Copyright rules.

[Hoarfrost]

I don't remember reading it, and if it's here, could someone direct me to it? But anyway, I was asking how one goes about dealing with copyright issues. For example, I wish to convey some information from one of my books to a player over the net, using these boards. If I were to quote the book and page number of the information, (ie Dragon Compendium, vol. 1, pg XXX), would that be acceptable? If not, what is the proper decorum to quote from books or communicate that information?

Please forgive my ignorance.

[WampaX]

Send the information to him in a PM.

[Zherog]

I'll preface all of this with the ever-ubiquitous I am not a lawyer disclaimer...

Copyright law is difficult, because things aren't really cut and dried. Certainly, providing a citation like you mentioned helps - but that doesn't prevent something from being an infringement.

As a general rule of thumb, you can quote small pieces of text - but the purpose has to be for something other than sharing the info. For example, if you had a question about the miasma spell, you could quote the part that's causing you confussion for the purposes of furthering discussion. How much text is too much is open to interpretation. Generally speaking, if the info you provide allows me to use it without owning the book, you've probably provided too much.

You aren't really talking about doing that, though. You're talking about taking a piece of a book and sharing the info. So, Wampa's answer is a solid one - send a PM or e-mail.

[RawBearNYC]

This is such a dodgy topic.

To make matters worse on this topic, There's Open Gaming Content (OGC). Which does, in fact, allow you to reprint certain information released under it, but you have to follow very strict guidelines. And only OGC content (not everything in the D&D books is OGC). If it is OGC, you can reprint it, as long as it follows the OGC guidelines, but I'm superficially aware of some problems with trying to do that on a web message board that makes the whole thing more than sticky..

In the end, it's probably a much better thing to do this in private, rather than public.

[Hoarfrost]

Thanks! I guess I'll have to type it up and PM it to all the interested parties! I appreciate it.

[Jack Squat]

the most I know about copyright laws is that you can cite/copy/etc something for review and criticism. I know this because I used the copyright infringment excuse to try to get out of writing my Research paper on A Raisin in the Sun. 2 months and very sore hands later, I can tell you that the argument didn't work :P

this link should help http://www.copyright.gov/

EDIT: well that's odd, shouldn't I need to put in the "[url]" stuff to make it work?

[Zherog]

you only need to use the URL tag if you want the link to say words rather than showing the address. And in that case, the format is:



Some text here (http://www.copyright.gov/)

[Jack Squat]

Thanks, haven't learned to do HTML yet, maybe that's why when I type in "Orange" for the color code in my sig it turns cyan :P

[The Giant]

OK, here's the deal: You can quote passages for informational purposes as long as you do NOT quote enough to render the text quoted unnecessary; meaning that, as said, you can quote a sentence from a spell description, but not the whole spell. If someone could use the rule/class/feat/spell/item/whatever in their game without further purchase of the book in which it was printed, then we're going to remove it.

OGC issues do NOT apply on this message board, unless you want to affix the entire license to your post. Which you don't. So let's all just stick with Fair Use quoting, as described above.

[Samiam303]

OGC issues do NOT apply on this message board, unless you want to affix the entire license to your post. Which you don't. So let's all just stick with Fair Use quoting, as described above.Not that I plan on it, but just out of curiousity, if one wanted to use OGC Content here, could one LINK to the license, or would it have to be posted?

[Chris the Pontifex]

Not that I plan on it, but just out of curiousity, if one wanted to use OGC Content here, could one LINK to the license, or would it have to be posted?


I thought the hypertext SRD did just that
Not that like it's any guarantee but I'd say that those guys should've got it figured out as theyre the no1 (maybe 2) internet SRD reference.

[Roland St. Jude]

I would just add that sending the information via PM or email does not prevent infringement. It just reduces the likelihood that your infringment is detected (and probably reduces the damages that you're causing the author.)

[HempRope]

What... if the License were in your sig? Then everything you said would be OGL...

But seriously, could you make a note at the end of those posts that are OGL that the License is in your sig (likely either as a pic or link)?

[Jack Squat]

I would just add that sending the information via PM or email does not prevent infringement. It just reduces the likelihood that your infringment is detected (and probably reduces the damages that you're causing the author.)

unless your PM/email has a reason to be searched, the chances of detecting it are nil legally. PM/email are private property and need a warrant and/or a valid cause to be searched, if not by the recipients concent, otherwise it's hacking, which gets plenty more jail time/fines than copyright infringment. even ECHLON doesn't check every email for a threat, much less vague copyright infringement.

[SilverElf4]

I would just add that sending the information via PM or email does not prevent infringement. It just reduces the likelihood that your infringment is detected (and probably reduces the damages that you're causing the author.)

I'm not too sure on this - after all, how is this different than you and I hunching over the same players handbook and writing out character sheets to create characters?

[RawBearNYC]

I'm not too sure on this - after all, how is this different than you and I hunching over the same players handbook and writing out character sheets to create characters?

I'm pretty sure that two people reading from the same book counts as "Fair Use". However, transferring information to a new medium and making the original book unnecessary isn't. This is why kinkos won't make copes of copyrighted material.

[SilverElf4]

So it breaks down like this:

Writing Hold the Line on my character sheet = Okay.

Writing down a reminder of what Hold the Line feat does for my character on my character sheet = Not Okay.

I guess I can understand that...it just seems....weird. :)

[Samiam303]

So it breaks down like this:

Writing Hold the Line on my character sheet = Okay.

