, I’d like to play the Baldur’s Gate computer game, from which Hasbro probably gets a cut. (Steam looks to be advantageous compared with a second hand CD version.)

I made my own replacement pieces to go with my old Diplomacy board, but I might someday want to buy a Hasbro edition as a gift.

[ochrejelly]

I don’t have to boycott WOTC because they’ve never put out a product I wanted to buy. It’s not like anybody’s kicking in my door and burning my old books, so who gives a shirt about WOTC?

[chicagowiz]

Feb 26, 2023 16:27:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

So, what does a post-Hasbro, no faith OGL/3.0/3.5e SRDs, world really look like for the die-hard, old-school D&D fan? I'm interested to know hear what others are thinking/feeling... especially if you are or have been an OD&D-esque writer publisher type.

Pretty much as it's looked since 2008, since 1988, since 1978... I'm playing the games I want. I don't buy current edition books/modules [1]. I got a few DCC modules for s&g's, but most of my dollars has gone to DIY/independent folks. A few retroclones were bought in the 2009/2010 period. By and large, I'm content with what I have and what I get from the Internet.

I'm probably the worst market for RPG publishers, because I'm set with my campaign worlds, my approaches and what I have/own/have access to already.

I hate to see what the corporate overlords are doing to the general brand/perception of D&D, but they left me behind a long time ago and I was/am still perfectly happy without being part of their marketing plans.

[bobjester0e]

WotC's views on "problematic" older titles and gamers in general caused me to stop buying WotC games & products, but I still buy 3rd party company games, - notably Goodman Games 5e & DCC titles because they don't discriminate against old school players.

I know I won't burn my WotC 5e books - I bought them before they became a turd company, but I'll never buy anything from them again, and they don't even need a disclaimer for me to not buy - their latest products are absolute sh*te, bereft of creativity and substance.

I had hoped that this Black Flag/ORC movement would provide a core set of adaptable 5e condensed rules, but it sounds like all this is is a re-worded carbon copy of OneD&D (let's call it 6th edition, alright, WotC? That IS what this IS!) that continues a very anti-D&D philosophy of burying "problematic" themes of race and renaming them "heritage" or "ancestry" - which is fine if you prefer those terms, but it is a needless confusing of language the likes we haven't experienced since the Tower of Babel.

The last thing I want in my mid-to-late 50's is consult a lexicon every time I want to explain in-game my dwarf's family lineage that goes back 2,000 years as different from racial differences between the duergar and gully dwarf heritage.

I think that 5e players could best benefit from a condensed set of rules that takes out most if not all verbiage and sticks to the charts, tables, stats & formulae for the rules. Leave the game descriptors to individual tables - if you prefer calling Armor Class, Armor Class or even DV for Defense Value - but leave everything as is as presented in the Creative Commons.

[skars]

I'm surprised people still care, tbh. This along with grooming content is no surprise and nothing new for d&d or the toy industry. Tsr ran d&d brand into the toilet and it wouldn't exist today without Hasbro/wotc. That matters more than the recent events or the satanic panic superstitious bs because it perpetuates the game for another generation whether it's the same game or different modifiers to the roll. Wotc scrubbed the demonic tutor magic card in the 90s because of said superstition for instance. As noted in a previous post I'm also an ASL player with decades of content and updates under the Hasbro/mmp banner that never would have come from the ailing Avalon hill. As our events start to reassemble post COVID like DunDraCon last week there is a whole new group of young adults interested in playing and supporting the game as many of the old guard age out. Hasbro will screw up again, guaranteed. I'm just not sure the ogl incident or recent content scrub will have any lasting impact more than previous events or potentially those to come in the future.

[dwayanu]

I really can’t care less* about the substitution of ‘ancestry’ or ‘heritage’ for ‘race’ (a term that, for what little it matters, made more sense in Tolkien’s Middle Earth than in the various worlds of D&D).

I find it more interesting — which isn’t much — whether the latest edition of Hyperborea (formerly ASS of H) still insists on the arbitrarily eccentric usage of “8:12” where what’s really meant is “8/12.”

To each his own pedantry, I guess, but I’ll count myself happier for mine not getting my knickers in a wad. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

*Edit: I wrote in haste. I could care less were the term not tainted by bigots using it to ends as hateful as they are inane.

