A question for Mr. Dancey
zuggtmoy
I have read the d20 system document, and found it rather confusing,
and thought perhaps a question might clear it up for me...
I have been working on the setting of a game world, for use with the
dungeons and dragons rules (except the magic system is new, and bears
no resemblance to normal AD&D), including references to AD&D classes
such as Fighters, Bards, and monsters such as "Mind flayers" and "Red
Dragons." and "Lizard men."
Now, the world setting is totally my own creation, with the exception
of the names of the monsters inhabiting it. If I tired to get it
published, would I be guilty of infringing a copyright? Would I be
guilty if I sought approval for the project from WOTC, and promised
them a share of the profits?
I'm not much up on my business courses, or law cases - I basically
spend my time designing games and adventures for games. I have a
number of products I want to put out, but I'm unsure of their status.
What do I need to do to make a World setting publishable, so that it
does NOT infringe on copyright?
If you would prefer not to reply to the Newsgroups, my e-mail is
zugg...@home.net
Visit Zuggtmoy's Lair - An AD&D and GURPS page...
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Labyrinth/8558/index.html
or ICQ me at #40923165
Ryan S. Dancey
> Now, the world setting is totally my own creation, with the exception
> of the names of the monsters inhabiting it. If I tired to get it
> published, would I be guilty of infringing a copyright?
Probably not. Specifically, from your list the only thing that is even
remotely infringible is "Mind Flayers" and if they're not described as squid
headed humanoids who blast people with psionic powers and then suck brains,
even that term becomes meaningless. (The Mind Flayer (aka Ilithid) is a
unique case. It was the first "new" monster published for D&D by TSR and it
is an original creation not derived from some folklore reference or old
fable.) Common, nonspecific terms like Lizard Men, Dragons, et al have no
copyright or trademark issues whatsoever.
> Would I be
> guilty if I sought approval for the project from WOTC, and promised
> them a share of the profits?
I doubt it. Your work wouldn't be found to be infringing based on your
attempt to create a business relationship. I can imagine a couple of
far-out scenarios where such an action might be used to prove state of mind
or motive, but I don't think you'd ever have anything to worry about.
> What do I need to do to make a World setting publishable, so that it
> does NOT infringe on copyright?
The safest thing to do is to make up from your own creative inspiration
ideas and names for the fantastic things that you want to add to your world.
The next safest thing to do is to use words you find in dictionaries or bits
of old stories, folklore, or fairy tales for the names of places, gods,
magic items, spells, creatures and occupations. Any halfway decent
dictionary will tell you where a term originated, and if it didn't originate
with a company or a person who has been alive in the past 100 years, the
term is virtually assured to be in the public domain.
The third safest thing to do is to look for materials that appear in lots of
different places; though this is no absolute guarantee (because copyrights,
unlike trademarks, don't have to be defended and someone could conceivably
show up one of these days and make life hard for a whole bunch of people),
if you see something in three or four places from three or four different
publishers it's unlikely to be copyright or trademarked.
Ryan
Alan Kellogg
<ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
> zuggtmoy <zugg...@home.net> wrote in message
>
> > Now, the world setting is totally my own creation, with the exception
> > of the names of the monsters inhabiting it. If I tired to get it
> > published, would I be guilty of infringing a copyright?
>
> Probably not. Specifically, from your list the only thing that is even
> remotely infringible is "Mind Flayers" and if they're not described as
> squid
> headed humanoids who blast people with psionic powers and then suck
> brains,
> even that term becomes meaningless. (The Mind Flayer (aka Ilithid) is a
> unique case. It was the first "new" monster published for D&D by TSR and
> it
> is an original creation not derived from some folklore reference or old
> fable.) Common, nonspecific terms like Lizard Men, Dragons, et al have
> no
> copyright or trademark issues whatsoever.
However, the MF was adapted from the Cthulhu Mythos, as was the Wiggle
Head of Dangerous Journeys, and both by the same guy.
Then you have a race in the Halmabrea game, which looks like a very
variant illithid.
Alan
Sea Wasp
And the Cthugans, from Rolemaster C&T II.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Steve Miller
<< Then you have a race in the Halmabrea game, which looks like a very
variant illithid. >>
Sure. But at least they make the effort to think of a different name.
So should the person who fears infringing on someone else's creative property.
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
And Jesus, he knows me, and he knows I'm right.
I've been talking to Jesus all my life.
--Genesis, "Jesus He Knows Me"
Alan Kellogg
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> Alan Kellogg wrote:
>
> << Then you have a race in the Halmabrea game, which looks like a very
> variant illithid. >>
>
> Sure. But at least they make the effort to think of a different name.
>
> So should the person who fears infringing on someone else's creative
> property.
Not just a change in name, but changes in behavior etc. Using them in
your DnD game would freak out those who've memorized the Illithiad.
Alan
Alan Kellogg
> > Then you have a race in the Halmabrea game, which looks like a very
> > variant illithid.
>
> And the Cthugans, from Rolemaster C&T II.
