5 ms·
So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 Their "t
by Macha 4y ago
So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4
Their "this is not specific personalised advice, consult your own lawyer" thoughts were:
1. The license does not specify revocable or irrevocable, but it would be likely a court would find it to be irrevocable because:
- other lanaguage in the license such as the perpetual term and the option to use later versions appears to anticipate it being non-revocable
- the zection on termination only provides for breach of contract and protects sublicenses of the terminated work from being terminated unless the sub licenses were also infringing. The fact that it provides some grounds for terminatioj but "we have a new license" isn't among them hurts their argument.
- There is mutual consideration and this is even spelled out in the contract as being consideration in terms of the derivative content being reciprocally licensed, plus the unspecified benefit to Wizards of having more complements to their product increasing its appeal. The licensee obviously gets the rights to use the covered content.
- The 23 year usage of OGL 1.0a may constitute reliance especially when combined with past clarifying public statements where Wizards official documents and then-active employees indicated it was intended to be non-revocable.
- Clauses in US law for copyright owners to terminate licenses require 35 yeara and do not affect sublicenses, so unlikely a court would assume a stricter unwritten standard of revocability than this
However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content.
They also touch on the idea of if Wizards could use others OGL 1.0a licensed content under 1.1 which imposes lesser restrictions on wizards than 1.1. They're vaguer on this point, but imply probably not as its too much of a deviation from the previous license and raise the reliance part again
- wolverine876 4y agoThat attorney makes clear they are not an IP lawyer. Here's an IP lawyer, who specifically works in gaming, who says the opposite: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
- giardia 4y agoA slight tangent, but it's funny how everyday people are on the hook for legal consequences, even when legal professionals can't agree which laws apply, or even what they mean.
- heavenlyblue 4y agoIf it went to court then the legal professionals would agree?
- bee_rider 4y agoThey would agree on what the ruling was, and agree that it sets some kind of precedent on some level, but not necessarily that it was good.
- readthenotes1 4y agoThat is why there is the old joke that in a town with only one lawyer the lawyer starves but business picks up when there are two.
- thatguy0900 4y agoEven more funny how you can't even ask the government in advance how a particular situation would be resolved, as courts don't rule on hypothetical situations. People on the cutting edge in a lot of spaces really just have to do it and find out the legality later.
- pixl97 4y agoEh, mock trials are very common. I had a family member that was paid to be a juror in an IP trial in East Texas that was testing the waters.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoThat's different. That's one side of a trial practicing - presenting a case to a mock jury to see what flies and what doesn't. What GP is asking for is a way to get an actual decision from an actual court, before it's needed.