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
Jason Stitt
>
<snip>
>
> The term "Magic Missile" is not copyrighted. It is probably not even a
> trademark. Regardless, as long as I don't somehow use it to say that I
> am WOTC, I am not stealing anything. If you believe otherwise, go ahead
> and turn me in. I'm charging for the following, just in case you believe
> that it matters:
>
> Praxos is a wizard for use in an AD&D game. If you like this character,
> please pay me $1.50. Note that AD&D is a trademark of Wizards of the
> Coast, and I have no affiliation with them. This is not part of their
> official line.
"If you like this character, please pay me $1.50"? Perhaps that
should read "if you would like to use this character." ;)
<snip character>
>
> Second Level (1):
> Alter Self, Darkness 15' Radius, Shatter
> http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
--
Jason Stitt
"The road to disasters is ordered by the righteous, planned
by the well-meaning and paved with their good intentions."
-Shin'a'in Proverb
Michael Scott Brown
> In article <#4dtebbr$GA.361@cpmsnbbsa04>,
> Michael Scott Brown <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> > You're still *using* their specific Magic Missile. No different
from
> >putting Luke Skywalker into a novel.
>
> Quite a lot different. Read the caselaw on character copyright;
characters
> must be very distinctive to get protection, and cannot simply be
> representative of a type. I would argue that magic missile is just
> representative of a type of spells, and is not a distinct enough entity to
> get any special protection.
I would argue otherwise. I don't think a single FRPG in existence uses a
spell or game mechanic called "Magic Missile". Magical missiles abound -
but as soon as you say the wizard has the "1st level spell Magic Missile"
you're directly using D&D, and not in a way that is covered by fair use.
Fair use would be _mentioning_ that D&D *has* a thing called "Magic
Missile".
> The "their specific Magic Missile" thing refers entirely to a construct of
> rules and game balance - issues which copyright law does not protect.
<goggle> Magic Missile is a construct of "game balance"? Bah. "Merely a
construct of rules and thus uncopyrightable"? Double Bah. Come *on*, man,
THINK!!!! By your logic, we could just copy Magic Missile text directly
into our own games, since you seem to think that since it's part of game
rules then it can't be copyrighted.
The idea of a magical bolt of energy is generic. D&D's Magic Missile
bolt of energy is not.
This should be patently obvious.
Why do you insist on the right to steal their work?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> But the apologists will now chime in with "soft drinks are not
> games." I think your point is very well stated, and is indeed
> germane. References are not "abuse," nor are they infringements,
> especially when they are merely references to rules.
You are confusing references *to something's existence* with *using*
information from a reference work.
-Michael
Ryan S. Dancey
> Okay, here's a URL for it:
>
> http://www.limbach.com/articles/allen.html
This case says a court found that the ideas in a game cannot be copyright.
That's an undisputed issue in this discussion.
In fact, in message:
http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=607779632.1&CONTEXT=956632243.66
2306837&hitnum=43
I wrote:
"Were I to explain that uncopyrightable portion of the AD&D 2nd Ed product
line, I might write something like this:
character creation
------------------
* roll 3d6 each for six ability scores
* consult [chart] for effects of each ability score
* pick an alignment from these options [chart]
* pick a race [list]
* pick a class [list]
character information
---------------------
* characters have X hit points, determined by [formula]
* characters have Y Armor Class, determined by [formula]
combat system
-------------
* roll for initiative
* on initiative order, characters can attack, move, or take an action from
[list]
* if attacking, player rolls a d20, adds [situational modifiers] and
consults [chart of class level bonus vs. AC] to determine if attack was
successful
* if attack successful, player rolls on [chart] to inflict damage * if a
character's hit points reach zero or below, character dies * if at least two
combatants remain standing, repeat the process
And then there's a handful of miscellaneous rules like the proficiency
system, encumbrance, overland movement, etc.
Those are the "rules of the game" excluded by statute from copyright
protection. You'll note the many hundreds of games that essentially use
these rules without protest from Wizards of the Coast or even the former
regime at TSR."
---------------
In this particular case, the court found no way to seperate the idea
embodied in those rules from the expression of those rules. Therefore, the
court ruled that the only copyright at issue was the specific expression of
the rulebooks of Allen's games, and that the Academic Games League hadn't
created a derivative work because they hadn't used anything Allen held a
valid copyright interest in.
Specifically, the court said "Allen has not shown that it is possible to
distinguish the expression of the rules of his game manuals from the idea of
the rules themselves."
This establishes a test: "Given a copyrighted roleplaying game system, is it
possible to distinguish the expression of the rules from the idea of the
rules themselves?"
Allen failed to show that he could. I haven't seen any of the games
involved in this case, so I have no idea how close they relate to a
roleplaying game system. But note that the court did not say "it is
impossible to distinguish the expression of game rules from the idea of the
rules" - simply that Allen failed to do so.
Our argument would clearly be that, in the specific case of D&D, there >are<
distinguishable elements of the expression of the rules. As described in a
previous message on this topic [cited above], those do not include the
"basic rules of the game" but we would absolutely enumerate the specific
[non public-domain] classes, races, spells, monsters, and magic items
involved in the game system as "distinguishable elements."
We would also assert a selection, arrangement and presentation copyright on
the templates for classes, monsters and spells, and on "stat blocks" as used
for shorthand notation, as a collection.
The court also addresses the issue of derivative works. Noting the
"substantial similiarity test" and citing Lichfield v. Spielberg et al.
In that case, the court wrote: "We have stated that "[a] work will be
considered a derivative work only if it would be considered an infringing
work if the material which it has derived from a prior work had been taken
without the consent of a copyright proprietor of such prior work." United
States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961, 965 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1976) (emphasis added)."
In fact, in Lichfield v. Spielberg, the court references the Sid & Marty
Kroft case which has become something of a touchstone for the 9th circuit.
In Kroft, the court found that a series of McDonald's advertisements
(plainly shown to be inspired by the show "Puffinstuff" produced by the
Krofts) were derivative works because they were >similar to< - not
>identical< to a TV series created by the Krofts. Interested readers should
review this case because it demonstrates just how different the court
believes material can be and still be "similar to" another work.
Finally, there is the clear issue of "linkage". In Lichfield, the only
significant similarity between the original work and E.T. (the source of the
dispute) is that both works centered on stranded aliens. The court worte in
Lichfield: "There is no substantial [*1357] similarity, however, between
the sequences of events, mood, dialogue and characters of the two works."
Which brings us full circle to the statement I have made repeatedly that
only a court can determine if a work is derivative or not. Others in this
discussion have provided references for works found to be derivative when
very small amounts (as a percentage) of the total work was held by someone
else's copyright. Again, the question would have to be put to a court, and
the court would have to rule how much is "too much" when appropriating the
unique, copyrighted elements of D&D into a new work. A risk adverse person
would interpret the only safe answer to that test as "none".
Ryan
Michael Scott Brown
> > You're still *using* their specific Magic Missile. No different
from
> >putting Luke Skywalker into a novel.
>
You'd think someone besides you and I could figure it out. :(
> ['Course, if you *do* use "optinoid", I now own your work, and the
> computer you used to create it. <g>]
Fie! Robert works for Hasbro!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Kindred: Human
> Strength: 16> Intelligence: 17> Wisdom: 11
> Dexterity: 13> Constitution: 14> Charisma: 10 >
>
> ... he switches the order of the stats and changes some of the phrasing.
This
> post is a really helpful example about how to share creations without
stepping
> on other people's property, IMO.
?? I don't see any significant variation from D&D here; however, "stat"
names are game-system indepdendent so it need not be inherently D&D stuff.
That issue's well settled.
> << Spells in Spellbook:
> First Level (2):
> Magic Missile, Read Magic, Unseen Servant, Change Self, Armor, Alarm
> Second Level (1):
> Alter Self, Darkness 15' Radius, Shatter >>
>
> Okay, if *these* are the kinds of references that people have in mind,
then I'd
> say there's no infringement going on. Without the D&D rules, this is
> meaningless blather.
But isn't that proof that they *are* D&D-dependent? "Meaningless
without other book" would seem to be an obvious red flag.
If the document instead described the general effect of each spell and
changed the names to non-D&D specific, then it would be properly insulated.
Ie;
Read Magic -> "Read Magical Writing";
Unseen Servant -> "Weak telekinesis" ...
This way, someone using this in D&D can ram in the D&D equivalents of
these and play away. Otherwise, the document is dependent on D&D for
meaning.
-Michael
Don
news:uYjB1Rmr$GA.231@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > In article <#4dtebbr$GA.361@cpmsnbbsa04>,
> > Michael Scott Brown <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> from
> > >putting Luke Skywalker into a novel.
> >
> characters
> > must be very distinctive to get protection, and cannot simply be
> > representative of a type. I would argue that magic missile is just
> > representative of a type of spells, and is not a distinct enough entity
to
> > get any special protection.
>
> I would argue otherwise. I don't think a single FRPG in existence uses
a
> spell or game mechanic called "Magic Missile". Magical missiles abound -
> but as soon as you say the wizard has the "1st level spell Magic Missile"
> you're directly using D&D, and not in a way that is covered by fair use.
> Fair use would be _mentioning_ that D&D *has* a thing called "Magic
> Missile".
>
> > The "their specific Magic Missile" thing refers entirely to a construct
of
> > rules and game balance - issues which copyright law does not protect.
>
> <goggle> Magic Missile is a construct of "game balance"? Bah. "Merely
a
> construct of rules and thus uncopyrightable"? Double Bah. Come *on*, man,
> THINK!!!! By your logic, we could just copy Magic Missile text directly
> into our own games, since you seem to think that since it's part of game
> rules then it can't be copyrighted.
Copying their text would be a violation of copyright. I think you need to
do less insulting and more thinking of your own.
- Don
Michael Scott Brown
"stat"
> names are game-system indepdendent so it need not be inherently D&D stuff.
> That issue's well settled. >>
>
plenty.
> It's about in the order of magnitude with any number of D&D copy-cats out
> there.
<laugh> Your memory's gotten soft, sir Miller! Or else mine just
glitched horribly and I'm about to eat shoe leather. Were not the stats'
order the same as were used for 1st Edition? I still have a hard time
putting that "D" after the "S" ...
At any rate, I would focus less on the order and more on that fact that
terms like "strength" and the like aren't copyrighted, they're generic
capability-category terms used by many game systems and so it's not
neccessary that they be references to D&D in order to have meaning.
> << But isn't that proof that they *are* D&D-dependent? "Meaningless
> without other book" would seem to be an obvious red flag. >>
>
> I dunno... it would depend on *what* book.
When that book's the PhB or the Monster Manual, I'd say the issue is
fairly open and shut.
> << This way, someone using this in D&D can ram in the D&D equivalents
of
> these and play away. Otherwise, the document is dependent on D&D for
> meaning. >>
>
> Which swings us back around to: How much of an RPG and its rules can be
> protected by copyright....
Substantially more than a lot of people seem to be crediting, I'd say.