For a grossly obese, mountain sized elder god with an octopus for a
head, Cthulhu does have a way with the ladies, don't he?:)
Alan
Sea Wasp
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:36:27 -0700, Alan Kellogg
> <mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >For a grossly obese, mountain sized elder god with an octopus for a
> >head, Cthulhu does have a way with the ladies, don't he?:)
>
> "Power is an aphrodisiac".
> And Great Cthulu just about tops the list of Power.
Bah. He's a wimp.
Ryan S. Dancey
> Would the Lovecraft estate (or whoever owns those copyrights now) have a
> case against all of those games? I assume that the concept of "evil,
> squid-headed creatures" is too generic...
Interestingly, the Cthulu Mythos is public domain; anyone can create
copyrighted works based on it without infringing other people's works.
Ryan
Robert Baldwin
>For a grossly obese, mountain sized elder god with an octopus for a
>head, Cthulhu does have a way with the ladies, don't he?:)
Well, to borrow nfrom ol' Henry K;
"Power is an aphrodisiac".
And Great Cthulu just about tops the list of Power.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
For *real* adventure, check out
www.ecochallenge.com
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Nate Edel wrote:
> Would the Lovecraft estate (or whoever owns those copyrights now) have a
> case against all of those games? I assume that the concept of "evil,
> squid-headed creatures" is too generic...
Lovecraft's works are in the public domain (although Arkham House owns
the copyright on their specific printings and compilations).
Evil, squid-headed creatures is probably too generic.
--
Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth
http://www.seankreynolds.com
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:36:27 -0700, Alan Kellogg
>> <mythu...@funtv.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >For a grossly obese, mountain sized elder god with an octopus for a
>> >head, Cthulhu does have a way with the ladies, don't he?:)
>>
>> Well, to borrow nfrom ol' Henry K;
>> "Power is an aphrodisiac".
>> And Great Cthulu just about tops the list of Power.
>
> Bah. He's a wimp.
Well, power is relative. One universe's Unholy Terror is another
universe's Really Annoying Neighbor.
;-)
The Wraith
Baldwin) wrote:
>
>Well, power is relative. One universe's Unholy Terror is another
>universe's Really Annoying Neighbor.
And yet in our universe, Robert manages to be both.
:)
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Peter Seebach
>copyrighted works based on it without infringing other people's works.
True, but copyright on those works does *not* give you any ownership of
the Cthulu Mythos elements. Can a man who believes a judge could find an
entire book to be derivative of a single character, claim with certainty
that a judge wouldn't find an entire squid-headed manlike creature
of great evil to be derivative of...
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
Peter Seebach
Nate Edel <ed...@best.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Interesting. So was the "No Cthulhu in Deities & Demigods" thing a
>misunderstanding, or is the Mythos-as-PD a new thing? In either case, are we
>going to see any Mythos stuff for 3rd Edition?
It may have come out of copyright fairly recently. Or Dancey could just be
using a powerful selective memory to get the right results (as in the
Connectix case) for his points. Or, it could be that the Cthulhu thing was
an abusive suit filed by someone with no real right to file it, and TSR
buckled under for lack of legal budget, and we're victims of one of those
things where companies subjected to frivolous lawsuits when they're young file
them when they get old. Y'know, like child abuse, only it's not as bad.
Ryan S. Dancey
> Interesting. So was the "No Cthulhu in Deities & Demigods" thing a
> misunderstanding, or is the Mythos-as-PD a new thing? In either case, are
we
> going to see any Mythos stuff for 3rd Edition?
To summarize Gary's take on the situation (I think the details may be on his
web site);
He called Greg Stafford at Chaosium at some point and worked out a
gentlemen's agreement to credit Chaosium as a courtesy to a fellow
businessperson.
In subsequent printings, the problems with the Fritz Lieber and the Michael
Moorecock material caused management to review the entire manuscript and a
decision was made to extract material believed to be derivative of other
people's copyrights.
The Cthulu material was included as well; despite Gary telling management
that it was OK to leave in the book.
Ryan
> Given the recent Silver Princess posting, any chance you guys will post a
> PDF of the "missing" Deities & Demigods chapters?
We might do that for cthulu (though we'd extend the same courtesy to
Chaosium as Gary did before doing so). We couldn't post the Moorecock stuff
unless the current holder of the copyright for that material told us it
would be ok. I don't know how we'd handle the Lieber stuff - there are some
wonky issues with Lieber and D&D that go way, way back.
Ryan
WinningerR
%> case against all of those games? I assume that the concept of "evil,
%> squid-headed creatures" is too generic...
% Interestingly, the Cthulu Mythos is public domain; anyone can create
% copyrighted works based on it without infringing other people's works.<<<
Actually, that's not as cut-and-dried as Ryan suggests. There is an ongoing
debate as to the legal status of Lovecraft's works, though nothing has gone to
the courts. Various scholars have put forth theories as to which Lovecraft
stories may or may not be in the public domain, but the publishing history is
murky enough to complicate the situation severely. You'll note for instance
that every one of the major Lovecraft anthologies in print today list the works
as under copyright (though they disagree as to the rights holder).
Josh Jasper
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> Nate Edel wrote:
> > Would the Lovecraft estate (or whoever owns those copyrights now) have a
> > case against all of those games? I assume that the concept of "evil,
> > squid-headed creatures" is too generic...