[dwayanu]

Hasbro can, if it seems profitable, be far more litigious than ever really was “They $ue Regularly.” The legal value of the OGL is probably less than its public-image value, and the latter enough to keep Hasbro from trying to put the OSR genie back in the bottle.

At the same time, I’m far from sure that what it gives is worth more than what it takes away. Along with that, arguably the biggest thing it takes away is use of the brand name Dungeons & Dragons. If you’ve been contented with that for nigh a quarter century, how invested in the D&D brand can you really be?

[hamurai]

Feb 26, 2023 16:27:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I'm interested to know hear what others are thinking/feeling... especially if you are or have been an OD&D-esque writer publisher type.

My goup got into 5E quickly when it came out and I've got a couple of books on my shelf, although I have to admit that I'll be selling most of them when I get the chance. I'll keep the core (PHB, DMG, MM) and maybe a supplement or two, but I care nothing about 1D&D right now and I have no plans to get any subscription to play it.

I don't hate Hasbro/WotC for what has been, I'll just turn my back and move on, knowing that in the future we'll have to be extra doubtful and analyzing when they tell us anything, but - as has been stated - one has to recognize that they have brought D&D back from the abyss for a new generation to enjoy, and they probably don't really care about lots of stuff that makes us frown (D&D and in general), but if they're willing to play a game with us (and accept that we do and call things a little differently), I think it's a good thing.

Maybe I'd feel differently if my group was still playing D&D at the moment, but the campaign is on a hiatus and we're trying different games.

[dicebro]

Feb 26, 2023 19:43:49 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Feb 26, 2023 19:02:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

So... (conjecture)... you don't mind that Hasbro owns OD&D and that supporting OD&D is indirectly supporting Hasbro?

While I wish that OD&D was in the public domain, I do not have a problem with supporting OD&D, regardless of Hasbro owning it.

The OD&D copyright originated under the 1909 Copyright Act. According to Peterson, Gary and Arneson transferred their copyrights to TSR in 1975. I have never seen the transfer document that would have been required by the 1909 statute.  Registration with the Library of Congress is some evidence of copyright ownership, but it isn’t conclusive evidence.  Actually, registration is only evidence that someone believes they have copyright ownership.  Such a belief could be mistaken.  What if no original transfer document was executed by Arneson and Gygax?  It’s possible. They couldn’t afford lawyers at the time. Assuming they did in fact attempt to execute a home-made transfer document, was it executed properly? Did it actually transfer copyright or merely ownership of the physical copies in existence?  There are many questions. Do The Arneson and Gygax estates still retain ownership of the Od&d copyright despite what many folks assume to be the facts?

Once again, I would love to analyze the original Arneson/Gygax transfer of copyright document. 

[Mushgnome]

I am a lifelong Hasbro customer, ever since my first Mister Potato Head. There were a lot of bad things about growing up in the 1970s, and I'm glad that toy companies have made their toys safer through they years. If old white dudes are feeling nostalgic and want to buy dangerous toys from their childhood (like gendered potato heads, vintage lawn darts, or lead toy soldiers) then these things are available on ebay. But Hasbro is right not to manufacture and market these toys to children in the year 2023.

If I'm a parent buying my kid their first D&D set (as my own parents did for me, back in the day) I really don't care what some old-timer named Mushgnome thinks. I want a game that is safe and age-appropriate for my kiddo.

And I've never had more fun playing D&D, than in 2023! I'm participating in several really fun campaigns right now. The hobby is alive and well, whether you are an old-timer or a new player. Fight on!!

[jamesmishler]

Mar 7, 2023 7:49:48 GMT -6 dicebro said:

Feb 26, 2023 19:43:49 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

While I wish that OD&D was in the public domain, I do not have a problem with supporting OD&D, regardless of Hasbro owning it.

