Quoting paid sourcebooks - copyright infringement?

Question

Previously I have been told that it's ok to quote paid sourcebooks, even whole paragraphs. However today a mod edited my post to remove content that potentially violated copyright.

I made an answer to a question about calculating challenge rating in D&D that uses information from a paid sourcebook. Note that I did not directly quote or copy any information. Here is the answer: Trouble determining CR or difficulty for homebrew creatures

Interestingly other users who directly copy pasted from the sourcebook have been allowed to retain their answers, it's not clear why.

I would like a solid line to be drawn to inform me, and others, as to when it's ok to discuss the contents of paid source books

Answer 1

Only quote as much as is needed

As has always been our guidelines, we should only quote as much of the paid sourcebooks as is required to sufficiently support our answers. Sometimes a question requires entire paragraphs to include the appropriate context for the question, where possible we should reduce or remove unrelated or superfluous parts of the quoted material. Additionally, we should always be citing the source material.

Sometimes questions exist which can be answered solely by reproducing paid content. Let's imagine an example:

Question: "What is the stat-block for a Beholder?"

Clearly this question is going to invite answers that re-produce paid content for free.

Answer A: The Beholder is found in the Monster's Manual on page X

Answer B: Here's the Beholder statblock:

A good answer to that question would advise where the content can be found. A problematic answer would just reproduce the content verbatim.

The question we should consider when determining if content can/should be reproduced is "Does my quoted content remove the need to purchase the source material?" Looking back at our example if OP's goal was simply to obtain the paid content, answer B clearly removes the need to purchase they book, while answer A does not.

This situation

Let's compare your original answer with Thomas Markov's. While, by character count both answer's reproduce a similar amount of paid content from the DMG, only one actually reduces the need to purchase the sourcebook.

Thomas's answer quotes from the introduction of the chapter that explains what the rules cover and gives just enough of an example of what readers can expect from the materials so that they can judge whether they should purchase the material or not. It doesn't remove the need to purchase paid content to solve OP's actual problem however.

In simplified terms that answer says "The rules for this are in the DMG and here is an example of what you can expect from those rules". It gives OP all the information they need to solve their problem, and a good gauge on whether it is worth spending money for the answer they seek, without reproducing the part that makes purchasing the DMG unnecessary.

In contrast, your original answer reproduced the key table of content from the DMG (initially without attribution). While not exactly copy/paste, it had enough information in it that readers could easily get by with just that table rather than purchasing the DMG. This is why your answer got flagged and subsequently edited.

I feel your answer is no less complete with a redacted table. It's a good explanation of the process and provides enough of the table to give a good worked example. Including the full table only serves to reproduce content without actually adding to the answer.

A word on consistency

As you've discovered, copyright can get messy and generally we prefer not to get involved in it. However we also try to discourage use of pirated or otherwise illegally obtained material.

Do we always get the distinction right? Probably not. We aren't experts in this, but we follow the principles to the best of our ability. Sometimes this means a bit of inconsistency between different answers, but that is to be expected of a grey-area topic like copyright on SE.

Answer 2

If we become a place that helps people get away with not purchasing game materials we will hurt small content creators far more than we will hurt Wizards of the Coast.

We absolutely cannot allow a multibillion dollar company's apathy toward negligible profit loss to determine how we approach this issue as a site. We already have a problem with D&D dominating our content, and making the stack an unsafe place for small companies and indie creators will be the last nail in the coffin for the 10% of questions that aren't from the D&D family. We should be encouraging users to diversify their game shelves, and we should be doing so in a way that helps the creators of those games. Becoming a place that helps remove the need to purchase game materials will be actively harmful to the game creators we want to see succeed.

Wizards of the Coast reported $1.3 billion in revenue in 2021. When you consider that fact, giving a few people a way to avoid purchasing a $30 book doesn't sound that bad. And Wizards of the Coast probably wouldn't even care. Because of this, I have seen it suggested before that the way to handle it is not to worry about it, and if Wizards of the Coast wants to care, they can throw around their lawyers and money bags and Stack Exchange Legal will work it out. But Wizards of the Coast is going to feel very differently about this than an indie creator who sold 200 copies of their game last year. What is legal for us may still be harmful to them.

So asking "what is legal?" is simply asking the wrong question. It is important, but it can only exclude particular practices. Being illegal is a good reason to avoid a particular practice, but "it is legal therefore we should do it" is not how we determine what we should do on the site. Instead, the question you should be asking is "what is best for the site?". And in this case, while doing so probably won't hurt Wizards of the Coast, creating an environment that enables users to get around the need for purchasing game materials is actively harmful to the community and to those game creators who can't throw money at litigation with reckless abandon.

So when we see someone trying to do something that you can't do without the book, we should give them everything they need to do it with the book, rather than everything they need to do it without the book.