D20 -- A "Solution" to a Non-Problem?
Lynne Simpson
Ryan Dancey has stated that all AD&D-related fan material on the
Internet infringes on WotC's copyrights. His position is that WotC's
online policy does not grant a license or any type of permission to
create fan material but that it is a statement of intent not to
prosecute infringers. Further, he states that all infringing
derivative works become the property of the original copyright holder,
which in this case is Wizards of the Coast. [This latter point has
yet to be supported by any of the case law citations posted by Mr.
Dancey.]
He claims that the new D20 initiative will be a solution to the
problem. Authors will be able to produce fan material using parts of
the D20 system and will be able to sell their material, if they wish.
In return for this "privilege", authors must grant a type of "open
source" license to everyone else. This means that any work produced
under the license will be able to be copied, redistributed, sold, or
modified by anyone else. [In another thread, I noted that small
publishers would be competing with WotC to sell the same products, and
in such cases, the smaller publishers are at a significant
disadvantage. It's all well and good to give someone permission to
sell something that you also sell, but if you know that the deck is
stacked against them being able to compete with you, that permission
may not mean all that much. From this arrangement, WotC stands to
gain a substantial amount of free material.]
Anyone who visits a local gaming store is likely to see a number of
generic fantasy roleplaying source materials and modules on the
shelves. Some of these works use notation for character and creature
stats that is similar to AD&D notation. In some cases, other words
for Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, Constitution and
Charisma are substituted. Some products use plain text descriptions
and very few number stats.
I believe that people can *already* produce generic fantasy
roleplaying materials and sell them and that there is no need for
authors to sign away all of their rights under the D20 system. I'm
not a lawyer, but I believe that an author could take a number of
precautions to genericize the stats in the book so that he could avoid
claims of infringement. I have seen a number of generic products that
say that they are suitable for use in "popular roleplaying systems,
such as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" and that "any reference to the
trademark is not authorized by Wizards of the Coast". Personally, I
would probably leave off any reference to AD&D, but it certainly
appears that some publishers feel safe enough in doing so.
In short, I think that the D20 system asks for too much in return for
a privilege that authors, to some extent, already have. Currently, an
author can't claim to be producing an *authorized* AD&D supplement and
can't use any of WotC's logos, but is gaining permission to use a D20
logo -- which, I might add, is NOT the WotC logo -- worth signing away
one's rights under the copyright law? I think that it is possible
that Mr. Dancey is trying to make it sound like authors are worse off
than they actually are in order to make the terms of the D20 license
appear more attractive to them.
Don
news:5m17gsc4tgvl7ks1m...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
> In short, I think that the D20 system asks for too much in return for
> a privilege that authors, to some extent, already have. Currently, an
> author can't claim to be producing an *authorized* AD&D supplement and
> can't use any of WotC's logos, but is gaining permission to use a D20
> logo -- which, I might add, is NOT the WotC logo -- worth signing away
> one's rights under the copyright law? I think that it is possible
> that Mr. Dancey is trying to make it sound like authors are worse off
> than they actually are in order to make the terms of the D20 license
> appear more attractive to them.
After all the discussions on the whole "open" gaming stuff that WotC is
proposing, it looks to me to be one big scam. People should be free to
publish their own modules for whatever gaming system they want and not be
scared into this "open" gaming nonsense. There's no infringing on
copyrights or trademarks if you make an unauthorized module for D&D as long
as you're not copying large amounts of text from copyrighted WotC books or
abusing their trademarks (claiming that a module is "Designed for WotC's
Dungeons & Dragons RPG" is fair use).
- Don
Don
news:8e07fs$2ib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8e05dm$j0c$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> "Don" <?@?.?> wrote:
>
> > There's no infringing on
> > copyrights or trademarks if you make an unauthorized module for D&D as
long
> > as you're not copying large amounts of text from copyrighted WotC books
or
> > abusing their trademarks (claiming that a module is "Designed for WotC's
> > Dungeons & Dragons RPG" is fair use).
>
> established for the purpose of commentary, whether it be journalistic,
> review or parody. It's NOT for using someone else's material as a
> required springboard to make money yourself. That's illegal in pretty
> much every nation on Earth.
Creating a module for D&D is not using someone else's material. You're
creating your own material.
> You don't have to agree with it, but please don't cite fair use in this
> case because you're simply wrong to do so.
How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not fair use?
- Don
Don
Testing <te...@test.com> wrote in message
news:65OM4.115571$8S2.1...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
>
> "Don" <?@?.?> wrote in message
news:8e097v$kr3$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8e07fs$2ib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <8e05dm$j0c$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
> > > "Don" <?@?.?> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There's no infringing on
> > > > copyrights or trademarks if you make an unauthorized module for D&D
as
> > long
> > > > as you're not copying large amounts of text from copyrighted WotC
> books
> > or
> > > > abusing their trademarks (claiming that a module is "Designed for
> WotC's
> > > > Dungeons & Dragons RPG" is fair use).
