PDA

View Full Version : Is homebrewing to mimic splatbooks OK?



Fortuna
2009-11-17, 11:10 PM
I only have access to the SRD, but I have hours upon hours of free time in which I can homebrew. I just want to make sure that there is nothing wrong, in some weird twisted way, with me putting together things that I have seen on the forums with my own imagination to produce, say, something which looks like a Factotum. So, is it OK?

Sir_Elderberry
2009-11-17, 11:11 PM
I only have access to the SRD, but I have hours upon hours of free time in which I can homebrew. I just want to make sure that there is nothing wrong, in some weird twisted way, with me putting together things that I have seen on the forums with my own imagination to produce, say, something which looks like a Factotum. So, is it OK?

Under any sane interpretation of intellectual property, no there is nothing wrong.

The Tygre
2009-11-17, 11:15 PM
I only have access to the SRD, but I have hours upon hours of free time in which I can homebrew. I just want to make sure that there is nothing wrong, in some weird twisted way, with me putting together things that I have seen on the forums with my own imagination to produce, say, something which looks like a Factotum. So, is it OK?

No! That would be... stupid! It's not like anyone else here has spent months on end and hundreds of dollars printing out Homebrew from all across the internet into one massive collection! That would be... silly!

...

I blame DiceFreaks. They made Gates of Hell too good.

Zeta Kai
2009-11-17, 11:33 PM
I only have access to the SRD, but I have hours upon hours of free time in which I can homebrew. I just want to make sure that there is nothing wrong, in some weird twisted way, with me putting together things that I have seen on the forums with my own imagination to produce, say, something which looks like a Factotum. So, is it OK?

Inspiration isn't under copyright... yet.

Give it time; I'm sure that the Disney lawyers are working on it.

ghashxx
2009-11-17, 11:41 PM
Don't worry about it. Nothing that anyone here has come up with is copyrighted, so it's not a problem.

BobVosh
2009-11-18, 01:22 AM
Inspiration isn't under copyright... yet.

Give it time; I'm sure that the Disney lawyers are working on it.

RIAA is much more likely. Disney would probably get in more trouble than help from inspiration. Anyway if you are planning on selling it...consult a lawyer for any questions. If not: I sincerely doubt you will get in trouble for it, and most likely they would give a cease and desist letter first.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-18, 01:58 AM
Well, even short of a cease and desist letter, these forums (quite rightly) frown on piracy, so it's a very valid question.

But I think you might want to ask in the Board/Site Issues forum whether or not it's allowed by this forum's rules.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-18, 02:34 AM
Don't worry about it. Nothing that anyone here has come up with is copyrighted, so it's not a problem.

Actually, it all is. Copyright doesn't need to be applied for to exist. Applying for a copyright license merely gives you a more accurate legal leg to stand on as to WHEN you came up with a concept, should a dispute over ownership arise.

Intellectual property is owned, regardless of whether the owner intends to exercise any rights he possesses.

Ormur
2009-11-18, 03:23 AM
If it's just for personal use I can't see anything wrong with it.

Solaris
2009-11-18, 05:43 AM
Actually, it all is. Copyright doesn't need to be applied for to exist. Applying for a copyright license merely gives you a more accurate legal leg to stand on as to WHEN you came up with a concept, should a dispute over ownership arise.

Intellectual property is owned, regardless of whether the owner intends to exercise any rights he possesses.

Under US law, yes. Even without registering the copyright, if it's published by one party and clearly exists (say, by being published to the Internet) prior to that by another party, the second party would have some grounds to file for a cease-and-desist.
Unless, of course, my course in barracks lawyering was a little off.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-18, 06:23 AM
Under US law, yes. Even without registering the copyright, if it's published by one party and clearly exists (say, by being published to the Internet) prior to that by another party, the second party would have some grounds to file for a cease-and-desist.
Unless, of course, my course in barracks lawyering was a little off.

Similar laws extend to other countries, as well. And note that they can go farther than cease-and-desist. People have been fined for transmitting/distributing/unlawfully using intellectual property, via lawsuit.

