Legal claims made by a WoTC employee in a public forum...
Bryan J. Maloney
I posted the following to the "RPGA.LivingGreyhawk" newsgroup on the WoTC
server, but I thought there might be interest on this newsgroup as well.
I am not a licensed attorney nor have I ever passed the bar in any
jurisdiction. I do not pretend to render a legal decision nor even profer
a legal opinion, but I do wish to raise what appear to be reasonable
doubts to claims made by a certain WoTC employee in a public forum
regarding copyright. For the professional legals who might read this,
please do not be insulted by my quoting of what I consider to be relevant
portions of US Title 17. I do so mainly to help people with less
background in the area understand all my "section XXX" references.
Since a WoTC employee is making--shall we say "extravagant"--claims
regarding intellectual property on the Greyhawk-L (or whatever the major
Living Greyhawk email list is called), I though I would examine relevant
portions of US law on the subject:
Quotations:
US Code 17, Section 101, Paragraph 4: A ''derivative work'' is a work
based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other
form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship,
is a ''derivative work''.
US Code 17, Section 102:
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of
a machine or device.
US Code 17, Section 103:
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing
preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any
part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the
material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the
preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is
independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
material.
US Code 17, Section 201:
(a) Initial Ownership. - Copyright in a work protected under this title
vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a
joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
(b) Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire, the
employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the
author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly
agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the
rights comprised in the copyright.
(c) Contributions to Collective Works. - Copyright in each separate
contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the
collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the
contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of
any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is
presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and
distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work,
any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the
same series.
Commentary:
Now that we know what "derivative work" means we can look at the claim
made in a public forum by a WoTC employee. A certain WoTC employee has
made the claim that WoTC automatically OWNS all works derivative of their
products. However, US Code 17, section 103, paragraph b, second sentence
states: "The copyright of such work is independent of, AND DOES NOT
AFFECT OR ENLARGE the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material." Claims that WoTC
automatically owns all works derivative of their material appears to be
specifically a claim that the derivative copyright enlarges the scope and
possibly subsistence of the copyright protection in the preexisting
material--enlarges it to cover the derivative work.
If the WoTC employee wishes to claim that what he is talking about is a
completely new copyright that automatically devolves upon WoTC for any
derivative work in question, I refer said claimant to US Code 17, section
103, paragraph a. It plainly includes derivative works within copyright
protection as defined by section 102.
Section 201 specifically states that copyright protection for a work as
enumerated within section 102 (with the presumed exceptions enumerated in
section 103) vests initially with the AUTHOR or AUTHORS of the work, NOT
with the holders of preexistent material from which it might be
derivative. The exception made within this section is limited to "Works
Made for Hire", which has NOTHING at all to do with the derivative status
of a work.
The preposterous claimant may be quite ignorant of US copyright law and if
that is the case ought to acquaint himself with same before he thinks to
propound further upon the subject. I suggest
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html as a good starting
point.
WoTC might wish to consider having a much more stringent policy limiting
which of their employees are permitted to render apparent legal opinions
in public forums.
YMO&HS
Bryan J. Maloney
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Since a WoTC employee is making--shall we say "extravagant"--claims
>regarding intellectual property on the Greyhawk-L (or whatever the major
>Living Greyhawk email list is called), I though I would examine relevant
>portions of US law on the subject:
While you're at it, you might look at the question of whether or not,
say, a spell written for use with AD&D constitutes a "derivative work".
In general, as I understand it (I too am not a lawyer), copyright covers
the *expression* of a set of rules, *BUT NOT THE RULES THEMSELVES*.
Thus, a reference to "saving throws" or "5th level wizard spells" does not
create a derivative work of the AD&D system.
-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
Bryan J. Maloney
Seebach) wrote:
> In article <bjm10-22020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >Since a WoTC employee is making--shall we say "extravagant"--claims
> >regarding intellectual property on the Greyhawk-L (or whatever the major
> >Living Greyhawk email list is called), I though I would examine relevant
> >portions of US law on the subject:
>
> While you're at it, you might look at the question of whether or not,
> say, a spell written for use with AD&D constitutes a "derivative work".
I wanted to call into question one specific claim at a time.
--
"Before we judge the lobotomist of old too severely, we
should go to the nearest street grate and see how we are
dealing with our mental health crisis today."
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <lCAs4.751$%A3.1...@ptah.visi.com>, se...@plethora.net (Peter
>Seebach) wrote:
>> While you're at it, you might look at the question of whether or not,
>> say, a spell written for use with AD&D constitutes a "derivative work".
>I wanted to call into question one specific claim at a time.
Fair enough. My guess is that Mr. Dancey is full of shit on both claims.
In the mean time, though, I suggest that we all make a point of specifically
*not* providing new gaming info in this forum, replacing all such with
At this point, I would refer to a spell that someone researched
IMC, but Mr. Dancey at WOTC claims he owns it.
It would only take a couple days of that for WOTC to back down and ditch the
guy, he's clearly a loser.
Paul C Duggan
: propound further upon the subject. I suggest
: http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/topics/copyright.html as a good starting
: point.
How come that page says "The owner also receives the exclusive right to
produce or license the production of derivatives of his work. "? Wouldn't
that argue against you?
Paul
--
"I am an impure thinker. I am hurt, swayed, shaken, | paul + | +
elated, disillusioned, shocked, comforted, and I | --|--
have to transmit my mental experiences lest I die." | + | +
-- Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy | pdu...@world.std.com
Peter Seebach
Paul C Duggan <pdu...@world.std.com> wrote:
>How come that page says "The owner also receives the exclusive right to
>produce or license the production of derivatives of his work. "? Wouldn't
>that argue against you?
It would argue that they could *restrict* production. It wouldn't give them
*ownership*.
And, as noted, that would be *IF* such things are derivative works. They
probably aren't.
Ryan S. Dancey
news:bjm10-22020...@potato.cit.cornell.edu...
I'll just skip right to the relevant portion of the post and then be done
with this topic. I've debated it enough on other forums, despite repeated
assurances that Wizards has no intention of changing its published on-line
guidelines for the use of our copyrights, and the fact that I am actively
promoting an ongoing effort to create an "open gaming" license to handle
these issues once and for all. But since I have a real aversion to being
misquoted (even in the abstract), I do feel compelled to highlight:
> US Code 17, Section 103:
> (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
> compilations and derivative works, BUT PROTECTION FOR A WORK EMPLOYING
> PREEXISTING MATERIAL IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
> PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY.
What this section says is simple. If you create a derivitive work based on
someone else's copyrighted material, and you do not have a license or legal
permission to do so, you >do not own< a copyright to >any< part of the new
work derived from that copyrighted material.
The practical application of this section is that if you create material
>derived< (I emphasize derived, because it is far more extensive than
"quoted" or "cited"), you >do not gain copyright to that derivitive
material<.
In other words, if you write a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, you do
not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights. It means that if
you wrote a poem about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you would not own the
copyright to that poem.
The specific case of "imaginary world" material is a very convoluted one to
say the least. In the event that someone actually chose to litigate this
issue (which, I reiterate, nobody at Wizards is suggesting we would do), a
court would be asked to separate the content that is "original" from the
content that is "derived". There are no specific guidelines in the statute
that describe how to do this, so the decision would be made by the court
based on the arguments presented by the parties to the suit. Clearly,
Paramount would argue, in the case of the Star Trek story, that the entire
disputed work was derivative. In essence, they would argue that by setting
the story in the "Star Trek" universe, the >entire narrative< would be a
derived work, produced unlawfully, and thus the creator would not own a
copyright to the work. My lawyers tell me that based on their understanding
of how these cases have been resolved in the past, Paramount would have a
very good chance at winning the case.
That said, I will now remove myself from this discussion. I encourage
anyone who has a specific interest to take this matter up with a trained
intellectual property rights attorney who specializes in copyright
litigation.
Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Dungeons & Dragons Brand Manager
Snuggles the Psycho Shepherd @ Work
post them?
azothath
bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>
<snip>
this is all true, however, the sword cuts both ways.
I also believe Judge's Guild had to walk the fine line with their
modules many years ago...
If you recall what "reverse engineering" means and how TSR can reproduce
similar things to what is freely distributed on the web. It then
becomes necessary for the original derivitor to sue TSR over the
alleged infringement, and I believe prove intent.
While no company could survive a hailstorm of small suits with merit,
chat such as Mr. Dancey's is bluster and can only garner ill will for
TSR/WotC. I am VERY suprised that a upper level executive would say
such things or even comment upon legal opinion. I must say that my
opinion of Mr. Dancey has slumped a bit even if he was feeling his
copyrighted oats.