<shakes head sadly>
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > THINK!!!! By your logic, we could just copy Magic Missile text directly
> > into our own games, since you seem to think that since it's part of game
> > rules then it can't be copyrighted.
>
> Copying their text would be a violation of copyright. I think you need to
> do less insulting and more thinking of your own.
But, but, so many people here have been saying that game rules *aren't
protected by copyright* and thus there's no obligation to respect such!
Given that such plagarism is obviously a no-no to any fair-minded
person, someone in that camp really ought to re-examine just what they think
they know.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Yes. And, thus, as long as WotC maintains this attitude, a risk-averse
> person ....
You mean, irrational coward.
-Michael
Roger Bonzer
John Simpson <see...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>><< 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.
>
> "Appropriation"? Does an author need permission to use the word
>Coke in a novel? Does a story which refers to somone making a Xerox
>copy "appropriate" that trademark?
I'm sure that a "designed for use with Star Wars RPG rules" adventure
would need permission to use Light Sabres or Tattooine -- from Lucasfilm
if from no one else. Otherwise WotC's license to LucasFilm for the Star
Wars RPG rights effectively become a license for *anyone* to publish
Star Wars RPG property for free. It seems reasonable that any "for AD&D"
adventure module that referred to Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, beholders,
mind flayers, Elminster, Magic Missile, or any other unique WotC creation
would need a similar license from WotC. Why should WotC be allowed fewer
rights to its intellectual property than Tolkien or LucasFilms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Bonzer | Wishes may bring problems such that you regret them.
mino...@teleport.com | Better that, though, than to never get them.
| -- Into the Woods
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Steve Miller wrote in message
<20000424184801...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
>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.
I dont' think that's what he was saying. How I read it, he was asking
how refering to another company is infrenging.
Example:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"The Dungeon of Killer Shrews!"
...trapped in a multi-level dungeon, where rabid, undead giant shrews
lurk in every shadow! Can you and your brave friends escape alive?...
*This generic adventure is easily adaptable for use with such FRPG's as
Dungeons & Dragons, Rolmaster, MERP, The Arcanum, and other popluar systems*
**all trademarks belong to there respective companies and mention of these
trademarks are NOT sanctioned by their holder.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AFAIK, that would be perfectly legal. That last part (:**all
trademarks...") would be more legalese and correct...but I think you get the
point.
Are you saying that simply *mentioning* D&D as a possible system that
the purchaser could use would be somehow "infrenging" on WotC's stuff?
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Beau Yarbrough
"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?
Please read my posts about what Fair Use entails. It's got a fairly
specific meaning.
Beau Yarbrough
King of The Reich <eric_dobb...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
> I've got an addendum to the earlier "'net definition of 'fair
> 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.
Hey, man, are you gonna keep those nails?
John Simpson
wrote:
>John Simpson wrote:
>
><< 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.
The issue, which you snipped, was a module specifically designed to
work with D&D rules. Software does not equal rules, but I see the
analogy as very close. And rules, as we've generally agreed, are not
copyrightable.
><< 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.
"Appropriation"? Does an author need permission to use the word
Coke in a novel? Does a story which refers to somone making a Xerox
copy "appropriate" that trademark?
You've published modules before, so I can understand your being
sensitive on this issue. However, I think you're overreacting. A
reference to a trademark is not of itself an abuse, any more than
shareware games for Windows are.
If you insist that a single use of the name D&D is something
horrible, you put Wizards in the very strange position of forbidding
anyone, anywhere, from Speaking The Name, Lest It Appear, or
something.
>Why is it that you can get
>all hysterical about the eeeeeeviiiiiil WotC plotting to "steal" fan material,
You may have me confused with someone else. I, for one, do not want
to believe that Wizards is about to steal material they didn't
create--no matter how often Mr. Dancey asserts a right to do just
that. I'm not even much of an author, so I have very little to lose
were Wizards to start cherry-picking. I would have loved to believe
that Mr. Dancey's pretensions would quickly be corrected by someone
with a lick of PR aptitude.
I thought I made it clear, though, that I am absolutely disgusted
with a company that continues to let its employees belittle and
threaten customers with incorrect legal opinions. I would be ashamed,
were I to work for a company that (however tacitly) approved of such
bullying. As a customer of such a company, I am about ready to sever
all ties. Predictably, though, there are those who can only see the
dimension you've mentioned.
Seems to me that when I brought this up with you before, you didn't
answer. You've already stated that you believe Mr. Dancey's claim to
ownership to be wrong. How do you feel about Wizards' allowing such
intimidation of customers (of authors!) to continue?
No, I don't think I qualify as hysterical in this matter, but I am
proud enough to refuse to be associated with Wizards' schizophrenic
policy, and am loath to see Wizards' control of the D&D game so badly
misused. How much of your own labor would have to be dismissed before
you would start complaining? You're an author, one who has worked for
a company that at least used to represent the pinnacle of creativity
and responsiveness to the fan community. How can you belittle outrage
at the change in Wizards' attitudes as "hysterical"?
Please don't assume that I want to sell modules, or that I have
produced anything worth stealing.
>but think that abusing their trademarks is A-OK?
Please let me in on what "abuse" of a trademark I've okayed. You're
saying that Invoking the Holy Name is wrong, but I don't yet see why.
What *do* you think of "system requirements: Win95/98/NT"? Does
inferior shelfware or shareware somehow "abuse" Microsoft? Should a
fan's crappy little module, labeled once with the name of the rules
system with which it's supposed to work, be seen as some sort of
crime?
I could well understand Margaret Mitchell's being steamed over
"Scarlett," but AD&D rules are not copyrightable. Why should the
label "works with D&D" on a fan's module be considered wrong?
>Oh, don't bother, I know the answer: If I can steal it, it's "fair use."
Sheesh. I'd prefer that you left me out of whatever else is going
on in your life.
I don't agree that saying "I like Coke" is wrong, and I don't see
anything wrong in a fan-produced D&D module's being labeled as such.
I *do* think that Wizard's logos and copyrighted material should be
respected, and any use of its trademarked game name should be clearly
labeled....but we're edging back toward a key point here: should a
module, which only assumes the use of non-copyrightable rules, be
ruled as infringing? If the author calls it D&D-compatible, but is
careful to say something along the lines of "not sanctioned by
Wizards," is that enough to underscore the unofficial nature of the
material?
If not, would you consider a fan to be okay if he left off the name
of the game system he was supplementing with his module?
--
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
"A gentleman is a man who knows how to play the bagpipes, but chooses not to."
Peter Seebach
Michael Scott Brown <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
> You're still *using* their specific Magic Missile. No different from
>putting Luke Skywalker into a novel.
Quite a lot different. Read the caselaw on character copyright; characters
must be very distinctive to get protection, and cannot simply be
representative of a type. I would argue that magic missile is just
representative of a type of spells, and is not a distinct enough entity to
get any special protection.
The "their specific Magic Missile" thing refers entirely to a construct of
rules and game balance - issues which copyright law does not protect.
-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
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>Don wrote:
>
><< How is the phrase "Designed for WotC's Dungeons & Dragons RPG" not fair use?
>>>
>You're abusing someone else's trademark.
I don't think so. Passing off is abuse. Reference is not. Thus, even if
I'm not Microsoft, I can say
"This program runs on Microsoft Windows(r)"
and *THEY CANNOT STOP ME*. It's a matter of fact, referring to the
trademarked product by use of the trademark.
Peter Seebach
John Simpson <see...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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?
Well, the reason it's not "fair use" is that fair use is a copyright idea,
and "AD&D" is a trademark, not a copyright.
It's certainly not visibly an infringement.
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>John Simpson wrote:
><< 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.
So? Many programs that run with "Microsoft Windows(R)" also work with
"Linux(R)" using WINE.
The point is, a factual statement such as "A is compatible with B" is *NOT*
an infringement on B's trademark.
This is why Pepsi can do ads saying "Pepsi does better in taste tests than
Coke". Coke is a trademark, and you can't use it to refer to your own
competing cola, but you can use it when comparing your product with theirs.
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>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.
No one said anything about implying it's a WotC release.
If I put, on a module,
An Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Product!
[little-tiny-3-point-font:]Designed for use with[go back to large font]
Wizards of the Coast's game system!
I'm probably infringing.
If I put
Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast AD&D game system.
This is not a product of Wizards of the Coast, and is not endorsed
by them.
I am almost certainly not.
Peter Seebach
Ryan S. Dancey <ry...@frpg.com> wrote:
>Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message news:3903cd8d$1$52003
>
>> 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.
What, *again*?
Okay, here's a URL for it:
http://www.limbach.com/articles/allen.html
I quote here the relevant parts of the case, analyzing how the
Merger Doctrine applies to game rules.
Since you've been skipping bits of this, I'll reiterate:
The merger doctrine holds that, as it becomes more difficult to separate
an idea from its expression, the expression loses protection, because the
alternative is to allow copyright (which is not supposed to protect ideas)
to provide an *effective* monopoly on the use of an idea expressed in a
given copyrighted text.
In other words, since WotC can't own the *IDEA* "Statistics range from 3 to
18", even though the text expressing this rule might be part of a copyrighted
work, quoting that phrase is not an infringement, simply because the
"expression" is essentially indistinguishable from the idea - and the idea
must not be protected.
>[4] Allen asserts that to constitute a derivative work, the
>infringing work need only incorporate in some form a portion
>of the copyrighted material. This court, however, has consis-
>tently held that to prove infringement, one must demonstrate
>substantial similarity between the works. Litchfield v. Spiel-
>berg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470
>U.S. 1052 (1985). Although the district court found that some
>of the rules discussed in the AGLOA rulebooks were also
>found in Allen's game manuals, this court is not convinced
>that it is even necessary to consider whether the AGLOA rule-
>books in fact constituted "derivative works" under the Copy-
>right Act.
Already, we see that the court is not supporting your interpretation of
the law.
>[5] A copyright only protects a particular expression of an
>idea and not the idea itself Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 218
>(1954). Thus, ideas contained in a copyrighted work may be
>freely used so long as the copyrighted expression is not
>wholly appropriated. This is often the case with factual works
>where an idea contained in an expression cannot be communi-
>cated in a wide variety of ways. Landsberg v. Scrabble Cross-
>word Game Players, Inc., 736 F.2d 485, 488 (9th Cir. 1984),
>cert. denied, 469 U.S. 103 7 (1984). Consequently, the
>notions of idea and expression may merge from such "stock"
>concepts that even verbatim reproduction of a factual work
>may not constitute infringenent. Accord See v. Durang, 711
>F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983); Sid & Marty Krofft Television
>Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 11 57, 1163
>(9th Cir. 1977); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831 F.2d 898, 901
>(9th Cir. 1987).
>[6] This doctrine of merger is particularly applicable with
>respect to games "since they consist of abstract rules and play
>ideas." Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546
>F.Supp. 125, 148 (D.N.J. 1982); see also Anti-Monopoly, Inc.
>v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 300 n.1. (9th Cir.