>
> Lovecraft's works are in the public domain (although Arkham House owns
> the copyright on their specific printings and compilations).
>
> Evil, squid-headed creatures is probably too generic.
>
Will we be seing a new Cthulu theme for AD&D any time soon?
--
I'm a Jackal on the Body Politic.
Looking for resumes in the tech sector for the SF Bay area
email polytechnical.at sign.hotbot.com include dates when you're
available
Josh Jasper
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
>
> We might do that for cthulu (though we'd extend the same courtesy to
> Chaosium as Gary did before doing so). We couldn't post the Moorecock stuff
> unless the current holder of the copyright for that material told us it
> would be ok. I don't know how we'd handle the Lieber stuff - there are some
> wonky issues with Lieber and D&D that go way, way back.
>
I think it'd sell. IMO, it fits alot of the "look" of 3E. Offer whoever
holds the commpyright money. Everyone likes money.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Nate Edel wrote:
>
> Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
> %> Would the Lovecraft estate (or whoever owns those copyrights now) have a
> %> case against all of those games? I assume that the concept of "evil,
> %> squid-headed creatures" is too generic...
> % Interestingly, the Cthulu Mythos is public domain; anyone can create
> % copyrighted works based on it without infringing other people's works.
>
> Interesting. So was the "No Cthulhu in Deities & Demigods" thing a
> misunderstanding, or is the Mythos-as-PD a new thing?
The former - Arkham House house thought (or wanted people to think) that
it was copyrighted, when actually only the specific text of their
reprints & compilations was protected. (Most, if not all) Lovecraft's
original works are in the public domain because their original printing
date is such that it would have expired by now.
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> In subsequent printings, the problems with the Fritz Lieber and the Michael
> Moorecock material caused management to review the entire manuscript and a
> decision was made to extract material believed to be derivative of other
> people's copyrights.
There were no problems with the Lieber material ... we had the rights to
do D&D version of that at least through 1997, when we released the most
recent incarnation of the Lankhmar box set. All versions of the 1E
DDG/L&L have the Lankhmar gods, so there's no reason to post them in
favor of any other part of the book (unless we were going to post ALL of
the book, of course).
Ryan S. Dancey
> There were no problems with the Lieber material ... we had the rights to
> do D&D version of that at least through 1997, when we released the most
> recent incarnation of the Lankhmar box set.
Interesting factoid:
While perusing the legal files of TSR prior to the WotC acquisition, I ran
into an interersting letter from WotC to Lieber's agent. Apparently, the
Leiber contract had a term that lapsed in the mid '80s; but nobody bothered
to keep track, and so TSR kept right on using the stuff.
When somone finally noticed, they promptly contacted Lieber's agent and
tried to make things right. I believe there was a payment of back royalties
owed and an apology and a few other things - TSR was pretty exposed, to be
honest. Nobody on Lieber's side had apparently noticed or cared, so matters
were resolved amicably. But TSR still didn't have the rights to the stuff,
and so they agreed not to make any more. Which begs the question of whether
it could be re-printed or not...
Anyway, like I said, the issue is muddled.
Ryan
Alan Kellogg
<ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
So get in touch with the Leiber estate and ask for permission again.
Alan
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> Interesting factoid:
Ah, another example of the shining ability of the old management....
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
> So get in touch with the Leiber estate and ask for permission again.
Why? There are plenty of copies of that book floating around ... there
are a bunch of copies of it (and of Legends & Lore, essentially a
reprint with a different cover) on ebay alone for reasonable prices. If
getting the rights to republish that are going to be a hassle, you have
to think about if it's really worth it just to get that old material
online for free (and what happens when the contract expires again? I
somehow doubt the Lieber estate would jump at the opportunity to offer
some of the rights up in perpetuity...).
Alan Kellogg
"news"@@@seankreynolds.com wrote:
> Alan Kellogg wrote:
> > So get in touch with the Leiber estate and ask for permission again.
>
> Why? There are plenty of copies of that book floating around ... there
> are a bunch of copies of it (and of Legends & Lore, essentially a
> reprint with a different cover) on ebay alone for reasonable prices. If
> getting the rights to republish that are going to be a hassle, you have
> to think about if it's really worth it just to get that old material
> online for free (and what happens when the contract expires again? I
> somehow doubt the Lieber estate would jump at the opportunity to offer
> some of the rights up in perpetuity...).
But what if it takes just a simple question?
Alan
Josh Jasper
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> Alan Kellogg wrote:
> > So get in touch with the Leiber estate and ask for permission again.
>
> Why? There are plenty of copies of that book floating around ... there
> are a bunch of copies of it (and of Legends & Lore, essentially a
> reprint with a different cover) on ebay alone for reasonable prices. If
> getting the rights to republish that are going to be a hassle, you have
> to think about if it's really worth it just to get that old material
> online for free (and what happens when the contract expires again? I
> somehow doubt the Lieber estate would jump at the opportunity to offer
> some of the rights up in perpetuity...).
Perhaps a new edition? 'Though Liber can be a bit risque.