I'll also comment that even if you did sue TSR and win, you'd only
recieve a couple of hundered bucks at best for your work (industry going
rate) as compensation for actual damages and hopefully some punitative
damages. You could also force TSR to remove the work from future
printings. In all - the lawyers are the only ones that win. It's best
to buy the derivations you deem appropriate, pay the author of the
derivation for his work at standard rates and incorporate it as you see
fit. I feel many web-authors and posters would settle for a line in the
contributing authors section of that edition, especially for tweaks, and
how much does that cost?!
This should have been handled in an inclusive manner. Let's face it,
the biggest resource TSR has is the abundace of freelance GMs out there.
no, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, and my opinions are just that.
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bryan Maloney
>Bryan J. Maloney (bj...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>
>produce or license the production of derivatives of his work. "? Wouldn't
>that argue against you?
Not in the least, as far as the law has been interpreted by the courts. What
the owner has is exclusive right to produce or permit production of derivative
works. That does NOT mean that the owner immediately OWNS all derivative
works, only that the owner has the right to refuse permission.
In short, a certain WoTC employee appears to be showing off his utter
ignorance of law and in such a way that can only reflect negatively upon WoTC.
Were I, as an employee of Boyce Thompson Institute, show such flagrant
disregard for intellectual property law as it is generally understood and do
so on a public forum devoted to biotechnology, I would, at the very least, be
called to the carpet in no uncertain terms. Indeed, I would potentially be
jeapordizing my continued employment.
Of course, BTI is a responsible institution that cares about its image and
credibility, which is why I would risk such acts were I to abandon all good
sense and circumspection under the aforementioned circumstances.
Bryan Maloney
>I'll also comment that even if you did sue TSR and win, you'd only
>recieve a couple of hundered bucks at best for your work (industry going
>rate) as compensation for actual damages and hopefully some punitative
Under copyright law, damages have often been based upon the amount of money
paid to the infringer for sale of the violating work, not upon "going rate"
for payment of an author.
Peter Seebach
>similar things to what is freely distributed on the web. It then
>becomes necessary for the original derivitor to sue TSR over the
>alleged infringement, and I believe prove intent.
If they will admit that they have no *possible* leg to stand on to stop me
from distributing spells I've created, I will freely admit that the same
applies to any attempt on my part to keep them from imitating *my* creative
works. :)
Steve Buza
Just some thoughts...
>>How come that page says "The owner also receives the exclusive right to
>>produce or license the production of derivatives of his work. "? Wouldn't
>>that argue against you?
>
>It would argue that they could *restrict* production. It wouldn't give them
>*ownership*.
Alternately one could argue that the exclusive right to produce works
based on the game system was explicitly placed in the public domain by
the DMG as follows:
1. The Foreward
The Foreward of the First Edition of the DMG states that the DMG "is
your primary tool in constructing your own world, or milieu... Use
the written material as your foundation and inspiration, then explore
the creative possibilities you have in your own mind to make your game
something special."
2. The Preface
The Preface of the First Edition of the DMG states that the reader is
"the creator and ultimate authority in [HIS] respective game," and
that the book is "a framework around which individual DMs construct
their respective milieux."
The Preface requires that the reader will "have to devote countless
hours of real effort in order to produce just a fledgling campaign,
viz. a background for the whole, some small village or town, and a
reasoned series of dungeon levels -- the lot of which must be suitable
for elaboration and expansion on a periodic basis."
It states that the reader "must have participants who will make use of
[the reader's] creations."
The preface states further that "what is aimed at [with the Advanced
Dungeons & Dragons framework] is a universe into which similar
campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed," and that "this
uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on
a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information."
The preface suggests that the reader "keep... individuality in
perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the
rules of Advanced D&D."
Finally, the Preface states that while there is material in the DMG
for use by the reader that ONLY the reader "can construct the
masterpiece from it."
3. The Introduction
The Introduction of the First Edition of the DMG supports the notion
that the authors intended for the readers to create works based on the
content of the book, stating that "there are plenty of areas where
your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters
of the game system. There are sections where only a few hints and
suggestions are given, and the rest left to the DM."
The Introduction also suggests that the reader should "Read how and
why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut
portions as needed..."
4. Other Works
The plethora of AD&D gaming materials available to the average player
and or game master include such things as sourcebooks and adventure
cookbooks, blank spell forms, blank monster forms, blank villian, NPC,
adventure, and plot forms, and blank character forms.
No reasonable person, faced with the mountain of written evidence
contained within the original works themselves, can conclude that the
authors intended anything other than to give the reader the
opportunity to create material based on the game system.
There can be only one rational interpretation of these indisputable
statements as follows:
a) that the game system is merely a game system and not a game in and
of itself
b) that the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game can not exist as a game
without additional works by those who read and understand the game
system.
c) that the game system, combined with the additional work by third
parties, form the actual game.
c) that the text of the game system itself encourages, requires, and
suggests that the reader create other works and to share them with
other players and DMs.
d) that such works are explicitly defined by the DMG as the creations
of their respective authors, and that the authors are the "ultimate
authority" of their respective games.
e) that even if such works are deemed derivitive works of tthe
original game system that authority to create these works was released
to the public domain by the very text contained within the game system
manuals.
.......
I personally don't believe that my spells or my city or my characters
are derivative works as defined by Federal Law (as so well stated by
the initial post). But regardless of their definition, authority to
create such works was granted to the public domain.
That's my take on it...
Steve Buza, notalawyer
<stev...@yahoo.com>
Jerry Stratton
>Alternately one could argue that the exclusive right to produce works
>based on the game system was explicitly placed in the public domain by
>the DMG as follows:
I think it's important to remember that we're talking legal terms here.
In English "derivative" means "based on", but I'm pretty sure (IANAL)
that in legalese, "derivative" has a much more restrictive meaning.
For example, you paint a picture of your mom and post it on your web
page. I write a description of the techniques that you used in your
painting. Legally, I'm fine. In English, my tutorial is "derivative",
but legally it isn't. It doesn't incorporate your image. On the other
hand, if I take your image and run it through a few photoshop filters,
*that's* legally derivative.
I suspect that much of what we do in gaming is barely derivative in the
English sense, let alone in the legal sense.
Yes, I agree that the nature of role-playing pretty much makes rules
creation, modification, and adventure creation/modification necessary.
But even if they were to put, in 3rd edition, a warning in the front
forbidding anyone from publishing rules changes, modifications, or
modules, I don't think it would have any legal effect. They can't forbid
that any more than you can forbid me from writing about your painting.
IANAL. This is far more speculative than I normally post.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Thus, a reference to "saving throws" or "5th level wizard spells" does not
> create a derivative work of the AD&D system.
However on such things you run the risk of trademark infringment..there
are ahost of mechanicy things that TSR put trademark registration to, Rob
Repp I think posted a partial list a few years ago when he was posting to
this group or its precursor.
Tim
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <88vae7$r47$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, azothath <Azot...@aol.com> wrote:
> >If you recall what "reverse engineering" means and how TSR can reproduce
> >similar things to what is freely distributed on the web. It then
> >becomes necessary for the original derivitor to sue TSR over the
> >alleged infringement, and I believe prove intent.
>
> If they will admit that they have no *possible* leg to stand on to stop me
> from distributing spells I've created, I will freely admit that the same
> applies to any attempt on my part to keep them from imitating *my* creative
> works. :)
My question is "Can they prevent you from selling those spells"?
Allister H.
Tim Fitzmaurice
>
> My question is "Can they prevent you from selling those spells"?
Not with copyright, so long as the spells themselves are original spells.
Original content of any kind is always yours to do with what you like.
That US law clause the WoTC guy quoted is quite plain in that, you only
fail to own those PARTS derived illegally...ie any derivation, or direct
copy (and derivation is actually quite a tight area itself), you DO own
the original stuff.
Now illegal use of trademarks etc, passing off, misrepresentation etc etc
are all other areas of law to contend with if you are producing additional
material compatible with other peoples material...and thats more likely
the area thats a problem....
Marcel Parent
> server, but I thought there might be interest on this newsgroup as well.
> I am not a licensed attorney nor have I ever passed the bar in any
> jurisdiction. I do not pretend to render a legal decision nor even profer
> a legal opinion, but I do wish to raise what appear to be reasonable
> doubts to claims made by a certain WoTC employee in a public forum
> regarding copyright. For the professional legals who might read this,
> please do not be insulted by my quoting of what I consider to be relevant
> portions of US Title 17. I do so mainly to help people with less
> background in the area understand all my "section XXX" references.
<snip>
> WoTC might wish to consider having a much more stringent policy limiting
> which of their employees are permitted to render apparent legal opinions
> in public forums.
>
>
> YMO&HS
> Bryan J. Maloney
I am quite surprised to see this happening, as I thought WotC made it clear
that they did not want to follow TSR's footsteps in alienating people with
stringent copyright enforcement. I don't know how the original discussion
happened or where, but perhaps the said employee was only speaking in
hypothetical terms; having an 'academic' discussion.