>1979). A similar logic has been applied to rules of a contest
>where most subsequent expressions of an idea of a rule are
>likely to appear similar to the words of a related rule. See
>Morrissey v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675, 678-79
>(1st Cir. 1967); Affiliated Hospital Products, Inc. v. Merdel
>Game Mfg. Co., 513 F.2d 1183, 1188-89 (2nd Cir. 1975).
>Here, Allen has not shown that it is possible to distinguish the
>expression of the rules of his game manuals from the idea of
>the rules themselves. Thus, the doctrine of merger applies and
>although Allen may be entitled to copyright protection for the
>physical form of his games, he is not afforded protection for
>the premises or ideas underlying those games. To hold other-
>wise would give Allen a monopoly on such commonplace
>ideas as a simple rule on how youngsters should play their
>games.
What this does is show that much of the material you consider "infringing"
is, if it is using anything at all, only using *unprotected ideas*.
Furthermore, read the first quoted paragraph carefully; even if the material
referred to in an adventure is found to be protected, *an adventure which
refers to that material without incorporating it wholesale is unlikely to
constitute a derivative work*.
Peter Seebach
JD Lail <jl...@foothills.net> wrote:
>Arneson vs Gygax et al on the Monster Manual II has been mentioned
>elsewhere. That may be it. Then again maybe not. :)
No, that one went the other way - although arguably the title was a large
portion of that. ;)
John Simpson
>In article <20000424184321...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
>Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>>John Simpson wrote:
>><< 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.
>
>So? Many programs that run with "Microsoft Windows(R)" also work with
>"Linux(R)" using WINE.
>
>The point is, a factual statement such as "A is compatible with B" is *NOT*
>an infringement on B's trademark.
>
>This is why Pepsi can do ads saying "Pepsi does better in taste tests than
>Coke". Coke is a trademark, and you can't use it to refer to your own
>competing cola, but you can use it when comparing your product with theirs.
But the apologists will now chime in with "soft drinks are not
games." I think your point is very well stated, and is indeed
germane. References are not "abuse," nor are they infringements,
especially when they are merely references to rules.
--
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."
Jerry Stratton
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <newsw-942181.20392423042000@news>,
> 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.
Huh? What does my post have to do with an adventure?
>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.
Here's a clue: my desire to make a product sell better does not make
something an infringement. If your character sheet that mentions "Magic
Missile" is not an infringement, neither is it an infringement to sell
that character sheet--as long as you aren't pretending to be WOTC or
reproducing the text of the Magic Missile spell.
I'm writing a novel right now. Takes place in Virginia. At some point,
one of the characters eats in a Krispy Kreme. I'm including local places
because I believe it makes my novel a better novel and thus "will sell a
bit better". Do you believe that my refering to Krispy Kreme is an
infringement on Krispy Kreme's "intellectual property"? If so, what kind
of intellectual property? Copyright? Trademark? Or something else? Just
saying "intellectual property" is an indication that you don't know what
you're talking about, because there are different kinds.
See the Library of Congress web site for real info about "intellectual
property". I posted some links early on in this discussion.
The term "Magic Missile" is not copyrighted. It is probably not even a
trademark. Regardless, as long as I don't somehow use it to say that I
am WOTC, I am not stealing anything. If you believe otherwise, go ahead
and turn me in. I'm charging for the following, just in case you believe
that it matters:
Praxos is a wizard for use in an AD&D game. If you like this character,
please pay me $1.50. Note that AD&D is a trademark of Wizards of the
Coast, and I have no affiliation with them. This is not part of their
official line.
Name: Praxos
Kindred: Human
Strength: 16
Intelligence: 17
Wisdom: 11
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 14
Charisma: 10
Armor Class: 10
Damage Adjustment: 1
Open Doors: 2
Level: 3
Class: Wizard
Alignment: Neutral Good
Hit Points: 8
Gold Pieces: 38
Armor: None
Weapons: Quarterstaff (1d6)
Equipment: large pouch, pole (10'), wax candles (5), tinderbox,
backpack, robe, prism, piece of string(4), bit of wood(4), finely-cured
blessed leather(3), tiny bell(4), piece of very fine silver wire(4), bat
fur(6), coal(6), mica chips(3), torches(2), waterskin, cloak, iron
rations(2)
Spells in Spellbook:
First Level (2):
Magic Missile, Read Magic, Unseen Servant, Change Self, Armor, Alarm
Second Level (1):
Alter Self, Darkness 15' Radius, Shatter
John Simpson
>In article <20000424184801...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
>Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>>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.
>
>No one said anything about implying it's a WotC release.
>
>If I put, on a module,
> An Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Product!
> [little-tiny-3-point-font:]Designed for use with[go back to large font]
> Wizards of the Coast's game system!
>
>I'm probably infringing.
>
>If I put
> Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast AD&D game system.
> This is not a product of Wizards of the Coast, and is not endorsed
> by them.
>
>I am almost certainly not.
I'd certainly agree, and would hope that Wizards will concede this.
I'd even go a step further, and say that mentioning a "beholder" or
a "magic missile" spell is not infringing, either. These would be
mere references to rules, and not reproductions of specific
expressions thereof.
Steve Miller
<< The issue, which you snipped, was a module specifically designed to
work with D&D rules. Software does not equal rules, but I see the
analogy as very close. And rules, as we've generally agreed, are not
copyrightable. >>
I recall what the issue was. And, unlike software, an RPG module works just
fine when not used for the system the author had in mind when he or she wrote
it. (I've used 'Call of Chuthulu' adventures for 'Star Wars' campaigns, for
example.)
<< And rules, as we've generally agreed, are not
copyrightable. >>
Yes.
<< "Appropriation"? Does an author need permission to use the word
Coke in a novel? Does a story which refers to somone making a Xerox
copy "appropriate" that trademark? >>
Pray tell, what is the point of saying "for use with WotC's D&D" on the inside
of something?
<< You've published modules before, so I can understand your being
sensitive on this issue. However, I think you're overreacting. >>
I've been seeing creative interpertations of "fair use" for many years now. And
I am very, very sick of it.
<< A
reference to a trademark is not of itself an abuse, any more than
shareware games for Windows are. >>
"For use with WotC's D&D" goes beyond a "reference." It also goes well beyond
"fair use." (Of course, "fair use" has nothing to do with trademarks, but
that's a different matter.)
<< If you insist that a single use of the name D&D is something
horrible, you put Wizards in the very strange position of forbidding
anyone, anywhere, from Speaking The Name, Lest It Appear, or
something. >>
I don't insist on anything other than folks educating themselves on their
rights and the rights of others before publishing their work. (And I certainly
don't insist on WotC policy of any sort. I don't speak for them. Never have,
never will.)
<< You may have me confused with someone else. I, for one, do not want
to believe that Wizards is about to steal material they didn't
create--no matter how often Mr. Dancey asserts a right to do just
that. >>
You were the one taking the position that slapping "For Use with the D&D game
published by WotC" was somehow "fair use," right?
That's just as wrong-headed a notion as the stance that the entirety of any
piece of work that has a direct link back to D&D is automatically the owned by
Hasbro.
<< I thought I made it clear, though, that I am absolutely disgusted
with a company that continues to let its employees belittle and
threaten customers with incorrect legal opinions. >>
I don't see how supporting equally incorrect claims is any less disgusting. If
you know better, then why spread falsehoods of your own?
<< Seems to me that when I brought this up with you before, you didn't
answer. You've already stated that you believe Mr. Dancey's claim to
ownership to be wrong. How do you feel about Wizards' allowing such
intimidation of customers (of authors!) to continue? >>
Why do I need to have an opinion? (And you and I apparently have a different
definition of "author," as the people I think of as "authors" have nothing to
worry about when it comes to the comments Dancey has been making.
<< No, I don't think I qualify as hysterical in this matter, but I am
proud enough to refuse to be associated with Wizards' schizophrenic
policy, and am loath to see Wizards' control of the D&D game so badly
misused. >>
I see one policy. And I see a guy who wishes the policy would change. Where's
the schizophrenia?
<< How much of your own labor would have to be dismissed before
you would start complaining? >>
You mean like creative posts I've made to the 'net that are on web sites with
no attribution? Or chunks of stuff I've published through TSR that are on web
sites with someone else's name on them or with no attribution? Quite a bit,
probably.
Like I said, the attitude held my many seems to be that OTHER people's
copyrights are not important.
<< You're an author, one who has worked for
a company that at least used to represent the pinnacle of creativity
and responsiveness to the fan community. How can you belittle outrage
at the change in Wizards' attitudes as "hysterical"? >>
When that "outrage" is coupled with rank ignorance it's pretty damn easy.
<< Please let me in on what "abuse" of a trademark I've okayed. >>
Did you or did you not start throwing rhetorical questions about oranges while
we're talking about apples at me? Did you or did you not do that in response to
my response to a claim that "For Use with WotC's D&D" was something that
represented "fair use"?
If I were to slap that statement on a cover, I'd be abusing WotC's trademarks.
If I were to publish an adventure that used the D&D system, I might well be
trading on their good name.
<< You're
saying that Invoking the Holy Name is wrong, but I don't yet see why.
What *do* you think of "system requirements: Win95/98/NT"? >>
I think it's irrelevant to the example that was given. I also think that every
software package I see that contains it also has a hefty block of legalese. I
also think it has jack-shit to do with the fair use doctrine.
<< Does
inferior shelfware or shareware somehow "abuse" Microsoft? Should a
fan's crappy little module, labeled once with the name of the rules
system with which it's supposed to work, be seen as some sort of
crime? >>
Depends on how the label is displayed. On the 'net? No, I don't think so. It
still has absolutely nothing to do with "fair use."
<< I could well understand Margaret Mitchell's being steamed over
"Scarlett," but AD&D rules are not copyrightable. .>>
No, of course not. Only the products of fans that the eeeeviiil WotC is
plotting to steal. Why does this work only one way?
<< Why should the
label "works with D&D" on a fan's module be considered wrong? >>
On a fan's module, posted to a web site or in this forum? I don't think it
should be considered wrong... so long as the fan takes care to properly
acknowledge ownership. It still has absolutely nothing to do with "fair use."
<< I don't agree that saying "I like Coke" is wrong, and I don't see
anything wrong in a fan-produced D&D module's being labeled as such. >>
Wow. We agree.
<< I *do* think that Wizard's logos and copyrighted material should be
respected, and any use of its trademarked game name should be clearly
labeled.... >>
Then why do you think that "For Use with the D&D game produced by WotC" has
anything whatsoever to do with "fair use"? I may well have misinterperted the
poster's question... but am I missing some other important factoid here?
<< but we're edging back toward a key point here: should a
module, which only assumes the use of non-copyrightable rules, be
ruled as infringing? >>
That's for a judge to decide, but I would say "no."
<< If the author calls it D&D-compatible, but is
careful to say something along the lines of "not sanctioned by
Wizards," is that enough to underscore the unofficial nature of the
material? >>
Depends on the circumstances. It didn't protect Mayfair when they broke the
agreement they'd arrived at with TSR.