The OD&D copyright originated under the 1909 Copyright Act. According to Peterson, Gary and Arneson transferred their copyrights to TSR in 1975. I have never seen the transfer document that would have been required by the 1909 statute.  Registration with the Library of Congress is some evidence of copyright ownership, but it isn’t conclusive evidence.  Actually, registration is only evidence that someone believes they have copyright ownership.  Such a belief could be mistaken.  What if no original transfer document was executed by Arneson and Gygax?  It’s possible. They couldn’t afford lawyers at the time. Assuming they did in fact attempt to execute a home-made transfer document, was it executed properly? Did it actually transfer copyright or merely ownership of the physical copies in existence?  There are many questions. Do The Arneson and Gygax estates still retain ownership of the Od&d copyright despite what many folks assume to be the facts?

Once again, I would love to analyze the original Arneson/Gygax transfer of copyright document. 

This was all resolved by Wizards of the Coast back in 2000 before they published 3rd Edition. They paid both Dave and Gary considerable sums for quit claims on any legal or moral rights to D&D and the related works they had done in the past. This was not only to cover any such preexisting issues, but also to forestall any future questions of reversion of copyright based on other laws that allow for such.

Have no delusions about the status of the copyrights and trademarks to D&D. They are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Hasbro.

Of course, after this OGL debacle, Hasbro is finding out that the OGL did as much to protect them as it did the third party publishers, rules not being copyrightable and all that. Which is probably why they threw the 5E SRD into Creative Commons as a way to try to (unsuccessfully) save face. 

[dicebro]

Mar 7, 2023 9:41:46 GMT -6 jamesmishler said:

Mar 7, 2023 7:49:48 GMT -6 dicebro said:

The OD&D copyright originated under the 1909 Copyright Act. According to Peterson, Gary and Arneson transferred their copyrights to TSR in 1975. I have never seen the transfer document that would have been required by the 1909 statute.  Registration with the Library of Congress is some evidence of copyright ownership, but it isn’t conclusive evidence.  Actually, registration is only evidence that someone believes they have copyright ownership.  Such a belief could be mistaken.  What if no original transfer document was executed by Arneson and Gygax?  It’s possible. They couldn’t afford lawyers at the time. Assuming they did in fact attempt to execute a home-made transfer document, was it executed properly? Did it actually transfer copyright or merely ownership of the physical copies in existence?  There are many questions. Do The Arneson and Gygax estates still retain ownership of the Od&d copyright despite what many folks assume to be the facts?

Once again, I would love to analyze the original Arneson/Gygax transfer of copyright document. 

This was all resolved by Wizards of the Coast back in 2000 before they published 3rd Edition. They paid both Dave and Gary considerable sums for quit claims on any legal or moral rights to D&D and the related works they had done in the past. This was not only to cover any such preexisting issues, but also to forestall any future questions of reversion of copyright based on other laws that allow for such.

Have no delusions about the status of the copyrights and trademarks to D&D. They are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Hasbro.

Of course, after this OGL debacle, Hasbro is finding out that the OGL did as much to protect them as it did the third party publishers, rules not being copyrightable and all that. Which is probably why they threw the 5E SRD into Creative Commons as a way to try to (unsuccessfully) save face. 

Do you have access to copies of those “quit claims?” I would like to read them. I would like to research whether or not those “quit claims” transfer ownership of the intellectual property covered under the 1909 act.  People assert all kinds of things about ownership of this and that. And I do not doubt you, or Peterson for that matter. But I would like to see the actual proof.

[tdenmark]

Mar 7, 2023 9:41:46 GMT -6 jamesmishler said:

Have no delusions about the status of the copyrights and trademarks to D&D. They are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Hasbro.
Of course, after this OGL debacle, Hasbro is finding out that the OGL did as much to protect them as it did the third party publishers, rules not being copyrightable and all that. Which is probably why they threw the 5E SRD into Creative Commons as a way to try to (unsuccessfully) save face. 

The distasteful and belligerent actions of Hasbro during the OGL Fiasco became a crash course in copyright law for the entire industry and players. If anything good came out of it everyone now knows the emperor has no clothes. The game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, only the IP. And as cool as Forgotten Realms and all that is, who really cares about their IP?