> > >
> > > That's SO not fair use. "Fair use" of copyrighted material is
> > > established for the purpose of commentary, whether it be journalistic,
> > > review or parody. It's NOT for using someone else's material as a
> > > required springboard to make money yourself. That's illegal in pretty
> > > much every nation on Earth.
> >
> > Creating a module for D&D is not using someone else's material. You're
> > creating your own material.
>
> have to use generic terms, and not use anything direct from any of the
> guides...Otherwise, if you use "Magic Missile", which in your adventure is
> listed on a mage's spellbook as a 1st level spell, you'd be infringing.
How is that infringing? If someone writes a module and describes an enemy
as being "a mage who primarily uses the first level Magic Missile spell",
how is that violating WotC's copyright in the PHB, for example? There is no
copying of WotC's expression of the idea of Magic Missiles. If the person
reproduced the entire "Magic Missile" first level spell entry from the PHB
word for word, that would be infringing on copyright.
- Don
Michael Scott Brown
> How is that infringing? If someone writes a module and describes an enemy
> as being "a mage who primarily uses the first level Magic Missile spell",
> how is that violating WotC's copyright in the PHB, for example? There is
no
> copying of WotC's expression of the idea of Magic Missiles.
You're still *using* their specific Magic Missile. No different from
putting Luke Skywalker into a novel.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Creating a module for D&D is not using someone else's material. You're
> creating your own material.
If you use D&D game mechanics, you're using their material.
-Michael
Jerry Stratton
>In short, I think that the D20 system asks for too much in return for
>a privilege that authors, to some extent, already have. Currently, an
>author can't claim to be producing an *authorized* AD&D supplement and
>can't use any of WotC's logos, but is gaining permission to use a D20
>logo -- which, I might add, is NOT the WotC logo -- worth signing away
>one's rights under the copyright law? I think that it is possible
>that Mr. Dancey is trying to make it sound like authors are worse off
>than they actually are in order to make the terms of the D20 license
>appear more attractive to them.
I dunno. Sometimes I think he's an idiot; othertimes I think he's a
complete idiot. But he's not so much of an idiot that he believes what
he's saying, so you might be right. Whenever he's faced with a real life
example, he either ignores it, or calls it parody--even going so far as
to call one item a parody because it's funny, and it's funny because
it's not funny, and that's like British humor!
I think it's pretty clear he doesn't believe what he's saying about
derivative works and copyright, but why he goes on saying it is
anybody's guess. Yours is better than mine, probably, which is that he's
trying to somehow scare the market into not creating things we have the
right to create. (Though I guess they overlap.)
Beau Yarbrough
"Don" <?@?.?> wrote:
> There's no infringing on
> copyrights or trademarks if you make an unauthorized module for D&D as
long
> as you're not copying large amounts of text from copyrighted WotC
books or
> abusing their trademarks (claiming that a module is "Designed for
WotC's
> Dungeons & Dragons RPG" is fair use).
That's SO not fair use. "Fair use" of copyrighted material is
established for the purpose of commentary, whether it be journalistic,
review or parody. It's NOT for using someone else's material as a
required springboard to make money yourself. That's illegal in pretty
much every nation on Earth.
It's one thing to do Citybooks like Flying Buffalo does that are
sufficiently generic to be portable into nearly every gaming system with
the same amount of work -- they aren't AD&D books with names changed on
the stats. Do most people use them for AD&D? Probably. But they're not
making AD&D books under another name or, worse yet, applying
misunderstood fair use decisions incorrectly.
You don't have to agree with it, but please don't cite fair use in this
case because you're simply wrong to do so.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Beau Yarbrough
> I think that it is possible
> that Mr. Dancey is trying to make it sound like authors are worse off
> than they actually are in order to make the terms of the D20 license
> appear more attractive to them.
Or, maybe he just disagrees with you. Nah, this is the Usenet: It's GOT
to be a conspiracy!
Testing
"Don" <?@?.?> wrote in message news:8e097v$kr3$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> > "Don" <?@?.?> wrote:
> >
> > > There's no infringing on
> > > copyrights or trademarks if you make an unauthorized module for D&D as
> long
> > > as you're not copying large amounts of text from copyrighted WotC
books
> or
> > > abusing their trademarks (claiming that a module is "Designed for
WotC's
> > > Dungeons & Dragons RPG" is fair use).