<< If not, would you consider a fan to be okay if he left off the name
of the game system he was supplementing with his module? >>
It would get around any trademark problems... but it would also defeat the
purpose of putting out the adventure. After all, how does one know what the
adventure supplements. (Yeah, it's a Catch-22. But that's why *I* always say
that one has a choice when writing fan material... either don't do it, or be
aware that the owners of the trademarks and any IPs being used might tell you
to knock it off.)
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"
Steve Miller
<< Are you saying that simply *mentioning* D&D as a possible system that
the purchaser could use would be somehow "infringing" on WotC's stuff? >>
I would say the example you provided is closer to a "reference" than what Don
offered. However, as far as I know (and I'm not a lawyer), it could still be a
trademark violation if the owners decided to push the issue.
In other words, I think that once you start tossing someone else's TMs around,
you're strolling through a minefield. And "fair use" does not apply.
I am not a lawyer, and I could be wrong... but I am convinced that such a
statement goes well beyond a "reference."
Steve Miller
<< This is why Pepsi can do ads saying "Pepsi does better in taste tests than
Coke". Coke is a trademark, and you can't use it to refer to your own
competing cola, but you can use it when comparing your product with theirs. >>
That statement does not imply that Coke has any hand in producing Pepsi, or
otherwise endorses it. Depending on presentation, "Designed for Use with WotC's
D&D" might cause consumers to draw the wrong connections.
That's why one is an abuse (IMO) while the other is not.
Robert Baldwin
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>Don <?@?.?> wrote in message news:8e0b81$lok$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
>> 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.
So, call it "Mana Dart". See how really easy some of this is?
Unless the name is *obviously* public domain, change it. "Goblin" is
pretty safe, "beholder"...<shrug> call it an "optinoid" and have done
with it.
['Course, if you *do* use "optinoid", I now own your work, and the
computer you used to create it. <g>]
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
For *real* adventure, check out
www.ecochallenge.com
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Remove the spam-block to reply
Steve Miller
<< Praxos is a wizard for use in an AD&D game. >>
Note the phrasing. IMO, there's a world of difference between this and "for use
with the AD&D game."
<< If you like this character,
please pay me $1.50. Note that AD&D is a trademark of Wizards of the
Coast, and I have no affiliation with them. This is not part of their
official line. >>
And if there was any doubt, this certainly drives it home. And still...
<< Name: Praxos
Kindred: Human
Strength: 16
Intelligence: 17
Wisdom: 11
Dexterity: 13
Constitution: 14
Charisma: 10 >>
... he switches the order of the stats and changes some of the phrasing. This
post is a really helpful example about how to share creations without stepping
on other people's property, IMO.
<< Spells in Spellbook:
First Level (2):
Magic Missile, Read Magic, Unseen Servant, Change Self, Armor, Alarm
Second Level (1):
Alter Self, Darkness 15' Radius, Shatter >>
Okay, if *these* are the kinds of references that people have in mind, then I'd
say there's no infringement going on. Without the D&D rules, this is
meaningless blather. *Or* it can be applied to any other RPG with a leveled
magic system.) but that's just my opinion.
<A HREF="http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/">http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/</A>
Steve Miller
<< I don't think so. Passing off is abuse. Reference is not. >>
Slapping "For use with WotC's D&D game" on a cover *is* passing off, IMO.
<< Thus, even if
I'm not Microsoft, I can say
"This program runs on Microsoft Windows(r)"
and *THEY CANNOT STOP ME*. It's a matter of fact, referring to the
trademarked product by use of the trademark. >>
I took a look at the software boxes in my office. All of them either a) use
logos provided by the company's being "referred" to (and featured extensive
cites as to who owns what) or b) use dodges that are easily comprehensible to
those who know what they're looking at, like "Win 95/98" under an image of a
CD.
If it's perfectly legal to put these marks on your products, why are software
manufacturers bending over backwards to either not do it, or to cite, cite,
cite? (I don't think manufacturers put other company's logos or brand names on
their boxes without permission. Do they?)
Peter Seebach
Jason Stitt <tal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Praxos is a wizard for use in an AD&D game. If you like this character,
>> please pay me $1.50. Note that AD&D is a trademark of Wizards of the
>> Coast, and I have no affiliation with them. This is not part of their
>> official line.
>"If you like this character, please pay me $1.50"? Perhaps that
>should read "if you would like to use this character." ;)
Boy, that was close. Luckily, he was good-aligned, so we can beg off on
the grounds that he's probably a simpering prat. (I don't need a smiley,
this is obviously a joke. I don't need a smiley, this is obviously a joke.
I don't need a smiley, this is obviously a joke. If I repeat it often enough,
it's true.)
A'koss
"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:390486a8...@news.rio.com...
> So, call it "Mana Dart". See how really easy some of this is?
> Unless the name is *obviously* public domain, change it. "Goblin" is
> pretty safe, "beholder"...<shrug> call it an "optinoid" and have done
> with it.
It's funny you should mention the Beholder, is the basic physical
characteristics copywrited, trademarked or whatever? I seem to recall "Big
Trouble in Little China" having one and a dead ringer in a new medieval
"Command and Conquer-style" game.
A'koss!
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>Pray tell, what is the point of saying "for use with WotC's D&D" on the inside
>of something?
To let people know that it is a compatible product. Interoperability is
a widely-acknowledged feature.
>"For use with WotC's D&D" goes beyond a "reference." It also goes well beyond
>"fair use." (Of course, "fair use" has nothing to do with trademarks, but
>that's a different matter.)
Indeed. However, it's a statement of functional compatability; this is
something you're allowed to do with a trademark, indicate compatability
with it.
>You were the one taking the position that slapping "For Use with the D&D game
>published by WotC" was somehow "fair use," right?
He may have been, and that would be wrong, because "fair use" is a copyright
concept.
However, it's not necessarily an infringement; it would depend on the chances
for confusion between third-party products and official WotC products.
A game described as "compatible with the Sega Genesis" is not necessarily
an infringement on Sega's trademark, even if it uses the SEGA logo to identify
the compatability. Courts have ruled that it may be necessary to take
"reasonable" measures to avoid consumer confusion, but no more; for instance,
in one case, Accolade was sued by Sega, and a court found that a statement
on the packaging saying
Accolade, Inc. is not associated with Sega Enterprises, Ltd.
was sufficient.
>Why do I need to have an opinion? (And you and I apparently have a different
>definition of "author," as the people I think of as "authors" have nothing to
>worry about when it comes to the comments Dancey has been making.
Depends. Let's say, hypothetically, that you invented a character for use
in a novel, and, to appeal to gamers, you included a set of "AD&D statistics"
for that character.
Do you think you can do this legally? I do.
Do you think you can do this without risking a Dancey-lawsuit? I don't.
>Like I said, the attitude held my many seems to be that OTHER people's
>copyrights are not important.
Strongly agreed. e.g., musicians who believe it is reasonable to use
warez copies of music software, because "it costs too much", but demand that
anyone copying *their* drum loops be sued.
>If I were to slap that statement on a cover, I'd be abusing WotC's trademarks.
I don't see how.
>If I were to publish an adventure that used the D&D system, I might well be
>trading on their good name.
For a comparison, let's imagine, hypothetically, that you wished to sell gas
caps compatible with Ford cars. Do you agree that
Compatible with '85-89 Ford Ranger
is in no way stepping on their trademark?
If you put out an adventure with a big huge NUELOW logo, which said
"compatible with WotC's D&D game system; suggested party strength 5-7
characters of levels 8-12. NUELOW is not associated with WotC, and
WotC has not endorsed this product.", do you think that's "trading on their
good name"? I don't.
>Depends on how the label is displayed. On the 'net? No, I don't think so. It
>still has absolutely nothing to do with "fair use."
Entirely true. ;)
><< If the author calls it D&D-compatible, but is
>careful to say something along the lines of "not sanctioned by
>Wizards," is that enough to underscore the unofficial nature of the
>material? >>
>Depends on the circumstances. It didn't protect Mayfair when they broke the
>agreement they'd arrived at with TSR.
Yes, but what if there were no agreement? Of course, no one in this industry
can generally afford lawsuits; thus, even if hobbits *WEREN'T* really a
legitimate "property" of the Tolkein estate, TSR had to yield. Now that
they're part of Hasbro, which will happily spend $1M or more harassing people
who are "near" their properties, the shoe is on the other foot.
>It would get around any trademark problems... but it would also defeat the
>purpose of putting out the adventure. After all, how does one know what the
>adventure supplements. (Yeah, it's a Catch-22. But that's why *I* always say
>that one has a choice when writing fan material... either don't do it, or be
>aware that the owners of the trademarks and any IPs being used might tell you
>to knock it off.)
They might indeed, but I'm not sure they'd be doing so based on any
legitimate legal grounds. Our legal system has repeatedly affirmed that
you may use a trademark to refer to the product it is a trademark for, as
long as doing so does not create excessive consumer confusion.
Look at the Accolade vs. Sega case, where the 9th circuit court pointed out
that allowing Sega to prevent the production of third-party games for the
Genesis would hinder precisely those actions copyright and trademark law are
designed to *encourage*.
Steve Miller
<< ?? I don't see any significant variation from D&D here; however, "stat"
names are game-system indepdendent so it need not be inherently D&D stuff.
That issue's well settled. >>
The change of "Race" to "Kindred" and the swapping of the order was plenty.
It's about in the order of magnitude with any number of D&D copy-cats out
there.
<< But isn't that proof that they *are* D&D-dependent? "Meaningless
without other book" would seem to be an obvious red flag. >>
I dunno... it would depend on *what* book.
<< If the document instead described the general effect of each spell and
changed the names to non-D&D specific, then it would be properly insulated.
Ie;
Read Magic -> "Read Magical Writing";
Unseen Servant -> "Weak telekinesis" ... >>
'Read Magic' is present in a number of fantasy RPGs, including Rolemaster, if
memory serves. (Unseen Servant? I don't recall...) But, you're right. Your
suggestions would sever the link completely, and the document would still be
usable with D&D.
<< This way, someone using this in D&D can ram in the D&D equivalents of
these and play away. Otherwise, the document is dependent on D&D for
meaning. >>
Which swings us back around to: How much of an RPG and its rules can be
protected by copyright....
Peter Seebach
>information from a reference work.
No, you're conflating two separate arguments:
1. Is [blah blah] a derivative work?
2. Is saying "Compatible with AD&D" a trademark infringement.
This sub-thread is all about point 2, and in that context, references to the
existance of a thing are the only relevant issue.
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>That statement does not imply that Coke has any hand in producing Pepsi, or
>otherwise endorses it. Depending on presentation, "Designed for Use with WotC's
>D&D" might cause consumers to draw the wrong connections.
Depending on presentation, yes.
>That's why one is an abuse (IMO) while the other is not.
One *may* be. Depending on presentation.
I freely admit that it would be within my power to design a module cover that
might lead to consumer confusion about who produced the module. However, I
don't think that means that *ANY* reference to "compatability with D&D" is
an infringement.
Peter Seebach
However, it also says several other things.