Writing down a reminder of what Hold the Line feat does for my character on my character sheet = Not Okay.

I guess I can understand that...it just seems....weird. :)Writing it on your character sheet should be fine, just don't go printing up character sheets for everyone in your group with it written on them.

[SilverElf4]

Writing it on your character sheet should be fine, just don't go printing up character sheets for everyone in your group with it written on them.

According to what's being said here, transfer of the information is copyright violation, whether you see it or six people see it. Now if its your book and you put it on your character sheet, that's probably still fair use - but if its your book and I put it on my sheet...

[Beleriphon]

According to what's being said here, transfer of the information is copyright violation, whether you see it or six people see it. Now if its your book and you put it on your character sheet, that's probably still fair use - but if its your book and I put it on my sheet...


Nobody cares if you put:

Hold the Line, +4 bonus against Bull Rush

Even if you reprinted the whole feat on your character sheet, again nobody really cares. Although at a technical level it would be copyright infringment.

Thats not big deal, all you've done is provide a summerization of the copyrighted material. Sort like how critics, particularly book critics, might summerize a book. I get the point, I know sort of what happens, but I still need to buy the book to get the full effect.

[Jack Squat]

Thats not big deal, all you've done is provide a summerization of the copyrighted material. Sort like how critics, particularly book critics, might summerize a book. I get the point, I know sort of what happens, but I still need to buy the book to get the full effect.
Actually, the book critic is a different issue
from Copyright Law, Chapter 13 Paragraph 9:

"Reproduction for Teaching or Analysis. - It is not an infringement of the exclusive rights of a design owner for a person to reproduce the design in a useful article or in any other form solely for the purpose of teaching, analyzing, or evaluating the appearance, concepts, or techniques embodied in the design, or the function of the useful article embodying the design."
from here (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.htm)

[tape_measure]

wow....I wish I had found this thread a week ago....would have saved so many people alot of time. Well, thanks anyways!

[prometheusx]

Even if you reprinted the whole feat on your character sheet, again nobody really cares. Although at a technical level it would be copyright infringment.


Generally, copyright should first be analyzed by looking at what is protected expression. In this case, an entire spell or feat description is protected expression. The spell name by itself is not, nor is a short phrase or sentence from that spell, nor is the citation to that spell (eg, PHB page 241). Of course if it is part of OGC, then you probably have a license to use it, and if you are quoting Shakespeare, it's not protected because it's in the public domain.

Next, you should look at whether your use infringes one of the exclusive rights of the owner. They are:

reproduction
derivative works
distribution
public performance
public display
public transmission (for A/V works)

This example, to copy or paraphrase the rules of a feat onto your character sheet, infringes the reproduction right, the most commonly infringed right. As mentioned, though, one has to wonder who will notice or care.

If you put it on a message board or PM, you have infringed both the reproduction and distribution rights. At this point, someone might start noticing and caring, because, as the Giant mentioned, now the recipient of the post or PM need not purchase the product to benefit from the expression.

Finally, you should look at fair use, which is incredibly complicated, but examples include first sale, parody, teaching, criticism, commentary, news reporting, and more. These are mostly in sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Act, and there is a lot of case law that pushes the interpretation of these sections back and forth, rendering it less than clear, even if you know all the law. Unless you have some pressing need (like wirting parody or art criticism or news reporting is part of your income), you are well advised to avoid relying on fair use to justify copying.

All with the caveat that I am not a lawyer, though aspire to practice copyright law in the future.

[HempRope]

Hmm... I think that's good to know, though it didn't really, actually clear anything up for me. But it's good to feel that I've read a technical explanation of the stuff.

Also:

I... aspire to practice copyright law in the future.
Why in the world would you want to do that?

[prometheusx]

Hmm... I think that's good to know, though it didn't really, actually clear anything up for me. But it's good to feel that I've read a technical explanation of the stuff.

If you have a specific question, I might be able to help, but obviously people spend a lot of time and energy figuring this stuff out and experts still disagree about important central issues.


Also:
Why in the world would you want to do that?

Why does anyone aspire to do anything? Becuase I find it interesting and fulfilling? Not sure I understand your question.

[prometheusx]

Nobody cares if you put:

Hold the Line, +4 bonus against Bull Rush

Even if you reprinted the whole feat on your character sheet, again nobody really cares. Although at a technical level it would be copyright infringment.

I was thinking more about this, and I think the OGC license actually makes a paraphrase of the feat (ie an alternative expression of the idea behind the text of the feat) non-infringing. Meanwhile, actually copying the text looks more like infringement to me. Open source works raise some interesting new questions (or headaches, depending on your perspective).

[Zherog]

Except Hold The Line (the feat in the example) is not OGC material, and therefore not covered by the OGL.

[prometheusx]

Right, but a feat that grants a +4 bonus in a specific check is extremely common in the SRD. I think any +4 bonus you can think of that would be applied to a particular check would be considered an idea within the OGC, as long as the kind of check is mentioned in the SRD, and therefore your own personal expression of that idea might be validly covered by the OGL. Only WotC's actual expression from a non-OGC source would be outside the OGL.

Don't anybody actually try to use this argument to defend something as stupid as paraphrasing a feat/spell/PrC/ability. I still say, don't do it. I'm just suggesting an argument that could be used (by a board administrator, eg) to defend a mistake that's already been made.