> >
> > That's SO not fair use. "Fair use" of copyrighted material is
> > established for the purpose of commentary, whether it be journalistic,
> > review or parody. It's NOT for using someone else's material as a
> > required springboard to make money yourself. That's illegal in pretty
> > much every nation on Earth.
>
> creating your own material.
Until you start using game terms presented in D&D Terms....Thus, you would
have to use generic terms, and not use anything direct from any of the
guides...Otherwise, if you use "Magic Missile", which in your adventure is
listed on a mage's spellbook as a 1st level spell, you'd be infringing.
Jason
Jerry Stratton
>Until you start using game terms presented in D&D Terms....Thus, you would
>have to use generic terms, and not use anything direct from any of the
>guides...Otherwise, if you use "Magic Missile", which in your adventure is
>listed on a mage's spellbook as a 1st level spell, you'd be infringing.
Terms cannot be protected, except in the sense of a trademark where the
terms are used to say that "this was created or authorized by company
x". For example, I can say that I like or dislike Coca-Cola in this
post. But unless I pretend to *be* Coca Cola, I'm not infringing
Coca-Cola's trademark. I can have a character in a novel (or in an
adventure) drink a "Coke". Unless I position myself as *being* the
company who owns that trademark, or being somehow authorized by them,
I'm not violating their trademark.
Terms can't be copyrighted at all, so that's a non-issue.
If you believe otherwise, tell me how your use of "Magic Missile" in
your posting is *not* infringing, but my use of "Magic Missile" in an
adventure would be? You are clearly referring to the D&D Magic Missile
above. Should you be watching out for lawyers in the night? :*)
Peter Seebach
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>You don't have to agree with it, but please don't cite fair use in this
>case because you're simply wrong to do so.
Probably; the interesting thing is that there's a specific case on the books
where someone was sued for creating an expansion rulebook for a game, which
referred back to the rules of the original game, and the fair use defense
was among those used. It looks to have been unnecessary, because the judge
felt that the rules didn't get any protection anyway, but it's not a hopeless
defense; the judge looked at it seriously, and did not conclude that it was
completely irrelevant, only that he could resolve the case without having to
decide.
-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
Testing <te...@test.com> wrote:
>Until you start using game terms presented in D&D Terms
Why? They don't own those terms. Copyright doesn't cover rules, single
words, or other things like that.
Peter Seebach
Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Or, maybe he just disagrees with you. Nah, this is the Usenet: It's GOT
>to be a conspiracy!
Well, it is suspicious how he carefully avoids responding to any post citing
relevant case law. I've pointed out the specific case law involving a guy
producing a set of additional rules for an existing game several times. Judge
ruled that referring to, and even in some cases *quoting*, the original rules
did not constitute any kind of infringement, because rules are not protected
by copyright.
Beau Yarbrough
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> Well, it is suspicious how he carefully avoids responding to any post
citing
> relevant case law. I've pointed out the specific case law involving a
guy
> producing a set of additional rules for an existing game several
times. Judge
> ruled that referring to, and even in some cases *quoting*, the
original rules
> did not constitute any kind of infringement, because rules are not
protected
> by copyright.
Couldn't it also be that he's not a lawyer and isn't interested in
putting his foot in his mouth by citing precedents that don't apply? I
mean, look at the shit he gets for saying that "Diablo" is a lot of
people's idea of a perfect D&D game.
Beau Yarbrough
"Don" <?@?.?> wrote:
> Beau Yarbrough <comic...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8e07fs$2ib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "Fair use" of copyrighted material is
> > established for the purpose of commentary, whether it be
journalistic,
> > review or parody.
> How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not
fair use?
It's not A) a news report on the D&D game (which would let Eric Noah
discuss 3E until the cows came home, legally speaking), B) a review of a
D&D game or C) a parody of the D&D game.
Open. Shut.
Beau Yarbrough
Jerry Stratton <ne...@hoboes.com> wrote:
> If you believe otherwise, tell me how your use of "Magic Missile" in
> your posting is *not* infringing, but my use of "Magic Missile" in an
> adventure would be?
Your post is a commentary on a copyrighted work, and thus protected by
the Fair Use provisions created by judicial decisions over the years.
Magic Missile in an adventure is not a commentary, but an attempt to use
someone else's intellectual property to make your product sell a bit
better. That's theft.
Joseph Oberlander
Typical - they want it all. Can you say Microsoft/Apple/etc type
of corporate mentality?
OTOH,
I bet there are about 5 or 10 *authorized* suppliments, and the rest are
all unauthorized. I bet another gaming company or publishing house
could make a fortune on this by catering to these unauthorized suppliments.
Joseph Oberlander
> as being "a mage who primarily uses the first level Magic Missile spell",
> how is that violating WotC's copyright in the PHB, for example? There is no
> reproduced the entire "Magic Missile" first level spell entry from the PHB
> word for word, that would be infringing on copyright.