One of the things it says is that producing additional rules for a game, and
in the process referring to and possibly even quoting the original rules,
cannot be any kind of infringement because it's not deriving from a protected
work.
>This establishes a test: "Given a copyrighted roleplaying game system, is it
>possible to distinguish the expression of the rules from the idea of the
>rules themselves?"
Interesting question.
>Our argument would clearly be that, in the specific case of D&D, there >are<
>distinguishable elements of the expression of the rules. As described in a
>previous message on this topic [cited above], those do not include the
>"basic rules of the game" but we would absolutely enumerate the specific
>[non public-domain] classes, races, spells, monsters, and magic items
>involved in the game system as "distinguishable elements."
Ahh, but once you've accepted that the *PATTERN* of a "spell for AD&D" is not
protected, you've lost the argument about, say, new spells, or new monsters,
which had been previously claimed by TSR to be infringements.
>We would also assert a selection, arrangement and presentation copyright on
>the templates for classes, monsters and spells, and on "stat blocks" as used
>for shorthand notation, as a collection.
Ahh, but this is much harder. :)
>The court also addresses the issue of derivative works. Noting the
>"substantial similiarity test" and citing Lichfield v. Spielberg et al.
It doesn't go into them very far, because they aren't totally relevant, but
it does cover some of this.
>In fact, in Lichfield v. Spielberg, the court references the Sid & Marty
>Kroft case which has become something of a touchstone for the 9th circuit.
>In Kroft, the court found that a series of McDonald's advertisements
>(plainly shown to be inspired by the show "Puffinstuff" produced by the
>Krofts) were derivative works because they were >similar to< - not
>>identical< to a TV series created by the Krofts. Interested readers should
>review this case because it demonstrates just how different the court
>believes material can be and still be "similar to" another work.
Indeed - but the *similarity* is crucial. Is an adventure similar to a
rulebook?
>Which brings us full circle to the statement I have made repeatedly that
>only a court can determine if a work is derivative or not.
Indeed, but it is worth noting that, if a work is found to be derivative,
that means that the work has new copyright held by the author, even if
it's an infringement.
>Others in this
>discussion have provided references for works found to be derivative when
>very small amounts (as a percentage) of the total work was held by someone
>else's copyright. Again, the question would have to be put to a court, and
>the court would have to rule how much is "too much" when appropriating the
>unique, copyrighted elements of D&D into a new work. A risk adverse person
>would interpret the only safe answer to that test as "none".
Yes. And, thus, as long as WotC maintains this attitude, a risk-averse
person (and you don't have to be very risk-averse, considering Hasbro's
history of gratuitous and expensive lawsuits) would conclude that the only
rational thing is to publish no gaming materials whatsoever which could
plausibly be found to be usable with the AD&D system, because some Hasbro
exec might decide to sue.
Thus, I'm not putting up a web page about the campaign I'm running now, or the
umpteen spells I've developed since 1987 or so, or the magic items or
character classes I've developed, or any of my other AD&D stuff. I'm coming,
once more, to the realization that I might be a lot better off using GURPS.
John Simpson
wrote:
>John Simpson wrote:
>
><< The issue, which you snipped, was a module specifically designed to
>work with D&D rules. Software does not equal rules, but I see the
>analogy as very close. And rules, as we've generally agreed, are not
>copyrightable. >>
>
>I recall what the issue was. And, unlike software, an RPG module works just
>fine when not used for the system the author had in mind when he or she wrote
>it. (I've used 'Call of Chuthulu' adventures for 'Star Wars' campaigns, for
>example.)
>
><< And rules, as we've generally agreed, are not
>copyrightable. >>
>
>Yes.
>
><< "Appropriation"? Does an author need permission to use the word
>Coke in a novel? Does a story which refers to somone making a Xerox
>copy "appropriate" that trademark? >>
>
>Pray tell, what is the point of saying "for use with WotC's D&D" on the inside
>of something?
"Inside" and "outside" are moot distinctions in the case of modules
on the Internet. I don't see either case as worse than the other. If
you're talking about shrink-wrapped products on a shelf, then printing
it on the outside obviously makes it more appealing.
Think of the amusing case of a poet who entitles a collection "The
Night I Slammed Six Bottles of Coke and saw Jesus." I don't think
that's appropriation. I think that capitalizing the trademark or
adding "TM" is all the respect the trademark requires. Treating it
this way guarantees that the audience can easily tell that the
particular brand name is trademarked.
><< You've published modules before, so I can understand your being
>sensitive on this issue. However, I think you're overreacting. >>
>
>I've been seeing creative interpertations of "fair use" for many years now. And
>I am very, very sick of it.
I don't see "fair use" as relevant here. Why are you introducing
it?
><< A
>reference to a trademark is not of itself an abuse, any more than
>shareware games for Windows are. >>
>
>"For use with WotC's D&D" goes beyond a "reference." It also goes well beyond
>"fair use." (Of course, "fair use" has nothing to do with trademarks, but
>that's a different matter.)
Of course. Why are you discussing it?
><< If you insist that a single use of the name D&D is something
>horrible, you put Wizards in the very strange position of forbidding
>anyone, anywhere, from Speaking The Name, Lest It Appear, or
>something. >>
>
>I don't insist on anything other than folks educating themselves on their
>rights and the rights of others before publishing their work.
You've called an honest reference to a trademark "abuse."
><< You may have me confused with someone else. I, for one, do not want
>to believe that Wizards is about to steal material they didn't
>create--no matter how often Mr. Dancey asserts a right to do just
>that. >>
>
>You were the one taking the position that slapping "For Use with the D&D game
>published by WotC" was somehow "fair use," right?
Wrong.
>That's just as wrong-headed a notion as the stance that the entirety of any
>piece of work that has a direct link back to D&D is automatically the owned by
>Hasbro.
Agreed.
><< I thought I made it clear, though, that I am absolutely disgusted
>with a company that continues to let its employees belittle and
>threaten customers with incorrect legal opinions. >>
>
>I don't see how supporting equally incorrect claims is any less disgusting. If
>you know better, then why spread falsehoods of your own?
If this is a continuation of your misattribution of someone else's
claim of "fair use," then it's simply untrue.
><< Seems to me that when I brought this up with you before, you didn't
>answer. You've already stated that you believe Mr. Dancey's claim to
>ownership to be wrong. How do you feel about Wizards' allowing such
>intimidation of customers (of authors!) to continue? >>
>
>Why do I need to have an opinion?
If you have to ask, then there's no way you're going to agree with
me.
>(And you and I apparently have a different
>definition of "author," as the people I think of as "authors" have nothing to
>worry about when it comes to the comments Dancey has been making.
This sounds like utter snobbery, and I hope that I've misinterpreted
it. Are you really hinting that fans who create derivative work
aren't real authors? How far off the floor do one's feet have to
float in order for one to qualify?
><< No, I don't think I qualify as hysterical in this matter, but I am
>proud enough to refuse to be associated with Wizards' schizophrenic
>policy, and am loath to see Wizards' control of the D&D game so badly
>misused. >>
>
>I see one policy. And I see a guy who wishes the policy would change. Where's
>the schizophrenia?
I see a company that does not care enough about its customers to
disown Mr. Dancey's opinions, or one that uses the confusion to keep
its customers safely marginalized--so they don't start thinking that
they're "real" authors, with rights.
><< How much of your own labor would have to be dismissed before
>you would start complaining? >>
>
>You mean like creative posts I've made to the 'net that are on web sites with
>no attribution? Or chunks of stuff I've published through TSR that are on web
>sites with someone else's name on them or with no attribution? Quite a bit,
>probably.
Now *this* I can understand, I think. You've seen a lot of casual
piracy, and are not surprised or threatened by one more claim made out
of ignorance.
I might not be, either, except that this wackiest of positions is
held by a VP of the largest (?) gaming company in the world, and is
tacitly supported by the company's management. This, to me, is orders
of magnitude more serious than Joe Snuffy's web site.
>Like I said, the attitude held my many seems to be that OTHER people's
>copyrights are not important.
Uh-huh.
><< You're an author, one who has worked for
>a company that at least used to represent the pinnacle of creativity
>and responsiveness to the fan community. How can you belittle outrage
>at the change in Wizards' attitudes as "hysterical"? >>
>
>When that "outrage" is coupled with rank ignorance it's pretty damn easy.
I hope that insult springs from your mistaken attribution to me of a
claim of fair use.
><< Please let me in on what "abuse" of a trademark I've okayed. >>
>
>Did you or did you not start throwing rhetorical questions about oranges while
>we're talking about apples at me? Did you or did you not do that in response to
>my response to a claim that "For Use with WotC's D&D" was something that
>represented "fair use"?
That's pretty convoluted, but I am not introducing any claim of fair
use.
>If I were to slap that statement on a cover, I'd be abusing WotC's trademarks.
Is there any precedent for such a characterization?
>If I were to publish an adventure that used the D&D system, I might well be
>trading on their good name.
In much the same way that CDs trade on the good names of CD-player
manufacturers.
><< You're
>saying that Invoking the Holy Name is wrong, but I don't yet see why.
>What *do* you think of "system requirements: Win95/98/NT"? >>
>
>I think it's irrelevant to the example that was given.
Why? These labels acknowledge that their products are really most
useful, or only useful, alongside other manufacturer's
products--without claiming to replace those earlier products.
Microsoft's special "works with Windows" logos, on the other hand, are
only handed out under license. Generic statements of compatibility
should not require permission.
Should the makers of custom guitar cases have to obtain licenses
from guitar manufacturers? I don't think so. Now, if those guitar
manufacturers also produce their own cases, we then see a possible
reason why Wizards is so sensitive....
>I also think that every
>software package I see that contains it also has a hefty block of legalese.
But not permission from a trademark holder. Have there been any
decisions where the makers of operating systems prevailed against
software makers who merely claimed compatibility? I'm not talking
about using logos or copying text. I'm talking about
>I also think it has jack----- to do with the fair use doctrine.
Yep.
><< Does
>inferior shelfware or shareware somehow "abuse" Microsoft? Should a
>fan's crappy little module, labeled once with the name of the rules
>system with which it's supposed to work, be seen as some sort of
>crime? >>
>
>Depends on how the label is displayed. On the 'net? No, I don't think so. It
>still has absolutely nothing to do with "fair use."
I still haven't said so.
><< I could well understand Margaret Mitchell's being steamed over
>"Scarlett," but AD&D rules are not copyrightable. .>>
>
>No, of course not. Only the products of fans that the eeeeviiil WotC is
>plotting to steal.
I don't know who's been telling you this, but it wasn't me.
>Why does this work only one way?
Never said it did. You are right to be angry about infringements by
fans.
><< Why should the
>label "works with D&D" on a fan's module be considered wrong? >>
>
>On a fan's module, posted to a web site or in this forum? I don't think it
>should be considered wrong... so long as the fan takes care to properly
>acknowledge ownership.
Acknowledging "Dungeons & Dragons" as a trademark should suffice,
right? As long as there is a disclaimer something like "not approved
or endorsed by Wizards of the Coast"?