If not, I am worried that WotC are going to alienate their client base that
was looking forward to interacting with a non-TSR company. Hopefully, this
is all a big misunderstanding, as WotC will not need to suppliment any
copyrighting royalties given how much money they are going to make from 3E.
Crossing my fingers that 3E, which looks like a good product, will not be
marred by TSR-like mechanisms.
Marcel
Allister Huggins
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Allister Huggins wrote:
>
> >
> > My question is "Can they prevent you from selling those spells"?
>
> Not with copyright, so long as the spells themselves are original spells.
>
> Original content of any kind is always yours to do with what you like.
> That US law clause the WoTC guy quoted is quite plain in that, you only
> fail to own those PARTS derived illegally...ie any derivation, or direct
> copy (and derivation is actually quite a tight area itself), you DO own
> the original stuff.
>
> Now illegal use of trademarks etc, passing off, misrepresentation etc etc
> are all other areas of law to contend with if you are producing additional
> material compatible with other peoples material...and thats more likely
> the area thats a problem....
However, since words like "Saving Throw" and "LeveL" aren't trademarks,
this means somebody could sell the Great Net spell book if they got the
permission of everybody who had submitted? No offense, but this seems
somewhat dodgy. You can't sell quake mods and they are basically the
same thing. I don't think that when they wrote the copyright laws, they
intended for people to be able to sell something, based on an original
work, that was intended to be used with the original work.
Allister H.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> However, since words like "Saving Throw" and "LeveL" aren't trademarks,
> this means somebody could sell the Great Net spell book if they got the
> permission of everybody who had submitted? No offense, but this seems
> somewhat dodgy. You can't sell quake mods and they are basically the
> same thing.
Yes you can, there's been at least 3 total conversions made and sold...now
yes they all had permission, because the source was released for
non-commercial use, and its the vast tracts of original code that would
breach copyright. Quake mods are not the same as they contain substantial
original material once tinkered with. Payment or not is irrelevant as to
whether its an infringement, permission is the issue....its far closer to
new levels for a computer game and even that isn;t quite close enough.
A quake mod would be more analogous to selling the netbook of spells with
a photocopy of the Players Option: Spells and Magic tacked on.
> I don't think that when they wrote the copyright laws, they
> intended for people to be able to sell something, based on an original
> work, that was intended to be used with the original work.
Based on??? Based on.....anyone can do anything 'based on' without it
being a copyright issue, just it cannot be directly derivative of current
copyright material...the two terms mean very different things under law.
Copyright does NOT, NOT NOT protect ideas. that would need a patent of
some kind, and we've done the rounds on that discussion. It protects the
phrasing, words and whole article. Producing loads of NEW spells is in no
way infringing on copyright.
Peter Seebach
Tim Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Peter Seebach wrote:
>> Thus, a reference to "saving throws" or "5th level wizard spells" does not
>> create a derivative work of the AD&D system.
>However on such things you run the risk of trademark infringment..there
>are ahost of mechanicy things that TSR put trademark registration to, Rob
>Repp I think posted a partial list a few years ago when he was posting to
>this group or its precursor.
1. They may not stand up in court, especially if it's, say, Hit Points,
which are used everywhere.
2. All you generally need is a disclaimer saying that "all trademarks are
properties of their respective owners".
Allister Huggins
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Allister Huggins wrote:
>
> > However, since words like "Saving Throw" and "LeveL" aren't trademarks,
> > this means somebody could sell the Great Net spell book if they got the
> > permission of everybody who had submitted? No offense, but this seems
> > somewhat dodgy. You can't sell quake mods and they are basically the
> > same thing.
>
> Yes you can, there's been at least 3 total conversions made and sold...now
> yes they all had permission, because the source was released for
Well, that's what I meant. I know of official add-ons for Starcraft but
that was licensed. I also know of people that had written a Aliens vs.
Predator mod but were told to discontinue when the official version
started up.
> non-commercial use, and its the vast tracts of original code that would
Ok, so the original code of Quake is analogous to the original writing
of the PHB, correct?
> breach copyright. Quake mods are not the same as they contain substantial
> original material once tinkered with. Payment or not is irrelevant as to
> whether its an infringement, permission is the issue....its far closer to
> new levels for a computer game and even that isn;t quite close enough.
>
> A quake mod would be more analogous to selling the netbook of spells with
> a photocopy of the Players Option: Spells and Magic tacked on.
Would selling of "house rules" then be closer to the analogy?
> > I don't think that when they wrote the copyright laws, they
> > intended for people to be able to sell something, based on an original
> > work, that was intended to be used with the original work.
>
> Based on??? Based on.....anyone can do anything 'based on' without it
> being a copyright issue, just it cannot be directly derivative of current
> copyright material...the two terms mean very different things under law.
>
> Copyright does NOT, NOT NOT protect ideas. that would need a patent of
> some kind, and we've done the rounds on that discussion. It protects the
> phrasing, words and whole article. Producing loads of NEW spells is in no
> way infringing on copyright.
>
So then I could sell the great Net spell book if I got the original
spell designers' permission? Of course, I would not be allowed to use
the D&D name anywhere in my ads or in the spells.
Last question (grin). Could I say in a print ad "Useable for all RPG
systems including D&D"?.
Allister H.
Peter Seebach
Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
>> US Code 17, Section 103:
>> (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
>> PREEXISTING MATERIAL IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
>> PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY.
>What this section says is simple. If you create a derivitive work based on
>someone else's copyrighted material, and you do not have a license or legal
>permission to do so, you >do not own< a copyright to >any< part of the new
>work derived from that copyrighted material.
This is a flat contradiction of the text. It clearly states that *ONLY THAT
PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY* is not
protected!
EVERYTHING ELSE IS COVERED.
>The practical application of this section is that if you create material
>>derived< (I emphasize derived, because it is far more extensive than
>"quoted" or "cited"), you >do not gain copyright to that derivitive
>material<.
Only sort of true. When I posted quoting the 1st edition DMG's guide to
a slaying of ogres, I had copyright on the resulting post. I did not
gain copyright on the text about the ogres, but that's obvious; no one ever
said I did.
When I write a spell for use with the AD&D system, and it refers to "similar
to a /teleport/ spell", I have not gained ownership of the teleport spell,
*BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS MINE*.
>In other words, if you write a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, you do
>not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
>unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights.
WRONG.
You do not gain content *ON THAT PART WHICH IS SPECFICALLY UNLAWFUL USE OF
THEIR MATERIAL*.
If I write a long story in the Star Trek universe in which characters I
invented have a relationship, and write each other poetry, I may not be able
to claim copyright *on the part that is derived from Paramount's property*.
I *DO* have copyright on the characters and their dialogue.
It says *PART*, Ryan. You have to accept this; the entire work is *not*
suddenly removed from protection just because *PART* of it may be considered
a "derivative" work, *AND EVEN THAT APPLIES ONLY INSOFAR AS THE DERIVATION
IS UNLAWFUL*.
>It means that if
>you wrote a poem about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you would not own the
>copyright to that poem.
You would probably own most of it, because your protection ends *at the part
which is used unlawfully*.
>The specific case of "imaginary world" material is a very convoluted one to
>say the least. In the event that someone actually chose to litigate this
>issue (which, I reiterate, nobody at Wizards is suggesting we would do), a
>court would be asked to separate the content that is "original" from the
>content that is "derived". There are no specific guidelines in the statute
>that describe how to do this, so the decision would be made by the court
>based on the arguments presented by the parties to the suit. Clearly,
>Paramount would argue, in the case of the Star Trek story, that the entire
>disputed work was derivative.
Yes, but unless they *convince a judge or jury*, your claim above is false.
>In essence, they would argue that by setting
>the story in the "Star Trek" universe, the >entire narrative< would be a
>derived work, produced unlawfully, and thus the creator would not own a
>copyright to the work. My lawyers tell me that based on their understanding
>of how these cases have been resolved in the past, Paramount would have a
>very good chance at winning the case.
It might well, because, of course, they have big lawyers.
>That said, I will now remove myself from this discussion. I encourage
>anyone who has a specific interest to take this matter up with a trained
>intellectual property rights attorney who specializes in copyright
>litigation.
I will continue to stand by my claim: Until someone at TSR makes it
absolutely clear, in writing, in public, that I do, in fact, have copyright
on the spells, items, and characters I have created in D&D games, I'm not
posting any more of them to Usenet.
Furthermore, you still owe us an apology for claiming that, in the event of
such a disputed work, the holder of copyright on the original material somehow
*becomes* the owner of the new work. This is *NOT* the case, and explicitly
contradicts the law.
Bryan J. Maloney
> these issues once and for all. But since I have a real aversion to being
> misquoted (even in the abstract), I do feel compelled to highlight:
>
> > US Code 17, Section 103:
> > (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
> > compilations and derivative works, BUT PROTECTION FOR A WORK EMPLOYING
> > PREEXISTING MATERIAL IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
> > PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY.