>
> - Don
It really isn't if they are creative - they just claim that they are using
the term from the first-edition books :) They make it just non-specific
enough to pass as generic. Everyone *knows* that they are for 3e, but they
are also generic enough to be useable in other systems.
Like I said, some bright soul is going to get rich from this non-authorized
mass of work - quite likely being the de-facto "authorized" version, much
like some web sites that I know. :)
Lynne Simpson
Heh...he cites loads of case law all the time. We'd *love* for him to
cite some /relevant/ case law, but he hasn't. ;-)
Beau Yarbrough
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
> I bet there are about 5 or 10 *authorized* suppliments, and the rest
are
> all unauthorized. I bet another gaming company or publishing house
> could make a fortune on this by catering to these unauthorized
suppliments.
Yeah, Flying Buffalo is the powerhouse of the industry today. (And, IMO,
their CityBooks are the best generic supplements out there.)
Ryan S. Dancey
> Probably; the interesting thing is that there's a specific case on the
books
> where someone was sued for creating an expansion rulebook for a game
Could you cite the case and reference? I seem to have missed the post where
you originally did so.
Ryan
Steve Miller
<< How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not fair use?
>>
You're abusing someone else's trademark.
But, of course, the 'net definition of "fair use" is:
If I can steal it, I can use it.
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"
JD Lail
wrote:
Arneson vs Gygax et al on the Monster Manual II has been mentioned
elsewhere. That may be it. Then again maybe not. :)
L8R
Don Lail
-----= 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! =-----
Michael Scott Brown
> But, of course, the 'net definition of "fair use" is:
>
> If I can steal it, I can use it.
So true.
<shakes head sadly>
-Michael
John Simpson
wrote:
>Don wrote:
>
><< How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not fair use?
>>>
>
>You're abusing someone else's trademark.
Do you believe that software system requirements that, without
license, specify "Windows 95/98/NT" are somehow abusive of Microsoft's
trademark?
I agree that "designed for use with AD&D rules" is not "fair use" in
any legal sense, but how is it inherently infringing or abusive?
--
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
If someone asks if you're a god, say "Yes."
If someone asks if you're Sarah Conner, say "No."
King of The Reich
use'". It's probably an earlier heard "proverb" but here it is
anyway:
Rule #1: Anything that isn't nailed down is mine.
Rule #2: If I can pry up the nails, it's not nailed down.
That's pretty much the internet for you.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Don
> Don wrote:
>
> << How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not fair
use?
> >>
>
> You're abusing someone else's trademark.
I thought it was fair use to refer to someone else's product just as long as
you've got the little TM thing and the notice that such-and-such is a
trademark of so-and-so company?
So, it's illegal to refer to another product?
- Don
Steve Miller
<< Do you believe that software system requirements that, without
license, specify "Windows 95/98/NT" are somehow abusive of Microsoft's
trademark? >>
Software system requirements do not equal RPGs. An adventure module works with
ANY pen-and-paper RPG.
<< I agree that "designed for use with AD&D rules" is not "fair use" in
any legal sense, but how is it inherently infringing or abusive? >>
Because it's an appropriation of WotC's trademarks. Why is it that you can get
all hysterical about the eeeeeeviiiiiil WotC plotting to "steal" fan material,
but think that abusing their trademarks is A-OK?
Oh, don't bother, I know the answer: If I can steal it, it's "fair use."
Steve Miller
<< I thought it was fair use to refer to someone else's product just as long as
you've got the little TM thing and the notice that such-and-such is a
trademark of so-and-so company?
So, it's illegal to refer to another product? >>
Putting a bug on a product cover that implies it's a WotC release is *not*
"referring" to someone else's product. It's trading on their reputation and
established market presense.
Don
> Don wrote:
>
> << I thought it was fair use to refer to someone else's product just as
long as
> you've got the little TM thing and the notice that such-and-such is a
> trademark of so-and-so company?
>
> So, it's illegal to refer to another product? >>
>
> Putting a bug on a product cover that implies it's a WotC release is *not*
> "referring" to someone else's product. It's trading on their reputation
and
> established market presense.
Putting a "bug" on a product cover? What do you mean by that?
I totally agree with you that that would be infringement implying the module
was a WotC release is *not* "referring" to someone else's product and is
infringment, but that's not at all what I was talking about.
- Don
Alan Kellogg
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
> << How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not
> fair use?
> >>
>
> You're abusing someone else's trademark.
>
> But, of course, the 'net definition of "fair use" is:
>
> If I can steal it, I can use it.
If it aint nailed down, it's mine. If I can pry it up, it aint nailed
down.
Alan