>It still has absolutely nothing to do with "fair use."
I still agree.
><< I don't agree that saying "I like Coke" is wrong, and I don't see
>anything wrong in a fan-produced D&D module's being labeled as such. >>
>
>Wow. We agree.
No, we don't. You still seem to have a problem with the phrase
"works with D&D" on the cover of a module. I don't see why.
><< I *do* think that Wizard's logos and copyrighted material should be
>respected, and any use of its trademarked game name should be clearly
>labeled.... >>
>
>Then why do you think that "For Use with the D&D game produced by WotC" has
>anything whatsoever to do with "fair use"?
I don't.
>I may well have misinterperted the
>poster's question... but am I missing some other important factoid here?
You've missed the fact that I'm not claiming any relevance for "fair
use." It wasn't me.
><< but we're edging back toward a key point here: should a
>module, which only assumes the use of non-copyrightable rules, be
>ruled as infringing? >>
>
>That's for a judge to decide, but I would say "no."
I suppose there is always doubt as to what a judge may decide, but I
see no reason for any other answer.
><< If the author calls it D&D-compatible, but is
>careful to say something along the lines of "not sanctioned by
>Wizards," is that enough to underscore the unofficial nature of the
>material? >>
>
>Depends on the circumstances. It didn't protect Mayfair when they broke the
>agreement they'd arrived at with TSR.
I still don't see a need for an agreement, for reasons described
below and in other posts.
><< If not, would you consider a fan to be okay if he left off the name
>of the game system he was supplementing with his module? >>
>
>It would get around any trademark problems... but it would also defeat the
>purpose of putting out the adventure.
No, it would simply cost the author an easily-identifiable use for
his product. Fans like publishing their own adventures on the web,
and will probably continue doing so. Even generic modules still
somehow manage to sell.
>After all, how does one know what the
>adventure supplements. (Yeah, it's a Catch-22. But that's why *I* always say
>that one has a choice when writing fan material... either don't do it, or be
>aware that the owners of the trademarks and any IPs being used might tell you
>to knock it off.)
Either rules are copyrightable, or they are not. Wizards should not
pretend to oppose the creation of fan material which comes no closer
to infringement than referencing rules. And, yes, I consider stats
and spell lists for monsters to be mere references to rules. They
require the original rules, without trying to replace them.
--
Peace,
John Simpson
Real username's in the URL
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverjohn
Jerry Stratton
>If it's perfectly legal to put these marks on your products, why are
>software manufacturers bending over backwards to either not do it, or
>to cite, cite, cite? (I don't think manufacturers put other company's
>logos or brand names on their boxes without permission. Do they?)
Brand names, yeah, all the time. Go into your supermarket. I was just in
a Trader Joe's here, and they had some "woven wheat" crackers, and a
big, bright star pasted on the front that said "Compare with Triscuit",
and then the note that "Triscuit" is owned by someone else, and who owns
it (I don't recall that much). I'm pretty sure they didn't get
permission to do that.
Also, take a look at Radio Shack batteries. I haven't been there for a
while, but many years ago they listed "equivalencies" on the back, which
are other manufacturers' names for their batteries.
All of the toner cartridges we receive list, on the box the laser
printers they're compatible with. It doesn't look as though they're
getting any permission to do so.
I'm fairly sure drill bits do the same thing, but I haven't been to the
hardware store in a while.
http://www.ESSENTIALPRODUCTS.COM/kitchenaid/index.html appears to be
using Kitchen-Aid, although DuPont might own Kitchen-Aid for all I know.
http://www.alfaco.com/mixbow.htm offers "compatible" bowls for use with
Hobart mixers; look down at the bottom for a disclaimer such as I
generally find on AD&D compatible adventures.
I've got an HTML book from O'Reilly on my desk that starts off, on the
back cover, with "Netscape Navigator 4.5! Internet Explorer 5.0!" and a
Unix book from them which "includes thorough coverage of Unix System V
Release 4 and Solaris 7."
We have quite a few computers that are "IBM PC Compatible", and none
seem to be getting permission from IBM.
Our non-Apple sound cards tend to be compatible with some PC sound card
whose name I've forgotten. Soundblaster?
These folks seem to be making cable tuner boxes that are compatible with
another company's: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/2468/jarrold.html
In my experience, software manufacturers aren't bending over backwards
not to put "Windows 95/98/2000 compatible" on their products. They
aren't using the specific logo that Microsoft came up with specifically
to mean "this is certified by us to be Windows compatible", but that's
because they generally aren't so certified, and implying otherwise would
be a trademark violation. But saying that a particular software product
works with Windows doesn't seem to be anything that anyone is afraid to
do.
Jerry Stratton
mino...@user2.teleport.com (Roger Bonzer) wrote:
>I'm sure that a "designed for use with Star Wars RPG rules" adventure
>would need permission to use Light Sabres or Tattooine -- from Lucasfilm
>if from no one else. Otherwise WotC's license to LucasFilm for the Star
>Wars RPG rights effectively become a license for *anyone* to publish
>Star Wars RPG property for free. It seems reasonable that any "for AD&D"
>adventure module that referred to Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, beholders,
>mind flayers, Elminster, Magic Missile, or any other unique WotC creation
>would need a similar license from WotC. Why should WotC be allowed fewer
>rights to its intellectual property than Tolkien or LucasFilms?
Fallacy. You made a poor assumption at the start, assumed "everyone
knows", and predicated your conclusion on the poor assumption.
If I were to create a story that took place in the world created for
Star Wars, I would probably be found to be infringing (*). Probably,
creating an adventure clearly within the Star Wars universe for an RPG
would also be infringing. If I were to create my own space fantasy
world, and publish an adventure using the Star Wars RPG rules, I would
not be infringing anything. Likewise, if I were to create a clearly Star
Wars adventure and base it in the FUDGE rules, this would be just as
much of an infringement as if I were to use the Star Wars RPG rules.
It isn't that my hypothetical adventure is designed for the Star Wars
RPG, but that it is a story about the Star Wars universe. And it isn't
just *referring* to the Star Wars universe. I have to be creating a
story (adventure) *about* the Star Wars universe. Laser swords would be
fine. Tattoine would probably not. And if I created a Gord the Rogue
adventure for the Star Wars RPG, whoever owns Gord the Rogue would
probably be justified in coming after me. Whoever makes the Star Wars
RPG would not, even if Gord the Rogue has access to laser swords.
I can create an adventure in my own world, and publish it for the AD&D
game system, and that is not infringing. I can "refer" to official
worlds without infringing, as well: I can say "if you are using
Forgotten Realms, you might find it easiest to place this adventure in
the Underdark beneath Myth Drannor; if you are using Greyhawk, probably
the best place is an underground cavern complex beneath the Bone March.
If you are using the Star Wars universe, try the ruins of Alderaan."
I might be infringing if I used Elminster. He's a specific character in
a specific world. But Mind Flayers, Magic Missile, and Beholders are no
such thing. These are rules created for use in any adventure, campaign,
story. I'm fine as long as I only reproduce my own stats for creatures,
using the creature rules, and don't try to reproduce Iggwylitith, King
of the Illithids from Gord the Rogue. Heck, Ryan even thinks it's funny,
so I'm covered under parody as well.
(*) I actually think this is a grey area, depending on a whole lot of
factors. But for this argument, I'm willing to state that it is
infringing.
Roger Bonzer
Jerry Stratton <ne...@hoboes.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Here's a clue: my desire to make a product sell better does not make
>something an infringement.
You're right on that score: your intentions have no bearing on whether
your product infringes or not.
> If your character sheet that mentions "Magic
>Missile" is not an infringement, neither is it an infringement to sell
>that character sheet--as long as you aren't pretending to be WOTC or
>reproducing the text of the Magic Missile spell.
Not terribly sound reasoning, here. Sex and copies of MS Word are two
things I can think of off the top of my head which are legal to have in
private, non-commercial situations, but illegal to sell. They're called
"prostitution" and "software piracy", respectively. Being granted private,
non-commercial usage rights to something is not equivalent to being
granted rights to sell that thing.
[snip]
>The term "Magic Missile" is not copyrighted. It is probably not even a
>trademark. Regardless, as long as I don't somehow use it to say that I
>am WOTC, I am not stealing anything. If you believe otherwise, go ahead
>and turn me in. I'm charging for the following, just in case you believe
>that it matters:
>
>Praxos is a wizard for use in an AD&D game. If you like this character,
>please pay me $1.50. Note that AD&D is a trademark of Wizards of the
>Coast, and I have no affiliation with them. This is not part of their
>official line.
Are you selling something? Are you just asking us to show you our
appreciation for posting this character? Do we get anything for the $1.50?
Rights to feature in a motion picture? Rights to include the character in
a book? Rights to copy and sell to others? Copyrights on the character?
If the character had had a light sabre as part of his equipment how
would this affect what you can legally sell me for that $1.50?
[snip the character]
I notice that you worked reasonably hard at presenting only
uncopyrightable *rules* info, with the possible exception of the
spell names. You could probably squeak by with that. Still, the more
you incorporate WotC-owned property references _as_opposed_to_rules_,
the more likely you are to run into legal problems. As you slide from
"here are the stats to a character that conforms to the AD&D rules" to
"PCs and NPCs of the Forgotten Realms" you're more likely to be found
to have created an infringing work. But if you want to be the legal
guinea pig to test exactly where the boundary lays between fair
use and infringement, knock yourself out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Bonzer | Wishes may bring problems such that you regret them.
mino...@teleport.com | Better that, though, than to never get them.
| -- Into the Woods
Michael Scott Brown
> If I were to create my own space fantasy
> world, and publish an adventure using the Star Wars RPG rules, I would
> not be infringing anything.
This claim is strongly contested.
> I might be infringing if I used Elminster. He's a specific character in
> a specific world. But Mind Flayers, Magic Missile, and Beholders are no
> such thing.
How is a Mind Flayer any less unique and specific than an Elminster?
What does "specific world" mean to a character that has the ability to cross
worlds and has explicitly done so? The only world to which Elminster is
confined is that of the *worlds* of D&D - which is the same world that
frames the Mind Flayer.
This claim is dubious in the extreme.
> These are rules created for use in any adventure, campaign,
> story.
But not for *publishing* such adventures.
-Michael
Joseph Oberlander
>
How about a first level spell called "Mana Missile"?
:)
I can just see Flying Buffalo or some other press catering to all the
small module-writers as a clearing-house for "non-authorized" modules.
Joseph Oberlander
> > Compatible with the Wizards of the Coast AD&D game system.
> > This is not a product of Wizards of the Coast, and is not endorsed
> > by them.
> >
> >I am almost certainly not.
>
> I'd certainly agree, and would hope that Wizards will concede this.
> I'd even go a step further, and say that mentioning a "beholder" or
> a "magic missile" spell is not infringing, either. These would be
> mere references to rules, and not reproductions of specific
> expressions thereof.