>
> What this section says is simple. If you create a derivitive work based on
> someone else's copyrighted material, and you do not have a license or legal
> permission to do so, you >do not own< a copyright to >any< part of the new
> work derived from that copyrighted material.
But you have specifically and explicitly claimed that the copyright owner
for the original automatically OWNS all derivative works. There is still
quite a world of difference between "unable to claim copyright protection"
and "owned by another".
> In other words, if you write a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, you do
> not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
> unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights. It means that if
But does it mean that Paramount automatically gains copyright to your story?
> That said, I will now remove myself from this discussion. I encourage
Of course you do, because you know that you would be put on the spot by
the specific question I asked above.
Bryan J. Maloney
> So then I could sell the great Net spell book if I got the original
> spell designers' permission? Of course, I would not be allowed to use
> the D&D name anywhere in my ads or in the spells.
As far as I understand the law, yes, you could.
> Last question (grin). Could I say in a print ad "Useable for all RPG
> systems including D&D"?.
As soon as you say "D&D", you enter Trademark law--a different world.
Michael Brown
you do
> > not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it
is
> > unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights. It means that
if
>
> But does it mean that Paramount automatically gains copyright to your
story?
Not that I'm a law puke, but given that we surmise that the intellectual
property holder has legal control of whether or not that story can be
produced ... isn't that technically the essence of what it means to have
copyright?
In order for the author to publish his tale, he'd have to get
Paramount's permission - so he obviously isn't in total control of it. Of
course, Paramount can't take it and publish it without the *author's*
permission, either ...
-Michael
ba...@digital-marketplace.net
>
> What is the wotc server? is the tsr one still up? Could someone please
> post them?
Peter Seebach
Michael Brown <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Not that I'm a law puke, but given that we surmise that the intellectual
>property holder has legal control of whether or not that story can be
>produced ... isn't that technically the essence of what it means to have
>copyright?
No, because the creator of the work can still do *other* things with it, such
as use it.
> In order for the author to publish his tale, he'd have to get
>Paramount's permission - so he obviously isn't in total control of it. Of
>course, Paramount can't take it and publish it without the *author's*
>permission, either ...
Right; it is *not* the case that WOTC immediately gets copyright of your work
just because you did something involving AD&D.
azothath
wrote:
>
> > So then I could sell the great Net spell book if I got the
original
> > spell designers' permission? Of course, I would not be allowed to
use
> > the D&D name anywhere in my ads or in the spells.
>
> As far as I understand the law, yes, you could.
>
> > Last question (grin). Could I say in a print ad "Useable for
all RPG
> > systems including D&D"?.
>
> As soon as you say "D&D", you enter Trademark law--a different world.
>
some thoughts - -
I believe that you can say "This product is not made by TSR. Compare
with AD&D, a product of TSR/WotC Inc." or some such wording on the
cover, as you can clearly find this on many generic products. As this
is a statement of fact, it does not require TSRs approval. As for
multiple refrences with the body of the work, it might be possible,
though inadviseable. You need to keep the seperation clear from a
common readers viewpoint.
You could also look at some of the old Judges Guild Products and the
disclaimer they used. I also believed that they had to rename the
STATs, and include a few different ones, so the alleged game system was
obviously not D&D, though it was clearly convertable to D&D.
With spells you'd have to do something similar, as if patents are
involved, it's the way the information links together and the system
that the information uses that's patented, not the words themselves. If
something is in common usage or simply a list of common items, then it's
not patentable.
What y'all really need, is a generic system that converts to AD&D,
that's freely distrubted for commercial use. It would have to cover
STATs, ALIGNMENTs, Spells, Classes. Then base your netbook'ospells etc
upon that.
Wyvern
>What y'all really need, is a generic system that converts to AD&D,
>that's freely distrubted for commercial use. It would have to cover
>STATs, ALIGNMENTs, Spells, Classes. Then base your netbook'ospells etc
>upon that.
Might not necessarily help you. Microsoft recently slapped a lawsuit on a
company (whose name escapes me) that was (is?) developing an application to
help port Windows apps to Linux.
I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing the
system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
Wyvern
wyv...@hotmail.com
Peter Seebach
Wyvern <wyv...@uvic.ca> wrote:
>Might not necessarily help you. Microsoft recently slapped a lawsuit on a
>company (whose name escapes me) that was (is?) developing an application to
>help port Windows apps to Linux.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they were right, or that they'll win; even if
they win, it may simply be a result of lawyer-budget.
>I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing the
>system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
No, because the *SYSTEM* is not what copyright protects!
COPYRIGHT DOES NOT, HAS NOT EVER, AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE COVER IDEAS.
Get that down. You'll be tested on it later.
Copyright covers only the *SPECIFIC EXPRESSION* of an idea!
Wyvern
>COPYRIGHT DOES NOT, HAS NOT EVER, AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE COVER IDEAS.
>
>Get that down. You'll be tested on it later.
>
>Copyright covers only the *SPECIFIC EXPRESSION* of an idea!
If this is true, than what exactly does the TSR copyright cover? After all,
it can't possibly copyright abstract ideas like 'hit points','armour class',
fireball', 'saving throws', etc... I know you can't duplicate the art
(creative property), or the 'look and feel', but the rest seems pretty much
open...
Wyvern
wyv...@hotmail.com
"I smell blood and an
era of prominent madmen."
-W.H. Auden
Peter Seebach
Wyvern <wyv...@uvic.ca> wrote:
>>COPYRIGHT DOES NOT, HAS NOT EVER, AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE COVER IDEAS.
>>Get that down. You'll be tested on it later.
>>Copyright covers only the *SPECIFIC EXPRESSION* of an idea!
>If this is true, than what exactly does the TSR copyright cover?
The text in the books.
>After all,
>it can't possibly copyright abstract ideas like 'hit points','armour class',
>fireball', 'saving throws', etc... I know you can't duplicate the art
>(creative property), or the 'look and feel', but the rest seems pretty much
>open...
This is a problem people have had before. ;-)
It's very hard to protect a game; mostly, you do it by trademarks and name
recognition. In some cases, you may be able to get a patent or something
similar applied to one of your rules...
Mostly, though, the trick is that a rewrite of the rules is still a derivative
work, because it's equivalent to a translation.
However, that would cover only *duplication of the content of the rules*.
It cannot be worked into something which covers new material.
Bryan J. Maloney
wrote:
> >COPYRIGHT DOES NOT, HAS NOT EVER, AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE COVER IDEAS.
> >
> >Get that down. You'll be tested on it later.
> >
> >Copyright covers only the *SPECIFIC EXPRESSION* of an idea!
>
> If this is true, than what exactly does the TSR copyright cover? After all,
Y'see that's the bone of contention. Back in the Rob Repp days, T$R (and
they DESERVED the name T$R at that particular time) claimed that they had
copyright over the "AD&D game engine" without bothering to define said
engine nor its limits. The term "AD&D game engine" is a direct statement
from their legal department at that time.
> fireball', 'saving throws', etc... I know you can't duplicate the art
> (creative property), or the 'look and feel', but the rest seems pretty much
If "look and feel" were as strong a matter as some would have us believe,
then Apple would have obliterated Microsoft with the merest of hints of
lawsuits.
Peter Seebach
Bryan J. Maloney <bj...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>Y'see that's the bone of contention. Back in the Rob Repp days, T$R (and
>they DESERVED the name T$R at that particular time) claimed that they had
>copyright over the "AD&D game engine" without bothering to define said
>engine nor its limits. The term "AD&D game engine" is a direct statement
>from their legal department at that time.
And is absolutely, categorically, in conflict with any relevant law on the
matter.
There's a reason I bought some GURPS books back then.
James Robinson
> >What y'all really need, is a generic system that converts to AD&D,
> >that's freely distrubted for commercial use. It would have to cover
> >STATs, ALIGNMENTs, Spells, Classes. Then base your netbook'ospells etc
> >upon that.
>
> Might not necessarily help you. Microsoft recently slapped a lawsuit on a
> company (whose name escapes me) that was (is?) developing an application to
> help port Windows apps to Linux.
Sure. You can sue anyone for anything.
> I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing the
> system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
This is Microsoft's latest attempt at a defense in their anti-trust
trial, but that hardly lends it any weight as a legal precedent.
I refer you to Title 17, Section 102b:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in each
work."
Processes and their ilk are covered by patent law, which is a totally
different beast. It also offers a choice: You can patent a process,
which means you *MUST* make it publically available, and thus subject
to clean-room reverse-engineering (cf. IBM's BIOS), *OR* you can guard
the formula with secrecy (many Microsoft APIs, the formula for
Coca-Cola) - and have no legal recourse whatsoever if someone discovers
or happens upon your formula. (Note that this doesn't mean that the
offended company won't cow someone by threatening to sue them, and
appealing the suit until the offender is bankrupt, legal rights and
protections notwithstanding - this is an old, but nowhere near
exclusive, Microsoft tactic.)
