Is it legal to have a &quot;Create custom x&quot; in your D&amp;D program, if that can result in the enduser violating the copyright? First an introduction to what i am doing! I am creating a tool for players and DMs of D&amp;D. The reason i've been trying to understand the copyright law in regards to this issue is that upon using any information from the books created by WotC you'd violate their copyright. Luckily, WotC has a "Open Gaming License" that you can use, to have much of the rules, items and monsters in your book, program, etc. for free (Link to the link of the SRD-OGL: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd) My issue is that WotC has intentionally left out some of the unique monsters that they themselves has created over the years. Which in itself is fine, but i have no idea if i would violate their copyright for these unique monsters if i were to create a module in my program where the enduser would be able to build a custom monster from a blank template (name: input here, armor class: input here etc. - you can look at an example on, say, page 279 with the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Here name would be Tyrannosaurus Rex and Armor class would be 13 (natural armor)) If the enduser were to create a totally custom, madeup creature i'd imagine that tool would be fine, but i can also see the scenario where a enduser could copy letter for letter the information of a copyrighted monster into my custom monster template and essentially adding a copyright-violating item into the program. So. I guess in essence what i am asking is: By making a tool in my program that can enable the user to create their own monsters, will i then be in trouble because i've also, if the user is malicious, by extension enabled the user to violate the copyright of WotC? I am from Denmark if that makes any difference, which i'd guess it doesn't. I have no real legal experience which is why i thought it'd be a good place to ask such a question. Thanks for your time!
Generally, no, this will not violate copyright. Your end user might violate copyright, but that is their problem not yours. Your program is a tool, just like a word processor is. If I copy a Harry Potter book into a word processor that does not make the word processor maker liable. There is a concept of "contributory infringement", which I think is what you are concerned about. I don't know about Danish law in particular, but most countries would require evidence that you had reasonable knowledge that actual copyright violation was occuring, rather than just being aware that it might happen in theory. This is normally applied to file sharing services who have to have "notice and takedown" measures, file filters and the like. This isn't your concern as you never have any access to the files created by your users. You can also be found liable if you induce anyone to commit copyright violations. Don't draw your customers attention to the custom monster feature as a workaround for those copyrighted monsters, as that could be considered to be inducement. Also don't provide any "wizards" or similar tools which make it noticeably easier to duplicate the custom monsters (e.g. if you notice that the copyrighted custom dragon stats are all on a linear scale with dragon size, don't create a "dragon creation wizard" embodying that fact.) This assumes that your program runs entirely on the end user computer. Its different if you provide any kind of cloud storage for generated characters.
That would be pretty much a classical case of copyright infringement. Drawing a thing from memory is copying just as much as drawing a thing with the original before you or xeroxing a thing. The degree of match between the original and your copy may vary depending on how good your memory is, but that doesn't matter, because copyright protection is not about "making exact replicas", it is about copying in any form.
This is similar to giving a hammer and needing to state to one is not responsible if the taker uses it to hit their head with. I believe this is the wrong analogy to use here. It would be more like giving somebody a hammer and saying you are not responsible if the head flies off and injures you. There is a concept in &quot;things&quot; you obtain called &quot;fitness for purpose&quot;, so if you download open-source software like a registry cleaner, and it deletes your entire registry, the &quot;WTFPL&quot; doesn't absolve the authors of liability. Explicitly denying any kind of &quot;fitness for purpose&quot; or warranty helps shield the author from legal claims (even if they are meritless) because it kills it out of the gate. It's possible that the WTFPL license granter/author could still be sued and have to defend themselves in court because it isn't explicitly stated that there is no warranty or fitness for purpose. Open source does not mean that it's &quot;use at your own risk&quot;, which is why there are so many types of licenses and disclaimers. From comments: Thank you for this very clear answer. Does the fact that someone willingly retrieves free code with no control of the provider changes anything? (vs a software vendor which provides code suitable for A and B, in exchange for money) I think closer to your hammer analogy where I would sue the producer of hammer XXX, a hammer I found on the street or which was given to me without involvement of vendor XXX. No, this doesn't change anything. The software vendor here is the person who writes the code, even if they don't charge for it. They are the ones who license the software and they are the ones who take some level of responsibility for it. In this case, the software author is the &quot;hammer producer&quot; that you would sue... If you buy &quot;Registry Cleaner XL&quot; from Best Buy and it bricks your computer, you don't sue Best Buy, you sue the person who authored the software. In pretty much every case, the author is the responsible party, not the vendor, and it is the author who licenses it, not the vendor (the vendor just acts as an intermediary).