[dicebro]

Mar 7, 2023 9:41:46 GMT -6 jamesmishler said:

Mar 7, 2023 7:49:48 GMT -6 dicebro said:

The OD&D copyright originated under the 1909 Copyright Act. According to Peterson, Gary and Arneson transferred their copyrights to TSR in 1975. I have never seen the transfer document that would have been required by the 1909 statute.  Registration with the Library of Congress is some evidence of copyright ownership, but it isn’t conclusive evidence.  Actually, registration is only evidence that someone believes they have copyright ownership.  Such a belief could be mistaken.  What if no original transfer document was executed by Arneson and Gygax?  It’s possible. They couldn’t afford lawyers at the time. Assuming they did in fact attempt to execute a home-made transfer document, was it executed properly? Did it actually transfer copyright or merely ownership of the physical copies in existence?  There are many questions. Do The Arneson and Gygax estates still retain ownership of the Od&d copyright despite what many folks assume to be the facts?

Once again, I would love to analyze the original Arneson/Gygax transfer of copyright document. 

This was all resolved by Wizards of the Coast back in 2000 before they published 3rd Edition. They paid both Dave and Gary considerable sums for quit claims on any legal or moral rights to D&D and the related works they had done in the past. This was not only to cover any such preexisting issues, but also to forestall any future questions of reversion of copyright based on other laws that allow for such.

Have no delusions about the status of the copyrights and trademarks to D&D. They are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Hasbro.

Of course, after this OGL debacle, Hasbro is finding out that the OGL did as much to protect them as it did the third party publishers, rules not being copyrightable and all that. Which is probably why they threw the 5E SRD into Creative Commons as a way to try to (unsuccessfully) save face. 

I don’t doubt you on the quitclaim.  But if Dave and Gary had transferred the OD&D (1974) copyright to TSR in 1975, then why would WOTC ask Gary and Dave to execute “quitclaims” in 2000?  I can come up with Two reasons: 1) because there was no documentation of the original 1975 transfer to TSR, Inc. and 2) WOTC wanted to protect itself from Dave and Gary later on.  

Can you think of any other reasons?

[tdenmark]

Mar 7, 2023 13:55:41 GMT -6 dicebro said:

I don’t doubt you on the quitclaim.  But if Dave and Gary had transferred the OD&D (1974) copyright to TSR in 1975, then why would WOTC ask Gary and Dave to execute “quitclaims” in 2000?  I can come up with Two reasons: 1) because there was no documentation of the original 1975 transfer to TSR, Inc. and 2) WOTC wanted to protect itself from Dave and Gary later on.  

Can you think of any other reasons?

It makes sense that a company that has been sued before for copyright infringement would dot all their i's and cross all their t's to make sure everything is buttoned up before pouring millions into a reboot of a game with a storied past. That would be reason enough.

[dicebro]

Feb 26, 2023 19:43:49 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

Feb 26, 2023 19:02:31 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

So... (conjecture)... you don't mind that Hasbro owns OD&D and that supporting OD&D is indirectly supporting Hasbro?

While I wish that OD&D was in the public domain, I do not have a problem with supporting OD&D, regardless of Hasbro owning it.

An argument can be made that the first 3 volumes of OD&D actually fell into the public domain in 1974 because the copyright notice on the title page failed to comply with the strict requirements of section 18 of the 1909 statute and the corresponding CFR sections.   I’d love to see someone raise the failure of notice issue in court.  

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 7, 2023 21:20:13 GMT -6 dicebro said:

An argument can be made that the first 3 volumes of OD&D actually fell into the public domain in 1974 because the copyright notice on the title page failed to comply with the strict requirements of section 18 of the 1909 statute and the corresponding CFR sections.

What about sections
13: requiring the deposit of two copies with the copyright office,
14: "Should the copies called for by section 13 of this title not be promptly deposited ... the copyright shall become void.",
17: "In the case of the book the copies so deposited shall be accompanied by an affidavit under the official seal of any officer authorized to administer oaths within the United States, duly made by the person claiming copyright ..."

Those requirements would void pretty much anything I've ever put a copyright symbol on...

Excepting that section 9(c) appears to exempt me, an alien, from each of the above.

[dicebro]

Mar 8, 2023 4:22:02 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Mar 7, 2023 21:20:13 GMT -6 dicebro said:

An argument can be made that the first 3 volumes of OD&D actually fell into the public domain in 1974 because the copyright notice on the title page failed to comply with the strict requirements of section 18 of the 1909 statute and the corresponding CFR sections.