To the best of my knowledge, no version of D&D, nor any aspect of any
version of D&D, has ever been submitted for patent. The secrecy tactic
makes absolutely no sense in the context of a game system, so that's
removed from consideration. Per the quote above, copyright law is
irrelevant (why would anyone want the mess that would result from
copyright, trademark, and patent law overlapping?). Ergo, you can take
the system described by TSR's books, express them in your own original
way (eg., as a freeware application), and (by the letter of the law)
you're completely safe.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
avat...@my-deja.com
>I know you can't duplicate the art
> (creative property), or the 'look and feel', but the rest seems
pretty much
Actually, if you'll recall the case a few years ago where Apple tried
to sue MS over Windows, saying that Windows copied the "look and feel"
of Apple's OS, the judge ruled that you can't copyright "look and feel."
Jerry Stratton
wrote:
>I believe that you can say "This product is not made by TSR. Compare
>with AD&D, a product of TSR/WotC Inc." or some such wording on the
>cover, as you can clearly find this on many generic products. As this
>is a statement of fact, it does not require TSRs approval. As for
>multiple refrences with the body of the work, it might be possible,
>though inadviseable. You need to keep the seperation clear from a
>common readers viewpoint.
In general, what you need to do is make certain that no reasonable
person would ever confuse your product with a TSR product. Easiest way
of doing this is to put the "this product compatible with WOTC(tm)'s
AD&D(tm)" on the inside and note who owns those trademarks.
For an overly litigious company like TSR used to be, if you want to
avoid spending money to win in court, you'll want to go overboard
("Grendel Games(tm) is not affiliated with WOTC(tm) and this is not an
official WOTC(tm) product"). WOTC cannot copyright or trademark stat
names or similar things in a way that stops you from using them. They
can't copyright them at all, and their trademark stops you only from
pretending to be WOTC through the use of those names. But you might have
to spend money to win in court, and if you don't spend enough money you
might lose.
I am not a lawyer, so of course everything I said is wrong.
Jimmy Kerl
>
> In article <8EE4740F2w...@142.104.60.110>,
> Wyvern <wyv...@uvic.ca> wrote:
> >Might not necessarily help you. Microsoft recently slapped a lawsuit on a
> >company (whose name escapes me) that was (is?) developing an application to
> >help port Windows apps to Linux.
>
> they win, it may simply be a result of lawyer-budget.
>
> >system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
>
>
>
> Get that down. You'll be tested on it later.
Ok question for discussion: SHOULD copyright (or other mechinasims) be
designed to protect formulas, systems, etc. ?
Jimmy
Peter Seebach
>Ok question for discussion: SHOULD copyright (or other mechinasims) be
>designed to protect formulas, systems, etc. ?
No; it's too vague, and too prone to abuse, both by consumers and producers
of content.
Dominus Aurorae
>
>>What y'all really need, is a generic system that converts to AD&D,
>>that's freely distrubted for commercial use. It would have to cover
>>STATs, ALIGNMENTs, Spells, Classes. Then base your netbook'ospells etc
>>upon that.
>
>Might not necessarily help you. Microsoft recently slapped a lawsuit on a
>company (whose name escapes me) that was (is?) developing an application to
>help port Windows apps to Linux.
Microsoft's actions aren't really a very good example. The company
tends to sue companies they view as a threat to their dominant
position, whether they really have a sound legal basis or not. MS's
resources are often sufficient to win by causing the other company to
surrender in fear of going bankrupt on the costs of sustaining the
suit.
>I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing the
>system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
IIRC, it comes down to this. No, I'm not a lawyer either.
Exact implementations may be copyrighted.
Ideas may not be copyrighted. They may be patented, but I do not think
this is the case for AD&D. If it was, we would be seeing lawsuits
against Nethack and similar games' authors.
There are, however, a lot of trademarks to watch out for, especially
with TSR stuff.
Clogar
>
[snip]
> In order for the author to publish his tale, he'd have to get
> Paramount's permission - so he obviously isn't in total control of it.
> Of course, Paramount can't take it and publish it without the
> *author's* permission, either ...
True. Of course, what the author can do is remove the
copyrighted material sufficiently so that it can be published.
Example: I write a fantasy book set in TSR's Forgotten Realms, but
TSR decides they don't want to buy it. If I want, I can change the
setting some, remove the trademarked names, and then get someone else
to publish it. Happens all the time.
Here's a better example: Let's say TSR used a number of
previously copyrighted and trademarked material in their products
(Tolkien's Hobbits, for instance). If what WotC is currently saying
is true, Dungeons and Dragons would not by copyrighted in any way,
shape, or form by WotC or TSR unless Tolkien's estate legally gave them
those rights. More importantly, all of the Dungeons and Dragons
derivatives would no longer be copyrighted by WotC or TSR because they
were originally based in part on other copyrights and trademarks.
Good thing what Mr. Dancey is saying isn't the law, or else
WotC would be in serious trouble...
-= Clogar
P.S.: I honestly think the point Mr. Dancey is trying to get across is
that you can't do whatever you want with TSR/WotC's copyrights and that
they still retain some control over them in this digital world. It
just didn't come out exactly like that, and everyone seems to have a
chip on their shoulders caused by TSR's previous handling of such
matters...
Clogar
>
[snip]
> I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing
> the system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
Actually, this brings up the whole "Mac vs. Windows" debate
again. So, what color is YOUR mouse pointer arrow, hm? :)
-= Clogar
Jason Hatter
Maloney) proclaimed <bjm10
-24020018...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>:
>If "look and feel" were as strong a matter as some would have us
>believe, then Apple would have obliterated Microsoft with the
>merest of hints of lawsuits.
I think Microsoft was saved by the one thing that we all dislike
about it: their version didn't work. 8P
--
Jason
ICQ#24332701
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Might not necessarily help you. Microsoft recently slapped a lawsuit on a
> company (whose name escapes me) that was (is?) developing an application to
> help port Windows apps to Linux.
> I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing the
> system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
The system is not copyrightable. They may have patents or design rights to
the apps. There may be a licensing (eg reverse engineering) issue there,
or there may be copyright on chunks of code (this varies wildly from place
to place)....all of which would allow suit.
One of the problems with this long argument is that the thing is being
debated in a vacuum a little as copyright is merely one of several
intellectual property rights, and includes both property and moral rights
which are handled seperately.
Allister Huggins
>
> Michael Brown wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > In order for the author to publish his tale, he'd have to get
> > Paramount's permission - so he obviously isn't in total control of it.
> > Of course, Paramount can't take it and publish it without the
> > *author's* permission, either ...
>
> True. Of course, what the author can do is remove the
> copyrighted material sufficiently so that it can be published.
> Example: I write a fantasy book set in TSR's Forgotten Realms, but
> TSR decides they don't want to buy it. If I want, I can change the
> setting some, remove the trademarked names, and then get someone else
> to publish it. Happens all the time.
The one example that seems obvious to me is the "Deeds of
Paksnerrarion" by Elizabeth Moon. You can tell the book was written for
GH (look at the paladin's powers, the cudgel wielding lawful power, the
evil spider deity and the village that maps onto Hamlet). I wonder why
TSR never bothered to ask E. Moon to write for them.
Allister H.
Sea Wasp
Because it's not written for GH. Having exchanged some letters with the
(very charming!) lady on this very subject, it turns out that the book
was written because she overheard (she doesn't play, apparently) some
people playing so-called Paladins in a way that really bothered her, so
she thought to her self "well, in such a world, what WOULD this
'paladin' be like? How would she come to be? ..." and wrote the book
from that. The powers, etc, were taken (most likely by asking a few
questions and glancing through some supplements) from an RPG, most
likely D&D judging by their approach, but there's a LOT of stuff in
there that isn't at all from D&D.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Ok question for discussion: SHOULD copyright (or other mechinasims) be
> designed to protect formulas, systems, etc. ?
They exist already. Design rights of assorted kinds, mainly patents would
be applicable. Its just copyright is inapplicable. Trademarks have also
been mentioned and they are a common way of defending this sort of thing.
Though they are more limited and have that 'must be defended clause to
them'. You can trademark 200 things to sew up the game but it does get
expensive to defend too many trademarks.....
SOmeone has already posted that game rules aren't patentable (in the USA I
assume), if true I would assume that this is based on the idea that you
probably can't produce much original in a game....whether thats true or
not is obviously open for debate.
Allister Huggins
>
> Allister Huggins wrote:
<snip>
> > evil spider deity and the village that maps onto Hamlet). I wonder why
> > TSR never bothered to ask E. Moon to write for them.\
>
> Because it's not written for GH. Having exchanged some letters with the
> (very charming!) lady on this very subject, it turns out that the book
> was written because she overheard (she doesn't play, apparently) some
> people playing so-called Paladins in a way that really bothered her, so
> she thought to her self "well, in such a world, what WOULD this
> 'paladin' be like? How would she come to be? ..." and wrote the book
> from that. The powers, etc, were taken (most likely by asking a few
> questions and glancing through some supplements) from an RPG, most
> likely D&D judging by their approach, but there's a LOT of stuff in
> there that isn't at all from D&D.