No. The images are copyrighted, and you are using them in a way that would leave you with virtually no argument for fair use. The factors for fair use are set out in 17 USC 107, and they indicate that the courts would reject your use: The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes: There's no indication that your use would be for nonprofit or educational purposes. The nature of the copyrighted work: Works of fiction and art are highly creative works at the heart of the policy for copyright protection. The amount of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: You are apparently copying entire images, though I suppose you could argue that each image is just one small portion of a larger book or website. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: You are trying to create a board game, putting yourselves basically in direct competition with the makers of D&amp;D. I generally prefer a pretty liberal interpretation of what constitutes fair use, but this just has virtually nothing that would make me comfortable arguing in your favor.
An additional important fact is that the EULA at the time did not assign Blizzard the rights to custom maps.1 And since 2010, Blizzard and Valve have jointly registered DotA-related copyright. See e.g. U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. TX0008153084 and TX0008149056. The theory of ownership is as follows. Because the EULA did not assign Blizzard the copyright in the customization, the modders gained copyright in those, despite the restriction that they not be used commercially. It was then free to them to transfer those rights to Valve. A court has considered in passing whether this assignment to Valve was valid. See Blizzard Entm't, Inc. v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., No. 3:15-cv-04084-CRB (N.D. Cal. May. 16, 2017). The judge recognized that the EULA explicitly prevented Eul and Icefrog (the modders who assigned their rights to valve) from using their creations for commercial purposes. However, because uCool &quot;twice failed to argue that the ban prevented Eul and Icefrog from validly assigning their rights to Valve,&quot; the judge understood uCool to have waived that argument. Thus, the status of the copyrights is still in flux. However, commentators speculate that Blizzard and Valve have an agreement/protocol for dealing with these copyright issues. It would take a third-party to argue that copyright in one or more of the DotA variants is in the public domain or actually owned by some other creator and force a court to assess the copyright and validity of the assignment.2 1. Today, the language has been updated to &quot;assign to Blizzard all of your rights, title, and interest in and to all Custom Games.&quot; 2. For one person's theory of how this could be the case, see David Nathaniel Tan, &quot;Owning the World's Biggest eSport: Intellectual Property and DotA&quot; (2018) 31:2 Harv. J.L. &amp; Tech 965 at 984 (analogizing to Sherlock Holmes). I am not suggesting that a third party with no ownership interest in the copyrights would have standing to enforce Blizzard's former ToS, ELUA, or other agreements, or its copyrights. I am proposing that the third party might raise these as an arguments in defence of their own use (as uCool did).
If I lock you in a room without access to anything and tell you &quot;Write a novel&quot; and you write a novel with characters, you have copyright in the work. But it's not absolute: If you use your own characters, you own all the copyright in the work, but not in the idea, as ideas are not copyrightable, see Feist v Rural. If you use someone else's characters extensively (as in more than a short hommage/cameo), you very likely make a derivate. You own a copyright in your part, as in the expression of the story or pictures you created, but you do not gain property interest in the existing characters' expression. Since the copyright to the characters lies with the owner of their IP, you need their OK to release (and also to even make) your work - as with the owner of a copyright is the sole right to decide on distribution and creation of derivates under 17 USC § 106 (2). Also remember that making an unlicensed derivate work risks having nothing you can sue for in case the original copyright owner lifts your ideas and scenes-a-faire parts and adapts them for their own derivate, see Anderson v Stallone The strange case of fanfiction chains... Now, there is a strange situation when a work is based on a work which is based on a work... Then, publishers and editors start with red ink and the result is, that what people know as Twilight now has nothing to do with the fanfiction it started as (It wasn't Vampires in the original draft), and 50 Shades of Grey ended up striking any and all supernatural from it, despite it having been a Twilight fanfiction originally. By making own characters and own expression of the world, there could be no copyright infringement. US law vs Egypt law? Both Egypt and the US have signed the Berne convention, meaning that copyright is very very similar in the broad strokes that the right to allow or disallow derivates is with the copyright holder. Also, since Ben10's copyright owners are to the best of my knowledge in the US (Cartoon Network Studios &amp; Men of Action Studios), they will sue in a US federal court.
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. Link https://www.copyright.gov/registration/other-digital-content/
You can't, in general, know whether a distributor of a work has permission to distribute, or is a pirate site. I verified that they have posted an illegal copy of a work that I created, and I know that I did not grant permission to them (or anyone) to infringe my copyright. Both hosting and downloading works without permission is a violation of copyright law, so both parties are liable. Downloaders may erroneously rely on the "I didn't know!" defense, which in the US carries no legal weight. Even so, if you download my book, it will probably cost me vastly more to sue you for infringement than the damages that I might be awarded over your infringement. Usually, copyright holders go after the pirate sites, and only rarely go after particularly egregious serial downloaders.