What about sections
13: requiring the deposit of two copies with the copyright office,
14: "Should the copies called for by section 13 of this title not be promptly deposited ... the copyright shall become void.",
17: "In the case of the book the copies so deposited shall be accompanied by an affidavit under the official seal of any officer authorized to administer oaths within the United States, duly made by the person claiming copyright ..."

Those requirements would void pretty much anything I've ever put a copyright symbol on...

Excepting that section 9(c) appears to exempt me, an alien, from each of the above.

Proper Notice seems to be the easiest defect to point out if Hasbro sued somebody for copying the White Box volumes.  Under 17 USC section 18 (1909) proper notice required three elements. The first element is the symbol “©,” (or, in the case of sound recordings created after February 15, 1972, “℗”) the abbreviation “Copr.,” or the word “Copyright.” The second element, the “author’s name,” must be the name of the initial copyright owner.  The third element, the “date of first publication,” must be the year of publication.  For works placed in General Publication on or before December 31, 1977 the notice requirements are very detailed, and even small technical defects in the form, content, or location of the notice result in the loss of copyright protection. As such, if works generally published before January 1, 1978 lack proper notice, then they are in the public domain. See 37 C.F.R. 202.2 (a)(2).  

Looks like a major problem with the second element since Tactical Studies Rules was never the initial author. An argument could be made that proper notice was lacking because Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax were the initial authors.  OD&D white box in the public domain because Gygax and Arneson abandoned their claim would be a big win against a mighty corporation like Hasbro.

-addendum-
If OD&D fell into the public domain in 1974, then the TSR Partnership had no OD&D copyright to transfer to the TSR Hobbies Corporation formed in 1975.  It’s interesting that the lawyers for TSR Hobbies Inc. never addressed the notice issue in an actual court proceeding.  They mailed a lot of cease and desist letters, and thumped their chests. But nobody ever actually got sued for copyright infringement as far as I can tell.  I would love to see a company that publishes OD&D compatible books, if threatened by Hasbro, seek a federal court declaratory judgment holding that OD&D fell into the public domain waaaay back in 74 and, without an act of Congress, the rule booklets belong to us all!  Tell your Copyright lawyer friends who practice in federal court that they should look into this.

[dicebro]

Mar 8, 2023 4:22:02 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Mar 7, 2023 21:20:13 GMT -6 dicebro said:

An argument can be made that the first 3 volumes of OD&D actually fell into the public domain in 1974 because the copyright notice on the title page failed to comply with the strict requirements of section 18 of the 1909 statute and the corresponding CFR sections.

What about sections
13: requiring the deposit of two copies with the copyright office,
14: "Should the copies called for by section 13 of this title not be promptly deposited ... the copyright shall become void.",
17: "In the case of the book the copies so deposited shall be accompanied by an affidavit under the official seal of any officer authorized to administer oaths within the United States, duly made by the person claiming copyright ..."

Those requirements would void pretty much anything I've ever put a copyright symbol on...

Excepting that section 9(c) appears to exempt me, an alien, from each of the above.

Fortunately, your work would be covered by the copyright act of 1976, effective Jan 1, 1978.  The notice and registration rules of the 1909 Act wouldn’t apply to your work in the US.

[waysoftheearth]

It seems plausible that a couple of amateur publishers, back in 1974, may not have executed their copyright claim to the full technical extent required by the copyright Act. But, given their intent was pretty clear, would a court really void their claim on a technicality?

[dicebro]

Mar 8, 2023 15:20:57 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It seems plausible that a couple of amateur publishers, back in 1974, may not have executed their copyright claim to the full technical extent required by the copyright Act. But, given their intent was pretty clear, would a court really void their claim on a technicality?

Good question. It depends on precedent.  The Federal Circuits may vary on how they would approach works that fall under The 1909 Act which struck a pretty severe blow to authors who failed to follow the law, I mean .. the technicalities. There may be a grace period to make corrections under the 1909 regime. But I’m willing to bet that any grace period is long past due in a situation like Gygax and Arneson’s.  