Thanks for the background. I wonder if TSR ever approached E. Moon
about writing a book in GH?
Allister H.
Wyvern
>Microsoft's actions aren't really a very good example. The company
>tends to sue companies they view as a threat to their dominant
>position, whether they really have a sound legal basis or not. MS's
>resources are often sufficient to win by causing the other company to
>surrender in fear of going bankrupt on the costs of sustaining the
>suit.
Kinda reminds you of the Church of Scientology, doesn't it...
Wyvern
Sea Wasp
I dunno. I wouldn't recommend it -- from her letters, she's much the
type who writes what her characters/inspirations lead her to write (for
instance, she'd like to write another Paks book, but Paks won't
cooperate!). I did suggest that they include Paksennarion as the
ultimate example of a Paladin.
Peter Seebach
> I dunno. I wouldn't recommend it -- from her letters, she's much the
>type who writes what her characters/inspirations lead her to write (for
>instance, she'd like to write another Paks book, but Paks won't
>cooperate!). I did suggest that they include Paksennarion as the
>ultimate example of a Paladin.
Definitely a good example. Probably one of the best ever.
It was those books that put Elizabeth Moon on the "will buy books in hardcover
if they aren't out in paperback" list for me, and I haven't regretted it.
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <38B6CC...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> > I dunno. I wouldn't recommend it -- from her letters, she's much the
> >type who writes what her characters/inspirations lead her to write (for
> >instance, she'd like to write another Paks book, but Paks won't
> >cooperate!). I did suggest that they include Paksennarion as the
> >ultimate example of a Paladin.
>
> Definitely a good example. Probably one of the best ever.
>
lose her individuality when she became a paladin (re: Paks reaction to
seeing a wizard before and after her paladinhood).
With 3E, I can actually model Paks with the multi-classing rules. She
starts off as a 1st level fighter and then becomes a paladin. I can't
model that in 1E/2E without breaking the official rules. One of the main
reasons why I am seriously considering restricting paladins as a
prestige class as well (although from what I've been told, prestige
classes have just feat and ability requirements, not class requirements
though).
One of the things I most like about 3E's new rules on multi-classing
and prestige classes is that it is much easier to justify the type of
characters found in L&L to players. No longer will you have players
asking "How come Fafhrd and King Arthur can be those classes and I
can't?"
Allister H.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Ok question for discussion: SHOULD copyright (or other mechinasims) be
> designed to protect formulas, systems, etc. ?
It's called "patent".
Bryan J. Maloney
towo...@concentric.net (Jason Hatter) wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2000, in rec.games.frp.dnd, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J.
> Maloney) proclaimed <bjm10
> -24020018...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>:
>
> >If "look and feel" were as strong a matter as some would have us
> >believe, then Apple would have obliterated Microsoft with the
> >merest of hints of lawsuits.
>
> I think Microsoft was saved by the one thing that we all dislike
> about it: their version didn't work. 8P
Is that why 95% of all microcomputers are Macintoshes?
Peter Seebach
Two words: Network effect.
Compatability is a big deal; most of us have at least one Windows-type machine
around, and continue to have one, because, when the PC came out, it was made
by the company that made the typewriter it replaced. Since then, it's been
a long chain of "but if we switch we lose all this software".
(Admittedly offtopic, but it's a pet peeve that people assume that the
decisions people make about computers reflect some kind of intrinsic merit,
rather than current market position.)
James Robinson
> Peter Seebach wrote:
> > COPYRIGHT DOES NOT, HAS NOT EVER, AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE COVER IDEAS.
> >
> > Get that down. You'll be tested on it later.
>
>
> Ok question for discussion: SHOULD copyright (or other mechinasims) be
> designed to protect formulas, systems, etc. ?
No.
That's what patent law is for.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Jason Stitt
>
> Wyvern wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > I'm no lawyer, but I think that copying a system and simply changing
> > the system's names still constitutes a copyright infringement...
>
> again. So, what color is YOUR mouse pointer arrow, hm? :)
>
> -= Clogar
It's 8 o'clock. Do you know where your disk drive is? ;)
--
Jason Stitt
R. Serena Wakefield
>>I know you can't duplicate the art
>> (creative property), or the 'look and feel', but the rest seems pretty much
>> open...
>Actually, if you'll recall the case a few years ago where Apple tried
>to sue MS over Windows, saying that Windows copied the "look and feel"
>of Apple's OS, the judge ruled that you can't copyright "look and feel."
Didn't MS subsequently try to sue a third party for copying WINDOWS'
look and feel? Or am I disremembering yet again?
--
R. Serena Wakefield
Visit Serena's Gaming Dojo at http://welcome.to/serenasdojo
RANDOMLY GENERATED THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
Who decided God has no sense of humour? Why did we believe them?
Steve Buza
>I think it's important to remember that we're talking legal terms here.
>In English "derivative" means "based on", but I'm pretty sure (IANAL)
>that in legalese, "derivative" has a much more restrictive meaning.
No disagreement from me.
In presenting a case, however, there is value in stating multiple
defenses as follows:
a) We contend that third-party works based on the AD&D game system are
NOT derivative works per the definition of Federal law, and are
therefore the property of their respective creators.
b) and alternately, if the Court finds that third-party works based on
the AD&D game system are, in fact, derivative works, we contend that,
inter alia, any derivative rights are expressly placed in the public
domain by the text of the game system manuals, and therefore the
property of their respective creators.
I'm not arguing against the poignant discussion of this thread. I'm
suggesting (admittedly somewhat off topic) that there is more than one
affirmative defense available. It would be prudent to include several
defenses to their copyright suit. For example,
c) We contend that use of the game system terminology in third-party
creations that can be easily modified for use with any game system is
permitted by the Fair Use clause, and therefore such works are the
property of their respective creators.
As I said in my last post, I do not believe that my creations are
derivative works based on the existing statutes, but it is obvious
that not everyone agrees with that stance (WoTC comes to mind), and it
is therefore wise to consider additional defenses to this copyright
issue.
Steve
Jerry Stratton
(Steve Buza) wrote:
>>I think it's important to remember that we're talking legal terms here.
>>In English "derivative" means "based on", but I'm pretty sure (IANAL)
>>that in legalese, "derivative" has a much more restrictive meaning.
>
>No disagreement from me.
>
>In presenting a case, however, there is value in stating multiple
>defenses as follows:
Absolutely true, although I suspect that in a jury trial this requires a
pretty good lawyer. I've seen mention of defenses such as "I didn't kill
the guy, but if I did kill the guy, I didn't kill him from a moving
vehicle." Conditional defenses need, psychologically, a pretty good
explanation, I would think.
And in the context of public discussion, folks making use of conditional
defense should make it plain up front for future reference. ("Your
honor, the defendant implied back in 2000 that he knew he was creating a
derivative work.")
I'll also reiterate (as drolls may do) that when speaking legaleze it is
very important *not* to use legal terms as if they were English :*) This
is what I was responding to, whether it was actually there or not.
Steve Buza
>I'll also reiterate (as drolls may do) that when speaking legaleze it is
>very important *not* to use legal terms as if they were English :*) This
>is what I was responding to, whether it was actually there or not.
A valid point.
Steve
John Simpson
wrote:
>In article <sb6u401...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
>>> US Code 17, Section 103:
>>> (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
>>> compilations and derivative works, BUT PROTECTION FOR A WORK EMPLOYING
>>> PREEXISTING MATERIAL IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
>>> PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY.
>
>>What this section says is simple. If you create a derivitive work based on
>>someone else's copyrighted material, and you do not have a license or legal
>>permission to do so, you >do not own< a copyright to >any< part of the new
>>work derived from that copyrighted material.
>
>This is a flat contradiction of the text. It clearly states that *ONLY THAT
>PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY* is not
>protected!
>
>EVERYTHING ELSE IS COVERED.
>
>>The practical application of this section is that if you create material
>>>derived< (I emphasize derived, because it is far more extensive than
>>"quoted" or "cited"), you >do not gain copyright to that derivitive
>>material<.
>
>Only sort of true. When I posted quoting the 1st edition DMG's guide to
>a slaying of ogres, I had copyright on the resulting post. I did not
>gain copyright on the text about the ogres, but that's obvious; no one ever
>said I did.
>
>When I write a spell for use with the AD&D system, and it refers to "similar
>to a /teleport/ spell", I have not gained ownership of the teleport spell,
>*BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS MINE*.
>
>>In other words, if you write a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, you do
>>not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
>>unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights.
>
>WRONG.
>
>You do not gain content *ON THAT PART WHICH IS SPECFICALLY UNLAWFUL USE OF
>THEIR MATERIAL*.