> --
> Peace,
>
> John Simpson
And if they don't and go hard-line about it, then they are going to
have not more than a mere handful of internal people writing modules
for them, as ANY writer wants to get *paid* for their work - that's
part of the whole process.
Enter a third-party "compatable module" company or a giant co-op
publishing house. :)
Time and time again, it has been proven that the more you try to
control something, the more it comes back to bite you.
Apple is a prime example of this kind of mypoic view. They
*had* the entire market and they threw it away by this sort of
heavy-handed "it's all ours" mentality.
Alan Kellogg
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> John Simpson wrote:
> << If the author calls it D&D-compatible, but is
> careful to say something along the lines of "not sanctioned by
> Wizards," is that enough to underscore the unofficial nature of the
> material? >>
>
> Depends on the circumstances. It didn't protect Mayfair when they broke
> the
> agreement they'd arrived at with TSR.
Steve, on this matter TSR wasn't, necessarily, in the right.
Based on what I heard, the suits at TSR decided they didn't like the way
the Mayfair Games DnD material was going, so they ended the licensing
agreement. MG disagreed with this move, changed a few things (filed off
the serial numbers, that is) and came out with RPG material that was
very easily adapted to DnD. So TSR sued, claiming infringement. This on
top of three other lawsuits; one against GDW for for publishing an RPG
by one Ernest Gygax, and a pair of suits by the co-creators of DnD over
royalty payments. Plus mismanagement putting the company in the red and
building up a load of debt.
When it came close to trial time TSR made MG an offer, and MG accepted
(civil actions are expensive). So TSR ended up with the Role Aids line,
and a larger debt load. The issue was never settled.
Alan
John Simpson
wrote:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>
><< I don't think so. Passing off is abuse. Reference is not. >>
>
>Slapping "For use with WotC's D&D game" on a cover *is* passing off, IMO.
>
><< Thus, even if
>I'm not Microsoft, I can say
> "This program runs on Microsoft Windows(r)"
>and *THEY CANNOT STOP ME*. It's a matter of fact, referring to the
>trademarked product by use of the trademark. >>
>
>I took a look at the software boxes in my office. All of them either a) use
>logos provided by the company's being "referred" to (and featured extensive
>cites as to who owns what) or b) use dodges that are easily comprehensible to
>those who know what they're looking at, like "Win 95/98" under an image of a
>CD.
"D&D is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, and is used without
permission." That's the way the game is played, is it not? As
opposed to "special thanks are given to Chaosium, Inc. for permission
to use the material..."
>If it's perfectly legal to put these marks on your products, why are software
>manufacturers bending over backwards to either not do it, or to cite, cite,
>cite? (I don't think manufacturers put other company's logos or brand names on
>their boxes without permission. Do they?)
The AD&D Core Rules (v1) box says:
"Supports Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Microsoft and Windows are
registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation."
Is there abuse of Microsoft's trademarks here? Did TSR need
permission from Microsoft to make those statements of fact? Was TSR
"trading on the good name" of Microsoft?
Bruce Grubb
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <#4dtebbr$GA.361@cpmsnbbsa04>,
>Michael Scott Brown <The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>> You're still *using* their specific Magic Missile. No different from
>>putting Luke Skywalker into a novel.
>
>Quite a lot different. Read the caselaw on character copyright; characters
>must be very distinctive to get protection, and cannot simply be
>representative of a type.
How does that mess involving Superman and Shazam fit into this?
Bruce Grubb
<oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
>And if they don't and go hard-line about it, then they are going to
>have not more than a mere handful of internal people writing modules
>for them, as ANY writer wants to get *paid* for their work - that's
>part of the whole process.
>
>Enter a third-party "compatable module" company or a giant co-op
>publishing house. :)
>
>Time and time again, it has been proven that the more you try to
>control something, the more it comes back to bite you.
>Apple is a prime example of this kind of mypoic view. They
>*had* the entire market and they threw it away by this sort of
>heavy-handed "it's all ours" mentality.
Apple *NEVER* had the 'entire market' and their marketshare had slipped long
before the Mac came out.
Andrew Tellez
Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> > > So, call it "Mana Dart". See how really easy some of this is?
> >
> > You'd think someone besides you and I could figure it out. :(
>
> How about a first level spell called "Mana Missile"?
> :)
No good. Mana Missile, and I think Mana Dart, are Shadowrun spells.
Then FASA would own your work. :)
Jerry Stratton
>Are you selling something? Are you just asking us to show you our
Shareware. It's still commercial.
>I notice that you worked reasonably hard at presenting only
>uncopyrightable *rules* info, with the possible exception of the
>spell names. You could probably squeak by with that. Still, the more
Yes, because that's what this part of the discussion is about. Just
spell names, such as "Magic Missile", which I included. Guess what? I'm
still not infringing.
Steve Miller
<< "D&D is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, and is used without
permission." That's the way the game is played, is it not? As
opposed to "special thanks are given to Chaosium, Inc. for permission
to use the material..." >>
You mean the material that the *creator* gave permission for TSR to use,
specifically the Elric stuff? Moorcock gave permission to both companies,
stating in an interview that he didn't think it was a big deal. Someone (be it
TSR or Chaosium, I don't know which) disagreed.
What's next? TSR trademarked Nazi?
<< The AD&D Core Rules (v1) box says:
"Supports Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Microsoft and Windows are
registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation."
Is there abuse of Microsoft's trademarks here? Did TSR need
permission from Microsoft to make those statements of fact? Was TSR
"trading on the good name" of Microsoft? >>
Do you know the answers? If so, share with the class. Or as you just being an
asshole and asking rhetorical questions? (My money's on the latter.)
Peter Seebach
>protected by copyright* and thus there's no obligation to respect such!
Game rules aren't protected. The text describing them is.
However, it is not trivially obvious that the name "Magic Missile" is
protected - in general, copyright doesn't protect words, and a case can be
made that "magic missile" is just another part of the *rules*. That doesn't
mean the PHB text isn't protected, but no one's claiming that it would be
legal to copy that text.
Peter Seebach
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>How does that mess involving Superman and Shazam fit into this?
"Shazam" is actually "Captain Marvel". He *says* Shazam. :)
Anyway, I don't know what they found in that case. I know that they sued
over Greatest American Hero, and lost; while Superman is protected, GAH isn't
similar enough to infringe.
Steve Miller
<< Brand names, yeah, all the time. Go into your supermarket. I was just in
a Trader Joe's here, and they had some "woven wheat" crackers, and a
big, bright star pasted on the front that said "Compare with Triscuit",
and then the note that "Triscuit" is owned by someone else, and who owns
it (I don't recall that much). I'm pretty sure they didn't get
permission to do that. >>
Fair enough. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
So, if it's all so legal, what's all the pissing and moaning about?
<< We have quite a few computers that are "IBM PC Compatible", and none
seem to be getting permission from IBM. >>
Um... didn't IBM issue a blanket permission to make clones several years back?
<< In my experience, software manufacturers aren't bending over backwards
not to put "Windows 95/98/2000 compatible" on their products. They
aren't using the specific logo that Microsoft came up with specifically
to mean "this is certified by us to be Windows compatible", but that's
because they generally aren't so certified, and implying otherwise would
be a trademark violation. >>
So, stay away from using someone's logos and it's okay to put, "Designed for
use with WotC's AD&D RPG" on any cover you please, assuming its a true
statement?
<< But saying that a particular software product
works with Windows doesn't seem to be anything that anyone is afraid to
do. >>
Well, if it's legal, then they shouldn't be.
Steve Buza
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>Don <?@?.?> wrote in message news:8e0b81$lok$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
>> 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.
I think you are discussing trademarks here, Michael. Luke Skywalker
is a trademark, not a copyright. Does WoTC declare and defend the
term "Magic Missile" as a trademark? If they do, Don might be guilty
of trademark misuse, but not copyright infringement.
Generally a single term, such as "Magic Missile" or "Luke Skywalker,"
is insufficient to qualify as an "expression" of an idea.
The idea of a magical missile that creates a blue light emanating from
the wizard's hand that strikes a creature and injures him is MY
expression of an idea.
Just because Gary Gygax came up with the idea of the spell doesn't
mean that WoTC is afforded any protection for the idea behind it.
Only the expression of the idea (the specific wording or likeness of
wording) is copyrighted. Names are not an expression of an idea.
WoTC would like for you to believe that their ideas are copyrighted,
but they are simply wrong because copyright does not cover ideas.
Steve
Steve Buza
<comic...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <newsw-942181.20392423042000@news>,
> 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.
Nay. Magic Missile is not intellectual property unless it is a
trademark. If WoTC does not declare and defend it as their trademark
(which I don't recall them doing) then it fails to be protected at
all.
It is not actually fair use in either case, because fair use implies
copyright and terms cannot be copyrighted.
Steve
Steve Buza
<The_Z...@msn.com> wrote:
>Don <?@?.?> wrote in message news:8e097v$kr3$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
>> 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.
This is inaccurate. The expression of how the mechanics work or the
expression of the idea can be copyrighted. But the mechanics
themselves cannot be.
The term "their material" is misleading. Yes, it may have been
originally their idea. But an idea cannot be copyrighted. Their
expression of that idea is copyrighted. But the idea is not.
Mechanics are an idea. They are not covered under copyright.
Steve
Steve Miller
<< Indeed. However, it's a statement of functional compatability; this is
something you're allowed to do with a trademark, indicate compatability
with it. >>
Like I said elsewhere, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I remain firm in my position
that it's better to err on the side of caution, though.
<< Depends. Let's say, hypothetically, that you invented a character for use
in a novel, and, to appeal to gamers, you included a set of "AD&D statistics"
for that character.
Do you think you can do this legally? I do. >>
As do I. I don't think it would be right of me to put a blurb on the cover
using that as a selling point, unless I'd talked to WotC first. In fact, I
wouldn't even do it without asking permission first. You see, I think *that* is
wrong, whether it's legal or not.
<< Do you think you can do this without risking a Dancey-lawsuit? I don't. >>
Actually, I *do*. But then I would have asked permission first. (And I think
even if I *didn't*, if I just put an appendix in the back without making a big
deal out of it (a burst on the cover"this book features all-new material for
use with WotC's D&D game!"), I don't think there'd be any reason to sue because
there wouldn't be much for them to stand on.
HOWEVER, if I were to do such a thing, I'd hope there was a D20 arrengement in
place. If I had an interest in making my characters avaliable in a D&D
format... such an arrengement might feed sales back to my book if others repeat
the game stats and magical items and critters elsewhere.
<< For a comparison, let's imagine, hypothetically, that you wished to sell gas
caps compatible with Ford cars. Do you agree that
Compatible with '85-89 Ford Ranger
is in no way stepping on their trademark? >>
No.
