D&D: OGL 1.1 – Industry Veterans and Lawyers Weigh In
The D&D community is still reeling from the OGL 1.1 shockwaves. As WotC remains silent on the matter, lawyers weigh in, unofficially.
This past four days have been full of people reacting to the bombshell leak of Wizards of the Coast’s proposed “OGL 1.1” which tackles everything from prohibiting NFTs/blockchain technology with D&D to taking a significant 20-25% royalty on successful Kickstarters and “unauthorizing” the OGL 1.0a upon which so many other games are built.
Industry Veterans Speak Up
As the community reels from the leaked info, many prominent creators have spoken out against the proposed changes, including many who were there, 3000 years ago. Like Ryan Dancey, architect of the OGL the Open Gaming Foundation, who gave his public opinion that WotC couldn’t “unauthorize” the license.
Or Monte Cook of Monte Cook Games, who helped usher in the golden age of 3.x D&D, who points out that WotC’s license muckery has called other open gaming licenses into question:
But creators and designers aren’t the only ones weighing in. A number of lawyers have taken an interest and may offer some insights — nothing coming anywhere close to legal advice, of course. If you’re concerned you might be impacted by the OGL changes, such as they’ve been leaked, you should absolutely contact an attorney, and nothing in this reporting is meant, nor should be construed as legal advice.
With that in mind, here’s what several lawyers in the tabletop space think.
OGL 1.1: The Lawyers Weigh In
Here’s a video from Roll for Combat (who also had some of the OGL 1.1 leaks), who had their lawyer on a live stream to talk about what potential impact the OGL 1.1 as it might be, could have if it were released in the fashion originally reported. Again, not legal advice.
The attorney in question was a contract lawyer and carefully cautioned that he wasn’t an intellectual property lawyer. But gave a pretty good rundown of the license, and pointed out that a “perpetual” license doesn’t necessarily mean “irrevocable”. But as he says, courts typically only revoke perpetual licenses when they are “gratuitous”, as in one party doesn’t get anything out of it. And the argument could be made that the OGL benefits both 3rd party publishers (who make products) and WotC, who benefits from the leviathan footprint that D&D casts.
If you’re wondering what an IP lawyer’s personal opinion on the situation is, wonder no more. Noah Downs, known online as @MyLawyerFriend, is exactly that: an IP attorney with a focus on the tabletop and digital gaming industries. And just before the weekend, he offered up some thoughts on Medium.
Again, none of this is legal advice.
Potential Impact of WotC on the Test of the Industry
Perhaps, most saliently, the quote above:
“OGL 1.1 is not an open license, although WotC tries to claim that it is. It’s a severely restricted set of licenses (commercial and non-commercial) that grant WotC broad rights to the Works of Third Party Creators, and requires incredibly high royalty percentages in exchange for continuing to create.”
And any creator that signs the OGL 1.1, will be bound by its terms. This, as we know, includes revenue and product reporting to WotC, as well as the royalty, and granting WotC the right to use your works without additional payment.
Of particular interest is the breakdown of how much of an impact WotC’s proposed $750k royalty threshold can have. And that any 3rd party creators that don’t agree to the OGL 1.1 may be at risk of legal action.
Another Attorney’s Thoughts
This brings us to the last attorney in question, who apparently sent a letter to WotC on behalf of Sad Fishe games. Follow the link for the full article which was posted on Reddit with details that it was meant to be shared publicly. A partial image of the full document is below.
While the news may have only leaked late last week, the story is clearly ongoing.
We’ll keep you updated as the story develops