>
>If I write a long story in the Star Trek universe in which characters I
>invented have a relationship, and write each other poetry, I may not be able
>to claim copyright *on the part that is derived from Paramount's property*.
>I *DO* have copyright on the characters and their dialogue.
>
>It says *PART*, Ryan. You have to accept this; the entire work is *not*
>suddenly removed from protection just because *PART* of it may be considered
>a "derivative" work, *AND EVEN THAT APPLIES ONLY INSOFAR AS THE DERIVATION
>IS UNLAWFUL*.
>
>>It means that if
>>you wrote a poem about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you would not own the
>>copyright to that poem.
>
>You would probably own most of it, because your protection ends *at the part
>which is used unlawfully*.
>
>>The specific case of "imaginary world" material is a very convoluted one to
>>say the least. In the event that someone actually chose to litigate this
>>issue (which, I reiterate, nobody at Wizards is suggesting we would do), a
>>court would be asked to separate the content that is "original" from the
>>content that is "derived". There are no specific guidelines in the statute
>>that describe how to do this, so the decision would be made by the court
>>based on the arguments presented by the parties to the suit. Clearly,
>>Paramount would argue, in the case of the Star Trek story, that the entire
>>disputed work was derivative.
>
>Yes, but unless they *convince a judge or jury*, your claim above is false.
>
>>In essence, they would argue that by setting
>>the story in the "Star Trek" universe, the >entire narrative< would be a
>>derived work, produced unlawfully, and thus the creator would not own a
>>copyright to the work. My lawyers tell me that based on their understanding
>>of how these cases have been resolved in the past, Paramount would have a
>>very good chance at winning the case.
>
>It might well, because, of course, they have big lawyers.
>
>>That said, I will now remove myself from this discussion. I encourage
>>anyone who has a specific interest to take this matter up with a trained
>>intellectual property rights attorney who specializes in copyright
>>litigation.
>
>I will continue to stand by my claim: Until someone at TSR makes it
>absolutely clear, in writing, in public, that I do, in fact, have copyright
>on the spells, items, and characters I have created in D&D games, I'm not
>posting any more of them to Usenet.
>
>Furthermore, you still owe us an apology for claiming that, in the event of
>such a disputed work, the holder of copyright on the original material somehow
>*becomes* the owner of the new work....
...Particularly since Wizards' current online policy, which he
reaffirmed above, gives *permission* for the creation of derivative
works. Mr. Dancey's talk of "unlawful" derivative works is therefore
not at all germane to a discussion of fan web sites. I believe that
some people at Wizards are so terrified of conceding *anything* that
we will continue to see discussion of fan sites steered in this
spurious direction.
Mr. Dancey now confirms that Wizards' current online policy is
satisfactory, but in January he promised a re-write--after its
inherent permission for derivative works was pointed out to him:
<http://24.112.96.246/add/greytalk.nsf/dde218134ed17567852566640055dd02/d99712ebbec1ae6285256868005d84f4?OpenDocument>.
The convoluted reassurance above (which tries to imply that Wizards
would never simply "take" fan material--but doesn't actually say that)
falls flat when Mr. Dancey seem otherwise so adamant about defending
an alleged *right* to do so. See his response to my wife's query in
Greytalk:
<http://24.112.96.246/add/greytalk.nsf/dde218134ed17567852566640055dd02/7f208cdb6bbdc5d385256869006fbea0?OpenDocument>.
The "unlawful" red herring and the talk of open-sourcing both
side-step the question of ownership of fan material presently on the
Internet--rather clumsily, it seems to me.
Note, for instance, that open-sourcing D&D *would* allow Wizards to
package and distribute fan material created under the open-source
license, and to profit from this practice without paying royalties to
the authors. Furthermore, only portions of the game and/or settings
will be open-sourced, and that only gradually--see his first post on
the subject in Greytalk:
<http://24.112.96.246/add/greytalk.nsf/dde218134ed17567852566640055dd02/2f96db2b1fad2deb8525686a00023e32?OpenDocument>.
Why is Wizards making odd claims to fan-created material now, at a
time when they are shutting down most of their product lines? Can
they really be that strapped for cash?
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
"I do live by the church; for I do live at my house, and my house doth
stand by the church." --Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> What this section says is simple. If you create a derivitive work based on
> someone else's copyrighted material, and you do not have a license or legal
> permission to do so, you >do not own< a copyright to >any< part of the new
> work derived from that copyrighted material.
> In other words, if you write a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, you do
> not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
> unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights. It means that if
> you wrote a poem about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you would not own the
> copyright to that poem.
I still have to disagree with Ryan here. Everything I have learned (from
copyright attourneys) has indicated that just because you derive part of
your work from another doesn't give them any claim on your entire work -
just the specific parts that are derivative. If you write a story where
some college kids take a lot of drugs and in one chapter they end up
hallucinating that they're in a Star Trek episode, Paramount doesn't own
your story. They may own specific characters and things in your story
(such as "tricorders," "phasers," and "dilithium crystals" - not the
words, but what they represent) but they can't claim your whole story as
theirs (although their lawyers may make it too expensive to disagree
with them).
> My lawyers tell me that based on their understanding
> of how these cases have been resolved in the past, Paramount would have a
> very good chance at winning the case.
And there are cases to the contrary, where an author (CJ Cherryh?) lost
rights to write in a specific place and time period of one of her worlds
because a fan wrote a LOT of fanfic in that area, she sued, and the
judge ruled that not only did the fan have the rights to his material,
but she couldn't publish anything else for that area/time period without
the fan's permission because she'd be making derivative works of HIS writing.
I also find it interesting that the person he's talking to in Legal is
the same person I consulted with in creating the online policy. And
Peter Adkison doesn't want the fans to feel that they can't write and
post what they want, which may be the most relevant fact here.
--
Sean K Reynolds - game designer, computer artist, web guy, bigmouth
Want a self-contained tropical campaign setting with savages,
ancient empires, slavers, xenophobes, and yuan-ti?
Try THE SCARLET BROTHERHOOD, an accessory written by yours truly;
follow the "My Published Game Products" link on my web page:
http://www.seankreynolds.com
JD Lail
<skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And there are cases to the contrary, where an author (CJ Cherryh?) lost
>rights to write in a specific place and time period of one of her worlds
>because a fan wrote a LOT of fanfic in that area, she sued, and the
>judge ruled that not only did the fan have the rights to his material,
>but she couldn't publish anything else for that area/time period without
>the fan's permission because she'd be making derivative works of HIS writing.
I believe the author was Marion Zimmer Bradley. The setting was
"Darkover". The situation was that MZB allowed her world to be used by
her fans as the setting for short stories & novellas subject to her
(MZB's) editing & approval. These were the so called "Friends of
Darkover" projects.
IIRC The fan in question wrote a story that was very similar to some
fiction that MZB was about to finish. MZB when she read the submission
rejected it and went to her publisher with these facts. It is my
memory that the publisher's attorney's said to trash the book unless
the fan gave her a release. The fan refused and MZB, very publically
and bitterly killed the book as well as the "Friends" project. I am
not sure if this was ever adjudicated.
Part of the problem with these cases is that people are overlooking
that when they buy a gaming product they only are granted
non-commercial rights over it and non-commercial is a lot broader
than they think.
I suspect that the WotC position here is that if they can avoid what
happened to MZB by clearly stating that they are NOT granting
anyone any sort of commercial rights simply because
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
James Robinson
Reynolds <skr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
[nothing worth repeating]
> I still have to disagree with Ryan here. Everything I have learned (from
> copyright attourneys) has indicated that just because you derive part of
> your work from another doesn't give them any claim on your entire work -
> just the specific parts that are derivative.
Not to mention that the law itself says this quite clearly.
> > My lawyers tell me that based on their understanding
> > of how these cases have been resolved in the past, Paramount would have a
> > very good chance at winning the case.
>
> And there are cases to the contrary, where an author (CJ Cherryh?) lost
> rights to write in a specific place and time period of one of her worlds
> because a fan wrote a LOT of fanfic in that area, she sued, and the
> judge ruled that not only did the fan have the rights to his material,
> but she couldn't publish anything else for that area/time period without
> the fan's permission because she'd be making derivative works of HIS writing.
That was Mercedes Lackey.
> I also find it interesting that the person he's talking to in Legal is
> the same person I consulted with in creating the online policy. And
> Peter Adkison doesn't want the fans to feel that they can't write and
> post what they want, which may be the most relevant fact here.
Not to put too fine a point on it. :-)
Sean, you've got balls. I mean that in the best possible way.
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
Aristotle
>While no company could survive a hailstorm of small suits with merit,
>chat such as Mr. Dancey's is bluster and can only garner ill will for
>TSR/WotC. I am VERY suprised that a upper level executive would say
>such things or even comment upon legal opinion. I must say that my
>opinion of Mr. Dancey has slumped a bit even if he was feeling his
>copyrighted oats.