Granted, this is likely not as far as it would be taken, but it's generally a good idea to ensure that the work isn't precisely the same as other restricted intellectual property.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 06:50 AM
Look, copyright laws aside, if you're not attempting to publish anything using the homebrews that other people have made, or you made based off of their homebrews, no one will ever know that you're using it. I haven't personally used any homebrew from the Playground, but there is plenty of other homebrew on the interwebz to use. So:

Pirate on, Piratey McPiratester!

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-18, 07:00 AM
Inspiration isn't under copyright... yet.

Give it time; I'm sure that the Disney lawyers are working on it.

Zeta Kai, they are working to show that your avatar is similar to mickey mouse, too.. Very similar, if you catch it..

Iku Rex
2009-11-18, 07:19 AM
So, is it OK?Yes.

(Assuming this is a question about legality, not morality. If it's the latter, then "yes, of course".)


Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-18, 07:51 AM
Yes.

(Assuming this is a question about legality, not morality. If it's the latter, then "yes, of course".)

A class list could be considered "Material prepared in connection with a game". After all, it's material describing the rules for using the class. As such, creature statblocks, specific prestige classes, specific spells, and the like are copyrightable.

Iku Rex
2009-11-18, 08:26 AM
A class list could be considered "Material prepared in connection with a game". After all, it's material describing the rules for using the class. As such, creature statblocks, specific prestige classes, specific spells, and the like are copyrightable.The expression of the rules can in some cases be copyrightable. The rules themselves are not.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 08:37 AM
Yeah, just like the term "orc." I can use Orcs anywhere...I can only use Orks in GW, but Orcs are ok anywhere. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 08:39 AM
Basically you're fine as long as you don't stick a price tag on it for whatever reason.

Tyndmyr
2009-11-18, 09:16 AM
Pretty much. Homebrewing is commonly accepted as ok. I reccomend you have others review it for balance issues, and check out currently available solutions to commonly known problems(ahem, monk balance), and when finished, share it with the world.

As for charging, that can happen with 3.5, just follow the terms of the d20 licensing agreements. Thats how third party sources publish d20 material.

Optimystik
2009-11-18, 09:20 AM
As for charging, that can happen with 3.5, just follow the terms of the d20 licensing agreements. Thats how third party sources publish d20 material.

Oh I know about Pathfinder and their ilk, but the OP specifically mentioned homebrewing "something which looks like a Factotum." They're not part of the OGL, so trying to charge for a class like that could get him in trouble was all I was saying.

Duke of URL
2009-11-18, 09:51 AM
As for charging, that can happen with 3.5, just follow the terms of the d20 licensing agreements. Thats how third party sources publish d20 material.

Except for "grandfathered" products, the d20 license doesn't exist anymore. WotC pulled the license upon the release of 4e.

That doesn't mean you can't still develop (and sell) OGL material. You just can't use the d20 trademark or any other trademark prohibited by the terms of the SRD. Nor are you allowed to use any "product identity" material. E.g., you can't have Mindflayers, because they're PI.

Beyond that, it comes down to similar rules versus identical rules. If you're merely drawing inspiration from non-open sources, there's no realistic reason to believe that you're running afoul of any laws. If you're simply plagiarizing (even with cosmetic alterations), then be ready for the lawyers.

warmachine
2009-11-18, 10:28 AM
Define 'looks like a Factotum' in this case. If you mean it can do a variety of things much like a Factotum can do various things, no problem. If you mean it uses many of the same mechanics, you could be in trouble. I reckon you mean the former and WotC don't care about fan-written stuff anyway but if you're copying text, even with changed names, it could be similar enough for copyright purposes.

Random832
2009-11-18, 10:33 AM
(I am not a lawyer)

Although, there is a difference in copyright law between rules text and actual rules i.e. game mechanics - the latter of which would have to be covered by a patent.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Roland St. Jude
2009-11-18, 10:43 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please don't seek or give legal advice on this forum.