Copyright is a monopoly limited by Congress.  Some would argue that we need more of the early works in the public domain because “Dwarves standing on the shoulders of Giants, can see farther than the Giants”.  Corporate Giants with access to federal lawmakers have been pushing for the extension of the copyright term over and over again in order to protect their bottom lines. The original copyright term in the United States was for 14 years. And, if you were still alive, you could get a 14 year extension.  Why should any game be protected by Copyright for 70 years past the life of the author, which is the current term? I would personally like to see OD&D as a public work especially since Hasbro threatened to pull the OGL affecting the existence of so many small companies in the OSR.  But that’s just my opinion.  I too would like to know what a federal court would do with this.

[dicebro]

Mar 8, 2023 15:20:57 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It seems plausible that a couple of amateur publishers, back in 1974, may not have executed their copyright claim to the full technical extent required by the copyright Act. But, given their intent was pretty clear, would a court really void their claim on a technicality?

La Cienega Music Company v. Zz Top, 44 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1995) indicates that a court could void a claim on a notice technicality under the 1909 act. You can read the opinion here: law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/44/813/512887/

This was a 1995 case opinion rendered by the 9th Circuit. Lots of copyright cases are filed in the 9th because, well California is in the 9th Circuit and, you know…Hollywood. 
I am not sure if this case is still the law in the 9th Circuit or if it has been reversed. 

addendum:

This should probably answer your question:

…”under the 1909 Act only the copyright proprietor could claim ownership of a copyright, therefore someone such as a licensee of Janice Author could have rendered Janice Author's copyright invalid. Such invalidity could have occurred if Janice Author had first published her work in a magazine. If Janice Author had not granted the entire copyright to the magazine publisher, but only granted the magazine publisher the right to publish her work in a magazine, and reserved all other rights for herself, then the magazine publisher would only be a licensee. If the magazine publisher, upon publication of Janice Author's work had only placed a copyright notice in the name of the magazine publisher, and not in the name of Janice Author, then Janice Author's work was first published without proper copyright notice and under the 1909 Act her work would be injected into the public domain. The reason the work would fall into the public domain was because the doctrine of indivisibility required the copyright proprietor, Janice Author, to have the copyright notice in her name at the time of the first publication of the work. If the copyright notice, upon the first publication of the work, was in a name of a licensee, the magazine publisher, rather than in the name of the copyright proprietor, then the copyright notice was improper and the work was injected into the public domain. The problem for a book publisher who subsequently received a grant of rights from Janice Author to publish her work in book form was that the work was in the public domain and therefore rendered any exclusive right of copyright the publisher thought they had invalid. Therefore, if a publisher now decided to republish the novel the publisher would be publishing a work that any other publisher could also publish because the novel is in the public domain and therefore not copyright protected.”    See the whole article at: corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/indivisibility-and-divisibility-of-copyright-copyright-act-of.html 

[waysoftheearth]

So... in simpleton's speak: because the 3LBBs include "Tactical Studies Rules" in the copyright declaration, rather than the authors' names (irrespective of whether copies and affidavits were ever sent to the copyright office) OD&D is in the pubic domain?

[dicebro]

Mar 8, 2023 20:29:28 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

So... in simpleton's speak: because the 3LBBs include "Tactical Studies Rules" in the copyright declaration, rather than the authors' names (irrespective of whether copies and affidavits were ever sent to the copyright office) OD&D is in the pubic domain?

I think there is a good argument to be made for that assertion.  It appears that Gygax was in a hurry to publish the game. But he couldn’t find any interested and established publishers.  So he created a partnership with Don Kaye, called Tactical Studies Rules, to publish the game in 1974. At best TSR had a nonexclusive license to publish the game. It wasn’t until April of 1975 that Gygax and Arneson executed a written Agreement transferring the D&D copyright to the Tactical Studies Rules Partnership.  By then it was too late. The game had been published and the defective notice had already jettisoned the work into the public domain a year earlier.  They didn’t even realize that the “transfer” wasn’t worth the paper it was typed on.  From the looks of it, Gary and Dave might have avoided the problem by consulting an IP lawyer.  There was no trickery involved. That was just the way the law was written. All of this is just my analysis of facts written down by other people, like Jon Peterson.  Who can honestly predict how a copyright case will turn out in the end?