I agree. Is Ryan unaware of the tremendous ill will TSR faced a few years ago
when they had a draconian net policy? Considering the fact that net usage has
increased probably 1000 fold since then, attempting such an outrageous policy
would be far more diasterous now than it was then.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay
is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
Aristotle
>not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
>unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights. It means that if
>you wrote a poem about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you would not own the
>copyright to that poem.
This is not at all analogous. You can create modules, spells, magic items,
etc. that do not mention a single location in any AD&D campaign world. I'm
sorry Ryan, but this analogy holds less water than a marathoner on diuretics.
Adam Benedict Canning
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds wrote:
>
> And there are cases to the contrary, where an author (CJ Cherryh?) lost
> rights to write in a specific place and time period of one of her worlds
> because a fan wrote a LOT of fanfic in that area, she sued, and the
> judge ruled that not only did the fan have the rights to his material,
> but she couldn't publish anything else for that area/time period without
> the fan's permission because she'd be making derivative works of HIS writing.
If your talking about the incident I remember its part of Darkover that
MZ Bradely
can't do anything with due to having recieved fan fic set in that
particular time
period from a fan which was very similar to something she then
published. I.E. it
was judged that she was had ripped off the fans story.
But you may know of something different.
> I also find it interesting that the person he's talking to in Legal is
> the same person I consulted with in creating the online policy. And
> Peter Adkison doesn't want the fans to feel that they can't write and
> post what they want, which may be the most relevant fact here.
>
In the long run one would hope so.
Adam
Sea Wasp
> > US Code 17, Section 103:
> > (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
> > compilations and derivative works, BUT PROTECTION FOR A WORK EMPLOYING
> > PREEXISTING MATERIAL IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
> > PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY.
>
> What this section says is simple.
And yet you demonstrate a persistent inability to understand it. Either
you are stupid, which I doubt, wilfully and stubbornly misunderstanding
it, which is possible, or just not a very good reader.
If you create a derivitive work based on
> someone else's copyrighted material, and you do not have a license or legal
> permission to do so, you >do not own< a copyright to >any< part of the new
> work derived from that copyrighted material.
Wrong. Re-read what you yourself just quoted:
BUT PROTECTION FOR A WORK EMPLOYING
> > PREEXISTING MATERIAL IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
> > PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED UNLAWFULLY.
Read that. Carefully. It says, quite clearly, that the copyright
protection is withdrawn ONLY from the PART of the work in which the
copyright is used unlawfully. ONLY that part. I.e., if I use Captain
Kirk in a story, but also use my character Kyrie Ross, I retain full and
unencumbered copyright to EVERYTHING having to do with Kyrie Ross, but
don't have copyright on Captain Kirk and his particular sections. In
point of fact, it could get quite amusing; reading that section
literally, this means that in a DIALOGUE section where Kyrie was talking
to Kirk, I would have copyright to all of Kyrie's lines, and Paramount
would have it to all of Kirk's. I don't have the right to include
official mention that Kyrie once met Captain Kirk, but I can mention
that she knew a starship captain and, as long as I mention no names
trademarked by Paramount, there's little they can do at that point.
>
> The practical application of this section is that if you create material
> >derived< (I emphasize derived, because it is far more extensive than
> "quoted" or "cited"), you >do not gain copyright to that derivitive
> material<.
>
> In other words, if you write a story set in the "Star Trek" universe, you do
> not automatically gain a copyright on the content you created because it is
> unlawfully derived from Paramount's Star Trek copyrights. It means that if
> you wrote a poem about "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", you would not own the
> copyright to that poem.
Wrongo. You would own the entirety of both that did not immediately
steal from the source. I.e., you might own the WHOLE of the latter if
you didn't actually mention Buffy in the poem (since poems can be pretty
abstract). While some people have actually weaselled past Paramount by
avoiding all the trademarks, that would be a very clumsy way to do a
whole story. So assuming that the Star Trek story was done in a
relatively normal way, you would not own the copyright to the materials
that you used from Star Trek, but you would indeed own the material
which was original and not derived from Star Trek.
An extreme case of the way copyright law applies was seen in the world
of Darkover. The creator of Darkover, Marion Zimmer Bradley, had
permitted some fans, the Friends of Darkover, to produce stories set in
her world. Now, it was HER world, HER creation, make no mistake about
it. Yet when a fan published a story about (A), and MZB was writing a
story that touched on similar material, she was advised by her lawyer to
kill the book unless the FAN gave her a release! Despite the fact that
the entire world was her creation and all publication by the Friends of
Darkover was at HER specific approval or disapproval, her copyright did
not extend to any material created by another person. Had it gone to
court, there was a very grave doubt as to whether MZB could have even
had much of a chance of winning.
Please, Ryan. You're 100% wrong in this case. Stop it. You are damaging
WotC/TSR's image badly, and making yourself look like a gold-plated
fool.
azothath
> In article <IZTs4.1001$%A3.2...@ptah.visi.com>,> <SNIP statements and replies>
>
> I will continue to stand by my claim: Until someone at TSR makes
> it absolutely clear, in writing, in public, that I do, in fact,
> have copyright on the spells, items, and characters I have created
> in D&D games, I'm not posting any more of them to Usenet.
something that is not likely to ever occur.
alas, that is your choice, and one we all face. I too am reluctant
to post several of my major overhauls of the system and such, but
3rd Ed (D&D3) will make these somewhat irrelevant. (3e is NOT a
proper abbreviation). The question is how long AD&D will linger
without support from TSR, and will they protect it vigorously?
They may license it out! who knows....
I still say a generic, free use & distribution, games notation
system for net use is the way to go. It relieves TSR of relaxing
their copyrights, and draws a neat, clean discernable line legally.
Everybody wins.
Of course, the real threat is that anything you post can be
reversed engineered BACK into TSRs area without much work. Then
the burden falls upon you to sue TSR and prove your case (their
guilt). That takes money, time, and energy.
> Furthermore, you still owe us an apology for claiming that, in the
event of
> such a disputed work, the holder of copyright on the original material
somehow
> *becomes* the owner of the new work. This is *NOT* the case, and
explicitly
> contradicts the law.
>
> -s
lol - everybody has an opinion
> --
> 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/
--
/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter Seebach
>> In article <IZTs4.1001$%A3.2...@ptah.visi.com>,
>> se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>> I will continue to stand by my claim: Until someone at TSR makes
>> it absolutely clear, in writing, in public, that I do, in fact,
>> have copyright on the spells, items, and characters I have created
>> in D&D games, I'm not posting any more of them to Usenet.
>something that is not likely to ever occur.
True enough. But, the alternative is to risk a corporate entity that has an
available legal budget larger than five years of my income just *WAITING* for
an excuse to use it, with an *OPENLY DECLARED HOSTILITY TO MY VERY EXISTANCE*.
So, "Peter Seebach, person who has created material for use with the AD&D
game" must not be found to exist in any public place.
>Of course, the real threat is that anything you post can be
>reversed engineered BACK into TSRs area without much work. Then
>the burden falls upon you to sue TSR and prove your case (their
>guilt).
I don't care; if someone's willing to take the time to innovate from my work,
or even just copy the really good bits, great. I just want them to admit that
it's *MY* work that they are copying.
-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/
Steve Miller
<< I believe the author was Marion Zimmer Bradley. The setting was
"Darkover". The situation was that MZB allowed her world to be used by
her fans as the setting for short stories & novellas subject to her
(MZB's) editing & approval. These were the so called "Friends of
Darkover" projects. >>
Yes. Sean was probably thinking of the Bradley incident, but it caused a number
of other authors who had previously been very friendly and open with their fans
to kill such interactions. (Maybe Cherry was one such person? I believe
Mercedes Lackey certainly is.)
Gotta love them "fans."
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"
Sean K 'Veggie Boy' Reynolds
Steve Miller wrote:
>
> JD Lail wrote:
>
> << I believe the author was Marion Zimmer Bradley. The setting was
> "Darkover". The situation was that MZB allowed her world to be used by
> her fans as the setting for short stories & novellas subject to her
> (MZB's) editing & approval. These were the so called "Friends of
> Darkover" projects. >>
>
> Yes. Sean was probably thinking of the Bradley incident, but it caused a number
> of other authors who had previously been very friendly and open with their fans
> to kill such interactions. (Maybe Cherry was one such person? I believe
> Mercedes Lackey certainly is.)
Nah, it's just that Sue Cook's character in my Monday night game _looks_
like CJ Cherryh, which confused me. :)
Andrew Hackard
>If your talking about the incident I remember its part of Darkover that
>MZ Bradely can't do anything with
MZB can't really do anything with ANY part of Darkover now, more's the pity.
--
"As for rumor and reputation, let us consider them as
matters that must not guide, but follow our actions."
======================== --L. Annaeus Seneca Minor
<*> ahac...@uvic.ca