<< If you put out an adventure with a big huge NUELOW logo, which said
"compatible with WotC's D&D game system; suggested party strength 5-7
characters of levels 8-12. NUELOW is not associated with WotC, and
WotC has not endorsed this product.", do you think that's "trading on their
good name"? I don't. >>
This I'm still not convinced of. But then I see a chance of such a product
having other problems with it. (A NUELOW compatible D&D adventure would *have*
to feature Elminster and the Seven Sisters... :) ) Also, if I were WotC, *I'd*
sue me once I got a look at the NUELOW game. :)
<< Our legal system has repeatedly affirmed that
you may use a trademark to refer to the product it is a trademark for, as
long as doing so does not create excessive consumer confusion. >>
Yes. This I *do* know.
Wayne S. Rossi
Coast, finding out who is responsible for making decisions concerning the use of
trademark in non-WotC products, outlining the intended use, and asking the
company's permission. By having this permission, a lot of headaches could easily
be solved.
--Wayne
http://www.tcnj.edu/~rossi4/
---------------------------------------------
"Mine's a tale that can't be told,
My freedom I hold dear;
How years ago in days of old
When magic filled the air,
'Twas in the darkest depths of Mordor
I met a girl so fair,
But Gollum and the Evil One crept up
And slipped away with her."
-Led Zeppelin, "Ramble On"
---------------------------------------------
Steve Miller
<< Think of the amusing case of a poet who entitles a collection "The
Night I Slammed Six Bottles of Coke and saw Jesus." I don't think
that's appropriation. I think that capitalizing the trademark or
adding "TM" is all the respect the trademark requires. Treating it
this way guarantees that the audience can easily tell that the
particular brand name is trademarked. >>
Yeah, and I agree. But I see a difference between "The Night I played D&D and
saw Jesus" and "For Use with WotC's D&D game!"
<< I don't see "fair use" as relevant here. Why are you introducing
it? >>
Because it was in the post I originally responded to?
<< Of course. Why are you discussing it? >>
I'm pretty sure it was in the post I originally responded to. You *did* read
that one, right? To get a context?
<< You've called an honest reference to a trademark "abuse." >>
Because I think it well could be, depending on how it's handled.
<< Wrong. >>
Well, the post I responded to was. (I don't think I'm confusing posters...)
<< If this is a continuation of your misattribution of someone else's
claim of "fair use," then it's simply untrue. >>
You *didn't* bother reading the post I responded to.
<< This sounds like utter snobbery, and I hope that I've misinterpreted
it. >>
You have. Considering that I've got more fan-fic published under my own name
and pen names that the "real" stuff, it would be hypocritical of me to be
snobbish about it.
<< Are you really hinting that fans who create derivative work
aren't real authors? How far off the floor do one's feet have to
float in order for one to qualify? >>
Try READING what I said. Let me say it again: And you and I apparently have a
different definition of "author," as the people I think of as "authors" have
nothing to worry about when it comes to the comments Dancey has been making.
I'm getting the impression that you and some other participants in this thread
feel anyone who makes a "blue goblin" (AD&D goblin, concept for concept, except
it's blue) or Greater Beholder (AD&D beholder, concept by concept, except each
attack does three extra dice of damage) of "AD&D stats for Elminster as a Young
Man" qualify as "authors." To me, there's simply not enough original work there
for them to qualify.
I also think a real author should have some basic understanding of copyright
law. Trademark law is an unholy mess and that's what lawyers are for... but
writers of all kind who want to make their work public should know their
rights. And once they know their rights, they know that there is no such thing
as a transfer of copyright without agreement from the creator of the work. At
best (or worst, depending on what side of the equation you're on), the
copyright can end up being shared.
It has nothing to do with floating off the floor. It has everything to do with
creativity, originality, and knowing the rules of the game. When that is
lacking the two first elements, a person is, at best, a copy writer. When the
latter is lacking, the person is going to get themselves in trouble, or is
ripping someone else off.
So, I guess if not wanting to share a table at a restraunt with rip-off
artists--although copy writers are always welcome... I did that for a while--is
snobbery, I guess I'll have to cop to that. (After all, SFWA doesn't even
consider RPG designers "writers" these days.)
<< I see a company that does not care enough about its customers to
disown Mr. Dancey's opinions, or one that uses the confusion to keep
its customers safely marginalized--so they don't start thinking that
they're "real" authors, with rights. >>
Maybe the company is giving its customers credit for being intelligent human
beings who can read and do their own research? (Again, I see policy, and I see
a guy who wants to have that policy changed.)
<< I hope that insult springs from your mistaken attribution to me of a
claim of fair use. >>
I never attributed that to you. It was part of the post I originally replied
to. Why did you interject yourself into that discussion? To clear up *my*
ignorance? Well, Lightbringer, you missed someone!
<< In much the same way that CDs trade on the good names of
CD-player
manufacturers.
>>
They do? When and how?
<< Never said it did. You are right to be angry about infringements by
fans. >>
That's very kind.
<< Either rules are copyrightable, or they are not. Wizards should not
pretend to oppose the creation of fan material which comes no closer
to infringement than referencing rules. And, yes, I consider stats
and spell lists for monsters to be mere references to rules. They
require the original rules, without trying to replace them. >>
And I see parts of the D&D game that are clearly creative works that ARE
protected by copyright. And I like to respect the rights of creators other than
myself.
Steve Miller
<< Steve, on this matter TSR wasn't, necessarily, in the right.
Based on what I heard, the suits at TSR decided they didn't like the way
the Mayfair Games DnD material was going, so they ended the licensing
agreement. >>
I was led to believe that Mayfair had a license to print adventures under the
Roleaids mark. The later Roleaids products may have had adventures in them, but
they were accessories.
<< This on
top of three other lawsuits; one against GDW for for publishing an RPG
by one Ernest Gygax, and a pair of suits by the co-creators of DnD over
royalty payments. >>
Co-CREATOR. Arneson sued... and he was right to do so.
And if I had been TSR, I would have sued GDW, too. I've never seen anything so
stupid as the "we will bury you" attitude that was copped, couple with the
original name and logo of 'Dangerous Journeys' ("Dangerous Dimensions").
<< When it came close to trial time TSR made MG an offer, and MG accepted
(civil actions are expensive). So TSR ended up with the Role Aids line,
and a larger debt load. The issue was never settled. >>
This is true.
Michael Scott Brown
> >Don <?@?.?> wrote in message news:8e097v$kr3$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> >> 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.
>
> This is inaccurate. The expression of how the mechanics work or the
> expression of the idea can be copyrighted. But the mechanics
> themselves cannot be.
Hmm. Agreed - I'm using poor terminology here. Yes, mechanics like
"rolling a d20 to hit" and the like are not copyrighted - but elements of
the game like "the spell Prismatic Wall" or the *particular* scheme of
assigning wizard spell slots that D&D uses .. these aren't just mechanical
"ideas". Ugh. What's a better word?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> is insufficient to qualify as an "expression" of an idea.
But when Magic Missile is clearly shorthand for its reference in the
PhB?
> The idea of a magical missile that creates a blue light emanating from
> the wizard's hand that strikes a creature and injures him is MY
> expression of an idea.
Right. And the idea of a magical missile that creates unerring bolts of
force that do 2-5 hp of damage to living creatures ... is EGG's expression
of that idea. You, in using 'Magic Missile', are using *that* expression of
that idea.
-Michael
Chris Baker
part be allowed (not necessarily legal, but allowed). Take Hasbro's Axis &
Allies, for example. Xeno Games makes Europe at War and World at War, which
are A&A add ons. It says on the cover to be used with Axis & Allies. You
even have to use the game pieces from Axis & Allies to play the game. Table
Tactics also makes new plastic pieces called A&A Accesories. Neither of
these companies have permission to use the A&A name or produce what amount
to expansions, yet they do. Perhaps the Milton Bradley arm of Hasbro is
more forgiving than WotC, but it seems Hasbro doesnt mind. They know what
these companies produce, because the lastest A&A game incorporates many of
the rules from the derivative works! (Infringing upon the infringer,
perhaps?)
Steve Miller wrote in message
<20000425130352...@ng-md1.aol.com>...
Bruce Grubb
(Peter Seebach) wrote:
>In article <bgrubb-CA6DBD....@www.zianet.com>,
>Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>How does that mess involving Superman and Shazam fit into this?
>
>"Shazam" is actually "Captain Marvel". He *says* Shazam. :)
With currently four characters with the name "Captain Marvel" running around
(the Kree warrior, the guy Rick is currently switching places with, the black
heroine (what happened to her?), and Shazam) one needs to use nick names to
quick tell them apart.
>Anyway, I don't know what they found in that case.
There is a good synopsis of the case at the Superman vs Big Red Cheese site
<http://www.gemstonepub.com/cbm/features/superman2.html>. From the overview
of the orignal judge's ruling he may have considered Shazam Captain Marvel to
be a deribative work character. That he also ruled that National Comics
Publications had lost their copyright on the character just served to confuse
thing that much more.
>I know that they sued
>over Greatest American Hero, and lost; while Superman is protected, GAH isn't
>similar enough to infringe.
Greatest American Hero is a primarily a satire of the superhero genre so I
don't understand why there was a suit involving this unless it was a
trademark rather than copyright suit. And even then I would have to go 'huh?'
Peter Seebach
Wayne S. Rossi <ros...@tcnj.edu> wrote:
>All the copyright issues raised here could be solved by contacting
>Wizards of the
>Coast, finding out who is responsible for making decisions concerning the use of
>trademark in non-WotC products, outlining the intended use, and asking the
>company's permission. By having this permission, a lot of headaches could easily
>be solved.
Sure, and if you ask people nicely to stop mugging you, they may.
It's still interesting to know what the legal rights are.
Among other things, if they give you permission, they can take it away
later.
If you don't *need* their permission, they have nothing to take away.
Peter Seebach
Steve Miller <nue...@aol.comDELETEIT> wrote:
>Peter Seebach wrote:
>
><< Indeed. However, it's a statement of functional compatability; this is
>something you're allowed to do with a trademark, indicate compatability
>with it. >>
>Like I said elsewhere, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I remain firm in my position
>that it's better to err on the side of caution, though.
Agreed. You'll notice I'm not publishing anything.
><< Depends. Let's say, hypothetically, that you invented a character for use
>in a novel, and, to appeal to gamers, you included a set of "AD&D statistics"
>for that character.
>Do you think you can do this legally? I do. >>
>As do I. I don't think it would be right of me to put a blurb on the cover
>using that as a selling point, unless I'd talked to WotC first. In fact, I
>wouldn't even do it without asking permission first. You see, I think *that* is
>wrong, whether it's legal or not.
That may be; it's an interesting borderline case.
>Actually, I *do*. But then I would have asked permission first. (And I think
>even if I *didn't*, if I just put an appendix in the back without making a big
>deal out of it (a burst on the cover"this book features all-new material for
>use with WotC's D&D game!"), I don't think there'd be any reason to sue because
>there wouldn't be much for them to stand on.
So? You're small, they're big. They had no hope in the "clue.com" lawsuit,
either.
><< For a comparison, let's imagine, hypothetically, that you wished to sell gas
>caps compatible with Ford cars. Do you agree that
> Compatible with '85-89 Ford Ranger
>is in no way stepping on their trademark? >>
>No.
Hmm. Well, the entire automotive parts industry disagrees. :)